rose for the purpose of submitting to the House certain Resolutions connected with the trade and commerce of the country, and founded on parliamentary documents, which he conceived to be of the highest importance. On a former occasion, when he introduced this subject to the notice of the House, his arguments were met by a preposterous statement of Mr. Huskisson, about the increase of our exports, to the amount of several millions per annum; but, happening to know that a great depreciation in the real value had taken place, he felt it his duty to contradict that statement. Unfortunately, Mr. Huskisson's authority in the House was so great, that his assertion passed current with it, and no attention was paid to the contradiction. The House was aware that he had, for several years, moved for returns connected with this subject; and he had endeavoured so to simplify those returns, that any one who would take the trouble might comprehend them. According to his view, the state of England was never so bad as it was at present. He had heard it said, that there was now less poverty among the working-classes than some years back; but he had not been able to make that discovery; and, if he had, there would be no reason for not submitting his Resolutions to the House. They were drawn up by him for the purpose of exposing at one view those general results which were connected with this subject. He had not pretended to give any opinions of his own in addition to the data which he had drawn from parliamentary documents. He had confined himself entirely to incontrovertible facts, in order that the House might have no hesitation in giving its sanction to his propositions. He knew that the House objected to the reading of long documents; but he, nevertheless, trusted that it would indulge him while he brought before it the contents of the Resolutions to which he had already referred. His Resolutions, then, were these:—

1. That the trade, manufactures, and commerce of the country are so essentially connected with the interests and prosperity of the British empire, that a retrospect of their state, progress, and fluctuation is at all times highly important, but more particularly at the present moment, when various classes of the community are suffering embarrassment, distress, and privation.

2. That it appears by a return made to this House on the 5th of April, 1830, that since the year 1798, the time when the declaration of the real value of goods exported was first required, great changes and fluctuations have taken place in the amount of Exports, and in the relative value of our produce and manufactures, as compared with the official value denoted by rates established at the Custom-house.

3. That it should be borne in mind, that the official valuation is an estimate founded upon a rate of prices in the Custom-house books, formed at a remote period, and which, although corresponding with the actual value at the time they were formed, afford no criterion whatever of present value; but they are nevertheless highly useful, inasmuch as they serve to show the increase or decrease, as the same may he, in the quantity of goods exported, and the appreciation or depreciation in price, as compared with the real value.

4. That it is material to observe, that not only do these official rates distinctly mark out the alteration and fluctuation in the value of goods exported, but they are of still higher importance, as they equally exhibit the alteration and fluctuation in price, and the appreciation and depreciation in the value of our produce and manufactures for home consumption, and afford means of accounting for national prosperity or depression, and the increase or decrease of the revenue.

5. That it appears by the said Parliamentary Return, that in the year ending the 5th January, 1799, the amount of our Exports in real value, exceeded the official value by more than 12,500,000l. per annum; and in the year ending 5th January, 1803, the excess had increased to nearly 20,000,000l. in that one year, being as follows:—

thought, that it would best suit the convenience of the House if he declined following the worthy Alderman through his lengthened statement. He presumed that the chief anxiety of the worthy Alderman was, to put his Resolutions on the Journals of the House, and so to give them circulation, though that was not the first, the second, or the third time, that he had brought this subject before the House. The worthy Alderman said, that he had been replied to, but not answered. He was satisfied that the general opinion of the House was against the hon. Alderman. The worthy Alderman had also said, that his Resolutions contained nothing but facts, and that he had abstained from all opinions; but though, in the Resolutions, there were many figures from official documents, yet there was also a series of opinions, pro- fessing to be founded on those figures, and in which, he thought the House would hardly agree; for instance, he would ask whether there was any means of arriving at the value of our exports, as stated by the worthy Alderman in his 7th Resolution? In his 18th Resolution, also, he stated that the deficiency of our imports, as compared with our exports, was 22,000,000l. How was that calculation made? Was it on the official value? [Mr. Alderman Waithman: Yes.] Then there lay the worthy Alderman's mistake, for it was a mistake to think that the official value showed, in any degree, the money value of the exports; and, consequently, the whole of his theory was founded in error, if he had taken the official value for anything that had to do with the real value. He, therefore, put it to the House, whether they could receive this document, and solemnly record their approbation of it? Whoever looked to the official rates, even as evidence of quantity, would not be perfectly accurate, because different rates were taken for different commodities. Another objection also was, that things came into this country paying no duty, and, being re-exported, immediately acquired a different value. The worthy Alderman might say that this applied only to his official value; but his actual value was no safeguard whatever. In comparing the year 1819 with 1830, the worthy Alderman had forgotten that our chief exports consisted of manufactures which had been previously imported, as raw material; and had he taken into consideration the difference of the price of that raw material? For instance, the price of cotton was, in 1815, 2s. a pound: it was now only 6d. or 7d., and did not that show that the relative value of the manufactures might have materially diminished? He did not, however, consider it worth while to argue this question over and over again. He was sure that the House, while giving due credit to the worthy Alderman for the pains he had taken in preparing these Resolutions, would be satisfied that it was not advisable to give their sanction to the document. One word as to the question of poor-rates. In the first place, he had to say, that the documents from which he had quoted were on the Table of the House. And further, if any one would take the trouble of examining these documents, he would find that his statement respecting them was perfectly correct. Under these cir- cumstances, he should content himself with moving the previous question.

