The Sun.
London, England, 1861-03-22 00:00:00

On the motion of Sir H. CAIR:ZS,
Clauses 207 to 218 (commonly called " The dead men's
clauses") were struck out.
Mr. VANCE moved to add to the end of clause DIG—" If
being a trader he shall, within three months next before the
filing of the petition for adjudication, pawn, pledge, or dis-
pose of otherwise than by Lona fule transactions in the ordi-
nary way of his trade, any of his goods or chattels which
have been obtained on credit and remain unpaid for."
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had no objection
to the addition.

Mr. CRAWFORD thought it should extend to non,

taaders.

The motion was then agreed to.
Sir H. CAIRNS said he had an alteration to propose
in the interpretation clause, in consequence of the
omission of the 101st clause. In consenting to the omission
of that clause he thought his hon. and learned friend (the
Attorney-General) yielded too much to his hon. and learned
friend (Mr. Malins), who appeared somewhat insane with
regard to non-traders. It might be very proper to subject
non -traders to the operation of the bankruptcy law in fu-
ture, but he submitted to the house that nothing could be
more inconsistent with justice than to subject non-traders
who contracted debts in the existing state of the law to the
provisions of an act which they could not know and could
never contemplate at the time of contracting those debts.
He was sure many members must have been taken by sur-
prise at the change to which his hon. and learned f, iend
too easily assented. In order therefore to rectify what had
been done, he proposed to add the following words in the
interpretation clause :—" The word debtor shall, when ap-
plied to a person who is not a trader, mean a debtor in re-
spect of a debt contracted after the passing of this act, and
judgment debtor summons shall, in respect to such person,
mean a summons founded on a decree or order in respect of
a debt or liability contracted after the passing of this act."
Mr. MALINS said he was surprised at the course adopted
by his hon. and learned friend. He had given ample notice
of his intention to move the omission of the 101st clause.
Therefore the house could not have been taken by surprise.
Furthermore he asked his hon. and learned friend himself
to support his motion, but his hon. and learned friend said
he would oppose it but that he was going to dinner. He
told his hon. and learned friend by all means to go to dinner,
and that he (Mr. Malins) would send for him when he was
wanted. (Laughter.) His hon. and learned friend the
Attorney-General had not yielded to him, but after the
subject had been fully discussed there was not a single voice
to say " Aye."

The house then divided—
For the amendment
Against

The amendment was consequently lost.
Sir F. KELLY suggested an alteration in Schedule G,
with the object of retaining the provision in the existing
law entitling a bankrupt to articles of clothing, bedding,
&c., out of the estate to the amount of £2O.

The ATI ORNEY-GENERAL said that provision had
been productive of no good, and he had considered it better
to provide that the bankrupt should only be entitled to such
articles as the creditors might think fit to award him,
The amendment was then negatived.

Mr. WALPOLE observed that they were attempting t
do more with this bill to-night than was consistent with
the ordinary forms of the house. First of all they were to
go into committee to take up certain clauses ; then they
were to consider the bill as amended ; and then they were
to re-commit the bill. He did not know whether it was
competent for them to do that. He hoped this would not
be taken as a precedent, but he did not wish to stop the

discussion.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL reminded the house that
he only wished to re-commit the bill in order to insert pro-
visions which were discussed and agreed to on a former
•

occasion.
Mr. HENLEY remarked that they were to go into com-
mittee on clause 68, and Schedule A, " and any other
clauses." That certainly was opening the case with a ven-

