The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-02 00:00:00

seven, ten. and twenty-one yews. Now if it were to be left
t'., ;*.oi.ooer himself, he entertained not the slightest idea
h .has ss reashts take pension fur two lives
tu. • ,; .•i. 1. ws but rtglit tear rt., who had seen the
iungee. see ~ee so ; nave the greatest advantage. Sir Henry
Hardinge, than whom there was no greater friend to the sol-
dier, had expressed his desire that there should be no change
from ten years to twenty years. The rule which had been es-
tablished in the army was, that in the event of a man being
bought off after his enlistment, 301. was to be paid for a man
in the cavalry, and 201. in the infantry. After seven years
service the rate was reduced to 251. for the one service, and
151. for the other; and after ten years' service it was still fur-
ther reduced to 201. for a man in the cavalry, and 101.
for one in the infantry ; and so went on to be re-
duced according as the term of service increased.
Those officers examined before the Committee a great
part of the army was made up of very bad materiaslais— d in fact,
the dregs of society, who could find no other employment.
Enlistment for &limited period, and the abolition of flogging,
would, it was th ught, induce a better class of men to enlist.
Unlimited enlistment, or f•r life was, as Mr. Fox and Mr.
Wilberforce remarked, unsuitable to the genius of the British
Constitution. When Sir R. Peel brought forward his Budget,
and spoke of the forty-five colonies to which they had to be
sent, and mentioned the increase of duty upon the soldiery, he
should likewise have expressed the resolution of the Government
to improve the state of the army. Such a reform would serve the
country as much as any thing that could be undertaken. Then,
with regard to the expense, let them consider the enormous
expense which was incurred in arresting deserters. That
would make an immense difference in the army estimates. He
had consulted many officers on the subject, and they all said
that he was perfectly right, but that they did not think he
would get it. Hs, however, was certain that, eventually, that
which he asked for must be granted. In support of his argu-
ment, he would quote the authority of Dr. Jack-on, and a medi-
cal authority on such a subject was entitled tuns the
highest consideration—(Hear, hear) —for it was ver-
sally admitted that the medical officers of the army
had paid more attention to the moral and physical oundition of
the men than any other officers. The Hon. an 1 Gallant Offi-
cer here read an extract from the work of Dr. Jackson, in
which that gentleman gave it as his opinion that
limited service in the army tended to promote habits of mora-
lity and good citizenship among the men, whilst unlimited ser-
vice produced habits of immorality, and tended to separate the
men from their fellow-subjects. He entreated Hon. Gentle-
men to consider how they voted on this subject. They could
not shield,themselves behind the argument that they knew no-
thing of military matters. No knowledge of military matters
was necessary for the decision of this question—all that was re •
quired was a knowledge of what was right and what was just.
Let them constder well before they destroyed the hopes of men
who had maintained the honour of the British flag in
every quarter of the globe. Let them consider the enor-
mous amount of desertions, 7,337 ; the enormous number of cor-
poreal punishments, 3,3.55. The enormous number of army
criminals, in three years, 28,190. These things ought to be
considered. He would wish to refer the House to the opinion
of a gentleman, who was once in that House, but who was re-
moved to a higher situation, which he thought no gentleman
in the House would be bold enough to gainsay. He meant Sir
Henry Hardinge, who stated that he must confess that a shorter
period of service might be advantageously introduced. He
(Captain Layard) did not know who would support him, but
he thought that the whole House should support him. He
was of opinion that the Government could net refuse to take
this matter under their consideration, as Sir Henry Hardinge
stated that it was well worthy of their attention. The Hon.
and Gallant Gentleman concluded by moving the Address.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT said that he would not occupy
the House at any very great length while he stated his reasons
why he could not accede to the motion of the Gallant Officer.
He would endeavour to state very shortly and simply the
grounds on which the opinions both for and against this motion
were founded, and he would leave the House to judge for them-
selves whether or not sufficient grounds had been shown for
taking any steps in the alteration of a system which had been
established for several years with success. It was an argument
very frequently used, that the system of enlistment for very
short periods obtained in foreign countries with great advan-
tage. The Gallant Officer stated that enlistment for life was
contrary to the genius of the Constitution. In foreign coun-
tries, Where there was a very short period of service required,
enlistment was compulsory, not voluntary, as hi this country.