was iuclined to attribute the confusion in the hon. Alderman's views and statements to his not having formed to himself any distinct conception of what was meant by official value and real value. Official value was only another name for quantity; real value was only another name for price. Since the year 1808 the quantity of British goods exported had more than doubled, while the price of this double quantity was now less than the price of half the quantity formerly had been. This was the simple fact, as shown by the official returns upon the Table of the House; and this fact, perfectly intelligible in itself, was rendered perplexed by the maze of figures in which the worthy Alderman had involved it. The value of the precious metals in relation to the commodities we exported had doubled since the year 1819, or in other words the prices of British goods exported had fallen fifty per cent. This was the fact, and it was not difficult to explain the manner in which it had been brought about. In 1819 the difference between paper and gold was about five per cent., and consequently, when the paper was brought to par with gold, the currency rose in value from this cause to the extent of five per cent. But many other and more potent causes were brought into operation. By the return to cash payments, a new demand for gold, to the amount of from 25,000,000 to 30,000,000 was created, while the contemporaneous changes from paper to metallic currency, which were effected in Russia, Austria, Denmark, and the United States, occasioned a still further demand for the precious metals to the amount of 25,000,000l. The whole of the increased demand for gold could have scarcely been less than 50,000,000l. sterling. But all the gold supposed to exist in the commercial world was only 500,000,000l.; while the annual supply, before it was reduced by the troubles in South America, was stated by Humboldt to be 1,600,000l. Now, if there had been no diminution in the annual supply of the metals, the increased demand for them for coin, would have materially enhanced their value. But, while the demand increased, the supply diminished. The civil wars in South America suspended the working of the mines, and by the dispersion of the miners, and the destruction of machinery and other fixed capital, rendered many of them wholly unproductive. Instead of obtaining supplies of the precious metals from South America, we for some time actually exported specie thither. From these cooperating causes the value of gold throughout the commercial world had advanced, or, in other words, the prices of commodities had fallen. Mr. Tooke, in his able work on high and low prices, has shown that a great proportion of the fall in the price of commodities has been occasioned by the increased facilities of production, and the larger quantities in which commodities have been brought to market. But this fact does not disprove a rise in the value of currency; on the contrary, it shows another cause of that rise. Value is relative, and a rise in the value of gold, as compared with other articles, may be occasioned either by increasing the cost of obtaining the metals, or by diminishing the cost of obtaining other articles. The facts brought forward by Mr. Tooke in his elaborate and very able work, go to establish this, that the value of the precious metals has been enhanced by a twofold cause. These causes of the rise in the value of the precious metals were common to the whole commercial world; but other causes, peculiar to this country, had contributed to reduce the price of British goods. Whatever might be the advantages of free trade, and of reducing the duties of Customs on the importation of foreign goods, these advantages were in some degree counterbalanced by an enhancement in the value of money, and a general fail in the prices not merely of the goods imported, but also of British goods. On this principle the reduction of taxation should commence with the duties of Excise and not with the duties of Customs, except with respect to the necessaries of life, upon which no duty should be permitted to exist, and gold and silver were, to alt intents and purposes, admitted duty-free; therefore, in proportion as they reduced the import duties on other commodities, the more they changed that relation between gold and silver and other commodities, which might be expressed by saying that the untaxed (gold) could procure less of the taxed (other imports) in proportion to the amount of the tax—in other words, gold could obtain more of the commodity, and by that additional quantity the price of the commodity might be said to fall; or, if they preferred the correlative, by so much might the standard of the currency be said to rise. And yet this important fact, like the other, the increased value of the currency, owing to the causes he had specified, had been wholly overlooked by the advocates of free trade principles, though it was obvious they had only to be stated to be at once recognised. There were other errors which he would take an early opportunity of exposing with respect to free trade principles. He need not say that he was an advocate of free trade, but he denied that its official promulgators had seen or even now saw the whole of the question. They said, for example, it mattered nothing whether another country took from us our commodities for theirs or our money, because, say they, we must send our commodities somewhere else in order to procure that money. Now the error in this case sprang out of another of still more universal acceptation; namely, that great maxim of the Ricardo school of economists, that as the value of a commodity in the home market depended on the cost—the labour—of production, so must it be in a foreign market. He would maintain, that though this principle was true of domestic policy, yet that it was not it that regulated the exchangeable value in a foreign market. What we received in return for our goods in foreign markets did not depend on the cost of producing those foreign articles, but on the demand that existed in the foreign market for our commodities. To the extent of that demand every country supplied itself, but it could not be increased but on one condition, which involved the whole question of our advantage; namely, that we gave them our goods at a diminished price. If they applied this principle to the case of our trading, say with France, they would see that all the advantages which the advocates of free trade had predicted could not be realized but on terms of perfect reciprocity. If France required our money instead of our goods for her commodity, we could only obtain that money by giving our goods to—say the South Americans, at a reduced price;—for otherwise, on the principle of supply and demand, which he was contending for. South America could not take a greater quantity of British goods unless they were offered at a reduced price. Suppose that France takes from us 1,000 bales of muslin in exchange for wine, while America takes 1,000 bales in exchange for gold, then we get our supply of wine and gold for 2,000 bales. But should France, as is the fact, refuse to take our muslin and require gold, then we must send 2,000 bales to America instead of 1,000. This would necessarily reduce the price of the British manufacture in the American market, and 2,000 bales would no longer procure us the same supply of wine and of gold as before. On these principles, he contended that it was an error in our commercial policy to encourage the import of wine from France, which would not take our goods in return, and to discourage the wine trade with Portugal, which opened her markets to British fabrics. Such of our financial and commercial policy required not merely to be reformed, but to be reversed.

