65 66 stead of subverting the rule, tended rather the civil part of the community had a right to expect, without strong powers of control; and the question then came to this whether it would be safe to adopt the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex? An hon. friend of his said, that soldiers, when they went on foreign service, were subjected to more arbitrary jurisdiction than they were at home; and that, prima facie, they would be reconciled to this proposition. He was ready to believe, that such was the gallantry of British troops, that there was no additional severity which would influence their feelings, or in the least diminish their alacrity when called upon to take the field against an enemy. But that was not the question-the question was, whether the British army was to be so constituted, that while the men were to be subjected to this punishment when they went to colonial stations, which was the most irksome part of their duty, and the longest period of their service, that part of the army which remained at home was to be exempted from it. It appeared to him that nothing could be less expedient; and if the question were, whether this proposition should be adopted, or whether there should be a general exemption from this punishment, he believed it would be better to abolish the punishment altogether, than to make this mischievous and fatal distinction. They were told, that if this punish-the instance of one regiment after this ment were abolished, men would enlist more freely into the ranks, and that they should get a better description of men to enter into the service. He never knew that when they required men, they failed in getting the requisite number. It was more punishment had been suspended or a certain time, the privates began to knock down the non-commissioned officers, and went on to knock down the others; and that they were eventually obliged again to resort to corporal punishment. Neither the example of foreign armies, nor of our own, led him to think that the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, was one which it would be safe to adopt. However useful these discussions might be, he did hope that the House would not be carried away by their feelings to consent to abolish at once a power for the exercise of which the Ministers were responsible in the govern the particular circumstances in which a man stood at the moment, which influenced his choice of a military life, than complicated considerations of discipline. It was also said, that there were examples to prove that this punishment might be altogether dispensed with. Cases had been quoted in which officers in the exercise of their judgment, and by their attentive and discreet mode of command-ment of the country, and which, in their ing their men, had been enabled for a certain time to dispense with the infliction of this punishment. But did it follow, that if the power of inflicting this punishment had not existed, the same result would have taken place, and that good order would have been maintained in those cases? He doubted it. Moreover, he said, that these cases were exceptions which, inVOL. XVII. {T} Third opinion, was necessary for the due maintenance of the discipline of the army. He called, therefore, on the House to pause before they agreed to the Amendment; to recollect, that if they took away this punishment, and substituted no other certain mode of maintaining the discipline of the army, they might repent too late the error they had committed-they might Ꭰ discover their mistake when they had no longer the power to retract it-and would regret in vain the precipitancy of which experience had at length convinced them they had been guilty. Sir Ronald Ferguson said, that he was an enemy to corporal punishment in the army, but thought that the power to inflict it ought not to be abolished. If it were, the army would be disorganized. In certain cases-such as mutiny, and striking an officer, or actual disobedience, which he called mutiny-it ought to be inflicted; and in the case of stealing from his comrades, a man should be subject to be sent out of the country by a Courtmartial. Cases often occurred which must be tried and punished summarily. To order, in accordance with the Amendment, one species of punishment abroad and another at home would be extremely unsatisfactory and unjust. The average number of years which a soldier passed in his native land was four out of twenty. It was clear, therefore, that the soldier would still, during four-fifths of his service, be subjected to this punishment. He could not vote with the hon. Member, who, by the Motion, placed him in an awkward situation; and he would not vote against him. Mr. Rotch could not understand why the Ministers should have asked for money to build solitary cells in all the barracks in the country, if they did not mean to use them. He knew from long experience, that solitary confinement was more efficacious to prevent crimes than flogging. The House was so impatient, calling question continually, that the hon. Gentleman sat down without stating whether he would or would not support the Amendment. Sir Francis Burdett signified his wish to move an Amendment on the Amendment of the hon. member for Middlesex, he would move "That flogging should not be applied any where under the Mutiny Act, except in cases of open mutiny, thieving, and drunkenness on guard." Mr. Hume would not object to the suggestion of the hon. Baronet, as the commencement of a good change. No person justified flogging except as a matter of necessity; and if there was no necessity for it in any one point, it ought to be altered on that point. He would accede to the proposition of the hon. Baronet. The Motion was put, amended accord ing to the suggestion of Sir Francis Burdett; and the House divided-Ayes 140: Noes 151: Majority 11. The Report agreed to. List of the NOES. ENGLAND. Althorp, Lord Graham, Rt. Hon. SirJ. Henniker, Lord Sandon, Viscount Ryle, J. 1 Scott, Sir