The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-13 00:00:00

' -
1'
.‘" --::
','• -:-+lf
,":•;:ti..: ~,,, j -- ,',.
...
~
..,
'.:
.11.--
Wl***ftarait--

PRICE 7D.

Gallant Officer,, who had served his country in every quarter of
the world. This Gentleman bad a great dislike to corporal
punishment. During the period of two years that he had about
150 dragoons under his command, no corporal punishment had
occurred, although he had maintained the strictest discipline by
various plans which he (Mr. Smith) was not competent to detail.
One soldier, however, having been repeatedly guilty of drunken-
ness, was at length ordered to the halberds. On the day on which
the punishment was to be inflicted, a number of his comrades
presented a petition to their commanding officer, representing
that they all felt proud of having been two years in the corps
without the occurrence of any corporal punishment, and that
they should acutely feel the disgrace of its infliction; and pray-
ing that the soldier might be pardoned once more. lie was par-
doned, and erred no more. It was evident that this officer had
imparted to his men a sense of honour, much better calculated to
preserve order and good conduct, than any disgraceful punish-
ment could be. _ _ _ _

-----
Mr. HUME requested the Noble Secretary at
War would state by what Act of Parliament, or by what Article
of the Articles of War a Staff Officer on half-pny, in the situation
of-Col. Arthur, was empowered to take the command on a foreign
statiost froth .the officer actually in command?-
Lord PALMERSTON- said, that the second sec-
tion pf the last tZittigle of -Avar-,atated, " that any officer who dis-
obeyed the command of his superioi officer should suffer the pu-
nishment of death, or such other punishment as a court-martial
might order to be inflicted on him." A half-pay officer was ca-
pable of holding a local commission which gave him the authority
to which the Hon. Member adverted : and such commission Col.
Arthur had received from Gen. Fuller.

Mr. HUME asked by what authority Gen. Fuller
gave Col. Arthur such authority ? By Act of Parliament it was
illegal thus to supersede the King's Sign Manna]. Why was not
the commission registered?
Lord PALMERSTON replied, that General
Fuller granted the authority in question by virtue of the general
authority which was vested in General Officers so situated, for the
public good. The Commission did not supersede the officer ac-
tually holding the command; but only gave local rank and autho-
rity. When recognized by the King it then became valid. As
to the non-registry of the Commission, it was only the Reg mental
Commissions, giving permanent rank, which were so registered.
Lord NUGENT, adverting to the question of
military flogging, observed that the only matter at issue between
those who differed in opinion upon the subject seemed to be the
practicability of finding some adequate substitute. Unless he had
been greatly misinformed, a correspondence took place about eleven
years ago between the Lieutenant-Governor of Gibraltar, Sir
Alexander Don, and the Deputy Inspector of Hospitals in. that
garrison ; since which the punishment of flogging had been en-
tirely discontinued there. He begged to ask the Noble Lord
whether there was any objection to the production of that Cor-
respondence, and of the General Order that had been framed on it?
Lord PALMERSTON said, that as he was not
aware of the existence of any such Correspondence, he could not
say whether, if it did exist, there would be any objection to its
production.
Lord NUGENT requested the Noble Lord would
have the goodness to inform him in what office it was probable that
a Copy of the Correspondence might be found.
Lord PALMERSTON replied, that it was pos-
sible the Correspondence had never been sent home. If it had,
he conceived that it would be found in the Office of the Com-
mander-in-Chief.

