Star.
London, England, 1819-03-16 00:00:00

COMPLAINT ACAINST MR. WYNDHAM QVIN.

Sir ROBERT WILSON moved the order of the
day for continuing the investigation on this subject,
when, in consequence of an explanation given by Mr.
W. Quin, relative to a discordance between the testi-
mony of Mr. Gould and Mr. Carew Smith, by which
it appeared that Mr. Quin confirnied the assertion of
Mr. C. Smith, and negatived that of Mr. Gould, as to
an interview oh the morning of the 22d September,
. Mr. LAMB fON moved the discharge of certain
orders for the attendance of additional witnesses from
Ireland. The SPLAKIII le:tv,ing that Mr. Quin ad-
mitted the correctness of Mr. C. Smith's statement, •
and consequently that no further evidence would
probably be necessary upon that point, had delayed,
the issue and transmission of the summonses.
Mr. Gt,lthl was cailed in to explain a part of his testimony of
Fraley night; after which Mr. T. W. Grady, the petitioner,
was examined at great length.—Mr. Roach was then examined;
aAvr which,
Sir ROBERT WILSON moved that the minutes of
evidence taken that day be printed along with the
rest. As he did not think that this could be in the
hands of Members before the beginning of next week,
he should move that the further consideration of the
petition be adjourned to Thursday se'nnight.
This was put and carried.
MUTINY BILL.

On the motion of Lord PALYEitsrox, that this Bill
be read a third time,

Mr. 11..GURNEi" said, he could not let this op-
portunity pass, without objecting to that part of the
Bill which sanctioned enlistments for life. It was a
principle productive of the very worst consequences,
as it necessarily rendered many soldiers who had so
entered discontented with their situation. The late Mr.
Wyndham had been hostile to the principle, and had
rather substitute for it a term of years fur the soldier's
servitude. In his opinion it was a mast serious griev-
ance, that a boy of 17 years old. who could not sell
a horse, should be allowed to sell himself for life. He
should therefore move, that schedule B be left out,
and the form o& the oath.

Lord PALNIERSTON felt himself called upon to
resist the Honourable Gentleman's amendment. The
matter had been long before the House; enlistment
for life was not compulsory, and no great inducement
was held out for it, as the Huse would judge, there
being only sixteen shillings difference in the bounty
for that and limited service.

Sir R. WlLSON.regretted that he had not before
the House on this occasion some Returns, which it
was his intention to move for. He was anxious that
some further alterations should take place in the prac-
tice of the Army on the subject of Corporal Punish-
ments. A great change, he would admit, had already
been effected in the system, by the anxious and most
praiseworthy exertions of the present Commander-
in-Chief. He had introduced that great and salutary
lenity which had already been productive of such
good effects. But the success which attended this
measure, ought to be a reason why the House should
go further with the matter, and earnestly endeavour
Ito hare it done away with altogether, except in miti-
palm of the punishment of death. He would put
' rt to the experience of every Military Officer in the
House, whether, in a corps under the orders of a
Commander who resorted to severe measures, crime
did not increase in proportion as that severity was
exercised ; and, on the other hand, whether the same
corps had not become improved in its conduct ac-
cording as mild and gentle measures were resorted
'to? He would mention one instance of an illustri-
ous perionage (the Duke of Gloucester), who had set
the example, by the adoption of mild regulations ;
and with such success, that the same corps, in which
rit had been found necessary to -resort - frequently to
corporal punishments before, had afterwards become
an example to the army by the propriety of its con-
duct. It was, he could say, the same in all cases,

where the same salutary change of system had bee
resorted to. He would not go further into the nut.
ter at present. Ile thought the House must fc4
that something should be done to abolish a
which was disgraceful to the country, which tas u 7,
manly in its nature, and he would add, uil-tonhsh
in its character; for he believed it was not a ; ;u.
tice known to us until the instance of tire rj,4
Guards. The Honourable Member concll:Jed
'stating, that in a short time he should move !ts
turns of the numbers of Courts-Martial %%11ch
been held, and their results.

Mr. BEcKErr said, that when returns had
laid before the House of the numbers of Coq;
'Martial, not for one or two years, but for
a cea.
and a half, and that it had still coutinued to sart:'
corporal punishment, he thought that matter 60,
be considered as res judicata ; he was, therefore,
prised at hearing such opinions as those wh:chl,:
fallen from the Honourable and Gallant Offrez
RobertWilsoni. The Hormuralle and Gall.r::;,;:;,
was, however consistent in his opinions, to.- .
years ago he lf d given to the Public his
length upon the same subject. The gloriour triarni%!
of our armies on the Continent were in agreAts!.;;l4l
owing to the ex.ellence of their discipline, and a p
of that discipline was the system of car ral
ment. Would it then be said that this system
be altogether abolished? But it might be urged
the same strictness in this respect, which would ik
necessary in time of war, ,could net be regeir:.j.
time of peace. In answer to this, it might na. b!„
useful to the House to look back to the.progres,o
punishments for the years 1817 and 181 S. In ex.
two years, though the capital punisheneats had
creased, yet the substituted punishnivits 'rad iiicrow:
considerably, which of course must shes an
of crime.

Sir JOHN NEWPORT hope, for the care'
of the I louse with the country, that they weuldm.
put their sanction upon the proposition that it was:
corporal punishments we were indebted for thosegt
riots% triumphs which had been erected by thy
soldiery.—(Loud cheering.) He confessed it w.ail
sink that gallant body of men greatly in his esti
tion, if he thought that that awe which was proac
by the fear of corporal punishment was the grcu •
work of their discipline. So long as he should be :
lowed to raise his vcice in that llouie, he would nee
cease to deprecate the continuance of corporal p.
nishments, 'until 'more satisfactory reasons had
adduced to convince hint of their expo-limey.
Sir LOWRY COLE was unwilling to hum& hi,
self upon the attention of the How.e, but, from
share of experience he had had, he test it ineum
upon him not to be silent on this subject.—Vimr.
He should avow his opinion frankly, though th
might be an unpopular oae; (Hever, Aear,) and it w
that though he v:as unfriendly to the principled or
poral punishment, which he thought injurious, st 4
he was convinced that the At my N.:mild not have ar,
rived at its present state of disciplile, if it had no
been for the use of corporal punishments.—The Bil
was then passed.
Sir ISAAC COFFIN spoke against the practice 6
Courts-Martial, to whose proceedings the same pLh•
licity was not given, that was usual with those of Cm
Navy, He likewise objected to the mode of submit.
ting the sentence to the Commander-in-Chid, whit**
he thought, should be executed at once.