E, D. Whitmore, T. C. Williams, T. P. Willoughby, Sir H. Wood, G. Wood, Colonel F. Wood, C. Wynn, Sir W. W. Wynn, C. W. SCOTLAND. Bannerman, A. Baillie, Colonel J. Briscoe, J. I. Mildmay, P. St. J. Brocklehurst, J. Brodie, Captain North, F. Bulwer, E. L. Parker, J. Bulwer, H. L. Parrot, J. Burdett, Sir F. Peter, W, Buxton, T. F. Philips, M. Cayley, Sir G. Pigot, R. Cayley, E. S. Chichester, J. P. B. Pryme, G. Clay, W. Clayton, Colonel R. Clive, E. B. Collier, J. Moreton, Hon. H. G. Plumptre, J. P. Ramsbottom, J. Richards, J. HOUSE OF LORDS, Wednesday, April 3, 1833. MINUTES.] Bills. Read a second time:-Privy Council. Petitions presented. By Lord SUFFIELD, from a Number CHANCERY PROCEEDINGS.] The Lord Chancellor laid upon the Table the Bill for the Regulation of the Proceedings in the Court of Chancery, which he had shortly opened on a former evening. He would not do more than present the Bill at that moment, as there would be abundant opportunities of discussing its details and principles hereafter. He would take that opportunity, however, to supply an omission of which he had been guilty on a former evening, when opening to their Lordships the nature and object of this Bill. It was proposed that the Masters in Chancery should not be remunerated by fees, but by salaries principally; and that the fees for early copies, to which so much objection had been taken, should be abolished altogether. Another material improvement which this Bill would intro He Bill read a first time. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Wednesday, April 3, 1833. Returns from the Police Offices in Middlesex, Surrey, Bill. Read a third time:-Mutiny.-Read a first time: Parochial Rates; Dissenters Exemptions. Petitions presented. By Colonel BAILLIE, from Inverness, duce, was connected with the appointment | holding the Great Seal, he would never of the Masters in Chancery. It was pro- interfere with the choice of those who posed that they should be no longer ap-alone had the power of making the recompointed by the Lord Chancellor at his will mendation. and pleasure, but by the Crown. admitted, that in making such appointments, the Crown ought to be advised by the Great Seal; but it appeared to him to be more fitting that individuals exercising high judicial functions, as the Masters in Chancery did, should be appointed by the Crown, than by any public functionary, no matter how high his office, rank, and dignity. There was this substantial difference between vesting the appointment in the Crown and vesting it in the Lord Chancellor, which must strike everybody at the first blush: it was possible, though it was not likely, that a person, having no control exercised over him either by the Crown or by his colleagues, might be disposed, from private favour and affection, to appoint to these offices persons unfit for them. The effect of the difference would be, that, though the patronage would still substantially be with the Lord Chancellor, the vesting it in the Crown would prevent him from proposing persons for these judicial functions who were unqualified to perform them, and would prevent any person from being wantonly rejected who ought to be proposed. That was an omission of which he had been unintentionally guilty on the former evening. He also begged to be excused for noticing another point. An idea had gone abroad from persons reading imperfectly, or rather from their not reading at all, the existing Bankrupt Act, that the patronage arising out of the appointment of Commissioners in the country was vested in the Great Seal. Hence, a number of applications had been made to him which were extremely distressing. He wished it therefore to be generally understood, that the Lord Chancellor had nothing more to do with the nomination of the country Commissioners than any of their Lordships who had never entered the Court of Chancery. The nomination of these officers was vested in the Judges of Assize, and in them alone. They were requested, on going their respective circuits, to make recommendation of fitting persons for those offices to the Great Seal, and the Lord Chancellor had no power to nominate any other persons than those the Judges recommended. At east, so long as he had the honour of for a Repeal of the Duty on Soap; and from Nairn, for the Abolition of Patronage in the Church of Scotland.-By Mr. SHAW, from Delgany, against the New System of Education (Ireland); from the Diocess of Ferns, and two other Places, against the Church of Ireland Bill; and from King's Lynn, for Protections to the Protestant Clergy in Ireland. By the Earl of LINCOLN, from Nottingham, in favour of a Factories Regulation Bill.--By the same, from Bridgenorth, and other Places; by Mr. SHAW, from Dublin, Drogheda, and other Places; by Mr. JOHN FORT, from Clitheroe and Taney; by Mr. PLUMPTRE, from Wingham; by Mr. EwING, from Glasgow and Rye; by Mr. WILKS, from a Congregation in Jewin Crescent, London; Mr. E. BULLER, Colonel HOWARD, Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY, and an HON. MEMBER, from a great many Places,-for the Better Observance of the Sabbath.-By Mr. M'LEOD, from Nairn, for Delaying the Progress of the Lord's Day Bill, to give time for considering its Provisions.-By Mr. DENISON, Mr. M'LEOD, and Mr. LLOYD WATKIN, from Godalming, and other Places,-against Slavery.-By Mr. MAURICH O'CONNELL, from Tralee and Kilgobbin; and by Mr. O'CONNELL, from a Number of Places,-against Tithes, -By Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY, Mr. FREDERICK NORTH, and Mr. CLAY, from several Places,-against the Assessed Taxes.-By Mr. O'CONNELL, Mr. R. WALLACE, and Colonel WILLIAMS,-against the Disturbances (Ireland) Bill. By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Numbers of Places in Ireland, for a Repeal of the Legislative Union.-By Mr. EWING, from Glasgow; and Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON, from Urr,-against the present System of Church Patronage in Scotland. By Mr. WILKS, Mr. E. BULLER, Colonel WILLIAMS, and Mr. R. WALKER, from many Places, for Relief to the Dissenters.