The Sun.
London, England, 1832-04-03 00:00:00

MUTINY BILL.

On the motion for the Order of the Day for the Com-
mittee on the Mutiny Bill being read,
Sir H. HARDINGE rose to protest against the present
system of commutation of pensions, and he spoke in behalf
of 80,000 old soldiers. During the time he was in the
War-office, he never consented to allow a pensioner but
one to sell his pension ; whereas in 1831 and 1832, pen-
sioners were allowed to sell out at four years' purchase,
by which it now happened that there were 5,000 soldiers
left destitute. The Right Hon. and Gallant Gentleman
then entered into a history of the War-office, from the days
of Mr. Windham until his own time, when regulations were
introduced which the Right Hon. Gentleman eulogized in
a warm manner. From the Right Hon. Gentleman's
statement, appeared that en his accession to office there
were not less than $3,000 pensioners on the list ; but
that, owiag to his extraordinary seal, the number was re-
duced suns 3,000, with a ao distant prospect of a great

Sir J. HOBHOUSE said that if; upon inquiry, the
War-office should think a change its the 13104 of commu-
tation was desirable, it should be adopted.
The House then went into Committee.
Mr. HUNT complained that on a former occasion, wheel
he had intimated his intention of moving the omission of
the clause relating to flogging, he had been told by the
Right Hon. Secretary for Ireland, by w Right Hon. Gen-
tleman opposite, and by the then Chairman (Mr. Pon-
sonby), that no such words were in the Bill. He had found,
however, that the 24th clause enacted that it should lie
lawful for general courts-martial, by their sentence, to in-
flict imprisonment and corpora' punishment, not extending
to life. He had thus been prevented From making his
motion by the declaration he hail referred to, and by the
slovenly manner in which the clauses were read. He
wished them to be read more distinctly, and that lie might
have an opportunity of movina that the words respecting
corporal punishment be struck out.

Mr. S. RICE believed he was the person responsible for
the declaration referred to. He had not intended to mis-
-1,-ad the Hon. Member. He had thought the words were
not in the Bill.
Mr. PONSONBY denied he had stated that the words
were not in the Mutiny Act.
Mr. HUNT denied he had said he did. Whit he said
was, that the Chairman did not contradict those who
said so, and did not examine the Bill.
Mr. PONSONBY appealed to the House whether
the Hon. Member slid not charee him, in cwntnnn with
two Right Hon. Gentlemen, with Asserting that the words
were not in the act --(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUNT observed, that the law prevented any
person under twenty-one years of age to serve on a jury;
and he thought that a similar regulation should he
adopted with respect to individuals required to serve on
courts-martial.
The clause was then agreed to. . .

On the next clause, for giving to courts-martial the
right of sentencing delinquents to imprisonment, solitary
or otherwise, and to "corporal punishments not extending
to life or limb,"

punishments l‘ H Uri HUNT
ortosee,x
taend iad
imo
go v edt
0, thatife tohre wi,
coo rds "
b,,,8
hoi corporal
be
omitted. He had formerly moved for a return of the
number of corporal punishments inflicted in the course
of the year, when he proposed his motion ; but sea
returns had been refused. He would, however,'
brine the subject before the House.
Sir J. BYNG contended, that it wa necessary to
to courts-martial the power of which the Hon. M..mber
wished to deprive them. The Hon. Me er wasewirely
wrong when he supposed that punishen was privately
inflicted. Even when the soldier recei • but one lash
the punishment was noted down. Ever half-year each
of the regiments of the line was inspected Ile defaulters
book was then called for by the err. g officer; and
by examining it he at once became segue inted with the
nature of the offence and the amount of puenishment. The
system of punishment had of late years been most lenient.
He therefore should oppose the amendment.
Mr. HUNIE did not mean to accuse lie officers of the
British army with inhumanity. He believed that they
did not award punishment whenever they could avoid it.
He thought, however, that there should annually be laid
before the House an account of the number of individuals
punished by the sentences of courts-martial.
Colonel SIBTHORP opposed flue amendment, as a most
indecent and indelicate interference with tke British army,
which, he averred, was the admiration of the world, and
he hoped would always be the terror of the enemies of
England.

Sir J. HOBHOUSE had not changed his opinion on
this subject; and, if it were in his popwaebri,isheesphioeuieldn,likaentto
try the experiment of goverNni.ngutahrdejaargren)y wwiittiiiiirtescopreectoratli
punishment. But the H n. Member for Prest.,n oug •
know that the framing of the Mutiny MA was not
wot k of the Secretary at War. Of late years eorpo
punishments were greatly reduced. This Ltd, in parts'
bp"arntlyeffbvgy effected
de
l'exTeetlhl:stitg":lcailio.nts of the Right Hon
regenimtleenmtaanl •o•tta-martial. • Witk tarot te tat meta

which hid 14eu alluded to, he did not know that there
was any secrecy connected with them. They were, be
believed, to found at the Horse-Guards.

Sir 11. RARDINGE agreed ;;Itll-;he Right Hon.
C...neer:lan that he ought not to alter the Mutiny Act of
the artic:es of war, without the concurrence of the Com-
mander-in-Chi:4 ; bet still he looked won him, in his Pi-.
pacify of Secretary at War, as accountal to.the Hou-
nd to the country for aey measure which Inc brought
forward. He dint not approve Of -the suggestion or the
Hon. Memher for Middlesex, that the provision then under
discussion should be dispensed with in time of peace.
That would he saying to the soldier—" In England, whil,
peace continues, your back is safe; hut the moment you are
sent to fight the enemy, then you are subjected to punish-
ment." The result of all his observations was, that th
power of awarding corporal punishment Was necessary;
but that the less frequently it was resorted to, so much the
better for the service.

