The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-05-01 00:00:00

. . .
-. . . . .
. i. 30.
ON RA (0 CI 9,.., . . ,•••••.‘
-:‘,: , ~.. -::: %I.J, •6 . . . ,
not kte:,o art 4
......... 4
. ...0 . ! ....
-, ... .
_ or; itrior•j. •q . . .• 1
, l
.
. I
. I i

LONDON, THURSDAY, MAY 1, 1823.

"The Cause for which H4MPDE.& fell is the Field, and SYDNEY died on the Scaffold!"

PRICE SEVEN PENCE.

ful to the feelings of humanity that such a punishment I
should exist.

it was ltercely possible to infl'ct any other punishment with
effect. silt the principal objection tO its abolition arose
from the nikessity which there would be of substituting some
more severe punishment in its stead. If Gentlemen wished
to do away with capital punishments, they should not lessen
theausaber of secondary ones. With regard to its efficacy
on youthful offenders, he was persuaded that there was no
other puniehmett which could be devised so salutary for
boys as whipping.—(hear, hear). He was not aware that
it had been much abused, for though he had looked into the
record! of the Secretary of State's office, he did not find a
single complaint of this punishment for the last seven years.
MO (Mr. Peel) could not agree that it was worse thansolita-
rtioninemeut, for he thought this letter mode of treatment
more likely to break a boy's spirit, and sink him in his own
estimation. With regard to the charge which bad been
made against the visiting Magistrates of Dorchester Gaol,
he could take on himself to say, that the Hon. Member was
not borne out In the statement which he had made. It did