-By Mr. EwING, from Glasgow, against the Imprisonment of Debtors for Small Sums; and for a Repeal of the Attornies' Tax.By Colonel F. G. HOWARD, from Licensed Victuallers in Morpeth, for the Reduction of the Duty on Spirituous and Malt Liquor.-By Mr. O'CONNELL, from Dublin; and Mr. THROCKMORTON, from Marlborough,—for granting to the Inhabitants of Corporate Towns the Privilege of Electing their own Magistrates.-By Mr. O'CONNELL, from the National Trades Political Union of Dublin, for an Amendment of the Law respecting Juries in Ireland, and for the Amendment of the Reform of Parliament (Ireland) Bill.-By Mr. R. WALLACE, from Markinch Political Union, for Vote by Ballot; and from Greenock, for the Abolition of the China Monopoly.-By Colonel WILLIAMS, Earl JERMYN, and Messrs. PLUMPTRE, O'CONNELL, and WILLIAM PEEL, from many Places,for a Factories Regulation Bill; and by Mr. J. E. STANLEY, from Hyde, and Staley Bridge; and Mr. EWING, from Bury,--for further Inquiry into the Factories.-By Lord CAVENDISH, from Bakewell and Eckington, for an Inquiry into the State of the Currency.-By Mr. PARROTT, from Totness, for the Abolition of the Statute Duty in the Repair of Turnpike Roads.-By Colonel LYGON, Lord CAVENDISH, Sir SAMUEL WHALLEY, Mr. F. NORTH, and Mr. J. H. LLOYD, from several Places,-for a Repeal of the Sale of Beer Act.-By Mr. JOHN FIELDEN, from Wingham, Kent, for a House of Commons more suitable to the dignity of the Assembly, and the importance of the Business transacted there: from Todmorden and Walsden, for a Repeal of the Stamp Duties on Newspapers; the Repeal of the Duties on Malt, Hops, and Soap; the Repeal of the Septennial Act, and the Adoption of the Ballot. DISFRANCHISEMENT OF SAILORS.] Mr Hutt presented a petition, to which he would venture to call the particular attention of the House. The petition was signed by almost every sailor of the port of Hull, and complained of a very serious grievance which appeared to be put upon them by the thirty-second section of the Reform Bill a grievance which was actually inflicted during the last election. The thirty-second section of the Reform Act required, that every burgess and householder shall be in residence for six months previous to the last day of July, in the borough for which he claims to vote. The sailors of Hull were very liable to be absent at this period, being engaged in their hard and honourable vocation. With respect to those sailors engaged in the Greenland fishery, as they depart from home during the month of March, and return generally during the month of October, if the interpretation which had been given by the revising Barrister who visited Hull were the true meaning of the Bill, they would be permanently disfranchised; but this surely never could be the intention of the Bill. It never could have been designed that this honest and meritorious class of the community should, without fault imputed, or mischief apprehended, be so rashly stripped of their political rights. He should put it to the Attorney General to say, whether this was the object of the thirty-second section? For, if so, he should feel it his duty to bring the subject before the House in a very different form. For his own part, he believed, that the revising Barrister had, in this instance, been betrayed into an error. The Attorney General said, as there had been no judicial discussion upon the subject, he would not undertake to state positively his opinion; but his impression was, that the view taken by the revising Barrister was erroneous; the object of the clause was, to prevent voters from residing permanently at a place distant from where they claimed a vote, which would not apply to the sailors. Where they left their families, and where they paid their rates and taxes, was their real home. Mr. Wilks considered, that the revising Barrister of this district had made a great mistake in his interpretation of the section of the Act. If the opinion of that learned gentleman was a sound one, some of the boldest and most able men in the kingdom Would be excluded from the exercise of their undoubted rights. If there was any doubt whatever entertained about the clause, it ought to be instantly corrected. The Solicitor General concurred entirely with what had fallen from his learned friend the Attorney General, that the petitioners were clearly residents within the meaning of the Reform Act. They had houses in the town-they were residents in the place-they paid taxes—and, in short, did every thing which entitled them to the enjoyment of the elective franchise. He felt no doubt in his own mind, that the revising Barrister had fallen into a mistake, which he sincerely hoped and trusted other revising Barristers would not follow. Petition laid on the Table. REFINING SUGAR.] Mr. Clay presented a petition from the persons connected with the sugar-refining trade, in the city of London, signed by every person in the trade, with one or two exceptions, and whose signatures represented a capital of between 2,000,000l. and 3,000,000l., on the subject of the Sugar-duties. The petitioners stated their conviction that the trade in which they were engaged, was making a swift progress to absolute ruin, and that it was fast leaving this country, and being transferred to foreign nations, in conse quence of the non-renewal of the Act which expired in 1830, for permitting foreign sugars to be refined in this country. The refiners were unable to give employment to the same number of hands they had formerly employed; and not only was their trade in a state of great suffering, but also a serious effect had been produced on the trades of paper-makers, coopers, and the many others connected indirectly with the sugar-refining business. Without pressing particularly on the Government, it would certainly be gratifying to the petitioners to know, whether there was any prospect of the prayer of their petition being granted. |