did not agree with the worthy Alderman as to his Resolutions, for it was impossible that the House should pledge itself, by adopting those Resolutions to many doubtful points requiring much patient inquiry. He was glad that the opponents of the free trade policy of Mr. Huskisson and his successors, could count the hon. member for Ashburton (Colonel Torrens) among their allies. That policy had been pushed to a ruinous exten, andt though Ministers had refused inquiry, he was sure that a Reformed Parliament, would not sit for many weeks, before it resolved to investigate the subject.

, in opposition to the hon. Member, would contend, that Mr. Huskisson's policy was the best that could be pursued, so far as it went; the just complaint was, that it did not go far enough. He differed from the hon. member for Ashburton as to the disadvantages of a circuitous trade with a country which would not take our goods in return; for it was all the same to us to whom we sent our goods, so as we obtained what we wanted—the produce of other countries.

would merely observe, that the supposition that Mr. Huskisson and his followers had always referred to the official value of commodities, as a test of prosperity, was a mistake. The increase in that value had been referred to, even in the King's Speech, as a proof of the activity of our commerce, but not as indicating its prosperity. The worthy Alderman was quite mistaken in assuming that value as any thing but a test of quantity. It was taken considerably higher than the real value on several articles, such as cottons and woollens of large consumption, and the difference was sufficiently great to account for the excess of official over actual value, last year, to the amount of 13,000,000l. He would not then hazard an exposition of the fallacy of the hon. member for Ash-burton's reasoning, but should take advantage of the first convenient opportunity, to show that he was in error as to his premises, and consequently, as to his conclusions.

said, the hon. member for Middlesex now argued against the arguments he had used in 1828 respecting India. Upon that occasion the hon. Member contended, that to place India under such restrictions as to oblige her to give bullion for our produce was most injurious to that country, and yet the hon. Member now said that it was no injury to this country to compel it to pay bullion for the produce of France. He was decidedly of opinion that the late Parliament had looked rather to the interests of the capitalists than of the laborious and industrious classes. They were told that they were about to enter upon a new system, but he could not but remark, that those who were now in the full stream of popularity had been the greatest opponents of all inquiry into the state of the country. Many who had opposed the Reform Bill, because they thought it injurious to the country, and had lost their seats for so doing, had been among the most active and zealous in endeavouring to forward the interests of the people. He mentioned those circumstances because it was right that the country should know what were the facts, and who were truly its friends. The people had been led to believe that the supporters of the Reform Bill were their best friends, although many of those hon. Members had opposed all inquiry, and advocated the cause of the capitalist against that of the people. He hoped those remarks would go forth to the country, for it was but right that Members, who, like the hon. member for Aldborough (Mr. Sadler), had laboured for the amelioration of the labouring classes, should have their conduct justly appreciated.

defended what he had said on a former occasion, by observing, that India was not like France, an independent country, but was one of our possessions, and suffered considerably by being obliged to send us bullion, not in exchange for our goods, but as tribute—a circumstance which completely rendered consistent the observations he had before made and those which he made now. With respect to France, he should take that opportunity of saying, that every shilling's worth of French goods that came into the country took out a shilling's worth of English goods, either directly or indirectly, and so far was a benefit to the country.

said, there never would be any good done to the country till the Corn was were removed, and rents and taxes were reduced. It was cruel to admit a free trade in the luxuries of life, when a free trade in the necessaries of life was refused.

wondered how the hon. member for Middlesex could ask for any particular favour to be shown to India, at least if he had any sincere belief in the doctrines that he sometimes professed in that House. The hon. Member often told them, that England sent out her manufactures all over the world to seek for bullion: and having bought it by her manufactures, she then sent it to France to purchase the produce of that country; so that it was the same thing in the end, as if she had sent her manufactures to France in exchange for French produce. Now, if that argument was true with respect to England trading with France, it must be true with respect to India trading with England; and consequently, if England was not injured in the one case, India could not be injured in the other', and no change could be required. He (Mr. Attwood), however, did not agree that it was true with respect to France and England; and he insisted, that the state of things was such now as to require immediate attention from the Legislature.

must say, that he thought the hon. member for Middlesex had sufficiently defended himself from the charge of inconsistency, by referring them to the fact that India was tributary to this country, and was not an independent nation trading with us, but a country paying a large part of her bullion to us in the shape of tribute. The hon. Member opposite then raised the question of sending our manufactures all over the world to get bullion, and afterwards paying that bullion to a neighbouring country for her goods. Now, if the expense of procuring the precious metals ultimately fell upon the country selling the goods that these metals purchased, and not on the country that procured the metals and bought the goods, it was evident that the latter would be carrying on the more advantageous trade. The question, therefore, came round to this—Which of the two countries did in the end pay for the expense of procuring these precious metals? If that question were fully examined, he rather thought it would appear, that the expense did not fall as a loss upon the country procuring the metals in the way he had mentioned. He gave the hon. Alderman great credit for the attention he had shown to this subject, but could not agree with that hon. Member as to all his conclusions. If two hon. Members, starting from exactly opposite principles, yet arrived at the same conclusion, that fact would show, that what they both agreed on was worthy of the consideration of the House; but he much suspected, that the hon. Member and the hon. and gallant Member would not be found to agree together. Indeed, he believed the results to which they came would be seen to be quite different from each other. What, then, did the hon. Alderman require? He required the House to give a sanction to certain opinions embodied in the Resolutions he had produced. Now, there was, perhaps, hardly one Gentleman in that House who would wish to pledge the House to all those opinions; and, under all those circumstances, there seemed to be no course left but that of supporting the previous question.

