The Sun.
London, England, 1832-07-25 00:00:00

MILITARY FLOGGING.

Mr. HUNT, in moving for returns on the above sub-
jeers, observed that it had been stated, that in many regi-
ments the practice of flogging had been much abated—
nay. that it had been almost wholly extinguished. Now,
if such were the fact, he thought it was a cruelty and a
hardship on those officers who discouraged the practice,
and on those regiments in which it had been abated, if
they were not made publicly known, in order that they
should not be included in the general mass of regiments in
which no such improvement had taken place. He under-
stood that the Right Hon. Secretary at War was willing
to produce a return on this subject. He was anxious to
see that return ; and if it proved at all satisfactory, he
would not pertinaciously adhere to his proposed motion.
The Hon. Member moved, " That an annual return be
made of every punishment inflicted by flogging in the
army for the last seven years, specifying the name and age
of each person flogged, the number of lashes awarded by
the Court, and the number of lashes actually inflicted ;
stating who was Secretary at War, and who was Com-
mander-in-Chief, in each year; also, the name of the
Commanding Officer of each regiment, and who was in
command at the time of each court-martial being held."
S r J. HOBIIOUSE was ready to make such a return
as would, he hoped, satisry any reasonable gentleman,
even the Hon. Metnherhimselt. It ought to be recollected
that this was the first time that any similar return had
been called for, much less granted. He was, however,
very willing that it should be generally known whether
any change in the system hail taken place, and to what
extent. • As that was the object also of the Hon. Member,
he was sorry that he had not taken a limper period than
seven years. He, however, would neither propose to
shorten, nor to lengthen the term. There was a great
and evident objection to the stating of names, as had al-
ready been expressed in the discussion on the motion of
the Right Hon. Member for Middlesex. If such were the
arse in that instance, how much more strongly did the
o •jectiou apply here? Would it not be infinitely more
harsh thus to post up the names of different regiments.
They ought to know the particular service on which
regiment was employed; they ought to be acquainted with
the part of the population amongst which it was quartered,
they ought to be informed of ad the esti- us circumstances
which led to much punishment in some regiments, and
occasioned its infrequency in others, before they decided
on the question of unnecessary severity in particular cases.
If they did not proceed thus, they were likely to he gully
of gross injustice to particular regiments, by saying, " So
many lashes less were inflicted iu this regiment, and se
many more were inflicted in that," without being cognizant
of the particular circuinstences which led to the diffetence.
He had a still stronger objection to producing the
names of officers. It would be most unjust if the
n cures of some officers were to be hid up to odium, be-
cause more punishments had been inflicted in their regi-
ments than in the regiments of others. The Riglit Hon.
Baronet then moved as an amendment, " Thit there be
laid before the House a return of the establishment of the
British army in each year from 1825 to 1831,
each inclu-
sive ; the number of persons tried by court-martial in that
nine, and sentenced to other than corporal punishment,
and the number of persons sentenced to corporal punish-
ment, and the number of persons on whom corporal
punishment was actually inflicted."
Sir J. BRYDGES should vote for the amendment.

his
fareveoduirneeosf taohowliisthh
abolishing
w every his
-
Mr.
motion.
HUNTlETßßexApressed MURRAY
Sir in
species of punishment in civil life that was not necessary
for the benefit of society, or in the army, or in the navy,
that was not called for to preserve its di-cipline. H,
wislieJ that those who were anxious to abolish corporal
punishment in the army would introduce some other syi.

