laebatest atilt 3roceellings1 in Parliament. 1. THE IRISH POLICE.

In the House of Peers, on Tuesday, Lord DUNCANNON moved the second reading of the Irish Constabulary Bill. He explained the chief provisions of the measure very briefly, and in a tone of voice scarcely audible. He was understood to say that it was very nearly the same bill their Lordships rejected last year, in consequence of the late period of the session at which it arrived from the House of Commons. Its object was to transfer from the Magistrates to the Lord-Lieutenant the power of appointing the armed policemen in Ireland, and to extend and remodel the whole force.

Lord HADDINOTON said, that so far from this bill being nearly the same as that of last year, he should have thought it impossible that per- sons having the same object in view could have framed two measures so very unlike each other— It would be in the recollection of their Lordships. that last session of Parlia- ment was followed up during the recess by a great deal of itinerant oratory and agitation ; the object of the chief performer being to incite the mind of the people against that House, to misrepresent all their motives and proceedings, to hold them up to public scorn and detestation, and to call for a reform—which, in other words, was equivalent to an abolition—of the House of Lords. Now, though un- doubtedly they did not generally join in that cry, yet there were two person- ages, very high in his Itlajesty's Government, wearing silk gowns, and by pro- fession conservators of the public peace—he alluded to the Solicitor-General of England—(Lord Lyndhurst—" Attorney-General "J—yes, the Attorney- General of England, who addressed at that time his worthy constituents of the city of Edinburgh, and Mr. Attorney-General of Ireland, who proceeded to harangue his constituents of Dungarvan. In the course of their speeches they dealt very hardly with that House, and thereby gave a good deal of weight and currency to the abuse and vulgar slang which hail been levelled at their Lord- ships. The English Attorney-General did not, he believed, advert to the Con- stabulary Bill, though he did to other measures which their Lordships had thrown Out. But the Attorney-General for Ireland naturally went over all those measures which related to that country. Amongst other things, the learned gentleman said, " lie could see no solid reason for the rejection of the Constabulary Bill ; " and he further asserted, " that it was an economical mea- sure, the object of which was to reduce the expense of the Police force." On that point he would say, with great deference to the learned geutlenian, that he was entirely mistaken. The learned gentleman further observed " that the measure would render the Police much more effective ; and he could not, there- fore, see why it had been rejected." There was, he added, a clause in the bill against.the admission into the Police of persons who had taken an oath as Orange- men, or who were connected with secret societies ; and the learned gentleman in- ferred that the bill was rejected on account of that provision. This declaration was followed by groans on the part of those whom the learned gentleman addressed, who thus manifested their indignation at the course which their Lordships had adopted.

The real motives, however, for the rejection of the measure, were short and simple. The bill was introduced into the other House of Parliament on the 10th of August, and was brought up to their Lord- ships' House on the 20th of August. The House of Commons had passed the bill with little or no examination ; but their Lordships did not think it right to pass in a hurry a bill of such importance without having duly considered it ; and therefore they threw it out. If any other justification of the rejection of the bill was required, it was fur- nished by the bill now before the House ; for if the present was a good measure, that of last year was one of the most useless and slovenly pieces of legislation that was ever known. He went on to examine the bill in detail, pointing out several clauses, which were materially different from the provisions of the former bill, and objecting to some of them, especially the 10th clause, which prohibited the police from aiding in the collection of rent or tithe except in cases where actual violence had occurred. The expense which would be occasioned by the bill and the patronage it would place in the hands of Ministers were animadverted on by Lord Haddington- The bill of last year proposed one Inspector-General, with 10001 per annum. They now bad an Inspector-General with 15001. That was a point on which they ought to receive sonic explanation. Then, by the former bill, there was only to be one Deputy-Inspector, at 6001. a year; there were now to be two Deputy-Inspectors at WU. a year each. He would however say, that whether there were one or two Deputy-Inspectors, he did not think that a salary of 800/. was too much. One gentleman, Major Warburton, had, he un- derstood, been appointed a Deputy-Inspector; and of that individual he felt bound to state, that if Government had searched all through Ireland, they could not have selected an individual better calculated to fill the situation efficiently. According to the former bill, they were to have 33 County Inspectors, 32 for the counties, and one for the county of the city of Cork, each to receive 300/. a year, making an aggregate of 9,9001. per annum ; but by this bill they were to have 42 inspectors, not at 3001., but at 5001. a year, raising the expense to 21,000/. per annum. Sure he was that the increase of number and the in- crease of amount of salary was a subject which required investigation, and which ought to be maturely considered, before their Lordships agreed to confer such enormous patronage on the Government. The expense of last year's measure would have been 3-10,6001. ; but the cost of that now before the House was estimated at 407,0801. - He felt strong repugnance to depriving the Magistracy of the appointment of the Policemen—

He would not dissemble that he entertained a very great distrust of this measure —a distrust which, from the comparison he had made, appeared to him to be well founded,—that constitutional distrust which every

man might fairly experience, and which it was the duty of both Houses of Parliament to enter- tain, when they saw such a lavish abuse of patronage. Looking to the situation of the present Government, he confessed that he was unwilling to place any considerable degree of patronage in their hands; not indeed from any distrust of them, but from a deep distrust of the designs of those without whose at they would not be able to main in o'fice or e hour.

After a few words from Lord DUNGANNON and the Earl of BANDON, Lord IIATHERTON said, that if the subject were fairly inquired into, the necessity of the bill would become apparent. There was no essential difference between the bill of last year and that which they were dis- cussing. The principle and object of both measures were the same,— namely, the concentration under one head of the whole Police force of

Ireland—

Where there were four Inspectors-General, great discrepancy of practice must necessarily take place, and considerable delay Intuit occur in cruses where td all things despatch was most desirable. If aid were wanted, a message must be sent by the chief constable to the Secretary of State, who must communi- cate with one of the Inspectors-General, and this last to the flicer imme- diately limier him. But by the mode now proposed, an immediate communi- cation would be secured. Another object of the last bill was to create a superannuation fund : that also was one of the objects contemplated by the present. And, looking to the great saving which would be by that plan efficted, he believed it would be found:that any additional charge %%Inch might be created by increased salaries would be more than provided for by jhe enactment which nude the members of the Constabulary force subscribe to their own superannuation fund. Another object wax, to insure, whenever it was nem- sary, an immediate increase of the Constabulary force. That coital not be done as the law at present stood; but the measure now proposed obviated the difficulty.

With respect to the employment of the Police in the collection of tithe, the clause in the bill which Lord Haddipgton objected to was taken from the 7th and 8th of George IV., culled the Petty. Sessions Act. He thought that the Government was justified in withholding the assistance of the Police from the collection of tithe ; for matters had arrived at such a state in Ireland, that no power on earth could compel the payment of tithes ; and it was the duty of Government to bear this in mind in framing any new regulations for the Police.

The Duke of WELLINGTON dwelt upon the great increase of expense which the new system would entail upon the landlords ; who would be deprived of the assistance of the Police on many occasions where they could now resort to it, and were still obliged to pay more for the less efficient aid. He calculated that the expense of the remodelled force would be 425,000t or 200,000/. more than that of the present sys- tem. Ile also protested against the enormous patronage which the bill would place in the hands of Government. The clause in the 7th and 8th George IV., to which Lord Hatherton referred, restricted the Magistrates in Petty Sessions from sanctioning the use of the Police in certain cases; but the 10th clause of this bill extended the restric- tion to the Quarter-sessions. Ile would not oppose the second read- ing of the bill, but in Committee would call attention to the 10th clause.

Lord WICKLOW denied that there was any occasion for so extensive a change as the bill would effect—

There could be no doubt that the real object of the measure was to introduce a great number of Roman Catholics into the Police force. Although it was not admitted, there could be no doubt that this measure was forced upon the Government by those who wished to throw power into the hands of the Roman Catholics. Ile (lid not wish to excite or keep up religious dissensions, or to maintain power in the hands of Protestants against Roman Catholics ; but he felt that he should be departing from his duty if he did not protest against in- trusting those with power who would have it conferred on them by this mea- sure. He denied that the Magistrate% deserved any thing like reprehension for the course they had pursued with regard to the Police force. On the contrary, he was satisfied that their conduct had been most exemplary, and deserving the highest commendation. The present bill deprived them of power, and gave it to the Lord-Lieutenant for the time being. Juiced, it gave such power to the Lord-Lieutenant as ought not to be intrusted to any one in a free country,—a power which went beyond the extent of improving the Police, and even to that of creating a permanent standing army in the country. In this country, the King had not the power of increasing or arranging the number of his army, which was done by an annual vote in Parliament ; but there was no limitation in this bill, and the Lord-Lieutenant might increase the number of the Police at his will and pleasure. There was nothing in this bill also to prevent the Lord-Lieutenant from throwing a greater or less burden on a more or less fa- voured county, thus giving and creating a most objectionable species of influence.