took that opportunity of complaining that India was not well treated. She was too highly taxed. Her produce ought to be admitted here almost free of duty, and ours ought to go out to India equally free from taxation, India had long been drained of her bullion for the use of this country, and she could stand the drain no longer. Within the two last years, no less than three millions sterling had been sent here from India. That system could not continue. In every part of the country that was under our Government, the situation of the native Indians was worse than it had been under that of their native princes. They, in fact, Were longing to be back under their ancient princes. He thanked the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Poulett Thomson) for the reduction of duties he had made on certain Indian commodities; that would do a great deal of good; and he only regretted it did not go further. By reducing the duties still more, he was sure no injury would be done to the West-Indian property. He should, in conclusion say, that the praise bestowed by Mr. Canning on the gallant Officer (Colonel Torrens) on entering the House, had that night been proved to have been well bestowed; and he must express his belief, that it would be well for the country if the doctrines the gallant Officer advanced were more attended to.

said, that he perfectly concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. Baronet who had just sat down, that, in all future measures with regard to India, they ought principally to direct their attention to the promotion of the happiness, the instruction, and the prosperity of the natives; but this was not the point to which he desired to advert. The only point relating to the vast subject which had been introduced by the worthy Alderman, upon which he should presume to say a word, was, the effect which the promulgation of such doctrines as had been promulgated by the worthy Alderman was likely to have upon the minds of the industrious classes; for it appeared to him that nothing could be more pernicious than to impress the industrious classes with erroneous ideas of the causes of the distress under which they laboured, and to impress them with the belief, that a vote of that House could set all to rights in a moment. He was far from meaning to say, that such was the design of the worthy Alderman; on the contrary, he gave him full credit for his disinterested motives and patriotic intentions, but such a mischievous delusion as the one to which he here alluded was, he feared, too likely to result from the course which the worthy Alderman had adopted this evening. What was the real end and aim of the worthy Alderman's statements and assertions? What, but that which he did not venture openly to proclaim—the depreciation of the standard, and the extinction of free trade? He would not deny that distress had existed since the new system was introduced, but there was no more common error than to assign as a cause, that which had only preceded. There might be a bad harvest next autumn, and it will have been preceded, but will it have been caused (though, if it should be so, he dared to say there would not be wanting persons who would say that it had been caused) by Parliamentary Reform? and yet Parliamentary Reform would have as much to do ill the one ease, as free trade in the other. He was not going to enter into the general question. The principles of free trade had been sufficiently vindicated on former occasions. He recollected no occasion on which the opponents of the system have opened their fire, when their batteries had not been silenced by as provoking replies of facts, and figures, and documents, as ever overwhelmed incautious assailants. All he wished lo suggest was, a few of the various causes which might interfere with commercial prosperity, and might create commercial distress, though the commercial system itself be conducted, as he contended it was conducted at present, on the soundest principles. Could any system prevent the proverbial vicissitudes of trade? Could it prevent the fluctuations of foreign demand? the effects of home competition? Could it prevent the consequences of the increased power of production, or of the voluntary error of over-production? Was the system to be charged with the calamities which proceeded either from unwise speculations, or from the migration of capital? And yet any one of these causes might produce distress to a great amount. Even a change of fashion might throw towns and districts out of work; but could they prevent the changes of fashion? Should they prohibit the use of cotton gloves; and, if they did, would trade flourish the more? These were a few of the ruinous causes which were in continual operation; it was these which, under the very best system, might produce, and would ever produce, an abundance of individual, and of local and temporary distress. But where would be the advantage of continually altering general laws to meet particular cases? What would be the consequence of our saying to the capitalists, "You shall never remove from the scene where you first begin your operation; you shall remain in Spitalfields; you shall not go to Manchester or Leeds?" Would not such legislation be as futile, as it would be barbarous and absurd? Again, if to favour the silk mills of Macclesfield, they were to surround the island with the brazen wall of prohibition, should they be doing good or harm to the whole community? Would the loss of foreign trade be no detriment? Would the migration of British capital to other countries (and such would be the inevitable consequence) be no evil? For the hundreds whom we might benefit, should we not injure hundreds of thousands? Would not the clamour which the alteration might allay, be succeeded by an outcry far more general, far more loud, and far more just? He was anxious to make these few observations, because he was aware that the Reform Bill would give a great increase of influence to the manufacturing towns; and, unless the people were rightly informed on these particulars, a formidable power might be directed to promote objects which, eventually, would not be advantageous to the people themselves. The great towns might combine. "Assist us this time," it might be said, "and we will assist you next time;" and, by these means, it might happen, if the people were left in error, that one of the first exploits of the reformed Parliament would be an attempt to effect the destruction of the free trade; and this, he should regret to see, not only on account of the harm that would ensue, but also on account of the legitimate triumph it would afford to the opponents of Reform. He was also anxious to make these observations, because his belief was, that in a country so highly commercial and manufacturing as this, distress must necessarily exist somewhere, at all times. There would always be local distress, and general inconvenience at periodical intervals—this they must expect—cycles of prosperity, and cycles of depression; and, if the people were not rightly informed on these subjects, they would be constantly exposed to being made the gulls and tools of interested demagogues. Men who had words at command would at all times have the opportunity of exciting and inflaming a deluded multitude—or placing before them some frightful picture or other of local distress, which would occupy a larger space than it ought on the convex of imagination—which might morbidly excite the public mind, And what would be the result? Why, that the industrious classes would often believe that the fault lay in the Government—perhaps in the form of Government—when the grievance was, in fact, one which no Government, and no form of Government, could by possibility avert. And what would be the result of this continual dissatisfaction with the Government of the country? Why, the next step would be, desire of change—attempt at change—yet in what manner would trade and commerce be relieved by this alteration? In what manner was the trade and commerce of France relieved by the first revolution? In what manner had they been affected by the second revolution—a just revolution—a bloodless revolution? Why, at that moment, trade was languishing in every part of France, and the chief employment of the National Guard was to keep down the operatives who were out of work, and whom they knew to be starving. He repeated, that there was nettling more pernicious or cruel, than to mislead the industrious classes on subjects so immediately connected with their interests. He repeated that, in so highly a manufacturing country as this was, there would always be local distress; and, under those circumstances, was it not their bounden duty, instead of misleading the people, to tell them the truth, and endeavour to make them perceive that all that any Government could do was, to put them in a good course, and that the rest must be done by themselves? It was not because he was insensible to the distress of the industrious classes, that he expressed these opinions. On the contrary, he would do anything in his power to assist them. But he said this, because he knew that it was only by their own prudence, by their own forethought, by habits of regularity, and by putting something aside against a rainy day, that they could ever be secured from, at least, the occasional pressure of want. It was because he thought that the adoption of the Resolutions proposed by the worthy Alderman, would rather tend to disturb and mislead the public mind than provide any relief, that he felt himself compelled to support the previous question.

