rose and said—Sir, I wish to ask a question or two, on a subject which I had hoped the discussion in this House, in the week before last, had set at rest, for ever. A tumult of indignation and disgust has, however, been since excited in the public mind, by the publication in newspapers, notoriously under the influence of government, of various documents on the subject, as well as of rumours of communications, in which the noble lord opposite and myself are personally concerned. These circumstances induce me, as they must naturally induce all the world, to suppose that matters cannot rest as they are, but that they must soon be brought to an absolute crisis. The first question that I wish to ask is, whether instructions have been issued by his royal highness the Prince Regent, under advice, to the law officers of the crown, to prosecute lady Douglas for perjury? I am also anxious to ask, whether the noble lord opposite knows—and if he does not, whether any other member of this House knows—if, in the interval between the 12th of February and the 5th of this month, lady Douglas was examined as a credible witness, by the Solicitor of the Treasury and a magistrate, in the presence of sir John Douglas: and if that examination still continues; or if any other examination is going on, at the present moment, into the conduct of her royal highness the Princess of Wales? When I have received an answer to these questions from the noble lord, or from any other member of this House, I shall then give notice of a proceeding that I mean to propose to the House of Commons on the subject.

I am sure the House will feel that I should essentially depart from my duty, if I were to resolve any of the questions proposed by the hon. gentleman, until I know the nature of the proceeding which it is his intention to recommend to this House to institute. I shall certainly decline doing so; and the more especially as the hon. member has been pleased to say, that he conceives matters are approaching to a crisis. I desire, therefore, to know the nature of the hon. gentleman's intended proposition.

—I can have no possible objection to comply with the request of the noble lord. My opinion distinctly is, either that her royal highness the Princess of Wales should be brought to trial, or that lady Douglas should be prosecuted for perjury. Her Royal Highness came down to this House, and threw herself on the wisdom and justice of parliament. The issue of the discussion which, in consequence, took place here, notwithstanding the precautions that were taken on the subject, is known to all the world. The declaration of the noble lord, as to the innocence of her Royal Highness, is also known. It is also known to all the world, that sir John Douglas waited on me, and on the noble lord, in consequence of the reports of that discussion which appeared in the public prints; and our answers, at least my answer, although not communicated to any one by me, has reached the public in a similar manner.^* Sir John Douglas informed me, that he told the noble lord, that he considered his a case of great hardship, for that he and lady Douglas had been actually examined as credible witnesses, shortly before the period at which he understood the noble lord had denounced lady Douglas as a degraded and perjured person; that those examinations had been carried on by a magistrate, in the presence of the Solicitor for the Treasury; and that they were still persisted in. Sir John Douglas also inti-mated to me, his intention of approaching this House; and I told him, in reply to that intimation, that I was sure no member of parliament would decline presenting his petition. With respect to the motives by which I am actuated in inquiring, whether his royal highness the Prince Regent has, under advice, instructed the law officers of the crown to prosecute lady Douglas for perjury? I must first observe, that I am sure, in the opinion of all the world, her royal highness the Princess of Wales, must be esteemed innocent of any imputed criminality. I am sure she must be so in the opinion of the noble lord, and of the administration of which the noble lord forms a component part; because, if that administration entertained any idea of her Royal Highness's guilt, they would' not have allowed that which has transpired to pass to the public, through the communication of a newspaper; but they would have advised a message from the throne to be sent to parliament on the subject. Sir, it would have been the bounden duty of ministers to have given this advice. Peculiarly and delicately situated as his Royal Highness is with regard to this subject, it would have been incumbent on them to have given this advice, had they entertained the least suspicion that her royal highness the Princess of Wales was justly liable to any imputation of actual criminality. Under these circumstances, the motion which I now give notice that it is my intention to make, will be for an Address to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that he will be graciously pleased to give instructions to the law officers of the crown to prosecute lady Douglas for perjury, on such parts of her testimony as the Commissioners of 1807 declared (to use their own words) appeared to them to render her justly liable thereto.

^* The following is a copy of the Note from sir John Douglas to lord Castlereagh, previous to the interview sir John had with his lordship, in consequence of his speech in the House of Commons, on Mr. Cochrane Johnstone's motion.

"Major general sir John Douglas requests to know from lord Castlereagh, as a man of honour, whether he, in his place in the House of Commons on Friday evening, declared his wife to be a perjured person, and upon what ground he founded his accusation."

