The Sun. — 1846-08-04 (London, England)

INQUEST AT HOUNSLOW. Mr. B. OSBORNE wished to make a few remarks in refererce to certain proceedings going on elsewhere, while he intimated the postponement of the motion. The matter to which he referred was the proceedings at Hounslow. Several writers in the newspaper press had attacked the gallant colonel of the regiment for the flogging of the man on whom the coroner's inquest is at present sitting. Now he (Mr. Osborne) begged leave to say that that gallant officer had no more to do with the death of that man than the humble individual who now addressed them. Nay, so virulent was the feeling against Colonel Whyte, that some tapers had advocated his murder by the troops under his command. The Hon. Gentleman, the Member for Coventry, had to-night made use of these newspaper reports, and had referred to the evidence of a witness who had been examined, but who was a very disreputable character, and had been guilty several times of gross insubordination, which ended in his being flogged ; not for crying out " Halloa Sergeant," as ho had asserted.—(Hear, hear) Colonel Whyte was a most excellent soldier, the son of a country gentleman, and he felt extremely hurt and annoyed at the manner in which he had been assailed There was not a day but what he was receiving anonymous and threatening letters on the question. In stating that he would not press his motion at present, he could not avoid offering this defence of a gallant and much misrepresented officer. Colonel PEEL felt thankful to the Hon. Member for the vindication he had made of Colonel Whyte. lie had read over every atom of the evidence taken before the court-martial, and he felt justified in defending him from the aspersions cast upon him. Ile (Colonel Peel) believed him to be one of the best officers in the. army. With regard to the private's evidence, which had been referred to, that of Matthewson ; he was one of the worst conducted men in the whole regiment, and ha d previous to the occasion on which he received punishment, been forgiven for one or two gross instances of misconduct and insubordination. (The Hon. and Gallant Gentleman read a short statement to this effect.) Mr. FOX MAITLE suggested that until the result of the coroner's inquest was known, it was rather premature to enter into a discussion of the question. Mr. WILLIAMS was surprised at the manner in which he had been attacked. Ile had only stated to the House what the man had stated when examined' on the coroner's inquest, which he believed had been faithfully reported. If what the witness had stated was untrue, why did not the officers contradict it at the time? I lad they any explanations to make, that was the time for them to do it ; and they would have been published along with the man's evidence. What had then taken place showed the necessity of a complete reform in the whole system. Mr. MONTAGUE GORE felt that Colonel Whyte had been most unjustifiably attacked. If there was any fault, it was not attributable to Colonel Whyte, but to the system under which he acted. That gallant officer could not have acted in any either way than he had done. The system might be wrong, but Colonel Whyte was not to he blamed in giving it effAtt while he was acting under it. Mr. P. HOWARD was glad that steps were in progress to effect a diminution of corporal punishment, as he believed it would be the means of considerably improving the character of the army. He thought, in regard to corporal punishments, the soldier should not be placed in a worse position than the felon. He was glad that the explanation had been made in exculpation of the character for undue severity preferred against Colonel Whyte. The subject then dropped.