, in reply, expressed his astonishment that observations like those of the hon. Member near him (Mr. Gally Knight) could have come from a Reformer. Reform would be useless, if its effects were not to remedy the grievances of the people. The hon. Member spoke of the Resolutions as mischievous; as if taking notice of the people's distress, and encouraging them to rely on the Legislature, were more likely to produce discontent, than the distress itself, and the refusal to make any inquiry into it. In his opinion, the great distress which existed among the labouring manufacturers of this country, made it incum- bent upon Parliament to institute an inquiry into its causes.

presented a Petition from the City of York, respecting the state of the Currency. The hon. Member stated, that he had several similar Petitions in his possession, and the House was aware that he had also a motion on the subject of the Bank Charter and Currency, which stood for that night. With a view, however, of saving the time of the House, he begged to put a question to the noble Lord near him, as the answer which the noble Lord gave would determine whether he should, at the present moment, bring forward his Resolutions upon the subject. He wished to know from the noble Lord (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) whether it was probable that any measure, founded upon the labours of the Bank Charter Committee, would be submitted by Ministers during the present Session of Parliament?

said, when he brought forward the proposition for the appointment of a Committee on the subject of the renewal of the Bank Charter, he certainly did so with a sanguine expectation that the question would decidedly be introduced during the present Session of Parliament; but the course that the examination of the evidence in the Committee had taken, had diminished the expectation which he had previously entertained. The subject was one of very great importance undoubtedly, and it was essential to have the question set at rest as early as possible; but, great as the inconvenience of delay in setting this question at rest might be, a much greater inconvenience would be felt were it to be terminated without a full inquiry into the whole subject.

trusted, that he should not be precluded from bringing forward his motion, should a measure be introduced by the noble Lord in the course of the Session.

said, it was not very likely, at this advanced period of the Session, that he should submit a measure upon the subject to the House.

observed, that perhaps the noble Lord would afford him an opportunity of presenting his petitions upon the subject, and of submitting a motion relating to it, should hereafter any measure be submitted by Ministers.

said, in that case, he certainly would acquaint the hon. Member in time with his intentions.

, in that case, would not press the motion of which he had given notice; and would, with the permission of the House, withdraw it.