His lordship's Note to sir John, in answer, was as follows:

"Lord Castlereagh deems it his duty to decline giving to major general sir J. Douglas any explanation of proceedings in which he has felt himself obliged to concur, when acting by his Majesty's command, in discharge of his functions as a privy counsellor, or in the explanation of them to the House of Commons."

A similar Note was sent by sir John to Mr. Whitbread with the same view, to which he returned the following Answer:

"Major-general sir John Douglas's question to Mr. Whitbread is founded upon words attributed to him to have been spoken in his place in parliament: Mr. Whitbread is therefore under the necessity of declining all answer to that question."

The hon. gentleman has very candidly stated the nature of his intended motion, and the reasons by which he is induced to take the step that he means to adopt. I must as frankly declare, that I do not consider myself bound in duty to answer the hon. gentleman's question, until the subject shall be brought regularly under the consideration of parliament.

The noble lord has, no doubt, satisfied himself with respect to what he conceives to be his duty, both to the crown and public, But, Sir, I have called on any other member of this House who may be aware of the facts, to state them in reply to my inquiry. The noble lord has declined all reply to my quesitions; but it does not follow that they must remain unanswered. I repeat them. Have the law officers of the crown been instructed to prosecute lady Douglas for perjury? Has lady Douglas been examined as a credible witness between the 12th February and the 5th March, the last being the day on which the noble lord characterised her ladyship as a perjured and degraded person! If the noble lord does not feel competent to reply to this last question (for I must inform the House that sir John Douglas told me, that on apprising the noble lord that lady Douglas had been examined yesterday se'nnight, the noble lord assured him, that he had no knowledge of it), I ask, in the absence of information on the part of the noble lord, if any other member of this House knows whether on or since the 5th of March, any examination of lady Douglas, touching the old matter, or involving any new allegations of criminality, have taken place? If I receive no answer from the noble lord, who, it seems, thinks it his duty to give no answer, or no answer from any other member, I must content myself for the present with the consciousness of having done my own duty in making the inquiry; and with declaring that on Wednesday I will execute the purpose Which I have already announced to the House, of moving an address to his royal highness the Prince Regent, praying that he will be graciously pleased to give instructions to the law officers of the crown to prosecute lady Douglas. Sir, I do this, being perfectly certain that the public mind cannot bear to be contaminated as it has recently been—that it cannot continue in the ferment which the publications to which I have alluded have excited, and that it loudly demands that if her royal highness the Princess of Wales be guilty, she shall be brought to trial—if innocent, that the witnesses against her shall be punished for their perjury.

Sir, I will not allow any observations made by the hon. gentleman to tempt me to depart from the course which a view of my public duty has prescribed to me. Much less should I be warranted in such a departure by any publications for the nature or tendency of which ministers are not answerable. As to the public feelings that may have been excited by the recent disclosures, that is a burden, which must rest on the shoulders of those by and in whom the disclosures originated. The hon. gentleman himself has deeply to answer on this subject. It was he who first read in this House a garbled extract of the documents connected with the case. Sir, he ought to have read all those documents or none of them; and if any injury should arise from the disclosure, of that inconvenience the hon. gentleman is himself the author.

It is impossible for me, Sir, to abstain from defending myself against the imputation of the noble lord. The noble lord says that I read to this House a garbled extract of the documents. That which I read was the Minute of the Cabinet of 1807, of which the noble lord was a member, and to which Minute of the noble lord's name is appended. If this be a garbled extract of evidence, I have not hitherto known what a garbled extract of evidence is. Being in possession of this document—a document printed by Mr. Perceval—and in the possession of hundreds as well as myself, I thought it necessary to read it to the House of Commons on an occasion to which it was so peculiarly applicable. But, Sir, is the reading of this Minute of a Cabinet, recording a verdict of acquittal of her Royal Highness, to be compared to the publication of such evidence as, notwithstanding that recorded verdict, has a clear tendency to criminate her Royal Highness? This evidence has been communicated to the public through the medium of two newspapers—the one The Morning Herald, the other The Morning Post; both issuing from the press on the same day. In the latter of those papers the evidence is accompanied with certain comments; as if her royal highness the Princess of Wales were amenable to the tribunal of the editor! the other paper it is well known is the property of a person (sir Bate Dudley) who has lately received a titular distinction, and who has the honour of enjoying a familiar intercourse at Carlton House. Sir, the noble lord at the time that I read the Minute of the Cabinet in question did not complain of my doing so——"

Yes, I did.

