The Sun.
London, England, 1828-03-11 00:00:00

JONATHAN FOX.

Mr. LUMLEY moved, that Jonathan Fox be brought
to the bar, in order to his being discharged.
The prisoner, who was brought up in custody of the
Governor of Newgate, having been placed at the bar.
Mr. SPEAKER addressed him to the following effect :
Jonathan Fox, the offence for which you were com-
mitted to his Majesty's gaol of Newgate, was
because that of your suppressing the truth when you
were examined as a witness before a Committee of this
House. The offence is one of immense magnitude, it is one
of a grievous kind, and if such an offence were to be passed
over or suffered to be committed with impunity the ends of
justice would be defeated, and the dignity and character of
this House impaired. The House had no alternative,
but to adopt the resolution under which you have been im-
prisoned ; since then you have petitioned the House, and in
that petition you express the feebleness of health at the
time you were examined; you express your deference to
the opinion of the House, and also express your contrition
for what you have done. It is because the House believes
the explanation which you have offered, it is because
the House relies on the ' sincerity of the feelings which
you express, it i 9 because the House is satisfied
of your contrition and regret, it is because the House
is satisfied that t heir conduct cannot by you, or
others, he misconstrued, that I am directed thus early after
your imprisonment, to inform you that you are discharged,
upon payment of your fees ; you may withdraw."
The prisoner was then removed from the bar and dis-
charged, and the reprimand was ordered to be inserted in
the Journals of the House.
CITY AND BOROUGH POLLS' BILL.

Colonel DAVIES, in alluding to the City and Borough
Polls Bill, suggested, that as it was the intention of many
Members to propose various amendments in the Committee,
the best way would be to let it go through the second read-
ing, pro forma, with an understanding that the debate
should be taken on the question for going into Committee.
Mr. BARING said, there was not a clause in the Bill
to which he was not disposed to object, if it was the care
as had been introduced last year.
Sir M. W. RIDLEY said, the present was an entirely
new Bill, and expressed his readiness to adopt the sugges-
tion of his Gallant Friend.

The Bill was then read a second time and ordered to be
committed on Friday next.

COURT OF CHANCERY.

Mr. M. A. TAYLOR gave notice, that on the 24th of
April he would submit a motion to the House relative to
the actiaal state of the Court of Chancery.
On the motion of Mr. GORDON, the Pauper Lunatics
Bill, and Lunatics' Regulation Bill, were read each a second
time, and ordered to be committed on Monday.
Mr. BANKES presented a petition from the Trustees of
the British Museum praying for the usual annual grant.—
Ordered to be laid on the table.

Sir ALEXANDER GRANT brought up the Report of
the Committee of Ways and Meaus, the resolutions of which
were agreed to, and the Bill ordered to be brought in.

EAST RETFORD.