said, the Motion which he had then to bring forward was upon a subject which appeared to him of very great importance. Ten days ago he presented a Petition to the House, complaining of the punishment inflicted upon a private in the Scotch Greys, of the name of Somerville, under circumstances, certainly, which were of a singular nature, and involving an important question, deserving the attention of the House; a question not less than this—whether an Englishman, becoming a soldier, was to be deprived of all his rights as a citizen? He had always considered that a soldier never lost his rights as a citizen by becoming a soldier. Now, it appeared to him, that had not Somerville written to the Editor of The Weekly Dispatch, a letter, stating certain opinions, he would never have met with the punishment which was inflicted upon him. Somerville was a gardener by trade, and about four months back, enlisted into the Scotch Greys. Up to the period to which he had been charged with improper conduct, no complaint had been urged against him. He had regularly attended drills, and had conducted himself so as to insure the same treatment which others of his comrades experienced. The hon. Member here read a passage from the letter, which appeared in The Weekly Dispatch, and said, that when the newspaper containing that letter reached Birmingham, some inquiry was made as to the author. Somerville, being questioned upon the subject, immediately acknowledged that he had sent the letter. He was desired, although only a recruit, to ride with a class which he had never been called upon to ride with before. The hon. Member read an extract of the account given by Somerville, of his conversation, with Major Wyndham, showing that the Major was very much displeased with the man for writing the letter. The horse upon which he mounted was raw, and required a skilful rider, and Somerville could not accomplish it. He disputed with the person who was in the school at the time, and, on being desired again to mount, he would not. This certainly was a breach of duty, but not deserving the heavy punishment with which it was visited. The statement which he (Mr. Hume) made was authentic, and capable of being substantiated on oath. When the regiment was drawn up in the riding-school to witness the punishment of Somerville, Major Wyndham addressed them for upwards of a quarter of an hoar, on the heinous offence of writing such letters. Now, it was a usual course to address soldiers about to be punished, on the magnitude of the offence of which they had been convicted; but, in this instance. Major Wyndham harangued the regiment, for upwards of a quarter of an hour, upon the wicked libel which Somerville had written, and upon the impropriety of a soldier's expressing political opinions, and giving encouragement to the mob; but he said little or nothing about the heinousness of the offence which was nominally the cause of the punishment which the regiment was called out to witness. Now, when the House took into consideration, not only that the political offence, or what was said to be a political offence, was the theme of the commanding officer's address to the regiment; and that in a conversation, which that officer (Major Wyndham) held with Somerville, previous to the court-martial, related altogether to the "libel," excepting only the one allusion to the situation to which the soldier had got himself, and which also was connected with the political offence, by the Major's adding, "that it would make him repent of what he had done"—that is, of writing the letter. Prom all these facts, it was impossible not to see that the man was, in reality, punished for the expression of his political opinions, and not for the alleged breach of discipline. But there were still other facts, which proved beyond all question, that the breach of discipline was laid hold of as a pretence for punishing Somerville. On the very day after the flogging of that man, a private, called Andrew Scott, flatly refused to go to the school. Well, was he flogged? No such thing. The only punishment was confinement to the yard for twenty-fonr hours, and the being kept to the barracks for another day. He (Mr. Hume) begged the House to consider the difference between the two cases. Here was Scott refusing, in defiance of all dis- cipline, to go to the school at all, or attempt to perform his regular exercise, on the day after Somerville had been flogged for refusing to do what he had vainly attempted to do; the latter being a recruit, and his removal into a higher class, and his being ordered to ride an untrained horse, having all taken place within a few hours after he acknowledged himself to be the writer of the letter to The Dispatch. If his refusal was so deserving of punishment, why was the more culpable refusal of the other man (who had the example of the previous day's punishment before him) passed over with comparatively no punishment? If Scott believed that the punishment of Somerville was really inflicted for his refusal to do what he had attempted to do, and found to be impossible, would he (Scott) venture to refuse making any attempt, or even going to the school? Assuredly not. It was plain from his conduct, that the regiment very well understood that the letter was the real offence. A strong corroboration of this was, that on a few days after the flogging, some officers of the regiment attended the theatre, and received some marks of disapprobation from a part of the audience; and, in the course of that evening, some of the privates got into a squabble with the towns-people, in consequence of what took place in the theatre. The soldiers, being intoxicated, returned at a late hour to the barracks, with their clothes torn, and in such a condition, as would in a strict, or at least in a very severely-disciplined regiment, subject them to punishment. However, although their conduct was much more disorderly than Somerville's, they were not punished. Yet such was the severity with which that man was flogged, that although the punishment was inflicted so long as seven weeks ago, and he had received only 100 lashes, he was still confined to the hospital, and was in a bad way. The treatment which he had experienced since the flogging, was a great aggravation of the punishment. His removal from Birmingham to Coventry, on account of the feeling which was expressed towards him in the former town, had retarded his recovery. Was such a case to be passed over by that House? Was it to be allowed that a man should be treated in such a way for the expression of his political opinions? He had always understood the constitutional doctrine to be, that a private soldier was not only to think for himself on such questions, but that he was actually bound to know the law, and to refuse to obey his officer in doing an illegal act. He had known many instances in which privates were tried for their lives, for having acted upon the illegal orders of their officers. But it would be absurd to say, that a private could be responsible in such cases, if it was to be held that he should take his political opinions from his officers, and that he was liable to be punished for thinking for himself on matters in no way connected with military discipline. The hon. Member then read a passage from Blackstone, to show that, in free States, a man, so fur from losing the rights of citizenship by becoming a soldier, was to be considered as having become a soldier, "that he might continue to be a citizen," and protect the rights of himself and his fellow-citizens. But, he would ask, in what was the conduct of Major Wyndham to this soldier Somerville consistent with that doctrine? If such conduct was to be tolerated by the executive, and passed over by that House without reprobation, then the British soldier must henceforth be considered, not as a citizen, but a slave. What the consequence was to be, he should leave to the Secretary-at-War to consider. But if the doctrine was to be admitted in respect to privates, why should not the same rule be applied to officers? But he knew many Officers in that House, who were in the habit of expressing their political opinions very freely, and not only in that House, but in places where their privilege of Parliament could not be pleaded to protect them, and he would put it to the Secretary-at-War, whether, if it was to be the law that privates should be punished for political opinions, certain Officers—hon. and gallant Members of that House—should not be flogged for expressing their political opinions in the strong language in which they sometimes indulged. He wished some hon. Member connected with the law or the army, would inform him whether such was to be the law, or Blackstone was right? If Blackstone was wrong, then he would say, that it was most dangerous to the liberties of the British people, that there should be in this country so many thousands of armed men entirely subject lo the tyranny of their officers, and bound to obey their commands implicitly, and to take their political opinions from them. That was a state of things which ought not to be allowed. [Sir Charles Wetherell: Hear, hear.] He would tell the hon. and learned Gentleman, upon the authority of Blackstone, that a standing-army, ruled under such doctrine, could only be suffered under a despotic Government; and if the hon. and learned Gentleman would assure him that such was the received doctrine at present, he (Mr. Hume) trusted that the next Parliament would place the law upon such a footing that, if there was to be a standing army, the soldier should not cease to be a citizen. When he last spoke in that House upon the case of Somerville, he abstained from pressing any motion at that time, because he understood that the right hon. the Secretary-at-War had not yet received any information; and he hoped that, by postponing the Motion, the right hon. Gentleman would be enabled to explain the circumstances, and to state what were the views of his Majesty's Government upon the whole transaction. There were now two courses open for him (Mr. Hume) to pursue. One was, to move for the appointment of a Committee of the whole House, to inquire respecting the legality of punishment inflicted upon a soldier by sentence of court-martial for the expression of a political opinion; and that evidence should be heard at the Bar of the House: for, although this was but a solitary case, yet it involved a question which concerned the rights of the whole people, and affected the liberties of every individual. But that was a course which it might not be necessary to adopt, and there was another which he thought might answer the purpose. He should move for a copy of the accusation against Somerville, of the minutes of the court-martial, and of the sentence; and the report of the commanding officer as to whether the whole sentence was carried into effect. This Motion would enable hon. Gentlemen opposite, connected with the War Department of his Majesty's Government, to explain the real nature of the circumstances connected with the punishment of Somerville, and to show whether or not that soldier's statement of his own case was correct. From this explanation he should be able to determine whether it might be necessary for him to found any other motion upon the papers for which he now moved. But he should reserve to himself to consider whether or not he should take some ulterior step to ascertain what was the opinion of the Government respecting the interference of a soldier's military duties, with his political rights. He concluded by moving for the Return of Papers (which he had already described) relating to the Trial and Punishment of Private Somerville, of the 2nd Dragoons.