•
Mr. HOBHOUSE, although he allowed that it
would not be so good a plan as abolishing corporal punishment
altogether, yet recommended making it indispensible •that the
members of a Court Martial should he unanimous with respect to
the expediency of its infliction. It had been said, that in that
case some factious subaltern'might oppose it in order to curry fa-
vour with the soldiers. With submission, the same officer would
not sit on all Courts Martial ; and if he wished to curry favour
with the soldiers he might do it at present by declaring his dis-
approbation of the punishment. If it were requisite that twelve
Jurymen should be unanimous before a civil individual could be
pronounced guilty of . any offence with which he might be
charged, surely it was not too much to declare that five Officers
should be unanimous before they proceeded to inflict on a fellow-
subject so horrid and disgusting a punishment. This, however,
would be only a palliative. The best plan would be, to root
out the evil altogether. All that he could hear, by way of ar-
gument, in its defence, was, that it ought to be so, because it
ought to be so. No argument whatever was adduced in favour
of the existing practice. In former days, it was declared that
the hors id punishment of picketting could not be dispensed
with in the army. At last, it was found out that men could be
made good soldiers without the apprehension of this dreadful
punishment; and it was abolished. It had been admitted, that
in some regiments the same men were so repeatedly flogged,
that they were called " flogging-blocks." Did not this fact
offer abundant proof that the punishment was not calculated to
make men better ? That was, indeed, notorious. In the French
Army, which might be considered as, at at any rate, the second
army in Europe, the punishment of flogging was unknown. He
was glad that the subject had been brought before the House.
He hoped it would he made the ground of a regular motion ;
and that not a single Session wcnld he allowed to pass without
discussing it ; and he was convinced that the end of that dis-
cussion would be, to convince the House and the. country that
there was no, necessity whatever for corporal punishment in the
Army. •
Sir JOHN SEBRIGHT had been connected
with the Army during the greater part of his life, and must say
that he was ready to take his full share of the unpopularity of those
who thought that it was necessary to retain the power of inflicting
corporal punishment. He put it to every Honourable Gentle
man who had ever been in service, or who had any knowledge
of military life, whether soldiers could be effectually restrained
from those irregularities which were so destructive of the dis-
cipline of a regiment, unless by the apprehension which resulted
from their liability to corporal punishment. It was dangerous
to talk of experiments when the matter at stake was nothing less
than the discipline of the British Army. If once the present ex-
cellent discipline of that army were overturned, what would be
the consequence? Many years must elapse before it could possibly
be restored. When he was first in the army, the state of the
soldier was much less enviable than at present; but his situation
now was one of great comfort, to the maintenance of which dis-
cipline was indispensible.
Sir A. HOPE maintained the necessity of retain-
ing corporal punishment, which was beneficial even to the soldier
himself; and contended, that the sentence of Regimental Courts
Martial (the Members of which were upon oath) were invariably
tempered by feelings of kindness and mercy.
Colonel TRENCH thought that the degradation
was in the crime, and not in the punishment. The punishment
of flogging adults in the army was not more disgraceful than that
of flogging boys of sixteen at school. Whether the infliction were
on the shoulders, or on any other part of the body, it made very
little difference. The agitation of this question created an irrita••
tion in the minds of the soldiers, and he hoped that the question
would be discussed fairly and freely, and put an end te.
Mr. C. W. WYNN suggested, that it was intended
to bring up a clause by way of rider, with the view of abolishing
corporal punishment, it would he better to reserve the discussion
until that clause should be before the House.
The question was now put, and the Bill was read a third time.

Mr. LEYCESTER now rose for the. purpose of
submitting the clause of which he had given notice. He for one,
as long as he had a seat in that House, would continue to notice
the subject until the practice was abolished. The practice was
defended by gentlemen who had been in the army, and as it ap-
peared, once a Captain always a Captain ; but he thought any gen-
tleman who was or had been an officer in the army, was by no means
a proper judge on the subject. This was said to be an experiment
he would admit. It had not yet been tried amongst them how
far we coui!l do without flogging in our army, and he thought the
experiment was worth making. The Hon. Member concluded
by moving the clause, but it was not then read.

Mr. \VARBURTON.—ton. Members objected
to any alteration in the practice, on the ground of experience.
This was the old argument. If a Turk were consulted, be would
say experience had shown that the bastinado was the best kind of
Government. An Hon. Member had said that we should not
flog our horns or our dogs ; but he, (Mr. Warburton) would say,

Mr. HUME contended, that the discipline of
the army would be much better kept up without flogging.
He trusted the House would consent to try the experiment of its
abolition, at least with our army at home.
_ _

Lord PALMERSTON here suggested, that before
the discussion proceeded, it would be better to have the clause
brought up and read. _ _ _

The clause was then brought up, and Was to this effect,—" And
be it further enacted, that it shall not be lawful, after the passing
of this Act, to inflict any punishment by lashes or stripe's, within
the United Kingdom, by sentence of any court-martial or other-
wi.e, any thing in this Act to the contrary notwithstanding."