the mitigated language in which they were conveyed
has been found fault with, but he maintained that
such language was the best calculated to obtailn the
object they had in view—namely, the preservation of
the peace of Europe. If the strong language recom-
mended by the Honourable Member had been ,used,
what would have been the consequence? Would we not
be now told by the opposite side of the House, " Yen
have held strong language, you have menaced war, you
have threatened that you would takearms in case France
should persevere, you have degraded t:ngland by using
threats which you have not carried into execution, an I
you have deceived Spain by holding out hopes which you
did not mean to realise." Would not, lie asked, this have
been the language with which Ministers would now be
upbraided, if they had adopted the course recommend by
the Hon. Mover of the Address? He (Mr. W.) aihnis-
ted that the invasion of Spain by Franc: affured a justi-
fiable ground of war to this country, but- still it could not
be maintained that we were bound to go to war on that
ground alone, unless it could be proved that it was se.*
vantageous to the interests of this country. We should
have been even justified in snaking war urn) Spain when
her ships, under American colours, had committed seve-
ral injuries upon our commerce. Though we might have
had justice at oar side in undertaking the war, yet that
would not have been a sufficient reason for our adopting
it. Such was the opinion of the greatest statesmen that
ever sat in that House. In 1786 these principles were
justified by Mr. Fox, who then stated distinctly, that, in
our relations with foreign Powers, we were not bound to
break them off and engage in a war upon a principle of
justice alone ; that we should consider how they affcct•tl
our interests, and by that consideration only ought we
to be guided in the side which we should take. Mr. Fox,
in a speech in that House, declared that we had no busi-
ness to trouble onrselves with the legality or illegaliity of
other Governments, but confine ourselves to that which
was most likely to prove our most valuable friend. Similar
language was used by Lord Grey, in ISM, which appl'ed
exactly to the present question. The arguments that
Noble Lord then used, when we were assisting Spain
against France, were decidedly opposed to our inter-
ference with Spain. It was not the justice of the cause,
then (which all admitted), that should influence this
country to take up arms in favour of Spain. A
nation could not always act, consistently with its own
interests, upon a principle of generosity alone. Accord-
ing to the doctrine of an Hon. Member who spoke last
night, it would be our interest to go to war,becanse it pro-
moted.our commerce and gave a fillip to trade—whir h
he denied; but, even admitting it, that ought not still he
a sufficient ground for war, unless we were certain that,
once engaged in it, we could bring it to an honourable
conclusion. What Burke said was perfectly true, that
" the goddess liellona was not a female to be flirted
with." The French proverb, that the sword should nut
be drawn without reason, or be sheathed without ho-
now., was perfectly applicable to the present question.
Nothing should induce us to go to war, unless we
were resolved to bring it to a successful issue.—
if, as seemed to be admitted, it would be impossible
for France to hold permanent possession of Spain, it
only furnished a stronger argument in favour of the
course taken by Ministers. 1 Spain could bring a re-
spectable force into the field, and could organise a large
hand of verities, which was the force heat adapted to
waste the French army, he had no doubt that it would
prevent it from occupying more of the territory than it
actually stood upon. But at present it was known that
Spain bad not a sufficient army to make any formidable
resistance; neither did he think that she could give us
sufficient assistance, unless we at once sent out an army
large enough to meet the French, and then we
necessarily become a principal in the war. Had they re.
sources to support our army? Every body knew that they
had not; so we should be compelled to take the Govern-
ment of the country into our hands, as we did before. It
was said, that whatever the course was which Ministers
pursued, we must come to the same result at last—that in
any event we could not avoid a war. He admitted that a
war between France and any other country made us ru's
a great hazard of being engaged in it, but that danger
should only make us more cautious in the course we took.
If France, after the subjugation of Spain, should attack
Portugal, then, and then only, would be the proper time
for our interference. We before protected Portugal
against the united power of France and Spain, and at a
time when France could wield the energies of Spain.
Though France should now get possession of Spain,
could she wield it? Before she could derive any advar-
tage from that possession, she must first have gold, as
well as the concurrence of Spain, neither of which, lie
bad no doubt, she possesse I. It was contended that, in
the course of the war, the right of search would be in-
sisted upon, which would oblige us to take measures to
resist it; but it was time enough when a case of urgency
came to meet it. At present it was the best policy of the
country to avoid a war ; but whenever a necessity arose
which called upon it to assert its honour or defend its
interests, it had the means and the will to do both ; bat
before we embarked in a contest, it was the iinperatior
duty of poverninent to consnit what would most promote
its interests. The Honourable Member for IVestminater
said that we should not only go to war, but issue a decla-
ration that it was a war of the people against Kings ;
but such a declaration would be equivalent to the decla-
ration issued by the National Assembly in 1792, and
would he acting on that very principle, which all co.i-
ileinnerl—an interference in the internal affairs of other
nations. We had no business to trouble ourselves with
the concerns of other nations, till they adopted some mea-
sures which affected our own safety. He had heard in
the course of the debate a phrase " accursed Monarchy,"
which he certainly had not expected to hear in that
House, or from those Gentlemen who must have expe-
rienced that a Monarchy—he admitted a limited one—
(hear)—was the best and most certain form of govern-
ment, and that individual liberty could be enjoyed under
it to a greater degree than was known under any other
form of government. Almost any form of government
was preferable to that in which the many swayed, for he
believed no tyranny was so bad as that exercised by the
ruling power of a republic. He was therefore surprised
to hear an Hon. Gentleman use such language in its ge- ,
neral sense, without qualifying it as applied to absolute
Governments.
Mr. HOBHOLISE.—I used the phrase as it was ex-
pounded by the tyrants of Europe, not as applied to the
limited Monarchy of England.
Mr. WYNN said that he certainly laboured under the
impression that the Hon. Gentleman used the expression
in a wore extended sense. He did not stand there to ad-
vocate the conduct of the Sovereigns of Europe, yet he
deprecated the abuse of our Allies, as calculated to in-
crease the difficulties of preserving peace. It ass un-
doubtedly the privilege of Members to canvass the con-
duct of foreign Powers, and it was competent to them to
use what language they thought fit; but for that very
reason there was no manliness in saying that which was
attended with no danger, while it produced irritation
among our Allies. Some censure was attempted to be
thrown upon the Duke of Wellington, for having said
that he saw nothing in the antecedent conduct of th

Mr. CURWEN supported the notion.