said, that he was never more taken by surprise in his life than on the present occasion, for he had not the least idea that such a motion as the one before the House would have been brought forward, and he could not help thinking that a regard for the courtesy which prevailed even among political opponents, to say nothing of those who, for many years, had been engaged in the same cause, should have induced the hon. member for Middlesex to give some intimation of the course he intended to pursue. But, it appeared, that the hon. Member himself hardly knew the course he should follow, having so recently decided on one of two modes of procedure which, he stated, were open to him. With respect to the first plan, it was unnecessary to touch upon it, as it had been abandoned. The hon. Member had contended, that a man by becoming a soldier did not lose his rights as a citizen. He did not know that any one had asserted an opposite opinion; the proposition, therefore, not having been laid down upon one side, he could not see the necessity of combatting it on the other. The difficulty he felt in replying to the statement lay altogether on its being-founded upon that of which they had no parliamentary cognizance. The hon. Member held a private document in his hand, which he described to be so authenticated as to justify their consent to the production of the documents for which he had moved. If this were assumed to be a correct mode of proceeding, the only thing any hon. Member would have to do would be, to make a number of charges, and say, "If you have anything to produce against these charges, you will agree to an inquiry." He had no hesitation in saying, in the case in question, he had felt it his duty to call for the proceedings of the Court Martial, and he had not found in them the slightest mention of what had been adduced by the hon. member for Middlesex. He should be greatly shocked if, at this or other times, a soldier, who was alleged to be punished for one offence, was, in reality, punished for another. There was no man—no Member of Parliament—no Englishman, who would be found dishonest enough to defend such a proceeding. He looked, however, to the proceedings of the court martial upon the one hand, and he found not the slightest allusion to the speeches said to have been made by Major Wyndham, or of any offence relating to a newspaper; he looked, on the other hand, to the fact stated by his hon. friend, that speeches were made before, and at the time of the punishment, which showed that the real offence committed by this man was not the having been guilty of disobedience of orders, but the having participated in political opinions which his hon. friend said was not a disgrace, but was, in fact, an honour; and, looking at these circumstances, and seeing nothing of this kind upon the proceedings of the court-martial, how was it possible for him to give credence to the statement which had been communicated to the hon. Member? How could he on ex parte statement suppose—nay the supposition was not enough—take it for granted, that an officer high in command, a gentleman of rank and station, at the head of one of his Majesty's regiments, ordered a soldier to receive a punishment—as his hon. friend characterized it, an extremely severe one—for an alleged offence, when the real cause of his punishment was, the having delivered a political opinion? It was fortunate for him, at least, that his hon. friend had not, on this occasion, at all taken into consideration the question of punishment of this description. That left him quite at liberty to deal with the question entirely on its own merits, and he would appeal to any hon. Member whether he could be expected to accede to the Motion thus introduced, without any notice. Considering that, in his situation as Secretary at War, it was necessary for him to consult the military authorities with whom he acted, surely it would have been but fair in his hon. friend to have given him notice of his Motion ere he laid it before the House. He did not know whether there existed any particular objection to producing the proceedings of this regimental court-martial. He believed that a soldier had a right to call for the minutes of general Courts; but he was not aware that he had this right with regard to a regimental Court. There was, he repeated, nothing whatever in the proceedings of the Court to justify any appeal on v/hat had been admitted to be an ex parte statement. As to the measure of punishment, whether it had been excessive or not, he was not called upon to deliver an opinion. The question was, whether sufficient grounds had been shown for laying the proceedings of the court-martial before the House. Had notice been given, he should have consulted with the usual authorities, and should have known the line it was proper to pursue. On the first glance, he did not think there was any precedent to authorize the production of the proceedings. He was not, at the same time, aware of any objection to bringing them forward, except that the House had hitherto been extremely chary of interfering in matters of military discipline. Of course, where there had been any excessive exercise of the prerogative vested in military officers, the House had a paramount authority, as it had in all cases the right to call for such inquiry as it might deem necessary. But his hon. friend had proceeded on one ground, and the court-martial on another, and he could not believe it possible that any colonel of a regiment would do such a thing as that which had been set forth to the House. He would ask, if any Gentleman who heard him had ever known of such transactions?