- Colonel DAVIES was not friendly to the too fre-
quent use of the punishment of flogging, but he believed it Wes
reFlrted to only in extreme cases, and that in those cases it was
justified by necessity.

Sir R. WILSON, from his knowledge of the
character and habits of the British soldier, could not bring him-
self to believe that he could ever view the punishment of flogging
as in. any way connected with his happiness.—(Hear.)—
He did not see that the British soldiers were in this respect dif-
ferent from the soldiers of the continent, who had to a man hailed
the abolition of flogging as an act founded at once in justice and
prudence. He had that morning seen a work written by a com-
mon soldier, but which proved him to be a man of no common
mind. ,The writer, in alluding to the manner in which sol-
diers were generally treated, observed—that the system adopted
towards them should be one of encouragement, ind not that
of terror.; that the officers should proceed by patient investi-
gation, having a reference to the character, of the soldiers, and'
that if this course were pursued, the necessity of corporal pu-
nishment would soon be done away. He (Sir Robert Wilson)
would assert, from his own experience, that he never knew an
instance where a man was severely punished by flogging, who
did not by that means become a bad man.—(Hear, hear.)—
He had in Portugal the command of a corps called the " Lusi-
tanian Brigade." It was raised under circumstances which gave
no great promise of discipline, and in fact when he-took the com-
mand the want of discipline prevailed to a great extent. But after
some time it was seen that complete order, subordination, and dis-
cipline were established in that corps, though without recourse
being had to corporal punishment in a single instance.—(Hear,
hear,; hear.)—The corps conducted itself in tt way which did
honour to him and to the country to which it belonged. It was
some time after in Spain, and though it had to struggle with
the hardship of want of funds wherewith to purchase rations,
and to depend almost for subsistence on the bounty
.of the Spa-
'niards, it conducted itself in a manner which would do credit even
to the best disciplined corps of the British army.—(Hear, hear.)
Although he concurred in the general principle of the amendment
before the House, there was one part of it which he could not
approve. It confined the abolition of flogging to our armies at
home. Now, he thought it would be found a dangerous princi-
ple to have one law of punishment for our army abroad, and
another at home. But, though he agreed in the principle of the
amendment, he thought it would not be quite fair to the Noble.
Duke who had so recently entered upon the office of Commander-
in-Chief, to pass such a law just at this moment. Time, he
thought; ought to be allowed to the Duke of Wellington to ex-
amine the system in existence when he got the command-in-chiefs
and to see whether any improvement might not be made. Such
a vote as that now called for would appear rather a vote of mis-
trust to his Grace, which would be wholly unfounded. It might
be well to express an opinion of the House on the subject without
proc,eding to positive enactment. On these grounds he hoped the
amendment might not be pressed.

The JUDGE-AD VOCATE addressed the House,
but in so low a tone as not to be clearly audible in the gallery in
several parts of his remarks. He contended that by the statute of
Charles 11., the Crown was intrusted with the management of the
army—that, in consequence, the responsibility of its manage-
ment rested on the Ministers of the Crown, and that those Mini-
sters would be unable to fulfil the responsibility thrown upon
them, if the power of inflicting corporal punishment were
from them,

Dr. LUSHINGTON was surprised at the doc-
trine which had been that night promulgated by the Right Hoe.
Gentleman opposite, namely, that the right of inflicting corporal
punishment on the soldiers of the British Army, was a power which
Ministers possessed in conformity to the common law and consti-
tution of the land. He was astonished that the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman instead of defending this abominable mode of punish-
ment by impressing on the House its absolute neeeeaity to the
preservation of discipline, had thought proper to defend it by
branding our ancestors with the disgrace of having given to their
posterity an army to be punished at the will and discretion of the
I,Crosta, not merely by corporal punishment, but also by degrada-
tion and death.—(Hear, hear.)
The JUDGE-ADVOCATE here entered into as
explanation of what he had said, but his explanation did not reach
the gallery.