Lord WINCHILSEA expressed his determination to oppose the 10th clause in Committee.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY entirely agreed with the expressions of distrust which bad fallen from other noble lords with respect to his Majesty's Ministers—

If the powers asked for by this bill were granted, they would be at the dis- posal of one individual, whose baneful iufluencclwas already too deeply felt in Ireland. ( Cheers.) Ile had within a few days received a letter from a gen- tleman residing in the county of Armagh, describing the manner in which the Government patronage was disposed of in that part of the country, and that nothing but a system of O'Connellism pervaded the whole of the appointments that had been made, both in the Police and in the law ; and this, the writer of the letter says, would be clearly shown, if returns of those appointments were moved for. By these returns it would be seen the shameless preference that was given to Roman Catholics over Protestants in the proportion of ten to one. The letter went on to state that the conduct of Lord Mulgrave had excited the greatest disgust in that part of the country—not so much on account of the preference given to Roman Catholics, but because the Catholics selected were invariably of the O'Connell party ; and the writer referred to any gentleman re- siding in that part of Ireland to confirm his statement as to the glaring O'Con- nellism that prevailed in all appointments. ( Cheers.) The Magistrates would very naturally find it grating to their feelings to have such powers as this bill gave placed in the hands of a Lord-Lieutenant who was notoriously ruled by a faction.

Unless very great alterations were made in the Committee, he should feel himself obliged to oppose the third reading of the bill.

Lord LYNDHURST asked Lord Melbourne, whether the Policemen were to be deprived of the right of voting, as in the English bill for regulating the Police ?

Lord MELBOURNE said, he was not aware that the English Police- men had been deprived of the elective franchise.

Lord LYNDHURST bad no doubt on the point. Lord MELBOURNE said, it was a subject for future consideration. Lord LYNDHURST urged the necessity of preventing men from voting who were liable to be dismissed from the Police.

Lord MELBOURNE was hostile to the principle of depriving a man of his right to vote, and could not at that moment agree to the propo- sition of Lord Lyndhurst ; but if the principle had really been adopted in the English bill, he would promise to consider whether the same rule should not be extended to Ireland.

Lord LYNDHURST Was anxious to impress upon Lord Melbourne the necessity of making the two bills consistent.

Lord MELBOURNE promised again to take the subject into considera-

tion. lie then went on to say, that as there was an intention to allow the bill to go into Committee, he thought Lord lladdington would have acted more discreetly had he avoided the topics of irritation he bad introduced into his speech, and which had no connexion with the question before the House—

lie begged it to be distinctly noted by their Lordships and by the country, that on the present occasion these imputations and attacks did not proceed in the first instance from the Ministerial side, but from the other side of the House. Lord Haddington had given as a reason why the bill was not agreed to last year, the lateness of the session. That reason might have weighed with the noble lord ; but he begged leave to observe, that there were other noble lords in that House who stated entirely different grounds—of a personal and political nature—for the rejection of that bill. Those grounds, though not noticed by the noble lord in the beginning of his speech, were yet distinctly adopted by him at the conclusion ; for he had declared it to be exceedingly im- proper to bestow a profuse power of patronage on any Government. That was a clear and undeniable proposition ; but then the noble lord added, that he particu- larly distrusted the present Government, because its patronage would be placed at the disposal of those persons without whose support the Government could not exist for a single day. He begged their Lordships to consider how far that sort of observation was consistent with reason, justice, or sense. The charge was, that they, the Ministry, were dependent on certain Members of the House of Commons for support. Why every Ministry, he apprehended, was dependent on the majority of the House of Commons for support. (" Hear, hear I ") The noble duke and the noble lords opposite knew that pretty well--( Cheers) —though they bad contrived to keep in office soine time—hours or weeks— against a majority of the other House. (" Hear, hear I ") Well, then, the Ministry being dependent on the majority of the I louse of Commons, they were necessarily dependent on the Members of that House; and they were necessarily dependent, pro taut°, on every individual : but that the present Ministry was more dependent on one individual than another in that House, he utterly and entirely denied. ( Cheers.) He should not perform his duty to his Sovereign or his country if he were unnecessarily to reject the support of any of those who were thought worthy by the electoral body of sitting in the House of Com- mons. If he did so, he should be violating all the principles of the British con- stitution under which it was our fortunate lot and condition to live. ( Cheers.) With respect to the measure itself, he would beg leave to say, in the first place, that it was not intended to dismiss from the Police a single member who had conducted himself with propriety. As to the ex- pense, he doubted whether it would exceed that incurred at present ; but he begged to remind the House, that the measure was not brought forward as one of economy, but for rendering the Police force of Ireland more efficient. Again he would deny that personal attacks and invective had proceeded from his side of the House. He had never been a party to any attacks upon their Lordships ; but he said, to quote the words of Cicero, " seiner in manna fuit, in senatu populum defenders." After a few words from Lord HADDINGTON and the Duke of WEL- LINGTON, the bill was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on Tuesday next.

2. MILITARY PUNISHMENTS.

The order of the day that the House of' Commons should resolve itself into a Committee on the Mutiny Bill, having been read on Wed- nesday, Major FaNcovar moved as an amendment, that " It is the opinion of this House, that the punishment of flogging should be entirely abolished in the British army." He supported this motion in a speech

of some length, but devoid of novel arguments. He stated his con- viction of the inefficacy of the punishment of flogging to prevent the commission of serious crimes, and advocated the substitution of soli- tary confinement and dismissal from the service ; which, were flogging abolished, he felt certain would be considered as a very severe punish- ment. He deprecated the annual agitation of this question, and stated that hie principal motive for bringing it forward was to have a district and final adjudication of it by Parliament.

Captain BOLDER() seconded the motion ; and read numerous ex- tracts from the Report of the Military Commission to prove the ad- vantage and practicability of doing away with the punishment of flogging.

Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON (the Judge-Advocate) complimented Major Fancourt on the dispassionate tone with which he had treated this subject; but he maintained that the Major had not fairly grappled with the question,—which was, whether they were now prepared to abolish for ever flogging in the British army. Nobody opposed the abolition of flogging as far as it was practicable, and the law was now marching to the almost total abolition ; but the power to inflict that punishment could not with safety be entirely taken away—

He did not think that the House could possibly do more than had been done towards the restriction of the punishment, and this could be shown from a re- turn laid upon the table of the House. By this return, it appeared that eight years ago corporal punishments exceeded the number of punishments of every other description ; whereas in the year past the corporal punishments, as com- pared with others, were only as one to nine. Could then any thing be more injut ions, at a time when they were looking to a favourable issue of what was done by the Government. than that an attempt should made to abolish the punishment altogether? to strike at the very root of discipline in the army, and to leave them no protection, no means of repelling foreign aggression, or avenging the honour of this country? It had been determined to restrict the powers of Courts-martial still further in respect of the number of lashes they were empowered to order. This he approved of ; but the question before the House was, whether they could do without the power of inflicting this punishment under any circumstances—whether it could be abolished altogether. He read long extracts from the evidence given before the Military Commissioners to prove the efficacy of flogging in maintaining disci- pline, and the danger of abolishing the power to order it ; and con- cluded by saying, that if the House should decide that in no case, at home or abroad, should flogging be permitted, be very much feared that there would be an end to military discipline. Mr. PouLTER supported the motion ; and dwelt upon the necessity of instructing the soldiery, as a means of preventing drunkenness, the acknowledged source of nearly all the crimes which were said to render togging necessary.