Mr. D. W. HARVEY reminded the House, that he
had stated his intention on Friday of examining Mr.
Crompton with respect to the inquiry now going on rela-
tive to the borough of East Retford. Before he stated his
reasons, however, for the motion with Which he should
conclude, he thought it right to inform the House, that he
had written to Mr. Crompton on Friday, to ask whether he
would attend in his place, or whether lie would rather wait
for an order of the House. Mr. Crompton in his answer
had stated his intention of attending on Monday, but in a
subsequent note had pleaded a severe cold as an excuse for
net attending before Thursday or Friday next, to which
period he requested that the business might be postponed.
It was his intention to move that Mr. Crompton should
be ordered to attend on Friday, for the snore he read and
considered the evidence, the snore certain was he that the
testimony of the Iron. Member was of importance to the
case. The object of the present inquiry was to punish the
borough by blotting it from the political map of the country.
The Hon. Gentleman who had brought forward the ques-
tion had endeavoured to establish a case of continued prac-
tice against the borough, selecting the different periods of
1812 and 1818 for that purpose. In his examination of
the witness who had been just discharged, he had asked
how the 2,8001. which was lodged in the Retford Bank
had been disposed of. The witness had at first pretended
total ig-norance, but o❑ being pressed and admonished by
the Chairman, had said that he believed lie could speak
positively on the subject, if he bad a paper in his posses-
sion which Mr. Crompton could give him. Was not this
a material chasm in the evidence? and how could it he so
well filled up as by questioning Mr. Crompton on the sub-
ject? The Hon. Member concluded by moving, " That
Samuel Crompton, Esq. do on Friday next attend the
Committee of the whole House, to whoni the East Ret-
ford Disfranchisement Bill has been referred."
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN thought that no further
evidence was wanting to prove the corruption which per-
vaded the burgesses of East Retford. As to the motion
made to call Mr. Crompton to the bar, the House, though
placed in a situatian of some difficulty, had only one course
to pursue, if it had any regard to its own character. He
had no wish to examine Mr. Crompton; for be wanted
no further evidence to make up his judgment; but he
thought that the House ought to consider, whether it
would not injure its own character with the country if it
failed to command the attendance of that gentleman..
Mr. G. BANKES would take this opportunity to in-
form his Hon. Friend, the Nember' for Bletchingley, that
he did not consider the evidence, as it now stood, sufficient
to disfranchise the borough of East Retford. The evi-
dence of Hannam varied materially from that of Pickup ;
and he should wish to have both those witnesses re-exami-
ned at the bar, with a view of seeing whether the discre-
pancy in the evidence could he reconciled. He was also
of opinion, that the banker at Retford, Mr. Foljambe,
should be examined at the bar. There was also another
point on which he-considered the attendance of Mr. Fol-
jambe necessary,—he meant with respect to that part of
the case which related to the powerful influence which ap-
peared behind Mr. Foljambe,—that influence which had
advanced 1,200/. in two sums for the purposes of the last
election. Painful as it might be to his feelings, he -did
must sincerely wish to have the attendance of Mr. Cromp-
ton at the bar, if it could 'be procured ; but he did net see
that,Mr. Crompton ought to attend, if he felt a strong re-
luctance to such a measure. He now gave notice, that if
Mr. Crompton should be ordered to attend at the bar on
a future day, he would move that Mr. Hannam, Mr.
Pickup, . and Mr. Foljambe, to be ordered to attend on
the same day.
Mr. D. SYKES :merely rose to state to the House the
situation of Mr. Crompton. His Hon. Friend had in-
tended to have met the challenge of the Hon. Member for
Colchester; but he was at present too much indisposed to
come down to his place in that House. He (Mr. Sykes)
held in his hand a medical certificate, stating that Mr,
Crompton was so ill that he could not attend that night
in his place without extreme danger to his health. Mr.
Crompton had desired him (Mr. Sykes) to say, that he re
posed his honour securely in the House ; and that, Laving
so revised it, he was willing to undergo any examination.
At the same time he entertained great doubts as to the
competency of the Howie to put to Lim any questions which
by their answers might involve him in a criminal prosecu-
tion. So mach lie had thought it right to say on behalf of
his Hon. Friend. He would now say a word or two in
his own person on the motion of the Hon. Member for Col-
chester. He was not going to deny the right of the House
to order Mr. Crompton to attend at its bar to be examined,

