Star.
London, England, 1812-03-14 00:00:00

• but if it had been so in this country, and there yeas a
question as to abolishing it, he would disdain to pOint
out a subititute foe that which ought never to have
for a moment been endured. On the grounds, there-
fore, which he h:►d often before expressed, he would
vote for the clause..
Mr. FRANKLAND and Mr. HERBERT (of
Kerry) spoke against the clause.
The q nesition beingloudly called for, Sir FRANCIS
BURDETT rose.
The SPEAKER said—Sir FRANCIS BURDETT tO
explain.
Sir FRANCIS BUg.IIETT said, he rose to reply
to the arguments brought forward against his clause.
The.S'PEKKER said, a reply was only allowable
lon an original question.

Lord COCHRANE said he hoped that by degiees
this punishment might in time be abolished, but it
was impracticable to govern' any large body of men
without having recourse to punishment. He believed,
however, ►hat.much of the mischief as to this punish-
ment of flogging, especially in the navy, had been
caused by the influence of that House. Great Par-
liamentary interest had enabled the first families in
the kingdom to force their children into the service,
who were too young to underst Ind tl4e authority en-
trusted to them. Many of them insist on their decks
being as clean and as shining as the floor of a draw.
lug-room in the summer season, and that their kitchen
utensils should he scoured as bright as silver, other-
wise they flog severely those who have these articles
in charge. The discipline of the navy depended on
the Commanding Officer of each ship ; and if they
continued to flog for such offences, the navy must
soon go to ruin. It was going, he said, as fast as
possible.—[A hind of murmur.]—Gentlemen, his,
Lordship said, might think otherwise, but he knew
it to be true, and he was afraid they would all be
convinced of it too soon. The family interest he had
alluded to prevailed also to such a dizree, that even
the Lords of the Admiralty had lists made out ; and
when an officer went to offer his services, or to solicit
promotion for services performed, he was asked—are
you recommended by my Lad! this ? or Miss that ?
or Madam eother ? and if he wits not, he might as
well have.staid at home. He could not, however,
i vote for the motion.

Mr. YORKE ridiculed the idea of the Admiralty
being guided by the recommendation of this or that
lady, and denied altogether the statement of the Noble
Lord. How behad employed himself since he thought
pre p=r to wit! draw from the service, he (Mr. Yorke)
co.ild not-tell. His assertion of officers getting into
lie service too young, and on such recommendations,
might perhaps refer to the time when he entered the
Navy himself ; but it was now very dilf-zrent. The
Noble Lord mfgt:t certainly have employed himself
better since he quitted one of the finest frigates in the
service, for whit reason he (Mr. Yorke) could not
tell. He wound join him in voting against the Mo-
tion, for it would be positive madness and political
stickle to give up that discipline in our Army and
Navy which hid raised diem both to the highest pin-
nacle of glory.
The Bill was read a third time, and passed.
Sir FRANCIS BURDETT rose to propose, his
clause, in doing which he mado general observations
on_dmargurnenti adduced against it. With ais:seet
the effects of corporal punishment, the Hon. Baronet
desired the House tb bear in mind thateight men died ofi
it at Gibraltar, and that officers were actually dismis-
sed for refusing to inflict it. It was impossible to say
what its consequences were in the West Indies anti
other hot 'climates. Whether the House would say
that it ought to be done away altogether cr not, he
was sure that Many would agree that the crimes for
which it was inflicted should be specified, and the ex-
tent to which it should be carried, and the instru-
ments used for that purpose defined.. However, he
should certainly take tile sense of the House.
Mr. ABERCROMBY, though he did not think
it desirable to vote the abolition of the punishment
altogether, thought it very proper to know the num-
ber of such punishments by Courts-martial. It had
been properly said by an Hon. Member (Wilberforce) I
that the House should have the means of judging
what modifications might be enacted. He should, I
therefore, ask the Judge Advocate whether any seri-
ous inconvenience would occur, by giving a return of
the number of punishments by Regimental Courts-
martial, limiting it to the home sea vice ?
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON said, his objection
was merely because the accounts of Regimental
Courts-Martial did not come officially befOie him.—
All he could say, was, that he understood that cor-
poral punishments had decreased in Regimental
Courts Martial.
The House then divided, when the numbers were—
Noes 79—Ayes 6—Maj Tity. 73.
NAVY. •

When the Gallery was re-opened, some observa-
tions were passing between Mr. YORKE and Mr.Wmr-
DR CAD, relative to the Committee" of Supply which
Mr. YORK E was about to propose, and in which he
WAS to m,Are !or certain sums for the Naval Depart-
ment, particuLtrly at Plymouth. h was at length
agreed that the house should go into the Committee
tia Monday next.