Mr. CHRISTOPHER SM I CHI spoke against the Bill.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said any person oppos-
ing the measure would be suhject to the imputation,
perhaps, of not being. properly alive to the feelings of hu-
manity. However, if such an impression did really ex-
ist, it should nut prevent hint from stating his opinion,
and that opinion was most decidedly adverse to the pre-
seat motion. Corporal punishment was a salutary mea-
sure, and in many cases a considerable benefit had arisen
from it. The Honourable Gentleman had not stated it
wbat eases this mode of punishment ought to be abolish-
ed. if he meant it to extend to all cases whatever, he
(the Attorney-Oeneral) certainly felt it his duty to op-
pose the Bill. Doubtless corporal punishment was ex-
ceedingly painftd, but it ought not to be abolished on
that account. merely.
Mr. LENNARI) said that since the disgusting prac.
tice bad been abolished as it respected females, he saw
no reasoa why it. should not be extended to the other
sta. The pnoiihnetst, On another ground, %vat exceed-
ingly • odious; it was a punishment that might operate
very differently according to the particular individual
administering it, as bis feelings or prejudices might be
excited.

not appear that for the last two years, the punishment of
whipping had been inflicted in that prison, except upon a
boy of fifteen years of age, whose habits of vice were of the
most incorrigible character. The Magistrate who commit-
ted the boy desired that lie should be kept apart from the
ItomiTitrisoited ftoeurrs,
fleosttLieriesshounpold
ncodnitffaemreinntatepthiseomn.enHin,e had
tiro
gaol, and there was as other means of dealing with such a '
character but by flogging him. Upon all these grounds he
should oppose the bringing in of this Bill.
Dr. LUSH INGTON said he differed entirely from the
Right lion. Gentleman in the views which he had taken of
this question. In the first place he denied that whipping
was a proper punishment, either in the Army or Navy. It
was a species of correction which appeared to him to render
soldiers and seamen unfit for service, by degrading the in-
dividuals in their own estimation. As to its propriety in
schools. it was a subject of complaint, that in many cases it
was inflicter to en excess.—(Hear). He himself had known
many young men who quitted school, and abandoned their
prospects in a profession, rather than submit themselves to
so humiliating a punisbment. Solitary confinement in pri-
sons appeared to him to be a more severe, as well es more
salutary punishment. The deprivation of society, the ex-
clusion of friends, and the absence of comforts, together
with the opportunities which offered of reclaiming the pri-
soner were more likely to bring him beck to a sense of duty,
than the harsh treatment of Bogging. Public whipping he re-
probated, because it wounded the feelings of individuals, and
he was opposed to private whipping, because it might he
administered capriciously and unjustly. Upon the whole
he was inclined to give his support to the bringing in of this
Bill.

Mr. DAWSON considered the law as it stood at pre-
sent very salutary.
Mr. HOEHOUSE said the Honourable Gentleman
bad not answered any arguments of his Honourable
Friend, the mover of this question, for the latter had
advanced none. Hs had merely contended that some
mode of punishment should be substituted consonant to
the manners and customs of the country, in the lieu of
that odious, disgusting, and cruel system of punishment
by flogging. He (Mr. Hoblsouse) considered the pun-
ishment illegal, and he should be glad to know from the
Honourable Gentleman opposite, whether there was any
Act of Parliament which authorized the Magistrate, in
the regulation of gaols, to inflict the punishment of
whipping. It never could be considered right to permit
such an odious punishment to be inflicted " ad rofini-
tam," at the discretion of the Magistrate. And if any
measure was salutary, •loubtless the punishment of pub-
lic whipping was more advantageous than private. Of
the two, that of flogging in public tended to prevent a
repetition of the offence. The punishment, however,
was nothing more nor less than a system of torture, and
one which in his opinion an English Court of Law could
not justify. If he understood right, the Returns were
not complete, and yet according to them there were a
thousand persons punished annually, during the last
seven years. If the females had been spared out of
delicacy, by a law recently enacted, surely the manli-
ness of the other sex ought to be a sufficient ground
for them being also spared this odious—this degrading
punishment. It had been said, and mc,,t truly, that a
being who had undergone such a punishment, lost that
which rendered him an object of regard in his own and
others eyes—self-respeat. When he (Mr. Hobhouse),
some Tears ago, was on board the ship uf 1, Commander,
he noticed some men standing sentinel at the cabin door.
On his asking the occasion of so novel a sight, he was
told that all the men had been so reputedly flogged,
that they bad lest all seam of shame, and it would not
he safe to remain in the align without being 'needed.—
The flanoerahle Gentlemen opposite thought some re-
galatieek at least, was necanary in the adasieistration
of this degrading penis L Hs considered it the
most revolting to humanity and common decency of
any mode of punishment countenanced in England,
and, therefore, he should give his warm support to the
motion.