but he thought that the House was bound to consider the
expediency of exercising that right. For his own part he
would say that Mr. Crompton, if called upon to appear
there, would have reason to complain of a violation of that
candour and delicacy which he had a right to expect would
be shown him by his brother members.
A MEMBER, whose name ase could not learn, and whose
words we could scarcely hear, stated several circumstances
to the House with a view of showing that there was no
occasion to call Mr. Foljambe to the bar as a witness.
Mr. LUMLEY considered that there was no necessity
for examining Mr. Crompton, and therefore declared his
intention of voting against the present motion.
Mr. TENNYSON said, that the question of the pro-
priety of calling Mr. Foljambe as a witness to the bar had
been so ably disposed of by the Hon. Gentleman on the
other side of the House, that he felt himself excused from
the necessity of saying a wor: upon the subject. With re-
spect to the observations which his Hon. and Learned
Friend had made upon Mr. Foljambe's connexion with a
part of the case proved before the Committee up-stairs, all
he had to sayyas this, that the conduct of Earl Fitzwilliam,
as there disclosed, had no bearing whatever on the case
which he had undertaken to lay before the House. As he
had been obliged to touch upon the conduct of Earl Fitz-
william,—he thought it mere justice to the character of
that illustrious Nobleman to add, that though it had ap-
peared that he had advanced 1,2001, for the purpose of that
election, it did not appear that he had advanced it for any
corrupt purpose!. It was advanced for the defrayment of
those legitimate expences which every body knew were al-
lowed at elections ; and he must say, that lie saw no harm
in a Peer's advancing 1,200/. for the payment of the legi-
timate expences of his nephew's return to Parliament. As
to the present motion, for the attendance of Mr. Crompton
at the bar, he had only a few words to say. It was indif-
ferent to him how far the House might proceed in its exa-
minations. He thought that he had already made out a
case amply sufficient to justify the House in disfranchising
this Borough. He regretted the delays which had already
taken place, and considered them extremely disadvantage-
ous. At the same time, he was sure that if the House
was not tired of these examinations, the further they were
continued the clearer they would show the corruption of
the Borough. He really could not see what end his Hon.
and Learned Friend's proposition could obtain, except the
interposition of unnecessary delay.
Mr. G. BANKES disclaimed all desire to interpose un-
necessary delay, when he wished to make a further in-
quiry from Mr. Foljambe. That Gentleman had stated
that all the money he received from Sir Robert Dundas
was to be derived from Earl Fitzwilliam, and he only de-
sired to see how far this part of the transaction had gone.
In doing so he meant to cast no sort of stigma upon the
noble earl, for whom he entertained the highest respect.
Mr. PEEL said, that on the subject of the examination
of their Members in the manner proposed, the information
furnished by the current of authorities was rather of a
complex kind. No Committee had, he thought, a power
to originate a motion for the examination of nay witness,
whether member or not, without an order from the House.
On the whole, however, he was disposed to assume, that
the House, if it pleased, had the power to examine Mem-
bers as witnesses in any business before them. For his
own part, being satisfied on the point to which alone he
thought Mr. Crompton could be examined, he saw no ne-
cessity for calling upon that Hon. Member. Still, as this
was a case in which they had to decide judicially, and
where their decision ought alone to be founded upon the
uninfluenced operation of their consciences, he would yield
his opinion, should it appear that any number of Hon.
Members were anxious to have Mr. Crompton examined.,
(Hear.) He cared litttle for the prevalence of any feeling
elsewhere, that they would be disposed to screen ane of
their own Members : all he should ask himself was, ought
this particular course to be taken? Because, ifhe felt it ought,
he would do it regardless of popular impressions. If many
Hon. Members were desirous of examining Mr. Crompton,
then he thought it quite clear in the course of such exa-
mination no question whatever should be put which could
expose the witness to penalties, or to his being placed in
an unfavourable situation elsewhere.

Mr. W. VI. WYNN was disposed on the whole to agree
with his Right Hon. Friend who spoke last, in the pro-
priety of pausing before they decided upon this question.
At the same time, he bad not a shadow of doubt that the
Committee of the whole House had a right to interrogate
any Hon. Member, who was present during their sittings,
without waiting for any order from the House. He re-
membered that when Colonel Wardle was called on to be
examined in the House, an Hon. Member asked the then
Speaker (Lord Colchester), whether the Colonel was, so
called upon, bound to submit to interrogation? The
Speaker's reply was, " that no Member had a right to
examine another except it be touching an inquiry in a
Committee of the whole House." If the Member, or in-
deed any other witness, refused to answer, then the Com-
mittee had no power to compel him, without reporting the
contumacy to the House. There were several cases in
which Members had refused to be examined, on account of
their oaths of office AS Privy Councillors, but none on the
ground alone of their being Members of Parliament. As
to the protection of the witness from proceedings elsewhere,
founded upon anything which might fall from him in
giving evidence before the House of Commons, there need
be no apprehension of that kind, for no copy of their
minutes could be given, without their consent and a spe-
cific motion for that purpose.---(Hear, hear.) By the
provisions of the Bribery Act, the person who prosecuted
another to conviction, though himself guilty of acts of
bribery, however numerous, was fully indemnified from all
further exposure to permity.
Mr. PEEL agreed with his Right Hon. Friend, in the
right of the House to interrogate its own Members, as well
as others. He doubted, however, if the Committee could
summon a Member without having received the previous
authority of the blouse.
Lord HOWICK had the strongest dislike for fastening
on these individual cases, while the general system was so
notorious. While he made these observations, he was at
the same:time ready to vote for this Bill, because he could not
bring himself to think that any set of burgesses bad a right
to use Uhl privilege of returning Members to Parliament
for the purpose of promoting their own selfish interest.-
-(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. WILSON said, that all those who thought, as
he did, that enough of evidence was before them for the
disfranchisement of this borough, were under no necessity
of calling for the testimony of Mr. Crompton.
Mr. PEEL, in the observations he had made, begged
not to be understood as pronouncing any opinion upon the
question of disfranchisement.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY protested against the doctrine
that it was competent for a Peer of the realm to interfere
in the election of a Member to serve in that House, in the
manner in which it had been proved the Noble Earl (Fitz-
william) had done. He would take the sense of the
House upon the motion.
Mr. PEEL explained.