Lord ALTHORP did not think that the discipline of
the service could be pre'erved without this power was
continued, hut its exercise should he refrained from as
much as possible.

Mr. R. GRANT agreA in the necessity of leaving the
power to award capital punishments untenched, but he
was of opinion that every possible effort should be made
to limit its exercise., Such efforts, he had every reason to
believe, had been made. Corporal punishments had.
within a fe.v years, undergone a very great decrease. In
1921, corporal punishments, as compared with sentences
of imprisonment, were as two to one ; but, in 1931, they
were as one to five.

Mr. KEMMIS bore testimony to the leniency which
marked the general proceedings of courts-martial.
Mr. HUNT said, that great injustice W 1.9 that to the
army if the punishments were so few as tad teen de-
scribed, by refusing the papers which he had called for.
Sir J. M. DOYLE ;Treed with the Hon. Member for
Middlesex, that in time of peace no such power should be
granted.

The amendment was then negatived without a division.
The other clausei were agreed to—the House resumed
—report to-morrow.

IRISH TITHES.

Mr. STANLEY moved the order of the day for re-
ceiving the report on the Irish tithes.

On the question, that " the first resolution he read a
second time."

Mr. WALLACE, felt obliged, in common With other
Irish Members, to protest against the course pursued by
Government upon this subject, es net being fair or
rational. The House was called upon to agree to these
resolutions, which involred a most important change in
the law with respect to the land-owners and the peasantry
of Teel-aid, without any evidence, although it was ad-
mitted that that evidence was in the power of Mr. Stan-
ley. Under these circumstances, he .(Mr. Wallace) had
only the alternative !eft him of moving resolutions, as an
amendment on those of the Right Hon. Gentleman, in
order to record on the journals of the House the senti-
ments of the Irish Members, and these resolutions would
show the opposition to the plan of Government not to be
factious, but aiming et measures beneficial to the country.
The Hon. Gentleman then moved a very long string of
resolutions, embracing the whole progress of the tithe
question, from the King's speech at the opening of the
session to the present time., and deprecating in the strong-
est manner the proposed power of levying for the arrears
of 1831, designed to be vested in the Crown, as being im-
proper, and from causing an union between the Church
and Crown, unconstitutional.

Mr. LEADER seconded the ainendmcnt, but would cot
have risen to oppose the plan of the Government were he
not convinced that it would be productive of greater griev-
ances to Ireland, mad greater expense to England, than
the present state of things could cause.
The resolutions proposed by the Hon. Member for
Drogheda were tt en put and negatived.
On the original resolutions being put,
Sir C. WETHERELL said that the resolutions pre
posed by the Hon. and Learned Member for Drogheda,
though only five in number, contained about 1,000 pro-
positions, and that there :c•as not one of them, in which
any person conversant with the laws or the Constitution
of the country could agree. He (Sir C. Wetherell) ob-
jected to the mode in which the resolutions proposed by
the Right Hon. Genthiman dealt with this subject, as
affording a fatal precedent unexampled in the history of
the Hou•e of Commons.

Lord SANDON entend his protest against the "
sive resistance," as the Irish Members termed it, whic;t
had been effered in Irel•nd to the paytnent of tithes. It
would he vain fur the Metnbets of that Hou,e to sit there
as a supreme legi'lative assembly, if their constituents had
the powtr and right to sit in judgment on the laws which
they passed, and offer a passive resistance to them if they
pit ased. He thought that the Irish lerobers should have
v.t an example to, instead of '.ollosving in the wake of,
their constitu,nts on the other side of the water,

Mr. STANLEY said, that the report of the S lest
Committee truly stated, that it appeared front the evidence
that though generally a passive resistance had been made to
the payment of tithes, that resistance bad in some instances
proceeded to acts of violence and outrage. He did not,
therefore, agree with his Learned Friend (the Member for
Drogheda) in a!tributing entirely to a p ssive resistance
that non•enfrrcement of the claims of the Clergy which
many of them were deterred from prosecuting through the
dread of violence. He begg d to deny that by the mea-
sure of his Majesty's Government a double demand would
he made on the tithe payers, for the plan of the B II which
he should have to introduce was this,—that the Clergyman
should give over to the Government the tithes for the year,
receiving for them a certain amount; and that the Govern•
ment should then en'oree, either to the whole extent or in
part, as it should think fit, the payment of those tithes on
the part of the tithe payers. He hoped in the course of
the session to be able to lay before the House the measure
which Government intended to propose for the final settle-
ment of this question, by the substitution of some other
merle in lieu of tithes for the support of the Protest oat
Church in Ireland.
Mr. M. O'FERRALL defended the conduct of the Irish
Members against the attack of the Noble Lord (the Mem-
ber for Liverpool), and said that he had voted conecenti-
ously, and from conviction, on this subject. The Hon.
:Wernher objected to the levying of the arrear of ,ithe in
the name of a Monarch whose popularity now formed the
only connecting link between England and Ireland,—
(Hear.)
_ _

Mr. GOULBURN, although he conceived that it
would have been better for Government to have at once
proposed their intended measure, must at the same time
admit the facts on which the resolutions were founded.
Mr. SHELL said, that the proper time for entering
upon details would be on the second reading of the Bill.
It appeared to him, from the res(ilutions, that there would
prove to be a double demand, no suing for the arrear Of
tithe ; and he would press the case upon the con.ideration
of the Right Hon. Secretary.
After a f,-w words from Mr. Wyse, -Mr. G. Dawson,
Fane, Mr. Benett, and Colonel Torrens, and Mr.
Perceval, it was agreed to bring in a Bill pursuant to the
resolutions.