tern that would be efficient for the maintenance of disci-
pline. That, he believe'', they would find it impossible to
do. When he was Commander-in-Chief in Ireland, be
recollected a Gallant Officer who endeavoured to keep up
the discipline of his regiment without having recourse t,)
corporal punishment. He (Sir George Murry) removed
that r.giment to Dublin, in order that it should be under
his own eye, and he did not in any way discourage the
mode adopted by its Gallant Commander. Well,
what was the consequence of excluding corporal
punishment ? Why, the consequence was, that the
discipline of "that regiment became deteriorated to such a
degree, that it was by far the worst disciplined regiment
in the garrison of Dublin. The individual who had tried
the experiment wrote a letter to the commanding officer
of the garrison, declaring the complete failure of his ex-
pectation to maintain the discipline of the regiment with-
out corporal punisment. That gallant officer was himself
obliged to go back to the old system, and, as might be ex-
pected, corporal punishment was carried to a much greater
extent in it than in other regiments.—(Hear.) The il-
lustrious Prince who bad so long superintended, and with
the utmost benefit, the affairs of the army, was anxious to
get rid of corporal punishment. But, in its place, a
variety of harassing and vexatious minor punishments
were introduced, that did not improve the army. Same
individuals wished to assimilate our practice to the prac-
tice which prevailed in foreign armies. But it would not
answer. What punishments did we see inflicted abroad ?
Why, men were imprisoned and kept to:work:in fortresses,
for two, three, or four years, having cannon-bullets at-
tached to their legs. This would be wholly inapplicable
to a British army. Others were privately tortured.
This might not he so revolting to the feelings as flogging ;
but in his opinion it was much better to punish in public
than to torture in private. It was indeed a new thing to
call for such returns as these ; and he did not think that
it was for the advantage of the public or of the army, that
that House should become a Court of revision to which the
proceeding." of Courts-martial were to be referred.—(Hear,
bear.) It was, therefore, with some regret that he heard
the Right. Hon. Baronet grant these returns.—(Hear.)
Mr. HUME thought the Right Hon. Baronet deserved
the thanks of the country for the course which he had
taken on this occasion. The system of flogging should
be abolished.
Lord INGESTRIE agreed entirely in the observations
of the Gallant Officer, and, in his opinion, they applied
equally well to the navy. The moment the power of
punishing on board ship was abolished, from that mo-
men► they might count the downfall of the British navy.
The motion of Sir J. HOBHOUSE was then agreed to.
REPORT.—SUPPLY.

Mr. S. RICE moved the Order of the Day for bring-
ing up the report of the Committee of Supply.
After a short conversation between Sir R H. Inglis,
Mr. S. Rice, and Colonel Percival, it was agreed, on the
suggestion of ➢lr. Stanley, that the vote for Maynooth
Col'ege should stand over for discussion on a future day.
The report was then brought up and agreed to.
IRISH TITHES.