Mr. TENNYSON explained. This case was to prove
the receipt of money by the burgesses of East Retford, and
it was no part of his duty to show from whom that money
had come. He therefore did not call Mr. Crompton nor
Mr. Osbaldiston, thief not being able, as he understood, to
prove. the receipt of the money, and consequently not wit-
nesses for his case.

Mr. Aid. WAITLIMAN rose amidst cries of " Spoke,"
and recommended the Lion. Member for Colchester to with-
draw his motion. If it went to a division, he (Aldertnan
Waitliman) should not vote for it.
Mr. HUME concurred in the recommendation of the
worthy Alderman. If, however, he pressed it to a division,
he (Mr. Hume) should certainly vote for it.
Mr. D. W. HARVEY said, insinuations had been
thrown out against him, and "be therefore was anxious to
press this motion to a division, in order to satisfy the
House of the purity of his motives. To clear himself of
such Unfounded imputations, if he stoi,d alone he would
divide the House 30 times. If, however, the Howie were
satisfied as to the purity of his motives in bringing this
matter forward, he should not press for a division.—(Cries
of Hear, hear.)
Mr. PEEL could bear testimony to the fact, that the
lion. Member for Colchester upon a former evening, and
before any of the imputations alluded to had been made,
had pressed as anxiously for the examination of the Hon.
Member (Mr. Crompton) as he had done upon the present
occasion. There was no question, then, as to the purity
of the Hon. Member's motives ; and seeing that he, Mr.
Peel, trusted the Hon. Member would not call for a divi-
sion. The motion was then withdrawn.

The Home then went into a Committee upon the East
Retford Disfranchisement Bill. _
_.

The House having resumed, the report upon the Bill
was brought up, and ordered to be taken into further eon.,
sideration on Fa iday next, and the Bill was ordered to be
printed.

THE MUTINY BILL.—PUNISHMENT OF FLOG-
GING.
On the report of the Mutiny Bill being brought up by
Sir A. GRANT,
Lord NUGENT rose, pursuant to notice, to move a
clause for preventing corporal punishment in the army..--
He held it to be incontrovertible, that the King, amongst
his other prerogatives, possesses the power of not only con-
trolling the army, put also of regulating and enforcing its
discipline accordink to his discretion, subject to- the laws
enacted for that purpose, and under the sanction of this
House. The Noble Lord proceeded to combat some of the