Dr. LUSHINGTON asked the Right Hon.
Gentleman what he meant by the common law of the land, if it
was not that handed down to us from time immemorial by our
ancestors? The Right Hon. Gentleman likewise asked how of-
fences were to be punished in the army supposing this mode of
punishment was to be abolished? To that he would reply by
saying, " Enact a new Mutiny Bill by the authority of Parliament."
How was the army punished at present ? Not by the common,
law of the land, not by—

The JUDGE-ADVOCATE here made some
observations across the table to Dr. Lushington, from which we
understood him to say that he had not in his speech alluded to
the common law of the land, but to the common law and usage of
the army.—(Loud cries of " Hear, hear.")

Dr. LUSHINGTON knew of no such thing as
the common law of the army,—(shouts of hear,)---and God for-
bid that in a free country like this he ever should know any thing
about it. —(Hear. )—The army, except in cues where the contrary
bwyastehneacsateidnebruy tihese
aenxdprieasswsawuthhiothrity of
appliedPatorlin, was
e
individuals
inagovernedeivil
capacity. It was not many years since an officer, with whom he had
the honour to be acquainted, told him that when in Canada with his
regiment, not a day passed without his seeing 500 lashes inflicted.
The feelings of his friend were so severely wounded by the con-
templation of so much human suffering, that he left his regiment
and returned to England in disgust ; and on the circumstance
becoming known to the Duke of York, his Royal Highness told
him that he would see the grievance which had so disgusted hint
remedied, and would take care that his (the officer's) interests
should not be insured by what he had done.—(hear, hear!)—
The learned gentleman, after some further remarks in reproba-
tion of corporal punishment, concluded by declaring his intention
never to desist from his attempts to mitigate the severity of our
military code.

Lord PALMERSTON commenced his speech by
observing, that the Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just
sat down had wasted a great deal of constitutional enthusiasm on
this subject, which it would have been quite as well to have saved
for-a better opportunity. Never had there been a greater misre-
presentation than that which had been made that evening of his
Lni,elooaurtlinds
eeGentleman,sste titihe
aut oophnpcso saitnec.i
RightL Anyenarnotei
d. p ;or
ei oennut
laewmhhaa
nod
Right Hon. Friend's speech, unintentionally he had no doubt, by
gtd,he
said, that it was by the common law of the land the King had the
right to inflict punishments in the army. Now, his Right Hon.
hadth
wase enteredsHpoe
an
Friend bad said no such thing. What, indeed, was the course
of his Right Hon. Friend's argument? That the Government of
the army was placed not only by immemorial usage, but also by
Act of Parliament, in the hands of the Crown,—that if the
House looked to what kind of punishment had hitherto been
adopted to preserve its discipline, they would find it to be eor-
pond punishment,—that the House ought, therefore, to infer that
the infliction of corporal punishment was a necessary mode of
punishment, and hence that it was sanctioned by the common
law or usage of the army.—(Hear.)—His Right Hon. Friend
had never been so foolish as to confound the common law of the
land Nvith the common law of the army.—(Loud cries of hear.)
It:had been said that corporal punishment was not inflicted in the
French Army. Now, he contended, that in the French army
soldiers were liable tea blows, not indeed inflicted by the deliberate
sentence of a court-martial of officers, but in a more arbitrary
manner—by the interference of the men. The superior officer of
a regiment gave up any offender to be punished by his comrades
with the flat of their swords. Now, it was idle to draw a die.
tinction between blows inflicted by a piece of iron and blows in-
flicted by a piece of leather. If there was any degradation in
bodily pair., it was inflicted equally in both cases.—(Hear.)—But
when a comparison was made between the punishments inflicted is
the English, and those ir.flicted in the French army, it was not fair
to keep out of sight the results which had arisen from them. The
discipline of our army was acknowledged on all hands, but the in-
discipline of the French army was so great as to have impeded
their military operations on several occasions. He should advise
Parliament, if it ever acceded to the proposition made by time
other side, to proceed without delay to disband the army ; for sure
he was, that if it continued in existence, its existence under suck,