Mr. STANLEY moved the Order of the Day for the
House going into Committee on the Tithes Composition
(Ireland) Bill.
Mr. RUTHVEN took that opportunity to protest
against the proceedings which had been adopted by the
Irish Government for the purpose of putting down anti-
tithe meetings in Ireland. He complained that a delusion
had been practised on the Irish people, who, when told of
" an extinction of tithes," took the words in their literal
meaning, and he concluded by moving an amendment,
" That the Order of the Day should be postponed till that
day six months."
After a few words from Sir JOHN BRYBGES against
the amendment, Mr. RUTHVEN consented to withdraw it.
The Order of the Day was then read, and on the motion
that the Speaker do leave the Chair,
Mr. SHER, said, he rose to move an instruction to the
Committee to recite in the preamble of the Bill, that the
tithe composition should he extended, with a view to the
levying of first fruits according to their real value, and to
such future appropriation to the purposes of religion, edu-
cation, atd charity, as, after making a due provision for
the maintenance of the Church, should to Parliament seem
proper. This motion embraced two objects. The pre-
amble already stated that the view of the Bill was to
eft'. ct a commutation. This view was stated in the Bill.
The Government aught not to stop there ; they had them-
selves declared that they intended to relieve the people
from the church rate, by levying the first fruits to their
full extent,—that it was their object to ascertain the full
amount of tithes through Ireland, in order to tax the
chore!;—the Committee had reported that the people
ought to be relieyed in this particular ; wherefor.., then,
was it not set forth in the per amble ?—(llear, hear.)—
These declarations by the Minister were not sufficient.
They should he embodied in the Bill, and the Legislature
should give an errnest of their determination to rescue
the Irish nation from au imposition the most odious in the
;annals of ecclesiastical taxation—the building of the tern-
pies which are dedicated to a religion with which they
they have no concern.—(Hear, hear.) This proposition
was not unreasonable ; it was in accordance with the
pledges given by the Ministry. The introduction of this
undertaking in the Bill would mitigate its bad effect., and
neirralize to a certain extent its bad and baneful qualities.
As to the Bill itself, he should revert for a moment to its
history. It was neessary to go bark to the King's
spaech. In that speech it was stated that the just causes
of complaint against tithes should be removed, and in-
ternal concord should be promoted. In pursuance of
this recommendation, a Committee was appointed. He
should pass over all the unfortunate incidents connected
with its function. They reported that measures of coer-
cion should be adopted. The Chancellor of the Exche-
quer declared that he never should assent to measures of
coercion, unless they were to be followed by measures
of relief. What are the zimasures of relief? Here
they are. A receiver is to be sent on our estates in
default r f payment, a new remedy is to be given to the
church, its powers are to be trebled, and its ascendancy to
be raised into more secure and complete nomination. It
is almost an tiff• nce to common reason to designate such a
proceeding as the means of conferring concord on Ireland,
and removing " the just complaints of the people."---
What are the complaints of the people? The enormous
opulence of an establishment belonging to a minority de-
signated as miserable by the Hon. Member for Harwich.
in a speech which a few nights ago astonished the House
by the evidences of miraculous conversion which it dis-
played. Is that complaint just? He (Mr. Sheil) thought
so, and was convinced that internal concord never would
be produced until the abuses of the establishment were
corrected. He therefore called on Government to em-
body in the preamble a declaration that this evil should be
removed He was the more induced to do so by the SU..
cretary for Ireland having declared that he never would
consent to a different appropriation of church property.
It was idle for the Secretary for Ireland to say that he
only spoke as an individual. He could not—he had no
right to speak as an individual. The Minister could not
eistaersede Mr. Stanley, nor Mr. Stanley supersede the
Minseter, according to their reciprocal convenience,—his
identity could not he split,—he was one and indivisible,
and his announcements on the Irish church must be re-
garded as official, and his principles must be held to afford
the rule by which Ireland was to be governed. As there-
fore he set up for the champion of the establishment,—
as its " preux chevalier,"—as he was the Bayard of the
Protestant religion, it became incumbent on those who
differed from him, to avail themselves of every opportu-
nity to assail his doctrines, and to resist his legislation.
Were there a hope that he would change,—that he would
abandon his erroneous opinions, and that events could
make a convert of him, there were then reason not to
press him, and to abide, perhaps, until next Session ; but
when not the least chance existed that he should
recede from his sinister fidelity to the Irish establish-
ment, bow idle the suggestion that we should tarry
and wait the Ministerial convenience. From one
Minister he (Mr. Sheil) should pass to another. The
Noble Paymaster of the Forces had declared, a few nights
ago, that he entirely dissented from the Irish Secretary.
Many of the Cabinet entertained the same difference of
opinion. The Lord Chancellor and ten Members of the
Government, or Gentlemen attached to it, bad voted with
the Member for Middlesex when he moved an inquiry,
with a view to its reduction, of the wealth of the Irish
Church.—(Hear, hear.) But amidst these differences of
sentiment, was Ireland to be sacrificed? and lest there
should be a quarrel in the Cabinet, were all its Members
to immolate the country and their own dignity to the per-
tinacious prejudices of the Irish Secretary ? He (Mr.
Sheil) called on the Paymaster of the Forces to come
forward ro vindicate himself, and not to put Ireland off
with an intimation that we should wait for a new Parlia-
ment. It we are to wait for a new Parliament, where-
fore not leave this very Bill to it? and if you are to legis-
late on this Bill, why not introduce to it a Parliamentary
declaration, that the crying grievances of Ireland are to be
redressed ?—(Hear, hear.) On the abstract question
of _ chill Rroyerty, he should say little ; it was
~..ftut net-siss "Mt resort to abstract speculations—to
..,,I)4l,cis.tirip 00 ebeffecn corporate and personal rights,
f
7 i"}"till'lla.l.h tilt lkd down by into of the first
*ltttlane4..v.e;ltiiitt..Chul roperty belonged to the state.
,Ile,lll tald-ntgr4:l4ac the history of this country, and
"../. • kLitly -nu . 'tis irl (*sin which the sate had not only
(
\ -5,,,tr...1i,P14q) ed the ecclesiastical revenues. He
13illi
„*1 ',. r-
juattoersße many proofs afforded by the ex-
.-Z.114°4f fl'uii ....., nations, that personal property would