Colonel THOMPSON read some extracts from his evidence, published in the Report of the Commission, to prove that officers shrunk from inflicting the punishment of flogging when is the presence of an enemy. Ile was convinced that the difficulty of doing away with that punishment was vastly increased by its being allowed at all— le however, the practice were once made illegal, then he was inclined to

think that officers would boon find out an effective substitute. If the experi- ment were made of raising one or two regiments on the understanding that they should he disbanded if their officers could not manage them without the inflic- tion of corporal punishment, he could nut help believing that the discipline of such regiments would iu a short time be placed on the souudest and best foot

ing. It appeared from the lteport of the Commissioners, that officers of the highest rank had expressed their persuasion that the British soldier was iusen-

gible to the degradation of corporal punishment. Now, how could this opinion be reconciled with the account of the mutiny of the European Artillery in India, on the ground that they wete placed on a different tooting from the native troops? (" Hear, hear !") Ile win lied the House against allowing this

practice to continue, and abuses of a like nature to prevail, in the army, until the chance of such a mutiny in the army as that which formerly bloke out in

the navy was rendered likely. Was it wise and politic to allow the opportu-

nity, to a man acting under strong and excited feelings, or under the influence

uf homour, to express to the men ler his command his sense of the abominable punishment to which they were subjected in his presence? The man who then addressed them was not very easily unwed, but he could assure the I louse that upon an occasion when this punishment was inflicted, he was as near as a man is to pulling a trigger and not pulling it,—saying to his men, " If you are fools c gh to stand by and see this, I sin nut." Ile hoped, then, that the House would not hesitate to abolish the evils of such a system, particularly when the country was at their feet demanding its reform.

Lord SANDON opposed the motion ; but in a tone of voice that pre- vented him being distinctly understood. Ile was of opinion that much had been lately done to improve the moral condition of the army ; but still thought that the hope of reward for good conduct was not placed before the soldier in a sufficiently striking light.

Mr. Hume observed, that it had been asserted that the number of corporal punishments in the army had been materially diminished by the general order on the subject issued from the Horse Guards ; but

he denied that such was the fact. lle then read the order which pro- hibited corporal punishment except for the under-mentioned offences- " I. For mutiny, insubordination, and violence, or using or offering violence to superior officers. 2. Drunkenness on duty. 3. Sate of, or making away with arms, ammunition, accoutrements, or necessaries, stealing from comrades, or other disgraceful conduct."

Now, Mr. Ilume contended, this classification included every offence which a soldier could commit. There was no offence which might not be termed " insubordination" or "disgraceful conduct." He questioned the correctness of the returns which Mr. Fergusson had quoted to show the diminution of corporal punishments in the army ; and read a different statement put forth from the Adjutant-General's Office in 1813, which proved that there had been no very material de- crease in the number of floggings. It was said that the power to in- flict this punishment could not with safety be taken from the officers of the army : but this power was confided to boys of seventeen or under, who would always concur with their seniors. The fact was,

that the army was kept up chiefly with a view to provide for the Aris- tocratic classes. The hope of promotion was not held out to the com- mon soldier— In the army of Napoleon every Marshal bad been raised from the ranks. Was this the case in England ? Out of the existing 390 Euglish Generals, how

many had been raised from the ranks? Not one. It was his conviction that

until the whole principle by which the army regulations were guided was al- tered, the British soldier would never be effectively raised from his present de- graded situation. If a large proportion of the promotion was thrown open to the army generally, not only would the general character of the soldier be im- proved, but men of a much higher grade would select it as a profession. Against

the whole spirit of the Report of the Commissioners, giving the members of it full credit for the assiduity they had manifested, he strongly protested. At best, it presented but a very narrow view of a very extensive questiou. Among other iecommendations, it had given that of a system of honorary rewards fur the encouragement of good conduct. A medal to a soldier was undoubtedly a reward ; but until the more substantial reward of pay and promotion were held

out to him in addition, no substantial improvement in his condition or conduct was to be expected. It was idle to attempt diverting public attention from the subject of the present motion thefeelings of the people were now quite alive to it, and an alteration in the laws sooner or later must take place.

Lord Howie!: remarked upon the improvement which had of late years taken place in the army with regard to the system of punishment. Formerly, when any breach of discipline might be punished with flogging, no soldier, however generally well-conducted, could be certain

of escaping it. Now, however, it was only inflicted for morally dis- graceful offences ; and therefore it could not have the effect imputed to it of deterring men of good character from choosing the army as a pro- fession. As to the hope of promotion, it would have but little effect, and could not be held out as a substitute for flogging. Last year, only seventy-five commissions were given without purchase ; and he would ask Mr. Hume to say, with all his knowledge of arithmetic, what chance an individual soldier out of 100,000 would have of obtaining one ? In time of war, promotion would be more rapid ; but still the power of inflicting corporal punishment could not be done away with on that account.

For it must be recollected, that the stimulus of rewatds and promotions was addressed only to a superior class of men ; and that there was a much greater number on whom such a stimulus would have no effect whatever. The honourable Member for Middlesex must know very little of human nature if he thought that there were not many descriptions of men who would not listen to the suggestions of reason. But too often they obeyed only the impulse of their passions. In the army, especially, he was convinced that there must be not only rewards for the good, but stern means of repressing those who were of a different character. Now, if so, what were those means to be? They must comprehend suffering. Unless it could be shown that a less amount of suffering by other means than by flogging would effect the desired object, flogging should be retained. The efficacy of the punishment of flogging had not been denied, however the punishment itself might have been objected to. That efficacy, in comparison with the efficacy of the punishment of imprisonment, was proved by the returns on the table, By those returns it appeared, that of the men who had suffered corporal punishment, rather less than a seventh had been flogged a second time; while of those who had suffered the punishment of ino priecenuent, about One iu one-and-three-quarters had been sent to gaol a second time. It also appeared, that of those who had been flogged once, only one its forty had been flogged a third time; while those who had beeu imprisuiled once, one in ten had been sent to gaol a third time.

The system of punishment used in the French army, he maintained, was fully as severe and degrading as that of flogging. He referred to Mr. Hume's evidence before the Military Commission, to show that even he was not for withholding the power to order flogging in certain cases of emergency. He concluded by expressing his conviction, that to abolish flogging was an experiment fraught with danger ; they might as well disband the army ut once ; and he trusted the House would not be led away by their feelings to sanction it.

Mr. Routs:sox opposed the motion, as going too far.

Major REAUCLERK supported the motion with considerable energy; but he spoke so rapidly, and at the same time in so low a tone of voice, that the reporters have not been able to follow him.

Sir HENRY HARDINGE maintained, that to abolish flogging was, as the Secretary at War had justly observed, virtually to disband the army. Even Colonel Evans had found it absolutely necessary to apply-„. the lash very freely and effectively. It was absurd to suppose that men of bad moral conduct did not frequently nuke excellent soldiers. As an illustration of this remark, Sir Henry referred to the fifty. seventh regiment, which had been mentioned as a well-flogged One— About thirty years ago, he happened to be a Captain in that regiment, which was commonly called the West Alidillesex. It was composed of materials recruited in the neighbourhood of London. lie would admit that, physically, the men so recruited were qualified for any daring enterprise; but still they were not precisely of that mural character which one would like to have under his command. (Laughter.) lle saw that regiment engaged in the battle of Albuera ; and he never beheld men, advancing under circunistauces of such extreme danger, conduct themselves with more heroism and true courage. But still they were so thoughtless, so irregular in their pursuits, and su food of plunder, that while they were in Portugal they certainly were very much operated upon by the Provost ; and they obtained, by their endurance of repeated inflictions of punishment, the cant name of " the steel-backs." 'that regiment went into the field, and the result was, that out of 25 officers 23 were killed and wounded, and out of 520 men :1147 were killed and wounded; and all the mu fell in the ranks as they fought, every wound being in front. Nuw that regiment, from the constitution of its materials, was cer- tainly not one of a high moral character ; but such was the enterprise, spirit, and valour of the men, that he had never felt greater confidence an any regi- ment in his Majesty's service than he did in the fifty-seventh.

As to the substitute of giving commissions, be would observe, that it was necessary in the first place to find men fit to hold commissions. The soldiers themselves declared, that the non-commissioned officers who were promoted were the most tyrannical men in the army.

Sir EDWARD CODRINGTON said, that it was an error to suppose that the mutiny at the Nose was occasioned by flogging the seamen ; it was occasioned by want of flogging— Ile was entitled to state this, because lie was then serving in the ship in which that mutiny broke out. It was once stated to the Commander, that unless he punialled the bad and protected the good, be would raise a mutiny in the fleet. That actually took place, and its real cause was the confinement of the impressed men on board the fleet.

Sir RONALD FERGUSON, after forty years' service, could not agree to the entire abolition of military flogging; though he would say, the Ii of it the better.

After a few words from Colonel THOMAS, Colonel SIIITHORPE, and Dr. BALDWIN, the House divided—

For Major Fancourt's motion 95 Against it 212

Majority 117

The House then went into Committee.