',relaxation of- discipline Would be found incompatible with the
peace and Jiappiness of the country.—( Hear, hear.)
Mr. D. SYKES said, if flogging were necessary in
the English army, why was it not required in other armies ?
Soine officers had expressed their disapprobation of it; and he
thought it a practice which ought to he put down.
'Sir H. HARDINGE would not trespass long on
the time, of the House, as he only rose for the purpose of men-
tioning to them an authority on this subject which was of a very
recent date, and did not proceed from military men. It was an
extract from the Report of the Committee which had lately sat for
the purpose of inquiring into the state of the Penitentiary. It bore
the date of 17th of February, 1827, and stated that solitary con-
finement appeared to have little or no effect on the criminals, and
that the committee were satisfied that corporal punishment would
have much more influence over them. This committee was com-
posed of the highest and most enlightened individuals, and when
he mentioned that it was signed " Bexley," he was sure that
they would all feel convinced that he would he the last man to
sanction any unnecessary severity. He certainly wished the power
of flogging to be exercised as leniently as possible, and he was
sure that there was as strong a feeling against any unnecessary se-
verity in the breasts of officers as in those of any other gentlemen
whatsoever.
Sir A. HOPE contended that soldiers in every
other army, except the British, were subject to arbitrary punish-
ment.
Sir H. VIVIAN bore testimony to the good feel-
ing of the British officers. When he commanded a regiment of
1,000 men, he found that all at once they became extremely dis-
orderly; he sent a sergeant amongst them to inquire into the
cause of it, when he found that it arose from the men having got
an idea into their heads that Sir Francis Burdett had procured
the abolition of flogging.
Sir R. WILSON observed, that with regard to the
difference of conduct between the Prussian and English troops,
on their march to Paris, it must be recollected that the Prussians
invaded France under feelings of irritation which the English did
not. _Though be disliked as much as any one could the late
march of the French troops into Spain, yet it must be con-
fessed that they had conducted themselves there with the greatest
propriety.
Sir H. HARDINGE wished to remark, that on
that occasion the French had entered Spain as allies, but when
on a former occasion they hid entered it as enemies, they had been
guilty of the great barbarities.
Mr. HUMS thought it monstrous that the Hon.
Member should put the soldiers of the British army upon a foot-
ing with convicted criminals in a penitentiary.
_Sir.H. HARDINGE said, that the Hon. Gentle-
man's
assertion was illiberal and untrue. He had merely used
the case to show that corporal punishment was thought necessary
by persons not connected with the army.
Sir H. VIVIAN begged to state distinctly, that he
had never seen soldiers taken down from punishment because it
was thought their lives would be endangered by its continuance;
nor did he believe that in any regiment such a system would be
permitted. The Bill was then passed.
THE CORN LAWS.
Mr. CHARLES GRANT moved the Order of
the Day for a Committee of the whole House upon the question
of the Corn Trade.
On the question for the Seitaxia's leaving the Chair,
Mr. W. J. DENISON supported the resolutions
of Ministers, and he believed with the commence of his consti-
tuents. He was very anxious, however, to see the old Winches-
ter measure restored throughout the country, the departure from
which had occasioned much inconvenience. Under the existing
arrangement, Nye were obliged to import wheat by the Winchester
measure and sell it by the Imperial.
Mr. CURTEIS was desirous that the country
should return to the old system of the Winchester measure. The
present gate of things was inconvenient.
Mr. J. 'WOOD said, that the resolutions of Mi-
nisters had spread alarm throughout the manufacturing districts ;
and well this might be the case, since their first effect had been
to raise the price of corn ss. or 6s. a quarter. He hoped it was
not true, as was rumoured out of doors, that Ministers meant to
let themselves be bullied by the landed interest into laying any
further restrictions upon the importation of oats and barley.
Mr. CRIPPS gave his opinion as connected both
with agriculture and manufactures ; and was decidedly in favour
of the resolutions.
The House then went into a Committee, and the first Resolu-
tion was read from the chair---viz. that
un the duty uponsh foreign
corn when the average price in this CO was 60s. dbe