When Lord Castlereagh introduced his measure for the regu-
lation of the period of military service, it was provided that
every man entering the army should enlist for a period not less
than five years, and not exceeding seven years, and the bounties
which were paid to every individual so enlisting amounted to
from 21. to 21. 121., thus making a difference of 12s. in
the bounty money. Up to the year 1829 that system had
been continued, tint it had subsequently been modified in va-
rious ways, as it was found to interfere very materially with the
efficient working of the service. The modifications, however,
which had been made were not found sufficient, and still further
alterations had taken place. At present men were enlisted for
not less than fifteen years, after which period they might be
discharged gratuitously, but they had it also in their option to
serve for a further period of seven years, and of thirteen years,
thereby securing a pension varying according to the length of
service, for the remainder of their lives. The Right Hon.
Gentleman then adverted, but it was in so low a tone of voice
that it was next to an impossibility to catch a word in the gal-
lery, to the military statistics of her Majesty's colonies
in the years 1825 to 1828, and contrasted them with
the last five years, for the purpose of showing that
desertion had decreased one-half, and that otherwise the
moral standing of the British army was greatly
elevated. He concluded by eulogising the present condition
of the troops, and assured the House that nothing would be
wanting on the part of the Government to maintain the ser-
vice in that efficient condition.
Mr. HUME said that the motion of his Hon. and Gallant
Friend was of a more important character than a great part of
the House seemed to be aware of, and he was of opinion that
the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman who had just sat
down proved that the British army was in a most unsatisfac-
tory state; and if the returns which he (Mr. Hume)
had ordered many weeks ago, and which had been in the
possession of the Government for the last nine months,
had been laid before the House, he could have clearly
shown to the House that things were not in the very
good condition described by the Right Hon. Gentleman. If
he would look back to the past terms of service, he was confi-
dent that the Hon. Gentleman would blame himself for not
having answered this return. A great portion of the punish-
ments, as was evident from the returns, had been occasioned
by foreign service. He only regretted that those re-
turns were not made more perfect. The Hon. Gentleman
opposite had fixed 15 years, but he thought that if 10 years were
allowed for the period of service, and not fifteen years, as
was devised by Sir IL Hardinge, the man who was discharged
from the army would be fit for social service. When he
looked at the returns in his hand, he was convinced that
there was no army in the world which suffered such severe
punishments. In several instances he saw very long im-
prisonments, and he was anxious to point out the serious loss
which the public service endured in consequence of this se-
verity. This practice had evidently an injurious effect, and he
thought, therefore, if the period of service was shortened, it
would be of essential service. He was quite sure that if the
farmer's sons were sure of obtaining their discharge after a
service of seven years, it would tend to increase the numbers of
those who came into the service of the army from the middle
ranks. Look at the case of habitual drunkards, and all those
offences which tended to lower the character of the soldier. He
was quite ready to admit that their clothing was properly taken
care of, but still he thought that this was a system which ought
to be improved. It was no party question, but one in which
they were all concerned, and he trusted that there would be no
demur, but that the Government would at once grant the in-
quiry. Certainly no evil could possibly arise from it, and
there must be an advantage if it were only to settle the feel-
ings of those whom it concerned.
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said, that it clearly appeared
that the man who wanted to enlist, was just as likely to enlist
for the long period as the short one. He found by the returns
that when the service was limited the desertions were as nu-
merous as when the reverse prevailed. But there was a bonus
given previously for them to leave the service. By the war-
rant of 029, the payments for service had been stated, and
he did not think that the measure was at all likely to en-
sure the efficiency of the army, and no good whatever could
possibly arise from the passing of this motion. On the
whole, he thought, that no case whatever had been made out,
and he trusted that the Government would not be led
into a train of conduct which, at the best, could only be
mischievous.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, that the return of desertions
and punishments was a sufficient answer to all the argu-
ments. He thought that ten years' service was a long
period, and he thought that the better plan would be to give
seven years' service, and three years further for permission to
enter the army. He should certainly give his support to the
motion, and only trusted that it might he instrumental in ob-
taining all the benefit which he desired to effect.