On Thursday, when the report was brought up,

Mr. LENNARD said, that although the House had refused by a large majority entirely to abolish flogging, yet from the tenor of several of the speeches he was induced to believe that a more moderate proposal would receive better support. He wished that the same punish whether many of the former would not throw up their commissions. should be inflicted on the officers and men, and then it would be sec

h ni His present design was to afford Members who were unwilling to pledge themselves to the resolution of the previous night, an opportunity of voting for u more moderate proposition ; and he would therefore move, " That no Court-martial held in the United Kingdom shall, except in time of war, be authorized to award the infliction of corporal punishment."

Lord HOWICK said, the motion was altogether unnecessary ; and it was unfair, after the decision of the previous night, to bring the subject forward again in so thin a House. Mr. O'Cososem. begged leave to enter his protest against military flogging,—a practice so odious in its very nature, that they shrunk from giving it the right name, and spoke of " corporal punishment," instead of military flogging. The discussion last night, turning on extreme cases, the ground upon which this practice was said to be generally necessary, he agreed with Mr. Lennaril that it was quite right to give honourable Members an opportunity of coming to another decision on the subject. It was a thin House to be sure, but the greater the shame for those who absented themselves. The question was not decided last night, nor could it be decided by any one division of that Rouse in opposition to a motion for the abolition of flogging. And for this reason, that when common sense and feeling and humanity were on the side of those who were defeated, the people of England, after having obtained the political power which enabled them to do so, would not long suffer so unjust and degrailing.a punishment to continue. If the responsible Representatives of the People in that House were not to pass the Mutiny Bill until the punishment of floggieg were done away with, they might, in his opinion, effectually put an end to rt. It was, indeed, a cruel infliction—cutting off the human flesh by pieces! It was a violent punishment for any crime; for ordinary offences it was at once most painful and most unjust. In such corporal inflictions there was a great inequality in the degree of punishment, because a man of a weak constitutioa suffered ten times more than one who was robust, and that for the same offence. It was ascertained in medical science, that a small wound would, in sonic con- stitutions, cause a lock-jaw, whilst the severest wounds would not produce the same effect in different constitutions. This practice, then, was not only brutal/ cruel and essentially and unnecessarily unjust, but.it was more—it was dcgrairog• The most celebrated commander of the present age conveyed his opinion of this practice by using a kind of conundrum, which was certainly not original: the French phrase was—" Cat le crime qui fait la honte, ce West pas l'tcha- faud." The noble duke translated this by answering the question of the Com- missioners whether this punishment tended to degrade the soldier, by saying, " the crime degrades him." He wondered that a man of such experience in military affairs could express such an opinion. Soldiers, when they got drunk, were degraded in the sense of the noble duke by being flogged ; but how many tf our high-bred gentlemen got drunk without being degraded simply by the offence. (" Hear, hear!" and laughter.) He adverted to what Sir Henry Hardinge lied stated respecting the bravery of the Fifty-seventh Regiment, in which there was to much flogging— If the argument was good for any thing, it went to this—that the survivors of the men of that regiment should all have been hanged. If the punishment of flogging was found so effective in the first instance, as much additional flog- ging 39 III/SSibk, 1,r some more violent punishment, would, according to Sir Ilenry Ilatdinge's view, be of the greatest service to the regiment. Sir Henry would administer the punishment of flogging just to the same purpose as the quacks praised illorison's pills, by aaying that there is no chance of their proving bene- ficial unless they be taken in large quantities. ( Laughter.) lie never would disparage the character of the British soldier. Ile believed that in determined and continuous bravery he was un- equalled— But would any man tell him, that in order to keep alive that spit it it was ab- solutely necessary that the British soldier should be flogged like a dog, :mil that our heroes should have their heads surrounded with lam els at the same time that the flesh %y:14 torn off the it b0111.9. Ile did not desire to be understood :la pressing the Ministry to make a sudden and immediate alteration. But it could out be pretended that a case of absolute tweessity for the contittuanee of this practice was established, when the House recollected that the battler, of Marengo, Friedland, Jena, and Austerlitz, were gained by men never subjected to the lamb : and if this' was the case, was there any thing so degraded in the nature of the British soldier, as that he should not be placed on the Maine footing?

Ile, for one, was of opinion that the pay of the soldiers should be raised— They could afford to raise their pay, if so large a force was not kept up in the Colooies. Why was that necessary? Because the Colonies were made our enemies, instead of being our friends. Let them act towards the Colonies as they ought, nod they might safely allow them to defend themselves. Above all things, however, he would throw open the commissions to the nten. Theme commissions were now kept as a kind of prize for the Aristocracy Much had been said of the men not being good company for the officera, supposing they were promoted. They Might out he as refined and polished as their superior officers, but lie could speak to the fact from experience of their conduct in his own country, that there was not a class of men employed under the Govern. meta, who conducted themselves with more propriety, or were more meritorious in the discharge of their duties, titan the non. commissioned officera of Ireland. The British people had insisted on taking the whip out of the bawls of the slave-owner, at the cost of twenty millions. The common sense and good W- ing of the same people would also insist on taking it out of the hands of military officers.

Mr. Cowrun briefly opposed the motion.

Mr. PFmnEarcesm advocated an increase of the pay of the soldiers, which would raise the character of the army and diminish flogging by rendering the offences which required that punishment more rare. lie was aware that Lord William Bentinek had abolished flogging in time Native Indian Army; but he had acted in opposition to his most ex- perienced councillors, and he could not allow dint he had acted with prudence.

Lord WILLIAM BENTINCK felt called upon to say a few words in reply to the observations of Mr. Pemberton, who had said that in abolishing flogging in the Indian Army he had acted in opposition to all the officers he had consulted— Now, not only was this not the fact, but the abolition in question was de- termined upon by the unanimous vote of the Supreme Council of India. With the state of the army of Madras, from a ten years residence at that presidency, he was %yell acquainted • and though he had not equal opportunities of forming an opinion as to that of bay, his knowledge of the Bengal population (of which inure than one-half of that army was composed), enabled him to form no bad opinion with reference to it ; and under all circumstances he would have been ashamed of himself, if, with the conviction he had of the perfect safety of the measure, he nad not proposed to the Supreme Council the measure which had been carried. It was well known that the safety of India mainly rested upon the Native Army, and it naturally was an object to do every thing pos- sible to secure the allegiance and attachment of the soldiers composing it. Now, in his belief, no measure more conducive to that end could be devised than that of the abolition of corporal punishments. Such were the grounds upon which lie had proposed to the Supreme Council the measure of which the honourable and learned gentleman complained ; and he left it to the House to decide whether or not his conduct iu doing so was censurable. (Cheers.) Before sitting down, he begged to observe, that on his return to this country, he had laid before the proper military authorities a plan for the abolition of corporal punishment, as far as the King's troops in England were concerned ; which plan he hoped would meet with consideration. (" Hear, hear I")

Mr. CRAVEN BERKELEY opposed, and Sergeant TALIOURD sup- ported Mr. Lennard's motion.

Mr. Watmer said, it was asserted that the severity of the punish- ment of flogging had been mitigated—that only 1800 instead of 900.) stripes could be inflicted.

But what had happened within the last twelvemonth ? That from the infliction of halt that number—of one hundred lashes—two deaths had occurred. (" No, no, no !") He contended that in both the cases to which he alluded death had been the result of the flogging. lie had examined those cases ; he had read the evidence taken before the Coroner's Jury ; and it was his firm conviction, that if those men had not been flogged they would now be alive. A capital punishment, therefore, had been inflicted— punishment infinitely more than commensurate to the offence. Was it intended to punish insubordination by death—by slaughter ? It was said that a great deal of indifference existed in a portion of the public towards the subject. Where ? Let the next election show. Let the Members who voted against the present motion boldly avow having done so on the hustings, and he was persuaded that they would not find their way back to that House ; and he should rejoice at it. (A laugh.) He had seen many of the public since the vote of last night : they had all expressed their disgust at that vote. " Good God!" they excliimed, " and this is a Reformed House of Commons! Nirhy, in the worst times of the House there would have been a better division in support of such a 'notion."

