The Sun. — 1824-03-12 (London, England)

MUTINY BILL. • Mr. SYKES rose on the Order of the Day for receiving the :Report of the Mutiny Bill, and objected to the practice of flog. ging in the army. Nothing kept men from going into the army so much as the dread of flogging. The Hon. Member stated that three or four years ago a Court Martial sac upon a soldier, charged with stealing some plate in the capacity of a reo- servant. Ile was sentenced to 400 lashes. The regiment marched after the man had been punished, and heti'. Towed in a•waggon, but in consequence of the excess of pu. nishment the luau died. A Coroner's Jury sat on the body, and found a verdict of" Murder against persons unknown."-From that time no steps had been taken to bring the murderers to justice. The lion. Member mentioned tins to prove that loss of lifehail been occasioned by the practice of flogging:. Colonel DAWKINS had understood the lion. Member for Aberdeen to say, corporal punishment had been executed in the Foot Guards. As an officer of that regiment, he considered himself called upon to deny the statement. The fact was, the practice of corporal punishment had been discontinued in the Guards. Every soldier expressed gratitude to the Commander in Chief for havinglimited corporal punishment ; but that punishment, limited as it had been, was necessary for the welfare of the service. He had read the statement made by the lion. Member, and sensible of its inaccuracy must declare that corporal punishment in the Guards had not been resorted to. Mr. HUME said the observations made by the Gallant Officer did not apply to him, as he did not, when the Bill was discussed on a previous night, allude to the Foot Guards. The lion. Member mentioned a Norning Paper lie was in the habit of reading, and remarked that the Foot Guards were not mentioned in the report of his speech.—(Cry of Order.) Sir HENRY HARDIN GE adverted to the statement made by the Honourable. Member respecting the beating of drums at the Barracks during a supposed punishment. He had declared that no drums were beaten at the Barracks. The Honourable Meinber had received false information from some military informer. It had been said that the pay of soldiers punished by confineiner;t went to the military stock purse. He was able to say there was no truth in • that statement. Unless some better mode of keeping soldiers in order could be found, he for one would not consent to give up corporal punishment. Mr. J. SMITH repeated the argument he used on a former night against flogging, and contended it ought to be abolished. In France thirty millions of people were governed without the lash. The only bodily torture known in France was a brand on the shoulder, which, he believed, was made witk a liquid, and disregarded. A Noble Lord had said, soldiers taken from the manufacturing, classes required the discipline of flogging more than soldiers taken from agricultural population. It was known that great improvement had taken place among the manufacturing classes, and he considered they were the last persons to require corporal punishment. Hr. G. BENNET had no doubt of the accuracy of: the statement made by the Hon. Member fur IVestminster respecting the beating of drums. Colonel TOWNSEND said it was most extraordinary that persons could not hear a drum beat in barracks without concluding it was for punishment. Colonel HARD,INGE said no drum was beaten. Mr. R..MARTIN explained the grounds on which he gave a vote against the motion of the Hon. Member for Aberdeen for doing away cOrporal punishment. It was better to leave the subject to the Commander in Chief, upon whose humanity the House and the country could rely. • Lord PALMERSTON having given his opinion on the question at a former discussion, was unwilling to detain the