Did you? I beg pardon; I do not recollect it; it has escaped me. But, Sir, there is a material difference between reading such a docu- ment, and editing publications which, after an acquittal, go to load the person who has been declared innocent with ignominy. Sir, I have not been the adviser of her royal highness the Princess of Wales, in the publication of her original letter to his royal highness the Prince Regent. In a subsequent letter of her's, which has also been published, her Royal Highness disclaims all knowledge of the publication of the former. She has, however, come down to parliament, desiring to be either treated as innocent, or proved guilty. That she cannot be the latter, I repeat that I have the strongest reason to be assured, from the circumstance of no message from the throne having been presented to this House on the subject.

I now know what the hon. gentleman's views are. I may be allowed to say, in explanation, that on the occasion of the discussion to which the hon. gentleman has alluded, I did most distinctly complain that he garbled—I do not mean to use the word in an offensive signification—but that he garbled the statement of the proceedings relative to her Royal Highness, For, what did the hon. gentleman do? He brought forward the Minute of the duke of Portland's Cabinet of 1807, without putting the House in possession of the proceedings of the preceding cabinet; thereby creating an impression which would not have been produced had the whole been submitted to the House. The proceedings in the Portland cabinet are intelligible only as founded on the proceedings of the Grenville cabinet, to which they advert, and which they confirm. The hon. gentleman has also had recourse to an old tactic, of charging government with unfairness, because documents and transactions have appeared, from what quarter it does not seem, in particular newspapers. Sir, I repeat, that the hon. gentleman could not read in his place the Minute of the Cabinet of 1807, without creating an impression which the context would not justify. In support of this assertion, I refer to the Minute of the Portland Cabinet; and I only beg the House to bear in mind, that it confirms the declaration of the preceding cabinet, in as far only as by that cabinet it was declared that no legal charge of criminality could be substantiated against her royal highness the Princess of Wales. If the hon. gentleman did not mean that the whole transaction should come out, he ought to have abstained from reading that Minute. Whence her Royal Highness derived the advice under which she has proceeded I know not; but I am intrepid in maintaining this, that antecedently to a partial disclosure, calculated, as I contend, to make an unfair impression, no attempt was made from any other quarter to lead to a disclosure of the circumstances of the transaction. Those alone who brought out that garbled statement, for the purpose of making a false impression, are answerable for the consequences. On the hon. gentleman's individual head be the consequences.

. Be it on my head! Be it on my head, that I attempt to vindicate her royal highness the Princess of Wales;—be on my head the responsibility of all that I have done, and be on the heads of others the responsibility of all that they have done; and be on the head of the noble lord the responsibility of abstaining from making any answer to the questions which I proposed to him. Sir, we all remember what the late Mr. Perceval said on this subject; and what the Attorney-General said, and what the noble lord said here the other night. Are those expressions to be retracted? I trust, Sir, there is no serious intention now of imputing criminality to her Royal Highness? And yet the whole effect of that which has been published in the newspapers since the declaration to which I have alluded is to impute criminality to her Royal Highness. The noble lord has not chosen to satisfy me on the subject of any examination of lady Douglas since the 5th of March. I take it for granted, that when I make my intended motion on Wednesday, I shall obtain an explanation on that head.

I distinctly deny, Sir, the accuracy of the hon. gentleman's statement with respect to myself. I never made any declaration of the innocence or the guilt of her royal highness the Princess of Wales. We were not a competent jurisdiction to make such a declaration. What I stated, was distinctly that the evidence as submitted to the Portland cabinet, so far as it went to criminate her Royal Highness, was either contradicted by other evidence, or was not in itself entitled to credit. I did not attempt to pronounce on her Royal Highness's guilt or innocence; for I repeat, that I did not consider that we were a competent jurisdiction for that purpose. On the discussion on the subject, I complained of the false impressions which the hon. gentleman must produce by reading garbled extracts of the documents. With respect to any further explanations, I shall reserve them till the subject shall come properly under the consideration of the House.

The noble lord still talks of false impressions. I am willing that the whole responsibility of what I have done should fall on myself. I certainly did give an impression of the innocence of her royal highness the Princess of Wales, by reading what appeared to me to be a complete acquittal of her Royal Highness; and not a cabinet minister in this House dared to deny the accuracy of that impression. A right hon. gentleman who was a member of the cabinet the minute of which I read to the House (Mr. Canning) made a complete avowal of his conviction of her Royal Highnesses innocence. I appeal to you, Sir, whether the noble lord himself did not declare that if any criminality attached to her royal highness the Princess of Wales, the intercourse between her Royal Highness and the Princess Charlotte would have been, hot restricted, but prohibited altogether?