20s. a quarter, and that the duty should QU decreasing 2s. as
the average rose one, until the price arrived at 765.
Mr. C. GRANT said, that, with respect to the
spring c.orn, the ordinary measure of value had been to treat bar-
ley as or One half the value of wheat, and oats of one third of the
value. The committee of 1822 had thought that estimate rather
too low, and had been disposed to add a little to the relative value
of the oats and barley. The Right Hon. Gentleman then stated
that, upon consideration, Ministers had come to the determina-
tion of proposing a higher duty upon the importation of oats and
barley than that which was originally submitted to the House.—
What the alteration was he would state when the Committee
should come to the Resolutions respecting those kinds of grain.
The Resolution Was then carried.
Upon the moving of the second resolution " that whenever the
price of wheat should be at or above 70s. the duty shall be, for
every quarter, 15.,"
Mr. Catcaarr and Mr. CURWEN severally expressed their
approval of the intention to increase the duty on the importation
of oats.
Mr. WODEHOUSE stated that he meant to pro-
pose two resolutions in the Committee ; but he would now simply
state them to the Committee, and defer taking the decision upon
them until it should suit the convenience of Ministers. The first
resolution was, " That a certain proportion of the duty to be
hereafter levied upon the several species of foreign Corn to be im-
ported from foreign countries, shall be paid (at the time of impor-
tation) into the hands of the Board of Customs. The amount of
such proportion to be determined, both with respect to the several
sorts of grain, and also with respect to the shipment when made
in vessels of other nations as well as in those of Great Britain."—
(Hear, hear.)--His resolution with respect to
vessels oats was to the fol-
lowing effect :—" That as it appears that in of equal sise
a larger quantity of oats than of other grain can be carried, and
as the cultivation of oats is not only an object of interest to the
poor toils of England and Scotland, but of still greater import-
ance td Ireland, it should be required of the Board of Customs to ,
report, whether some arrangement might not be made by which a
limitation of the importation of foreign Oats might be secured
submitting that such en arrangement does exist at present, under
the law for regulating the importation of foreign Corn from
Canada, and that a similar one most also be supposed to have been
made last year, when Govefument resolved to admit 500,000
quarters of foreign grain."
, Mr. FERGUSSON said, tilf2t the country was
indebted to the Right Hon. Gentleman for haring determinad to
increase the duty on Oats, without which he was sure the greatest
injury would have resulted to the agricultural interest of Scotland.
Mr. PEEL requested the committee would abstain
from entering into any further discussion respecting Oats or Bar-
ley until the resolutions respecting those grains came before them.
As a proof of his own forbearance, he would net even notice the
unjust attack made upon Government by the Member for Preston
(Mr. Wood), in which he had applied the coarse expression of
" bullied" to Ministers.—(Hear.)
Mr. PORTMAN said, that the landed interest
bad cue as far as possible in conceding that 60s. should be con-
sidered ti:_q minimum price ; and if the present measures should
fail, they (the landed interest) would be compelled to turn round
on the Governme:.% in which he was convinced they would have
the support of the wit-Ole country.
Colon
a few words from el Wood, Mr. Alderman Thomp-
After
son, Lord Milton, and Sir Johd Newport, which were interrupted
by loud cries of " question,"
Mr. Alderman WAITHMAN plaind that
the trading interests were denied a hearing upon important
subject, and that every effort was made to lAA down their v
oatsoice
by clamour. The question was not now upon wheat, but on .
,—(Laughter.)
The CHAIRMAN interrupted the Worthy Alder-
man, to inform him that the question upon wheat bad not been
yet dispilied of.
Mr. A.lderman WAITHMAN replied, that whe-
ther disposed 9f, or not, the discussion for some time had exclu-
sivelyoats and barley, and not upon wheat—(Hear.
turned upca
then put, and carried without a division.
The Resolution way
The CHAIRMAN then put the next Resolution,
which was, that " whenever tiprice of bariey was 325., and
4
arter shall. be 125."
under 33a, the duty upon every cp:
meted in the strongest
Mr. WHITIVIORE deprea
terms the passing of so oppressive a law must arise out of
these Resolutions. He was persuaded that the ey-i'° of the coun-
try would at length be opened to the tremendous evils 01,15.uch a