Star.
London, England, 1813-11-30 00:00:00

MILITIA.

i.;77

Lord CASTLEREAGH moved the reading of
the Militia Act, for the purpose of submitting to the
House a Motion on the subject. His object was two-
fold; first, to extend the provisions of the said act to the
Miners of the counties of Cornwall and Devon; and
next, to explain and amend the Act, by providing
that Militia Officers, promote by the Ciown, shall
still be considered as Militia Officers, so far as to
enable them to command Militia Battalions. The
Noble Lord. after some farther explanation, obtained
leave accordingly to bring in a Bill to amend and ex-
plain, and to extend the provisions of the said Act to
the Miners of Cornwall and Devonshire.
Mr. GRENFELL made some observations on the
situation of Paymasters in these corps, to which Lord
PALME R S'l ON replied.

MUTINY BILLS. •
On the motion of the Order of the Day for the
commitment of the Marine Mutiny Bill, Mr. BEN-
NET made some remarks on the nature and severity
of military punishments, complaining particularly of
the practice usual in flogging, of inflicting se much
of the punishment, and remanding the unfortunate
culprit to he brought out again to receive the remain.
der. He doubted if the practice was legal or not ;
but if so the point ought to be made positive, to let
the soldier know what he had to expect.
Lord PALMERSTON, in reply, contended this
very seldom occurred, but that there were cases in
which it was necessary to reserve that power, as
otherwise there were men that would feign such a
state of weakness and exhaustion, as not to be able to
undergo more, and thus evade a great part of the
punishment.
The commitment of the Bill w►as postponed till to-
' morrow.

The House then went into a Committee on the
Mutiny Bill.
Lord PALMERSTON, in filling up the blanks,
brought up a clause allowing certain Officers to sit
on Courts Martial held beyond seas, which was
agreed to. •
Mr. BENNET complained of solitary imprison-
ment as a punishment inflicted by Courts Martial.
Lord PALMERSTON and Mr. MANNERS
SUTTON spoke in reply. There were different de.
grees of imprisonment, of which solitary confinement
might be considered as the most severe. These were
usually left to the discretion of the Court, and the
instances of the last sort of confinement they believed
were very few. There was a necessity, however, of
giving Courts Martial that power.
Lord PALMERSTON also introduced a clause
into the Bill, to prevent persons unauthorised from
advertising for recruits, under certain penalties.
Mr. BENNET then moved a clause conformably
to some remarks he had previously suggested, for
preventing persons, alter receiving a certain part of
their punishment, being remanded with a view after-
wards to receive the remainder, under penalty of
cashiering the Officer so offending.
Sir S. ROMILLY said, if such was the law, as it
was too often the practice, it ought to be so no longer.
—He was afraid such instances occurred more fre-
quently than the Noble Lord opposite was willing to
allow. He did not see the force of the reason assign.
ed by. the Noble Lord for the practice, for he thought
it impossible, as a surgeon was always present, that

~'...z . .

V4)lc;
a man could so felpotbanstion as not to be detected.
There wu an.eztreme degree of inhumanity in the
practice, and, if at present considered legal, it could
not too soon be discontinued. It was often used, he
contended, to induce men to enter condemned regi.
meats, and to go abroad rather than submit to such
repeated torture., Torture had never existed in this
country as a civil punishment, and, if not with re-
spect to others, was it to be allowed against those to
whom the country owed its defence He considered
the idea of a man's-otherwise escaping punishment,
by feigning not to be able to bear more, as chimeri-
cal. Ihe surgeon attending would always be able to
announce the real state of the culprit, by his pulse.
or other symptoms.
Lord PALMERSTON contended, that such a
case was by no means so chimerical, as the Hon. ant'.
Learned Gentleman imagined, but, on the contrary,
that this mode of evading the punishment was fre-
quently practised. lie objected to this clause, be-
cause it did not appear to him that any good grounds
had been laid for supposing the practice frequent--
He trusted, therefore, the Hon. Gentleman would
not press it.
Mr. MANNERS-SUTTON was as much averse
to the practice as any man would be, of taking down
a soldier and remanding him for future punishment ;
but, on the other hand, saw the great difficulty of so
framing the clause as to avoid the other inconvenience
stated by the Noble Lord. As the Bill was brought
in at this unusual season, he wished it to pass without
the introduction of any new feature. There was no-
thing to be feared from the present practice, or from
allowing the Bill to pass as it had usually done. Na
body had an opportunity of knowing better than lie
did the feelings on this subject of the Illustrious Duke
at the head of the army, who was ever foremost to dis-
courage any thing like unnecessary severity.
Mr. BENNE'I adverted to the alterations that
had taken place *already in the army, from dis.
cussions in that HOuse on the subject of Military Pu-
nishments ; and saw no reason why die Commander-
in-Chief, in this instance, should not interfere. Could
he look forward to this effect, he should have no ob.
jection to the Houses not interfering.
Sir S. ROMILLY was of opinion, that the evil
often arose from die sentence of the Court Martial;
and contended, that it was highly wrong to sentence
a man to more than human nature could bear at one
time. The argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman
against introducing any thing, as the Bill was brought
in at this unusual season, was the very objection that
he had to the bringing in of the Bill at this unusual
period of the Session, when so few were present.
Mr. MANNERS SUTTON and Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY
mutually explained ; when the clause, after a few
words from Mr. BENSON, was negatived without *
division.—.-On the House resuming, the Report was
ordered to be received to-morrow.
The Hop hill was ordered to be read a second time on Thurs-
day near, and the Local Militia Act a third time to-morrow.
Having disposed of thi other orders of the day, the House
_ _