objections formerly urged against this motion. it was a
fallacy to contend, that, because the soldier had voluntarily
subjected himself to this disgraceful punishment, they
should not legislate upon the subject, and decide as to the
propriety and utility of this portion of military discipline.
Even granting for a moment that the soldier has no grounds
for complaint, he (Lord Nugent) would still ask—first, is
this a proper sort of punishment to exhibit before those
who were the natives of a free country, and were accustom-
ed to civil liberty ; and was it a punishment conducive to
the maintenance of those feelings and of that spirit in the
army which it was so desirable to uphold and preserve ?_
Lastly, though certainly first in importance, comes the
question—Can a substitute be found for this disgraceful
and humiliating punishment? If there be any practicable
and safe substitute,— any escape whatever from the
infliction of a punishment degrading at once to him
who suffers it, and to the service which admits it,--..
sure he was, that the House would gladly adopt it.—
The opinions of the officers in the army coincided with
his (Lord Nugent's), that, if practicable, a substitute should
be found for this degrading punishment. The Noble Lord
proceeded to advert to the cruelty and injustice of the
punishment. It was not calculated to maintain that
chivalrous spirit which should always characterise the
military service. Gentlemen should not disregard the
maintenance of honourable feelings in the army, even to
the lowest ranks. The Noble Lord illustrated this position
by reference to a fact which occurred during the wars of
the succession. A number of Highland officers, who had
followed the fortunes of the Pretender, on being obliged to
leave their native country, entered into the French service,
and were there formed into a distinct regiment. In one
of the battles which subsequently took place, they claimed
the post of honour, and, advancing in the front of the
army, they bravely bore the hottest fire, until they were
mown down by the enemy's carmen. The Frenchmen, on
beholding such a noble exhibition, universally exclaimed,
" Gentilhomme est toujours; gentilhomme !" In a
Highland regiment, the soldier who suffers beneath
the lash of the drum-major can never again return to his
country ; he is an outcast and forbidden, and a stranger
amongst his companions. Such was the feeeling with
which this degrading punishment• was regarded in the
Highlands. It was a species of punishment which tend-
ed to confound the gradations of crime. He (Lord Nu-
gent) understood that 200 or 300 lashes constituted the
punishment for crimes of a secondary order, and yet more
than SOO lashes could not he inflicted even for a capital
offence, without endangering a soldier's life. Thus, where
a man is ordered to receive 1,000 lashes, the number
actually inflicted cannot exceed SOO ; and be was glad to
understand that in late years the disgraceful practice of
bringing back a delinquent who had undergone a certain
portion of his sentence, a second time to the lash, had been
very properly abandoned. The Noble Lerd proceeded to
recommend as a substitute for flogging, that which he saw
employed three or four years since in the garrison of
Gibraltar,—namely, labour and extra service. The Noble
Lord then moved, that in section 24 of the Mutiny Bill,
which relates to corporal punishments, the words " not ex-
tending to life or death" should be omitted, and the follow-
ing words inserted—" provided always, and he it further
enseted, that nothing in this Act shall authorize any Court-
martial to direct the punishment of flogging, or any other
bodily punishment, to be inflicted on any offender, except
for drunkenness on actual military duty, t'or theft, for fraud,
or for assault with intent to commit felony." The Noble
Lord observed, that these latter offences, to come within
the meaning of the clause, must be perpetrated against a
brother soldier—because, in case of their being put in
practice against fellow-subjects, who were net connected
with the military profession, the individual offending came
within the operation of the civil law.
Mr. J. SMITH, in seconding the motion, dwelt at some
length on the demoralizing consequences attached to the
system of flagellation. He had made inquiries with respect
to the effect which the practice of whipping had on those
individuals who were thus punished at the close of each
session at the Old Bailey ; and he had learned from the in-
telligent individual whom he had consulted, that he bad
observed, during the whole time in which he had held the
office of principal keeper of Newgate, that the individuals
so punished were, for the greater part, in his custody again
before the expiration of 12 months, lie was convinced
that this punishment in the army had an equally banefnl
effect.

Sir J. SEBRIGHT would justify this mode of pu-
nishment which had been so much inveighed against, on
this simple ground,—because he considered it absolutely
necessyy fur the discipline of the army (Hear), and he
should hold that opinion until he was set right by Hon.
Gentlemen,—not by those who had no experience on the
subject, but by officers who hail been in the habit of com-
manding troops. It was not correct to say that this pu-
nishment was frequently inflicted : those in command went
on without it as far as they possibly could, and it was only
had recourse to as the dernier resort.