Mr. THOMAS DuNconne wished to call the attention of the House

to one point— He understood that by orders from the Horse Guards the maximum of cor- poral punishment to be -henceforward inflicted was two hundred lashes by a General Court. martial, a Lumina' and fifty lashes by a District Court-mat tabs and a hundred lashes by a Regimental Court. martial. Now, was the noble lord aware that the torture of the punishment dill not entirely consist in the number of lashes ; but that much of that torture depended on the time occu- pied in the infliction ? Ile had been informed that there were commanding officers who, since the last order reducing the amount of punishment, thought that some of the sentences of Courts-martial—for instance, where fifty lashes had been inflicted—were too lenient ; that they contrived to evade that leniency by occupying a longer time in the infliction of the punishment ; and that there were instances of a commanding officer taking out a watch and ordering the lashes to be given at minute or half-minute time ; so that a punishment which ought to have been over in five minutes, was made to last half an hour. lie did not believe that them was a single gentleman in the House, however strong his opinion might be as to the necessity of retaining the power of inflicting corporal punishment, who would applaud the ingenuity of the plan which he bad just described, and by which the punishment was rendered so much more severe ; and who would nut admit that such a practice ought to be discontinued.

Sir lioNALD FultomesoN, Sir IIENav IlannisGE, Lord llownix, .711r. CuTt.A It FrAt(iussoN,1(11(1 Sir( 11A1.111AC, till/light that lir. Dmincombe's statement was almost incredible; and pressed him to mime the officer alluded to, or at any rate to lay the case before the Conunander-imm- Chief.

Mr. Descommme said, that at that moment he would not give the name of the officer or of his informant ; but lie had perfect reliance on the

authority on which he made the statement. Ile would ask Lord Howiek or Sir I Bully Ilardiuge, whether the commanding (officer had

not a discretion as to the mode ofintlicting rorporal punishments.

The House divided, and rejected Mr. Leonard's motion, by 135 to 6i.

'file report was then received.

Last night, Mr. THOMAs DeNcomne begged the attention of the House to the statement he had made on the previous evening respect- ing the flogging of a soldier by minute or half-minute time. Ile read his speech as he found it reported in one of the papers, and he believed correctly; and reminded the House that Sir Itulemid Ferguson, lir. Cutler Fergussorm, and other Members, had called upon him to name the officer; and he believed Sir Ronald Ferguson had said, if such a man existed in the army, " in God's name get rid of him at onee." He did not, however, give till the name, as he had not obtained the permis- so.i of hi. informant. He had not yet relieved himself of that diffi- culty, fur he had not seen that gentleman since, and he could not give up Ms name ; but that person would probably come forward of his own accord. Ile had himself been required to go to the Horse Guards, and name the officer; but to this course he decidedly objected. Ile had made the statement in time face of time I louse of Commons, and in House of Commons he was prepared to substantiate it. if the !louse now called on hi In to name the bilker; lie was ready to name him.

(Cries (y" Nana', name !")

lie would begin by naming the man who was flogged in the way he had stated. Hie name was Ingrain, a gunner in the Artillery service. This indi- vidual had not only been flogged in the manner he hail described, but there were other circumstances of aggravation. A Court-martial w as sitting at lionduras, in the year Ifiatft, upon another soldier. The sentence upou that off ilder was three hundred lashes, and it had been c.trricil into effect et the usual manner ; but dining the time the Court was sitting, Colonel George Arthur addressed

the following letter to the President. "government /louse, February 19.20.

n Sir--A crime Latin;; been scot in ag.tiost elittner Ingra m,of m leta,hrneul Royal Artillery, I haVe n11111141 !din to be lielide the Court of ,ilikiu you are President, tool as this most itosdrigible bad ."Idler has several Cotes Irsot pla,as1 iu solitary confinement without any good effect, the same obscriatimis which I te.ide to you with respect to the other prisoner will apply to him, rn.nited he is found to the extent of the crime with which he is eliarge,l. " I haw the honour to lie, Sir, your most obedient liondde servant, taintoe A RI II UR, Ideut.-Col.Comtran(1ant " To Major Bradley, President of the Court Nlartial, &e." The gunner Ingram was found guilty, and two hundred !ashes were awarded, but with this circumstance of aggravation. On the 156 of Febru- ary Ingram was brought before the Court dtiartial ; but as he seemed in a very bad state of health, the Court ordered the surgeon to examine hint ; the report was, that he was not in a lit state to be trio!, and the man was sent to the hos- pital. In a fortnight or three weeks afterwards, it was reported that Ingram was sufficiently recovered : he was brought to trial, found guilty, and sentenced to two hundred lashes. The sentence was carried into execution; but Colonel Arthur, in a most unusual manner (fur it was generally 'eft to the command- ing officer) came down to the parade to see Ingrain flogged; and he ordered that the punishment 6110111d be inflicted by what was called "the tap of the drum." 'f he Howe might not be aware that the drum was not unfrequently used ; he (Mr. Duncotnbe) had had the rnisfortuue to see the sentences of Courts- martial carried into execution ; and sometimes, in eider that the crie:ii of the sufferer might not be heard, the drum was ordered to roll. ( Cheers and 71111171017 S.) Ill this instance it was used fur a different purpose; the man was ordered to be flogged in quarter or half-minute time, that being time noted by the tap of the drum, the brigade-major holding his watch in his hand. Mr. Duncombe had seen five hundred lashes given in twenty or twenty.five mi- nutes; but what time did the House think was (recopied in executing the sen- tence upon Ingram:?—an hour and a half. ("Hear, hear!") lie (IA not want to have Colonel Arthur dismissed or cashiered fur this conduct ; he had mentioned his name for no such purpose ; but having been called upon, in his own vindication, to state the case, he hoped he had justified himself in the face of the House aril of the public ; and he now dared aay piny to the. trill of the facts. (Much cheering.)

Mr. CI TLAIt FEacessos said, the case was totally different from what he had supposed it to he. He thought the statement of Mr. Duncombe referred to a period subsequent to the issuing of the order restricting the number of lashes to be awarded by a Court-martial. It was most extraordinary that this charge had never before been brought against Colonel Arthur. [Mr. DuNcomee and others said—" It has been brought."] It was singular that it had never been the subject of a practical inquiry. Although Mr. Duncombe had been justified in the statement he had made, the case did not call for immediate inquiry.

Sir H. HARDINGE said, that if this were a case in which a friend of his were concerned, although fifteen years had elapsed since the affair took place, not another hour should pass over without his demanding an inquiry.

After a few words from Sir R. FERGUSON, Sir if GAZY, and Mr. Hum:, the subject was dropped.

3. ORDNANCE AND ARMY ESTIMATES.

On Monday, the House being in a Committee of Supply,

Sir ANDREW LEITH HAY brought forward the Ordnance Estimates. He stated that the Estimates had been framed with a strict regard to economy, and as compared with those of last year presented a reduction of 52,610/. This diminution was effected principally in the expense of the Commissariat and Barrack departments. Sir Andrew men- tioned a few particulars of the sums he intended to call upon the Com- mittee to vote; and remarked upon the very efficient manner in which the Ordnance Survey of Ireland had been carried on under the direc- tion of Colonel Colby. The cost of the survey this year would be 40,0001. The resolutions were then agreed to, without a single remark from any other Member ; and the Committee rose.

Subsequently, Mr. HUME entered the House ; and amidst some laughter, observed, that although he had been accidently absent when the Ordnance Estimates were voted in Committee, he should take an opportunity, on the bringing up of the report, to advert to the subject of consolidating the Ordnance and Engineers with the Commander-in- Chief's department, by which a saving of 300,000/. might be annually made to the public. He wished to know whether the Commissioners appointed to inquire into this subject were still engaged in that duty ?

Lord Homo: said the inquiry was in progress ; much evidence had been received, but more was necessary he hoped before the end of the session to lay the Report of the Commission on the table of the House.

On Tuesday, when the report was brought up, Mr. Hume pro- tested against the system on which the Ordnance department was con- ducted ; and entered into a long figure statement with the view to prove that, with the exception of the charge for the county survey, the ex- penditure on every point might be materially reduced. By a proper system of management, the cost of the Ordnance deparunent might be reduced two-thirds.

Sir A. LErrn IIAY replied, that Mr. Ilume's calculations were in- correct ; and maintained that if Mr. Hume's plans were adopted, the result would be augmented expenditure.

Colonel ANSON and Sir T. Fassotsrrsh spoke a few words, and the report was received.

On the motion of Lord Howics, the House went into a Committee on the Army Estimates on Monday. The only vote on which there was any division, was that of 106,211/. for the charge of the Volunteer corps.

Mr. lItsms said, the Yeomanry and Volunteer corps were kept up for party purposes, and he would oppose the vote.