n it be endangered by an interference with the estates of the
Church. He would content himself with referring to an act
of Parliament in his band—the Bill for the es►tablishment
of an University at Durham out of the estates of the
Dean and Chapter.—(Cheer'.) What was this but an
interference with Church property, and a diversion of it
from the purposes to which it was now devoted?—(Hear,
furor.) Would any man contend that the institution of
professorships of mathematics, and of chemistry, and na-
tural philosophy, and of Latin, and Greek, and of the
Oriental languaees, was an appropriation to the purposes
of the established religion ?—(Cheers.) It was idle to
say the Dean and Chapter consented. They could not con-
rent. They have but life estates. They have no right,
according to churchmen, to rob their successors. They
can but make leases for 21 years —(Hear, bear.) The
routes vested in them are the property of the great cor-
poration of the Church of Engl ind. Yet here we have
an Act of Parliament authorizing the sale of their estates,
to build colleges, and establish a profane and purely
temporal institution. What said pious Protestants touch-
in, this most important measure? He had before him
Lerd Henley's pamphlet, complaining of this pro-
ceeding as a violation of the rights of the Church.
( Here Mr. Sheil read a passage from Lord Henley's
tract. )—Here thee is a triumphant precedent,—here
is a case distinctly in point, which is far more valu-
We than any ratiocination,—here is a decision of the
Leeislature, in which all parties concurred, which must
shut the mouth of any Minister, and strike him dumb,
win maintains the sacred intangibility of corporate pro-
perty ; and mark the conclusion ; if in a country where
the religion of the State is the religion of the people,—
where the wealth of the clergy is not in such gross die
proportion wi h their duties, you have cut off a part of
the opulence of the church, good God ! will you hold that
w•. ere there are 9,000,000 of one religion, and 700,000
of another, you are not to lay a sacri;iginus finger on an
institution, which may be regarded as the greatest moral
monster that was ever yet set up in the name of the chris-
tiait religion ?—(Mock cheers from the Opposition.) Yes,
he should repeat the phrase. He was no enemy of the
establishment, if its true purpose and intent were pursued,
and its abuses were corrected, and if it were reduced to
mire simple and apostolic dimensions ; but he should not
hesitate to denounce it in its present condition as a mass of
insufferable anomalies—a heap of disproportions—a mere
ant nster, out of all shape and symmetry and adaptation,
either to the state of the country, or the true interests of
religion. It was of its opulence that the people of Ire'and
complained , and until it was cut down, and that with an
ursparing hand, there could be no hope of tranquillity in
Iceland. What was the state of the country? If it was fer-
midable when the King's speech was pronounced, it had
become terrific; and to what expedient did Government
resort ? They gorged their gaols with the leaders of public
assemblies. But would these proceedings allay or miti-
gate the feeling which pervaded those assemblies, and
t y which millions of men were swayed, and taught to
fee 1 with the unity of a single man ? If the proces-
si n at Birmingham had been dispersed, and its banners
levelled to the earth, and its leaders flung into gaols,
would the call for Reform have been suppressed ?
(Cheers.) As idle it was to hope that strong measures
of the Executive would in Ireland supersede the necessity
of wise and salutary legislation. They had reformed the
Parliament ; and in reforming the Parliament, the Whigs
had charged the Tories with their fatal delays. " Had you,"
they said, " availed yourselves of the opportunity given
by East Retford—had you availed yourselves of Huskis-
son's admonition, how much evil might have been
averted ! what a cloud charged with peril might have passed
away !" And now we address to them the very same admooi-
tion—we call on them—we entreat them—we inrp'ore—we
supplicate them—to apply measures of prompt—of immedi-
ate reform to the Irish church.—(Cheers.) The abuses of
your boroughs were not worse. The cry from Ireland for re-
fiirm of that Church is as strong as that which appalled
you into concession of Parliamentary Reform. Wait till
the new Parliament—wait for eight months. If you wait
f r Parliament, will events wait for you ? What will be-
fall at the next election ? What shall those who are dis-
posed to be the friends of Government tell the people?
What will they be able to say in their deence, when this
Bill is brought forward, and we are asked whether an
Irish Parliament would ever have passed a Bill like this?
For God's sake ! awaken to a sense of your and oar con-
dition, and of the perils that environ you, and threaten
such calamity to the entire empire. Thete is yet time—
the precious opportunity has not passed—su ize it—it is ir-
revocable, and if permitted to go by, it will be for ever.
Mr. Sheil concluded by moving the instruction to the
Committee, to recite in the preamble that the composition
was to be extended, with a view to levying the first-fruits
according to their real value, and the appropri ution of tithes
to such purposes of religion, education, and charity, as to
Parliament, after making a due provision for the Established
Church, should seem proper.