geance.
Lord PALMERSTON thought there was a great deal
in what the right hon. gentleman had just said. The ob-
ject of his hon. and learned friend in adding these words to
his motion was to give an opportunity to the noble lord
(Lord Stanley) to move the motion of which he had given
notice. But the house must not understand that there was
any disposition on the part of the Government to accede to
the proposal when it was made. He hoped the noble lord
would feel, after the decision the house had come to this
evening with regard to matters connected with the county
courts, that the ground on which he rested his proposal had
been cut from under him. Ho suggested that his hon. and
learned friend should omit from his motion the words " and
other clauses."
Tho ATTORNEY-GENERAL then moved that the bill
be re-committed on clauses 8, 38, 42, and 201 respectively.
Lord STANLEY said he did not wish it to be supposed
that the claims of the county court judges to increased
salaries had been waived ; but he felt the difficulty in which
the house was placed, and after the appeal that had been
made to him by his noble friend he thought it would be
better that he should assent to the proposal, and that the
claims of those gentlemen should be brought forward at a
more convenient opportunity.
Sir F. KELLY said, after the course taken by the noble
lord the member for King's Lynn, ho should also refrain
from bringing forward the motion of which he had given
notice ; but he trusted that in some form or other the
Attorney-General would give him the opportunity of
calling the attention of the house to the case of the old
gentlemen to whom the motion related.
The house then went into committee.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL moved to insert, at the
end of clause 8, these words—" such order shall be laid be-
fore parliament, and shall not come into operation till three
months afterwards."
The motion was agreed to ; as were motions to make the
salary of thotmessengers amount to but not to exceed £5OO
a-year ; and to raise the salary of the registrar in attendance
on the chief judge from £l,OOO to £1,200, and of the regis-
trar of meetings from £2OO to £250 per annum.
The CHAIRMAN then reported progress.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he would bring up
the report at half-past four this evening, when he would
propose to fill up the blank as to the ad valorem duty with
ss. instead of 7s. per cent.
THE MUTINY BILL.
This bill went into committee.
Mr. WHITE moved to omit clause 22, which gives power
to courts-martial to inflict corporal punishment. (Cheers.)
He thought the house could not better consecrate this ses-
sion than by agreeing to this social improvement. (Hear.)
In his opinion there was nothing of greater importance than
the abolition of corporal punishment in the British army—
(hear, hear)—and he was sure there was no act of Parlia-
ment, the consummation of the abolition of which could
give greater satisfaction to the country. (Hear, hear.)
He assured the house that, in bringing forward this mo-
tion, he was not in any way actuated by any spirit of
hostility to the officers of the army, who, he believed,
were as distinguished for their humanity as they were for
their gallantry. (Hear, hear.) He very much regretted
that on this occasion the hon. and gallant general the
member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) was absent,
and from a cause which they all regretted (illness). So long
ago as 1836, that honourable and gallant gentleman,
when giving evidence before a committee of the house on
this subject, gave it as his deliberate opinion that flogging
in the army was not only inefficient for its object but was
detrimental to the best interests of the service. (Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. White) proposed to abolishcorporal punish-
ment because he believed that to be inefficient for its pur-
pose, and it did much harm, while it did not reform. It
was well known that the public sympathy was always with
the victim who was subjected to the punishment. He was
however sorry to say that the practice was latterly much on
the increase. Ho would now read returns to the house
running over a series of years, which would show the
amount of flogging in the army. In 1847 there were 42 men
flogged in the army, and the number of lashes inflicted was
2,200 ; in 1852 the number of men flogged was 43, and the
number of lashes inflicted was 2,250 ; in 1858 the number
of regiments, including artillery, was 143, in which the
number of men flogged was 218, and the number of lashes
inflicted, 9,338.
MajJr HAMILTON—Sir, I rise to order. The hon.
gentleman is talking of the army, whereas he made his
motion in connexion with the Marine Mutiny Bill.
(Laughter.)
Mr. WHITE—The hon.and gallant member is mistaken.
The bill before the committee was the Mutiny Bill, and
referred to the army only. Then why did the hon. and gal-
lant gentleman thus interrupt him ? (Laughter.) In 1859,
there were 148 regiments, of whom 512 men were flogged,
and the number of lashes inflicted 22,663. The average
number of lashes per man inflicted in 1858 was 42, and in
1859, 44i. (Laughter.) To continue the analysis, he found
that in 1858 there were not any flogged in 69 regiments,
while there were 31 regiments which merited that most
honourable distinction. (Laughter.) He had to remark,
that when they were so chary about inflicting corporal
punishment on criminals, it was a matter of
surprise that flogging should be continued in the
army, especially when that punishment was not in-
flicted in the armies of other nations; and it was also
worthy of remark, that in the Indian array the sepoys
were not subjected to corporal punishment. (Hear, hear.)
He considered it was most degrading and impolitic to per-
sist in the present practice. (Hear, hear, and cries of
" Divide.") He had, he thought, said enough to justify
him in moving that the clause be omitted.
Mr. W. WILLIAAIS said he rose with great pleasure to
second the motion of his hon. friend. He thought that to
both branches of the services nothing could be more de-
grading than this kind of punishment.
Mr. J. LOCKE also supported the motion. The work-
ing classes of this country held this flogging system in
utter detestation, and as the army was recruited from that
class, it was a monstrous proposition to subject their rela-
tions to a punishment usually inflicted on felons. (Divide,
divide.) The great bulk of the population of this country
were opposed to this degrading punishment, and therefore
he would sot his face against it. (Hear.)
Mr. BARING said the main question was, what the
amount of punishment in the army was at present. It was
well known that flogging was now only inflicted on persons
guilty of desertion, mutinous conduct, robbery, making
away with accoutrements, and other disgraceful acts. If
14 man was guilty of such acts he was then disrated, and it