Sir H. VIVIAN was a friend to the discipline of the
army, knowing that without strict discipline, an army was
infinitely more dangerous to friends than to enemies.—
(Hear.)—lt was said that British officers wished those
men who were placed under their command to crouch
under the lash like spaniels. In liis view of the case,
however, the soldiers were more like their own national
bull-dog, and sometimes required the strong hand of the
master to prevent them from being dangerous to their
friends.—(Hear.)—ln consequence of what had passed in
the House last year, he had made some inquiries into the
number of corporal punishments inflicted in different
regiments for a given period, and the result of his in-
quiries was this :—ln one regiment he fining 68 defaulters,
4 courts-martial, 1 man punished ; 2—'7o defaulters, 17
courts-martial, 3 men punished ; 3-80 defaulters, 19
courts-martial, 2 men punished; 4-35 defaulters, 4 courts-
martial, 2 men punished ; 5,-21 defaulters, 1 court-
martial, 1 man punished ; 6,---W defaulters, 16 courts-
martial, 3 men punished; and, except in two cases, no
punishment was inflicted exceeding 100 lashes. He there-
fore contended that there was no abuse whatever of the
s) stem. The Noble Lord had referred to the French
army ; but he ought to take into consideration, which
he had not done, the difference be n--the manner in
which the French and the British army was constituted.
The Noble Lord proposed to punish with the lash drunk-
enness on actual duty, theft, fraud, or assault with an in-
tent to commit felony; but he had wholly forgotten
mutinies, disobedience of orders, or a sentinel sleeping
on his post. Now, with respect to this petty pilfering
of one soldier from another, he ought to have known the
articles of war consigned offenders of that class to the
civil power. An officer could not, if he wished it, punish
a soldier by flogging, for an attempt to commit a robbery.
Mr. WILBRAHAM strongly condemnbd the practice of
flogging.
Mr. WARBURTON was sorry that the suggestion
which his Hon. Friend the Member for Montrose made
last Session had not been attended to. The suggestion he
referred to was, that flogging should be confined to regi-
ments on foreign service. He thought this suggestion
well deserving the attention of the House. _ _

An Hon. &EMBER (whose "name we could not learn)
said, that Hon. Gentlemen ought not to forget of what class
of persons the army was composed. Some of them were
wayward and disorderly, and a great portion of them
exactly at the age when men's passions were the strongest,
and most ungovernable. Physically speaking, the army
was the most uncontroulable body in the community. It
was therefore absolutely necessary that such men should be
restrained by a very severe code of laws.
Mr. HUME said it was not proposed to destroy the dis-
cipline of the Army, but to uphold it by less brutal and
degrading weans._ _ _

Colonel WOOD admitted that this kind of punishment,
as far as old soldiers were concerned, never corrected the
offence for which it was inflicted ; but then it frequently
deterred others from committing the same offence.
Sir 11. VIVIAN explained.
Lord P,ALMERSTON said it was a great mistake to
suppose that corporal punishment did not prevail in foreign
armies. Foreign soldiers were subject to blows and stripes,
and the only difference between them and ours was, that
in the one' case this species of punishment was inflicted
with trial,. and in the other without trial. Many of the
substitutes for this punishment in foreign countries would
not be tolerated in England. If our soldiers were seen
parading the streets with cannon-balls chained to their
legs, he was quite sure that such a spectacle would be
Much more revolting than the present system. But to
come at once to the proposition of the Noble Lord. The
Noble Lord wished to abolish all corporal punishments,
except for certain' offences named in the clause. Now, the
Mutiny Act and the Articles of War said, " Go to the
civil power whenever it is possible," and the cases in which
this was not possible, were the very cases in which the
Noble Lord wished to do away with corporal punishment.
--(Hear, hear.)--The Noble Lord's proposition involved
an impossibility ; and he thought that it would be better
to say that there should be no punishment but death, and
take away' corporal punishment altogether, rather than
make such dangerous exclusions as these.
General DUFF protested against any hasty
attempts to
re-model an army which had driven the invincible legions
of France from one end of the world to the other.

The House was then cleared ;hut no division took place,
and the amendment was negatived.
On our return to the gallery we found
Sir JOHN WROTTESLEY on h's legs, objecting
to a charge of 45,000/. for the service of the commissariat.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said

that a considerable part of the 45,000/. was paid for the
maintenance of the commissariat establishment abroad.

The report of the Marine Mutiny Bill was received,
and ordered to be further considered to-morrow (this day.)

_
STAMP DUTIES' BILL.
On the motion for a Committee of the whole House on
the Stamp Duties' Bill,
Mr. WARBURTON begged to have some explanation
of the nature of the Bill, of which at present he was en-
tirely ignorant.

111r.DAWSON said that the Bill was meant to apply
itself chiefly to policies of insurance.

Mr. WARBURTON said that if much care was not
taken, the effect of the Bill would be to prevent all insur-
ance offices from insuring merchandise in different situa-
tions, without what was called the " average clause." Such
a result would be very mischievous to commercial men ;
and he (Mr. Warburton) could wish that the Bill was
postponed.

- Air. DAWSON was perfectly willing to postpone the
Bill. He wished, however, that it should be allowed to go
through the Committee pro forma.
The Bill then went through the Committee.