. .
Mr. WALLACE seconded the amendment. The mea-
sure now before the House was not that which bad been
promised by the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite. He
(Mr. Wallace) felt that he should not act as an honest
man, either to the House or those constituents whom he
had the honour to represent, if he did not give expres-i n
to the opinion deeply impressed upon his mind, that this
measure proposed by the Right Honourable Secretary
for Ireland was a mere fallacy, and a fraud upon the feel-
ings, the wishes, and the expectations of the people of Ire-
land. The measure was itself fraught with injustice, and
must prove mischievous. It was unjust in its principles,
.nd would not have the effect of producing any beneficial
result, either to the clergy, the landholder, or the people
of that country. The people of Ireland did not merely
complain of the manner in which tithes were exacted, but
they complained still more of the whole tithe system.
The grievance of that system was one which pressed
heavily upon the Roman Catholic population of Ireland,
yet, in the face of the know ledge of that fact,
it had been avoided by the Right Hon. Gentleman
opposite to put upon the Committee of this Houses single
Roman Catholic gentleman. The Committee, though
formed as it had been of those who were friendly to tithes
and the Church establishment, had been compelled most
distinctly to state that no measure short of a complete ex-
tinction of tithes would be advantageous either to the in-
terests of the country or to the interests of the Church it-
self. Indeed, he felt satisfied that nothing short of that
would either be satisfactory to the feelings of the people of
Ireland, or safe to the Church of that country. He looked
upon the ministerial plan relative to tithes as a mockery.
He denied that tithes were a charge on land ; they were a
charge on property. The land itself was not liable to
tithe unless it was productive, and the landowner could
not be charged with tithe till he became an oc-
cupier and producer. A law to render the landlord
liable to tithes was unjust in principle. It was ac-
tually robbing the fist landlord to charge him with
tithes, which were the debt of the occupying tenant.
He hoped, if the Bill became law, that it would be
so modified as to distribute the liability with respect
to tithes over other classes, and not leave them chargeable
upon those who were worst able to bear the burden. He
contended that the Bill would be inoperative, that it
would not benefit the clergy as was expected. How could
the clergyman discover the landlord actually liable in the
event of a collusive assignment? Supposing the landlord
to be unwilling to pay tithe, the clergyman might be put
to great trouble and expense, and after all would probably
to unable to collect his tithes. The operation of the Bill
would be to aggravate the distress of the clergy, and to
create a new and more formidable combination against
tithes between landlords and tenants. The Act •which
the Right Honourable Gentleman was now giving to the
Irish clergy as their salvation was a mere mockery.--
Why, at the expiration of the Session, was an Act such
as this, which was but the fraction of the general plan, and
which must end in disappointment to all—why was it to
he forced on, as it were, at the point of the bayonet ? He
must here say, that he had never expected the extinction
of tithes, without the substitution of another fund for the
support of the Church, which fund should be equal in
amount, but of easier collection. This was what the true
friends of the Church would desire, and he had no doubt
that a plan for the collection of such a fund in the shape
of a land-tax or otherwise, might readily be devised. He
wished Ministers would seize the present opportunity to
revise the Church, abolish tithes, and satisfy the people,
and in doing so he felt satisfied they might provide an
adequate and well-secured fund for the support of the
clergy. Under all the circumstances of the case, he did
trust that the present measure would not be persisted in.
He called on the Right Hon. Secretary to postpone it till
a future Session.

Mr. STANLEY said, that the Hon. and Learned Gen-
tleman opposite seemed to have had but one object
throughout his speech, and that was to charge the Govern•
ment with having promised a relief which they never in-
tended to give. He 'Mr. Stanley) asserted, that an exa-
mination of all that had taken place would show that this
charge was utterly unfounded. The Hon. and Learned
Member bad asserted, that neither by this nor by the other
measures would the Government be able to extinguish
tithes. He did not know what meaning the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman attached to the expression " extinction
of tithes," unless he thought it was descriptive of a plan
which substituted an entirely different mode of payment
for the Clergy. According to the Hon. and Learned Gen.
tleman's own confession, the plan would remove the
burden from the occupying tenant, and would place it on
the landlord. At present tithes were a tax on produce,
and, therefore, a tax on industry, and so far they were a

Species of Corn,
Grain,Meal, and
Flour.

Wheat
Barley
Oats
Rye
Pease
Beans
Maize or Indian

Corn
Buck Wheat
Beer or Bigg ......

Total of Corn and
Grain

Wheat Meal, ori

Flour
Barley Meal
Oatmeal
Rye Meal
Indian Meal

Total of Meal and
Flour

Species of Corn,
Grain, Meal, and
}lour.

Wheat
Barley
,rats
Rye
Pease
Beans
Maize or Indian

Corn
Buck Wheat
Beer or Bigg

Total of Corn and
Grain

Wheat Meal, or
Flour
Barley Meal
Oatmeal

Nye Meal
Indian Meal

Total of Meal and'
Flour

Species of Corn,
Grain, Meal, and
Flour.

Wheat

Barley
Oats
Rye
Pease
Beans
Maize or Indian

Corn
Buck Wheat

Beer or 8igg..„....,

Total of Corn and
Grain

Wheat Meal, oil

Flour
Barley Meal
Oatmeal
Rye Meal
Indian Meal

Total of Meal and
Flour