The hon. gentleman says he is perfectly ready to take on himself the responsibility. All I maintain is, that he is not justified in charging generally on others the effects of that unfair impression which he himself first made.

Was an impression of her Royal Highness's innocence derived from a cabinet minute unfair?

The cabinet did not decide on her Royal Highness's guilt or innocence; but only confirmed the minute of a preceding cabinet.

rose and was about to speak on the subject, when—

observed, that there was no question before the House.

moved that the order of the day be read, for the House to resolve itself into a committee on the Mutiny Bill.

spoke to order. He conceived that his noble friend (lord Milton) was in possession of he House.

All I have to say is this: I waited with considerable pain during a conversation protracted to an unusual length by circumstances unquestionably of an important and extraordinary nature. That conversation terminated, I turned to a noble lord, who I knew had public busi- ness to bring forward, and whose turn was on the paper. The House will now do whatever it feels disposed to do.

repeated his motion.

expressed his surprise that the noble lord (Castlereagh) should say one thing one day, with respect to her royal highness the Princess of Wales, and say another thing on another day.

rose to order. He humbly conceived that a conversation so properly terminated ought not to be renewed.

also spoke to order. He was sorry to differ from his hon. friend. Nothing appeared to him more proper than that his noble friend, if he thought Wednesday too long a delay for the motion respecting which he (Mr. Whitbread) had given notice, to resist the order of the day moved by the noble lord, with a view, if he chose it, of moving on the subject instanter.

said, he rose to move an amendment. He then proceeded to express, with much warmth, the disgust and indignation which had been excited in his mind, and which he thought must have been excited in the mind of every other gentleman, by the contents of the newspapers for the last two or three days. The noble lord had dared to draw a parallel between the reading of the Minute of Council by his hon. friend, and the publication of those revolting details with which the feelings of the English nation had lately been insulted. Were these libels, these pollutions, fit to be laid before the public? Would they not instil their poison into the minds of the young and inexperienced—of our wives and daughters? He, for one, should say, the responsibility, the consequences of this measure be upon the heads of those who had advised, who had planned the publication of these papers, who had dragged into the light of day such scenes of iniquity. The noble lord before he sat down moved an adjournment, which not being seconded, the House resolved itself into a committee on the Mutiny Bill.

moved to insert several clauses relating to the infliction of corporal punishment in the army. The first clause was to make it unlawful for any general, commanding officer, court martial, &c. to inflict the punishment of flogging on any of the troops serving in Great Britain, Ireland, the isles of Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man. 2. To make it lawful to sentence the troops serving abroad to receive corporal punishment, provided this punishment did not exceed 100 lashes. 3. To make it unlawful for any officers after a part of the sentence had been inflicted, to order any man to be brought out a second time to receive the remaining lashes. In the proposal to insert the last clause, he hoped for the concurrence of the Judge Advocate, who had on a former occasion declared his opinion that such renewal of the punishment was illegal.—The hon. member, after he had moved his clauses, proceeded to state, that a military friend of his having had the command of a detachment, bad punished a man by ordering him into solitary confinement, and that haying reported the circumstance to the commanding officer of the regiment, on his return to head-quarters, he had desired him to bring the soldier to a court-martial, in order that he might be flogged, which was declined by his friend; first, on the ground of his dislike to the system of corporal punishment altogether; and, secondly, on that of the man having been already punished for the offence he had committed. The commanding officer then said, that he would flog him if the other would not, and having immediately sent for the black book of the regiment, he found registered in it a former sentence passed upon the soldier, of the punishment awarded by which he had received only a part, and had the remnant of it put in execution on the spot.

after the repeated discussions which had taken place on this question, should not trouble the House with any observations, but should feel it his duty to resist the introduction of the proposed clauses.