Lord Howie: could not believe that the Volunteer corps were used for party purposes : it was a force kept up at a small expense, and ought to be supported.

Mr. Ilems's motion was rejected, by 5:3 to 9; and soon afterwards the House resumed.

4. COMMUTATiON OF TITHES.

On the motion of Lord JoHN RUSSELL, on Wednesday, the House went projhrma into Committee on the English Tithe Bill, to enable his Lordship to propose sonic mini rial alterations in the measure. Lord John said— The bill originally proceeded upon the principle that hid:victim!: in the first instance would have to make yolantary cn raw;owents, witid■ afivrw offs were to be combined in one genetal zirrammement for time parish, and that in the same way compulsory regulations were to be applied to the piamperty of each particular person, and alterwaids to be applied to whole parishes. liut in con- sequence of the difficulties to which it way fiitind this would give rise, and owing also very much to what had been stated by Mr. Blamire, he should pro- pose that a certain number of landowners, say two-thirds, should be empowered to propose a voluntary arrangement. The bill would provide that this should he binding, on time parish afterwards, but that that should not take place before the 1st of Oetober 1837,—time period at which, he had Indio e mentioned to the /louse, the Commissioners might, if they thought lit, oi der a tithe commuta- tion for the whole parish. In either case, the landowners would appoint t wo valuers, one to be appointed by a majority of the property, the other by a ma- jority of the numbers, to applot the proportion of time whale sum to be applotted in the parish, according to the extent of particular farms.

Mr. Homes said, that as several clergy:ea n had given notice of an intention to take their tithes in kind. mia.:,1.•the belief that no bill would pass this year, lie should move for leave to tiling in a bill to render null all such notices.

Major OURTEIS knew that many clergymen had given notice to their parishioners to set out their tithes in kind.

Sir ROBERT PEEL asked Lord JOHN RUSSELL whether he intended to make any alteration in the maximum and minimum of 75 and 60 per cent. ; also, whether the applutment proposed would apply to the compulsory commutation, supposing that the voluntary commutation fsifilcd ?

Lord JOAN RUSSELL replied, that he intended to retain the 75 and 60 per cent. as the maximum and minimum; though, in the course of the discussion, reasons might be urged for altering them. With respect to the second question of Sir Robert Peel, he proposed that, in the case of compulsory commutation, the mode of applotting should be the same as in the case of voluntary commutation ; but if the parties did not agree within a certain time, the Commissioners should take steps to have an applotment made in the parish.

Mr. Hums said the bill would be burdensome to the landed in- terest, as the value of tithes had been kept up by means of the Corn- laws ; and he thought that no compulsory commutation could take place until the Corn-laws were repealed.

Sir ROBERT PEEL feared that no satisfactory arrangement of the tithe question would be made this session. He blamed no one, for the subject was surrounded with difficulties. He thought that attempts bad been made to legislate on this subject without that minute local in- quiry which was essential to success. Sir Robert went on to recom- mend his own scheme of voluntary commutation; which, he said, die machinery provided by Lord John Russell's bill, might be employed to promote. He did not think it would be satisfactory to Government to say, we have brought in th m measure, and by so doing have acquitted ourselves of all obliga- tion : the object ought to be to effect a satisfactory and permanent commutation. If it should ba found that they were not prepared to apply the principle of com- pulsion, he made this proposal, that the Commissioners under the nobl lord's bill should be appointed not only to encourage a voluntary commutatieabut to procure that information he believed to he indispensable to success befine a compulsory commutation. Let the Commissioners whom the noble lord in- tended to employ to invite parties in each parish to come to an amicable settle- ment of the question, be commissioners of inquiry with respect to the different practices prevailing in different parts of the country. Suppose that voluntary commutation failed—then the objection now urged with some force against his bill, as making no provision for compulsion, would not apply ; since, in attempt- ing to carry into effect the voluntary principle, they would be making those in- quiries which would enable them hereafter to digest a well-considered system of compulsory commutation.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL did not expect that Sir Robert Peel oul have taken this opportunity to predict the failure of his bill. He was himself convinced of the urgent necessity of settling the question this ases.siot. The notice given by Mr. Hodges proved how serious might be the consequences of delay— Ile must remind the House, that last year, after a great deal of information had been collected at various times by Lord Althorp, he (Lord John Russell) stated, that as there was much difference in various parts of the country, he thought it advisable that a Select Committee of the House should sit, in which members from different parts of the country would have au opportunity of meeting, and discussing, and hearing evidence on the subject. To this Sir Robert Peel objected, and stated, with a force he (Lord John Russell) had been unable to resist, that the question ought not to be referred to a Committee, but that it was the bounden duty of him§ Majesty's Government to propose a mea- sure on the subject. The Government had considered what was the best measure to propose. They had brought forward a proposition they thought likely to answer every proper purpose; and now Sir Robert Peel said the best course would be to proceed to collect information for another year. He must say, he was not prepared to adopt that course ; and however unsatisfactory that might be, (he hoped it would be satisfactory) be should consider the bill as the measure which the Government had pledged themselves to bring for- ward ; and if the House rejected the bill, he would not say whether they were right or wrong in their decision, but certainly the result would be that Govern.. meet hail endeavoured to settle the question of tithes, but the House would not approve of the measure they had introduced.

It was then agreed that the House should go into Committee on Friday.

5. DIVISION OF LANDED PROPERTY.

Mr. EWART moved, on Monday, for leave to bring in a bill to provide for the distribution of the landed property of persons who made no will, equally among all their children, or others next of kin to the de- ceased. He was aware that several objections would be made to his proposition— Ile was aware that some of time opponents of his measure would say " that the change proposed would produce little or no effect." If so, why maiatain any longer a principle the injustice of which is not de- nied ? especially when he would show that, merely in a legal point of v'e,.v, the measure he suggested would be attended with considerable advantage? Another class of opponents of the measure would resist it on general principles. One of their favourite arguments was this that the exisming law, by bestowing all the property on the eldest son, threw the rest of the family into the mass of the people; that tims the younger branches of the arisatieraey be, ..mine a portion of the people, and were again implanted in the ,01 from which they originally sprung. This he conceived was a fal- lacy, oi-upp;itIed by theory and contradicted by expeliclice. Ile would put it to this test. Let the public ualy look to those profe:sions which retp:ire industry and talent for the certainty of advancement; let them look to the eminent pref.ssion of medicine, to the courts of law, to the judicial henches ; let them turn towards the mercantile profession : in all these laborious 4m:carillons they would find time appearance of even a single member

of an aristociatical family time exception, not the rule. But in professions where re tonage was time principal means of advane.ment—in the Army, the Navy, the Church—they would find the appearance of aristocratic naniesi finitely more frequent than where merit and toil were the was to fortune. This objection, therefore, he held to lie fallacious. The next objection sprung

from a portion of the political economists. Ile had, however, on his side, the more philosophic writers; among them, Adam Smith, Say, Sisintmmuli ; while his principal modern opponent was, he believed, Mr. M'Culluch. Time main argu- ment of this sits of opponents was, that time latv of primogeniture favoured the distribution of property into large masses, and thus encouraged the repro- duction of wealth. But he apprehended that this also was an etror. Even in France, a country where not only property was equally divided in cases of in- testacy, but where a tes,ator was restricted from making .an arbitrary distribu- tion of it, even there the effect of such a law had been in many cases, not in- finite partition, but increased accumulation. The fact was stated by M. De Cays, among others, in the celebrated debate on the Droit d'Ainesse' and it appeared from the tables, f unquestionable authority, in the work of Mr. Henry Bulwer, who had ;lily treated this subject, that the general result in France for many yeats past had only been a slight increase of subdivision. On the other hand, in Ireland, where, as in this country, the law of unequal distri- bution conminucs to prevail, the land was infinitely subdivided. The fact was, that in civilized times and in civilized countries, the division or accumulation of landed property, like that of personal property, would follow the interests of the community. The best thing they could do for it was to leave it free, not interpcsing artificial obstacles, which were fraught with mischief as well as with injustice. This bill would remedy much practical injustice— Under the existing law, for instance, if a man purchased a freehold estate, and raised half the purchase-inoney by mortgage of half the purchased estate, and died intestate, his heir would have a right to claim the discharge of this mortgage out of the personal estate of the deceased. So that the grandson of such a person (if he were the heir) might absorb in the liquidation of the claim upon the landed property, the whole of the personal property, and take it all away front the my children of the deceased. Evils such as these would be obviated by the measure which he proposed. Some might be of opinion that it did not proceed far enough. In his opinion entails also would eventually be deemed contrary to public policy. On this point opinions might vary ; but he thought that the principles on which this measure was founded were those of Mr. TOOKE said, the question involved the fundamental bulwarks of the constitution, and extended to the total abolition of that fair and reasonable influence which the aristocracy. ought to possess. He should therefore oppose the motion for bringing in the bill. It was a question which the House ought not even to discuss. Mr. ROEBUCK maintained that the House was quite competent to discuss this question. The real objection was, that the bill would go to uproot the power of the House of Lords ; but he would say, that if the Lords could not exist without accumulated property to support them, the sooner they ceased to exist as a branch of the Legislature, the better.