Captain LAYARD said, that he thought that the Right
Hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, had made no reply
to his observations. The desertions in Canada had been ex-
cessive. But what had been done for the army ? He cer-
tainly had done a great deal for the army, but be did nct un-
derstand how it was, because so much had been done, that
nothing further was to be effected. The great evil was the
deprivation of hope. and it was because there was no opportu-
nity whatever after leaving the army for do'ng anything. The
term of fifteen years was therefore manifestly too long. The
Hon. Gentleman stated, that he (Captain Layard) had as-
serted that the suicides in the army hadbeen greatly increased.
Mr. SIDNEY HERBERT explained that he did not mean
to assert to the extent just stated.
Captain LAYARD asserted, on the contrary, that the sui-
cides had very largely increased, yet he believed that great
goad had been done, and would be done. Sir Henry Hardinge
gave his sanction to his plans. During several months he had
anxiously. considered all the points, and the result had been
a conviction that the unlimited term of service was, of all
things. most injurious both to the soldier and the service.—
(Cries of "Divide, divide.")
Strangers were then ordered to Withdraw, when
Captain LAYARD said he should relinquish his intention
to press the motion to a division, as he saw that the sense
of the House was against such a proceeding, and he was
always anxious to avoid anything which might tend to occa-
sion an unnecessary division of feeling.
PUBLIC EXECUTIONS.
Mr. M. MII.NES begged to call the attention of the House
to the evils attendant upon the present mode of conducting
public executions in this country. The question he would ask
was simply this—was the present procedure one which could be
justified on the score of necessity? He denied that it was,
and he referred the House to the mode in which
executioue were conducted in Pennsylvania, New York, Mary-
land, Jersey, Ohio, and other states in North America. In
all these places the criminal was executed inside the walls of
the prison. He was in hopes that this practice would soon be-
come the law of the land in this country, and he augured
favourably that this would soon be the case, when he consi-
dered the order which hail lately been issued by the Right Hon.
the Home Secretary in reference to that subject. The proper
authorities, and those only whose presence was absolutely
necessary, were now permitted to attend at the solemn scenes
preparatory to this awful spectacle, To such an extent was
this refined cruelty (if he might call it so) carried, that even
so late ae 1766, a poor boy—a mere child was, on some charge
of sacrilege, first tortured by four or five executioners, and
afterwarde burnt on a slow fire. This occurred in France, and
a few years before that, a high family in Portugal for a charge
of attempted assassination, were subjected to the severest tor-
tures. Moreover, if these gladiatorial spectacles were productive
of any public benefit it might, to a certain extent, palliate their
barbarity. But so far from that being the case, he could prove
that they had the very contrary effect. The sheriffs, in times
ago. were known to eat, drink, and enjoy themselves or, the
scaffold, and the executioners not unfrequently quarrelled among
themselves about the rope, and the one who did not get it cried
for disappointment. The effect on those who witnessed these
exhibitions was equally injurious in a moral point of view.
Who, he would ask, were those who were generally present on
these occasions ? They were the dissolute and the desperate ;
and not unfrequently women—even young women—made up a
part of the crowd. In fact, it was regarded as a mere amuse-
ment, a subject of barbarous diversion. In Catholic countries,
public executions assumed more the appearance of a religious
ceremony. The prisoner was attended by priests, and all the
ripliances of religion, and he went to death in the spirit of A
' Woos, j.nrioule of the German Protestant States, also,
t accoinpithei:die criminal to the scaffold, singing hymns.
Yuw' we heyelike3way all the effects of terror which this
ehePlay_..Vrould havg‘ n the spectators. The Hon. Gentle-
,Man was proceeding }e out the advantages which would
arise .11 the eteeodoitook plfce wfthiu the walls of the
prison, And if Pubri was given to the avition through

V
N