—Mr. H. DRUMMOND spoke against the Bill.
Mr. Alderman WOOD said that the punishment of whip-
ping was never inflicted In Newgate, but is the presence of
the Sheriff or Under Sheriff.
A MEMBER, whose name we could not learn, denied that
such a ease as the Hon. Member for Westminster stated,
could have happened in the Navy.
Sir THOMAS BARING thought flogging had only the
effect of hardening old offenders. With youthful offend-
ers, however, he thought it might be had recourse to with

propriety.
Mr. R. MARTIN professed himself friendly to the prin-
ciple, but he wished tee Hon Member had specified the
cases in which he would continue the punishment. He
knew eases ht Ireland where whipping was administered
' with such severity as to occasion death to the unfortunate
objects of its application. He would not, however, abolish
it altogether ; for in cases of barbarous riots such has oc-
carred at fairs in Ireland, he thought it a proper mode of
punishment.
Mr. EASTCOURT and Mr. GURNEY spoke against the
puntahMerft.
Mr. Alderman THOMPSON thought it a salutary mode
of plutishment, if administered with discretion,
Mt.-BENNET replied. Be said that if Gentlemen
who omaesed his Bill at all, comtemplated the possibility
of their being subjected to the punishment of whipptng,
they would not he such sticklers for it. It is a base, bar-
barous, and beastly practice; disgraceful to the present
day, and to the code of English punishments. What-
ever might be the fate of this Bill, he hoped yet to see
this savage punishment abolished.
The House divided, and the numbers were,—Ayes, 37,
—Noes, 74—Majority against the motion, 37.
Mr. MARTIN obtained leave to bring in a Bill for
the Encouragement of the Reclaiming of Waste Lands
in Ireland.

Mr. N. CALVERT thought if punishments of this
nature were abolished, the measure might be extended
to schools; there were, doubtless, many Honourable
Gentlemen present aho had lost self-respect, if such
were necessarily to follow from punishment exercised
upon them when at school.--(A laugh). He said be
should vote against the . motion
. . . . .

Mr. S. BOURNE apprehended that the punishment
of private whipping had arisen from females being so
treated. He believed. many instances could be produced
in which flogging bad been more effective than any
other mode of punishment. The number of persons
punished during the period alluded to by an Honourable
Member, would be found not to be in any great pro-
portion.
Mr. HOLME SUMNER would vote for the abolition
of whipping as a punishment for adults in all cases.—
He admitted, however, that with boys, if administered
with discretion, it was a salutary mode of coercion.—
As to its application to prisons, he was enabled to say
from his own experience, that the tread-mill had ren-
dered an appeal to it unnecessary. Being friendly to
the principle, he should support the Bill.
Sir ISAAC COFFIN denied the possibility of such
a case as that stated by the Hon. Member for Westmin-
ster (Mr. Hobhouse). During fourteen months that he
(Sir Isaac) was in command of the Melampus, be never
punished a man, and during the whole war he had re-
course to the punishment of whipping in only one in-
stance. The fact was, there was no necessity tor it. It
was impossible a ship's crew could be in the state de-
scribed by the Hon. Member. The circumstance could
not be kept concealed from the Admiralty, and any of-
ficer who would so dishonour himself and degrade the
service by such severe punishment would be immediately
dismissed.
Mr. HOBHOUSE, in explanation, said he did not
mean to impute to the Gallant Officer that he had caus-
ed the punishment to be inflicted. Neither did he mean
to say, that he (Mr. IL) had seen it inflicted under his
own eyes. What he meant to say was, that there were
unfortunate ships in the service, the crews of which
were not so obedient as others, and that it was his for-
tune to sail in one of them, where be had heard that
such practices as those he described had been carried on.
Sir ISAAC COFFIN acquitted the Hon. Member
of all design to allude to him personally, but when he
heard the krofession maligned, he thought himself called
upon to stand up in its vindication.—(Hear.)
Sir ROBERT HERON asserted that whipping was a pun-
ishment never exercised beneficially. It was unjust, because
unequal. for the degree of punishment was at the discretion
of the executioner, and not of the Court.--(Hear). In the
part of the country to which he belonged, the Magistrate
never inflicted this punishment. It was, besides, (men to
the greatest abuse, inasmuch as it might be made a source
of private emolument to the gaoler, the lenity or severity of
whose hand might be regulated by a doucenr. In every
respect tm thought it objectionable, and that in the present
enlightened age so barbarous a punishment ought to be dis-
continued.
Mr. N. CALVERT explained.
Mr. Secretary PEEL said, that all the information which
he had been able to collect relative to the punishment which
was the subject of this motion, lad him to think that the abo-
lition of whipping would be so dangerous a precedent that
he could not consent to the bringing in this Bill.—(Hear).—
lf it was true that it tended to degrade those individuals
who we:3 made the objects of its application, it ought to be
discontinued at schools. But if it was necessary in the at.
my, navy, and in schools, a fortiori, it should be restored
to in prisons where there were only persons who had been
already either convicted or under diargee, •ad upon whom