Mr. SPRING RICE was convinced that, though Mr. Roebuck might be supported in his hostility to the House of Lords by a party in the country, it would appear very plainly, if brought fairly to the test of a vote, that the masses as represented in that House were of a very different opinion— It was, in his opinion, a false hypothesis, it was an arrant mistake, to sup- pose that a case was made out for the destruction of one branch of the Legis- lature solely because it occasionally caused irregularity or inconvenience,—con- seqttences which he had often deplored as resulting from the conduct of that branch of time Legislature, but which were not to be fixed on as peculiar to that institution alone, but rather to be regarded as an incident to which every human institution vas subject.

Mr. AGLIONBY said, it was most unreasonable to oppose the intro- duction of Mr. Ewart's bill because Mr. Roebuck had advanced opi nions on the subject of the House of Lords with which Ministers could not concur.

Sir Jonx CAMPBELL regretted to see the time of the House wasted

in discussions of this speculative nature. In ninety. nine eases out of one hundred, the ;bill of Mr. Ewart would be quite nugatory.

Sir ROBERT INGLIS was gratified by the opposition of Ministers to the views of Mr. Roebuck.

Colonel THOMPSON said that the subdivision of property in France bad not been attended with the evil consequences attributed to it.

Mr. A. TREVOR and Sir R. M. ROLFE opposed the motion. It was supported by Mr. WARBURTON; who said[ hat it was not the less likely to be adopted at some future time because it would lessen the power of the aristocracy. Mr. W. S. O'BRIEN moved the previous question, as an amendment; and Mr. JERVIS seconded that motion.

Mr. Gaon: expressed his decided approbation of Mr. Ewart's bill; and declared that the practice of settling the landed property on the eldest son was a glaring infringement of domestic justice.

Lord JOHN Rossi:tr. opposed Mr. O'Brien's amendment; as he thought the House should give a direct negative to Mr. Ewart's mo- tion— hi his opinion, if time House agreed with Mr. Grote in declaring the existing law of descent of property to the eldest sou an injustice, it would be obliged, as a consequence, to do that which the Freneh people had compelled the French Chamber of Deputies to do, namely, to puss a law taking from the father of a family the power of committing such injustice,—or, in other words, to deter- mine that where a man had a certain number of children, and a certain amount of property, he should nut give a larger portion to one than another, but dis- tribute equally according to the laws of justice. Such being his opinion as the consequence of the proposed bill, he. should vote against it ; and he desired it should he understood, that this opposition was occasioned not by the circumstance of the motion having been Nought forward in a thin liouse, hot a disinclination to give any eneoinageinent to the principle upon which it was founded.

Mr. PEASE supported, and Mr. WYNN opposed Mr. Ewart's motion ;

and Mr. withdrew his amendment.

The House divided, and rejected Mr. Ewart's motion, by 45 to '29.

6. AVAtt IN SPAIN.

The Marquis of LONDONDERRY moved the Peers last night for a copy of the instructions issued by the Admiralty to Lord John Hay, "so far as related to their authorization of the letter sent by that officer to the General-in-Chief of her Spanish Majesty's forces.

Lord MEseoraNE cbjected to a motion of this novel character : to produce instructions to an officer as to the course of his duties, the

points of his destination, and the extent to which he was authorized to carry hostilities, was a thing altogether unheard-of. Ile hoped the House would not aid the Carlists by insisting on the production of the instructions.

Lord LONDONDERRY said, be had understood the day before, that Lord Melbourne was quite willing to lay these papers on the table ; but now, nothing could be more objectionable. This was the noble Viscount's usual course of procceeding—" in his out-of-hand manner, without considering the point in question, to give this sort of off-hand answer, and the next day to draw back." He repelled the imputation of taking part with the Carlists.

Lord MINTO said, it was understood on the previous night, that the letter of Lord John Hay, which had been already published, was all that would be asked for, and not the instructions.

Lord Hatt/Lowey wished to God that the country had never had any thing to do with either party in Spain. At this moment the country was at war, without exactly knowing with whom. Lord MELBOURNE had never intended to impute Carlist principles to any portion of the House. He had said that he felt convinced that the House would not aid the Carlists by calling for these instructions. The country had passed the strict line of neutrality ; the Duke of Wellington admitted this. It was an armed intervention ; but strictly within the limits of the Quadruple Treaty. How much further it might be necessary to go, was for the Government to decide as cir- cumstances arose. The Government felt that, upon every considera- tion of national policy, and regard to humanity, they were bound to put an end to the war as soon as possible. The Marquis of LONDONDERRY said, that the aid promised by Lord John Hay greatly exceeded what this country was bound to afford by treaty.

Lord MINTO replied, that the treaty bound us to give naval assist. ance, and the aid proffered was strictly of a naval character. Lord LONDONDERRY then withdrew his motion.

7. DISFRANCHISEMENT OF STAFFORD.

The Marquis of CLANRICARDF., last night, moved the second read. ing of the bill for the disfranchisement of the borough of Stafford. He supposed that as the enormous extent of the bribery carried on at Stafford as a regular system bad been proved before so many Commit- tees, the House would not require further evidence on the subject.

Lord LYNDHURST was not at present prepared to vote for the dis- franchisement of Stafford. There was a petition on the table against the bill, from the Mayor and Burgesses of Stafford; and it had not been usual for the House to pass a measure of this kind except upon evidence given on oath at the bar. He referred to the acquittal of the men accused of bribery at Norwich, as a proof of the danger of pro- ceeding upon evidence not given upon oath before the Committee of the House of Commons ; and excited some laughter by reading extracts from the evidence, which implicated Sir John Campbell in the bribery at Stafford ; and asking whether, without examining him at the bar, they could suppose that Mr. Attorney-General had been guilty of such practices? lie could not allow the bill to be read a second time sinless evidence was given in support of the allegations in the preamble. He had no personal or political interest in screening the borough of Staf- ford, but lie had an interest in supporting the regularity of the pro- ceedings of the House.

The Duke of WELLINGTON also refused to allow the bill, which was a bill of pains and penalties, to pass the second reading without hearing evidence.

Lord HOLLAND denied that the bill was a bill of pains and penal- ties: it was no such thing. It was a remedial and legislative enact- ment, with which the House ought to deal as with all other legislative acts. The question was, whether the House would interfere to pre- vent the other House from the disgrace and odium of being the repo- sitory of contamination and corruption. The elective franchise was a trust, not a property ; until the establishment of universal suffrage (which God avert !) it would remain a trust, and not a property. A trust abused might be revoked ; and lie asked if any one of their Lordships could deny that Stafford was the most notoriously corrupt borough in England ?

Lord .ASIIBURTON maintained that the bill was a bill of pains and penalties on individuals; and he thought also, that by a different mode of proceeding, an incorruptible constituency might be created out of the 1100 voters of Stafford. Ile would not agree to disfranchise them. all.

Lord HOLLAND, in proof of the long-standing notoriety of the cor- ruption of Stafford, repeated an anecdote told him by his distinguished friend, the late Mr. Shcridan-

31r. Sheridan, as was well-known, had represented time Borough of Stafford. On one occasion, when the election was over, he and a party of his friends and supporters met a body of the electors at dimmer. After dinner the toast of " Parliamentary Reform" was proposed,—a toast at which, as Mr. Sheridan used to observe, lie trembled, fearing it would not be popular in such a place. His astottishment and delight were very great, however, to timid it received with the utmost enthusiasm. When it had been drunk, a gentleman of Stafford rose and said, that it had afforded kiln the highest gratification to hear that toast pro- paed ; for, under the existing system, there were in the Ihouse of Commons some men so mean, so base, so lust to all sense of decency, as to suffer them. selves to he elected without putting in the pockets of their voters even a single halt-crown. (./..ou!Aler.) Lords WiNciiii.sna ABINGLR opposed the second reading. It was supported by the Lout); CHAN:a:main. Finally, on the motion of Lord LvNDucirr, it was agreed to examine wines 'es at the bar for and against the bill.