having expressed his dissatisfaction at the meditated opposition to an attempt to modify a disgraceful punishment, without the total, abolition of which be said he would never be content, begged to know from a right hon. gentleman on the other side of the House whether it was the intention of government ultimately to abolish It, as he had been led to suppose it was by what had fallen from him on a former occasion. With respect to the clauses moved by his hon. friend, he conceived they were of a most reasonable nature; he did not think it should be left to the humane or inhuman discretion of a commanding officer to say whether a soldier should receive two parts, three parts, or four parts of a certain number of lashes, nor could he contemplate without disgust the power with which every unfledged ensign was invested of deciding on the criminality and liability to most degrading punishment of any veteran soldier, who might be placed beneath his command, or wresting from him, with the levity of a youth, perhaps without a cause, his honour, his character, his lasting happiness. An opinion had been delivered on a former occasion, on the other side of the House, that the practice of punishing men a second time, under the same sentence by virtue of which he had received a first punishment, should be discontinued; but he was apprehensive that this opinion had not had the weight it ought to have with military commanders; nor had he the least doubt that frequent deaths; and evils worse than death, continued to be the result of the system. With respect to the discipline of the army, it was ascertained, on the authority of able and experienced officers, that those regiments were the best disciplined in which this beastly mode of punishment was disused; while none were so lax in point of discipline, or so disorderly, as those in which it was most resorted to. The humane persons to whom he had alluded had further declared, that they never knew a had man reformed by it, whereas they had known a multitude of good ones destroyed. In fact, how could it be otherwise If the unfortunate person subjected to it had the feelings of a man, he could never, so long as he lived, lose the sense of it—so that it might be deemed a never ending punishment. It might, indeed, be said, that the frequency and severity of the practice had been in some degree subdued; but that was not an argument that would prove the propriety of forbearing from any further attack on a system radically vicious. "And, indeed, so far from admitting the force of any argument which would go to uphold any part of it, he thought he could propose a plan which would render quite unnecessary any punishment whatsoever. It was but to adopt in the army a properly graduated scale of rewards in the ratio of me- rit and length of service. Such a system as this would not only have the effect of making punishment unnecessary, but would likewise remove from our view the odious spectacle which now but too frequently presented itself of men compelled to subsist upon the scanty fruits of charity, after years spent in the service of their country, in consequence of the niggard provision made by that ungrateful country for their support being totally inadequate to its object. The hon. baronet having dwelt on the manner in which the people of England were brought within the range of the system, in consequence of its being extended to the local militia, and concluded by expressing his conviction of the necessity there existed for abandoning a system which no one would venture to defend in the abstract, the warmest of its patrons contenting themselves with insisting on the inexpediency of immediate abolition.

thought it quite impossible to get rid of corporal punishment at present. It had, however, fallen very much into disuse. Though the number of court-martials now were three times as many as formerly, the actual aggregate of cases in which corporal punishment was inflicted, was considerably less. The sentence of flogging was exchanged in two cases out of three, into that of general service: and in most other cases confinement was adopted. There was a general disposition, almost an avidity in commanding officers, to avail themselves of any mode of punishment in preference to flogging. He then adverted to some cases of peculiar hardship brought forward by the hon. baronet last year. One was, that of a poor man who had stuck pins and needles in his legs to avoid the execution of his sentence; another of some poor men who had been punished severely for marrying contrary to the orders of their superior officers; another case was that of some soldiers who were said to have had clogs fastened to their legs, and to have been compelled to walk seven or eight hours in this manner every day. Into all of these supposed cases inquiry had been made, and the accusation was found in everyone of them to have been utterly groundless. As to the system of reward proposed by the hon. baronet, he would only say, that, if such a system were shewn to be practicable, there was no one who would more gladly assent to it than himself, but the theory of philanthropy was one thing, and the power of making every body rich was another. It should also be recollected, in answer to what was said of the number of persons seen begging about the streets without an arm or a leg, that there was such a thing in this metropolis as imposture. He thought the punishment of confinement in the army was only effectual, as it was the alternative for corporal punishment. The third clause proposed by the hon. gentleman opposite for preventing the repetition of this punishment, would, he thought, go to abolish it altogether; for when a man knew that he could not be brought out a second time to receive his 100 lashes, there was no fraud or artifice to which he would not resort to evade the execution of the sentence in the first instance. After again adverting to the progresses which had already been made in the suppression of flogging, he concluded by observing, that the clauses proposed by the hon. gentleman, appeared to him wholly unnecessary.

spoke in favour of the present system. He at the same time repelled an insinuation of Mr. Bennet, that in the militia they sometimes flogged all round. In the militia, he said, there was much less flogging than in the regulars, and yet it would be found that the discipline of the militia was superior to that of the regulars.

in answer to what had been said by the hon. colonel opposite, observed, that in some militia regiments, the practice was not the same as in the regiment of that gentleman; it being a practice to flog, not all round indeed, but from flank to centre. That it was the practice to call out men a second time for punishment, might be inferred from the words of the sentences of courts-martial, that the man should "receive so many lashes when and where the commanding officer shall direct."