The Report of the Committee on the Bcer Bill was or-
dered to be brought up on Monday.
Mr. HUME asked if it was the intention of the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer to reappoint the Committee of
Accounts?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was not his intention to more fur the reappointment of
this Committee this Session at all events.

....-
The Committee of Supply %vas postponed to Friday
next. _ .

The Report on the Irish Miscellaneous Estimates
were brought up, and the Resolutions were severally
agreed to.
The Report of the Miscellaneous Services were brought
op, and the resolutions were agreed to.
Mr. BERRIES brought in a Bill to regulate the Du.
ties on certain Articles imported into Ireland from this
country.—Read the first lime.
NEGOCIATIONS RELATING TO SPUN.

The Order of the Day for the adjourned debate on
the Negociations relating to Spain being read, the
original Address and Amendment were again put from
the Chair.
Mr. WYNN rose and said that it was now his duty to
state the reasons which led him to form the opinion,
that throughout the neguciations, whether carried on at
Verona or at Paris, the interests and honour of the coun-
try were strictly attended to by those who represented
this country: It was, in his opinion, that there was no
intermediate course between peace and war, and denied
that any Minister was bound to take the advice of Parlia-
ment in the first instance. It was his duty to take that
course which he thought expedient, and be was after-
wards subject to the approbation or censure of Parlia-
ment. He was aware that the language of the Address
which had been moved by the Honourable Gentleman,
the Member for Caine, was, its effect that if a more dig-
nified language had been used by Ministers in the late
negociations, the evils of war would have been averted,
but if he looked to the note of the late lamented Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, issued in ISIO, or to the de-
spatches to Mons. Villele or Chateaubriand, contained in
the Papers laid on the table, in all these documents it
would be found that this country had distinctly objected
to the right of interference, on the pm of a nation, in
the internal concerns of another one; and with regard
to Spain, it was expressly stated that France was not jus-
tified in the course she took towards that country, and
that such a course would be as injurious to the general
in t to of Europe as it would to that party in Spain,
whose interest France professed to espouse; and, above
all, that it would be pregnant with the greatest danger
to France herself. Whether this language was a little
too strong or a little too weak, was not of much conse-
quence, because, in his mind, the conduct of nations was
guided by things, and not by words; and by whom
were these opinions communicated to the Allied Sove-
reigns ? Was sot the first military character in Europe
selected as the representativeof this conniry at Congress,
that all the influence of that distinguished individual
might add to the weight of these opinions ; and have
they not been made as large and full as it was passible
, for hie. Majesty's Ministers to mike them? He knew'

II
11

- t.t
%. A

.~

,1
. -.
p i
i 1 ,
kst4 ,?
• 1 •
1:4
4
!
• , .
. 4 x
1
t • -,"
. ,
1 t
i
.41 1
I ,
1$
C. !)
ii 1
i
1.
.. . I
. . ,
\ ,
il