AliseerrasEgus SUBJECTS.

REGISTRAT1ON or Micros Btu.. This bill was read a second time last night, and is to be committed on :Monday.

MartniaGes BILL. This bill was also read a second time, after some opposition from Sir It. INGLIS mind Mr. GOULBURN. Sir Ronsaa Piet. gave notice, that lie should take the sense of the House on that portion of it which allowed Churchmen to be married by a civil ceremony.

131snorate OF DURHAM BILL. Last nigl.t, this bill passed the second reading, after some discussion, in the coarse of which allusion was made to the endowment of the Durham University. Mr. Ray's hoped it would, and Mr. TREVOR that it would not, be open to the Dissenters. Lord JOIIN Ilussm.t. said that this was a point on which Earl Grey differed with the late Bishop ; Earl Grey being in favour of admitting persons of all religious peisuasions.

NAVY ESTIMATES. Last night, the House voted a number of con- siderable stuns on the Navy Estimates, with scarcely any opposition.

ENLISTMENT or SAILORS. Mr. CHARLES WOOD stated, last night, that in consequence of the inducements held out for the voluntary en- listment of seamen, there never was a period in which they had entered the service so readily as within the last fortnight. Fishermen and boatmen, who formerly ran away from impressment, now volunteered to enter the service.

COLONEL ART/11YR. In reply to a question from Mr. HUME, on Wednesday, Sir GEORGE GREY stated, that Colonel Arthur, who had been twelve years Governor of Van Diemen's Land, had been recalled; not for misconduct, but because lie had served twice the length of the usual term of Colonial Governors. Mr. HUME said, that in that case he should not bring forward the charge against Colonel Arthur, founded on the petition of Mr. Gilbert Robertson, with which he was intrusted, and had intended to present the next day.

LORD BRUDENELL. On Tuesday, the following papers were ordered, on the motion of Sir WILLIAM MOLLSWORTH- 1. Copies or extracts of any correspondence between the Secretary at War and the Commander-in-Chief, with refit...nee to the removal of officers from full pay to half pay, if ineligible for being again employed ; 2. The finding of the General Court-martial held at Cork on the 25th of December 1833; 3. Also the general order issued from the Horse Guards, February 1st, 1834, re- specting that Corot-martial; 4. Copy of any petitions of Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell to the King, and the answers thereto; 5. Copy of any corre- spondence between the Secretary at War and the Commander-in-Chief, with

reference to the removal of Lieutenant-Colonel Lord Brudenell from the com- mand of the 15th Hussars.

Sir WILLIAM MOLESWORTIL gave notice, that he should call the at- tention of the House to this subject on the 3d of May.

GRINDING OF BONDED CORN. Mr. ROBINSON moved, on Thursday, for a Select Committee " to consider under what regulations foreign corn and flour in bond might be admitted to entry for manufacture, and exported without prejudice to the revenue."

Mr. POULETT THOMSON opposed the motion, on the ground that it would be impossible to prevent fraud on the revenue unless the grinding of the corn and the manufacturing of the flour into biscuits were carried on in the King's warehouses. But this was not the object of the parties who applied for the privilege—

What the parties wished was, to be allowed to introduce a quantity of corn, to have that consumed in England, and to export an equal quantity of manu- factured flour, and they said that they would give a security that no fraud should be committed. Ibis answer was, that he could not find a security against fraud. He wished to give every possible encouragement to the manu- facturing interest in this country, but be felt that they were bound to take care that they did not open the door to fraud, or even the suspicion of fraud. As regarded sugar, an experiment similar to that now recommended had been tried. Parties had been anxious to be allowed to introduce sugar for con- sumption, and to reexport an equal quantity that had been refined. The Government, in order to ascertain whether fraud could be guarded against, took an establishment in the City, and became refiners, when they found that it was impossible to fix such an amount of drawbacks as would be neither more nor less than it ought to be.

Mr. EATON, Colonel SIBTHORPE, Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, and 31r. LABOUCHERE opposed the motion. It was supported by Mr. G. F. YOUNG, Mr. Hume, Mr. Gisnontse, Mr. WARBURTON, and Dr. L USIII NG TON. The House divided—for the motion, 40 ; against it, 77.

CONSOLIDATION OF THE STAMP-DUTIES. On Monday, the hill for consolidating the Stamp-duties was read a second time, and ordered to be committed on the 29th instant. In the course of the brief discus- sion which ensued, Mr. SPRING lies: said—

He thought the arguments used on the part of his Irish friends in regard to the Newspaper-stamp were quite untenable. The Irish newspapers were to be con- veyed post-free. Upon this point be would also call the attention of those who demanded an entire repeal of the Stamp-duty on newspai erg, that supposing the repeal were to take place, and they followed up the argument used in layout of the Irish newspapers, having repealed the whole amount of the duty in England, they would be bound to pay a bounty to the Irish newspapers. He considered that his proposition had been subjected to gross misrepresentation. It had been said that it amounted to the same thing as the proposition for raising the Stamp-duty to 4d. in both countries—a proposition that he had resisted; that was, a proposition for doubling the amount of Stamp-duty, while his was one fur reducing it one-half.

TEA-Dulles. Mr. Snow: Bier, on Wednesday, in reply to a question from Mr. HASTIE, stated, that he should be prepared before the 1st of July to state whether the Robes tea now in bond would be charged with the advanced duty of :Is. 2d. per pound, or the original duty of Is. 6d., if taken out after the 1st of July, when the new scale collies into operation.

OYSTER FISHERIEs. Mr. F. T. BARING obtained leave, on Tuesday, to bring in a bill to provide that oyster-beds should not be broken up in the breeding season, and to limit the size of the oysters to be taken away. lie trusted that by this bill the prosperity of the oyster fishing trade would be renewed.

THE BUDGET. Mr. SPRING RICE gave notice, on Monday, that he should make his financial statement on the 29th instant.

BLOWING-UP OF KING WILLIAM.S STATUE IN DUBLIN. On Mon- day, Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR rose and said- " I rise, Sir, for the purpose of asking what line his Majesty's Government in- tend to pursue in consequence of that gross outrage whirl, has been committed in Dublin, against the statue of King lVilliam—( Loud laughter cad cries "Oh, oh ! ")—against the statue of that Monarch of glorious, pious, and im- mortal memory—( Renewed cries of " Oh, oh ! ")—and who has ever been held in the highest veneration by those who are the lovers of religious liberty." —(Laughter.) Lord Monerni, with an air of exceeding gravity, replied- " As yet, Sir, I have received no official details on the subject." (Loud laughter.) In the House of Peers, on Thursday, Lord LONDONDERRY charged Ministers with not exhibiting a proper feeling of indignation against the perpetration of this offence. Lord MELBOURNE said, the imputa- tion was grossly unfounded. Every means had been taken to secure the offenders. Lord LONDONDERRY asked if any reward bad been offered for their detection ? Lord 3IernoenNE replied, that there bad. Lord LONDONDERRY—" Yes! a very large one—a hundred pounds ! It was not likely that such a reward would bring such a crime to light."

MUNICIPAL ACT AMENDMENT BILL. On Thursday, at the sug- gestion of Lord LYNDHURST, and with the concurrence of Lord MEL- BOURNE, this bill was referred to a Select Committee.

BRISTOL AND EXETER RAILWAY BILL. This bill was read in the House of Commons a third time, and passed, on Thursday.

EASTERN COUNTIES RAILWAY BILL. This bill was read a second time on Thursday, by a majority of 99 to 20.

PLANS FOR THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT. In reply to some questions and observations from Sir ROBERT PEEL, Mr. HAWES, and Mr. HUME, on Monday, Mr. SPRING RICE professed his inability to give any reason for the refusal to admit architects to view the unsuc- cessful plans for the new Houses of Parliament, unless it was that the authors of those plans feared that sketches should be made of them, and published, as he believed had been done upon a former occasion. As regarded the plans to which prizes had been awarded, Lord Dun- cannon thought it better that they should not be exhibited until the Committee had definitively settled what plan should be adopted.

NEW WRIT FOR MAYO. On Tuesday, a new writ was ordered for county of Mayo, in the room of Mr. Dominick Browne, now Lord Oranmore.