congratulated the House on the temper with which the question had that night been debated, and the progress which bad been made towards the abolition of the punishment in question. About 20 years ago, when he was a young member of that House, he mentioned for the first time in his place, this practice so much to be reprobated, of bringing out men twice to receive one sentence. It was then said, in opposition to him, that it was most horrible to, mention any thing of the kind in the House,—that the soldiers had by no means too much flogging,—that a lash could not be spared. Now, how- ever, owing in great degree, to the hon. baronet behind him (Sir F. Burdett) who had brought the matter repeatedly into' discussion, and owing to the interference of the right hon. gentleman opposite, (Mr. M. Sutton) the punishment was in a great degree got rid of. He should not press the point at that moment, as it was not then ripe for discussion, but he was convinced that by the silent progress of time, when the officers should find the injurious tendency of this sort of punishment, it would gradually diminish until finally abolished. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Manners Sutton) had said that he had heard of no instances where a soldier had been brought out to receive the remainder of a sentence which they could not bear at one time. Unless officers had grossly deceived him, (Mr. W.,) this was a frequent practice, and one instance in particular he had heard, where a man after having been tried by a court-martial and acquitted was, on a reference to the Black-book by the officer who had preferred the charge against him, flagged as a remainder of a sentence pronounced long antecedently. The right hon. gentleman had said, that if the bringing a man out a second time for punishment were forbidden, all possible shifts would be resorted to, to escape from punishment, as if all means possible would not, even in the present state of things, be made use of by the unhappy sufferers; This practice had, as he conceived, been pronounced by the right hon. gentleman illegal, but now it was said to be not only not illegal, but expedient, so that if that right hon. gentleman's ideas of legality remained unchanged, he would of course have introduced a clause in the Mutiny Act, authorising the practice. As to the cases of mendicity from insufficient provision, it was a deplorable sight to see men,

"With half their limbs in battle lopped away,

"Beg bitter bread through realms their valour saved."

But in many cases he agreed with the right hon. gentleman that deception was practised, and that even in cases where the men had been in reality mutilated, their sturdy beggarhood changed pity into disgust, and called loudly on the police to remove such annoyances. An hon. gentleman opposite had said, after opposing the clauses, that in regiments of militia the flogging was twenty times less, and yet offences less frequent than in the line This was a pretty strong fact against the practice of flogging. The hon. gentleman sat down by expressing his conviction, that as by discussion the practice had been brought low, so it would in the end be entirely destroyed.

said, that the Commander in Chief would not have suffered to pass without reprobation, any officer who had ordered a man to be brought out a second time on an old sentence. He was happy to state, that from late regulation allowing commutation to general service, flogging had decreased in militia regiments.

differed from his hon. friend who brought forward the clauses, whose motives, he was satisfied, were most humane, pure, and conscientious; but, whose ideas on this occasion, he was as satisfied, were erroneous. The present system had not been detrimental or injurious to the service; was gradually decreasing, and he could almost say, abolishing; and with that view his royal highness the Commander-in-Chief, ever attentive to the interest and welfare of the army, had issued an order last year, limiting the punishment to be awarded at regimental courts martial. The clause in the Mutiny Act that passed in 1805, obliging members at regimental courts martial to be sworn, had had the most, salutary effect, and had made officers more circumspect and attentive as to the quantum of punishment to be awarded at regimental courts martial. Upon every consideration, therefore, he should vote against the clause.

of Kerry, said, that in the militia regiments which had come under his experience, he had found that nothing but the terror of the lash would deter men from offences, especially in cases of inebriety.

thought that the regulations of every army should be founded either on the principle of honour or fear, according to the character of the nation. Whatever might be necessary for some of our colonial troops, he thought the British army should be regulated upon the principle of honour, and that no such degrading punishment as flogging ought to be inflicted upon any person who had not entirely forfeited all pretensions to honour.

said, that as to what had been said about the gaols being crowded with soldiers imprisoned as a punishment, in lieu of flogging, only one instance had some to his knowledge, viz. the gaol of St. Hilliers in the island of Jersey, which was owing to the prison itself being in a detestable state. He took this opportunity of mentioning the wretched state of that prison, as the unhappy debtor was there injured by this benefit to the soldier.

mentioned as proof of the frequency of imprisonment as a military punishment, the complaints he had received from Sussex of the gaols being full of soldiers.

The clauses were then brought up and negatived without a division, when the House resumed, and the Report was ordered to be received to-morrow.