Yes.

Several—many, many.

said, that he did not recollect to have heard of such cases, and that the grounds upon which he had always opposed flogging in the army were quite independent of any oppression that might be committed on account of political opinions. He had only to repeat, that he could not accede to the Motion, as he had not had notice of his hon. friend's intention to make it.

would support the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary at War, in his opposition to the Motion. He thought that the hon. member for Middlesex had preached a most extraordinary and unconstitutional doctrine. He knew nothing of the case, but what he had picked up from the speech of the hon. Member himself The private, Somerville, had been tried for a military offence by the competent tribunal; and the complaint made was, that that tribunal was influenced by the circumstance of his having previously done something which was supposed to amount to a political offence. But if there had been anything improper in the conduct of the court-martial, the proper mode of appealing against the decision of the Court was, by an application either to the King himself directly, or indirectly through the Commander-in-chief. But if that House were to constitute itself into a Court of Appeal from the military Courts, it would, in fact, place itself in the position which was taken by the House of Commons in the time of Charles 1st, when it assumed the command of the army. At the same time, no man would deny, that the House had the power of interfering, if a case of abuse should have been clearly established against a military Court, or against any other Court. But as no case had been made out by the hon. member for Middlesex, he hoped that Gentleman would see the propriety of withdrawing his Motion.

had not received any intimation of the course which his hon friend, the member for Middlesex was determined to pursue, until he heard him make the present Motion. He was not prepared, therefore, to say whether the course which he had adopted was or was not the best, by which he might have brought the case before Parliament. But he would say this, that he never heard a case which more urgently called for investigation in that House than that which had been made out in the statement of his hon. friend. His hon. and learned friend who had just sat down, had stated that the House would be authorised, only by a case of great abuse, in interfering with the proceedings of courts-martial, or of any other Courts. But that statement implied an admission that the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was opposing the Motion upon insufficient grounds; for surely there never could be a case of grosser abuse than that which his hon. friend had stated. Whether or not the statement could be substantiated, it was of such a nature that the House ought to institute some inquiry, although he could not say in what form the inquiry was to be made. The House ought to be informed by the right hon. the Secretary at War, whether or not he had examined into the circumstances. For, although his hon. friend (Mr. Hume) had not given notice of the precise form of the Motion, yet he had already drawn the attention of the Government to the case, and the attention of the whole country had been drawn to it—nor had any case ever created a stronger feeling of surprise and indignation amongst the people. If the statement of the hon. member for Middlesex was correct, there could be no doubt that the man had really been flogged for his political opinion, and he (Mr. Tennyson) was glad to hear his right hon. friend deny that the statement was correct.

What I said was, that there appeared nothing in the minutes of the court-martial to justify me in supposing that there was any truth in the statement that the man was punished for a political offence.

was glad that his right hon. friend (Sir John Hobhouse) had stated his opinion, that a soldier could not be punished by a court-martial for the expression of his opinion on a political question. If such a punishment as flogging was to be continued, he trusted that the House would at least take care that the power to inflict it could not be abused as in this case. He would support the Motion.

said, he must complain, that the hon. Gentleman had not given notice of his intention to bring forward a Motion so unusual. It was said a man had been punished for an offence which did not subject him to a Military Court, under the pretence of his having committed a military offence. He (Lord Althorp) agreed, that, if that was true, the transaction was one which called for the severest reprehension. But this was a case in which the House ought not to proceed, unless very strong ground should have been made out; nor ought it to interfere with the proceedings of a court martial upon the unsupported statement which had been made by his hon. friend (Mr. Hume), on the authority of the individual himself who complained of being aggrieved. He entirely concurred with his hon. friend, that a soldier had a right, in common with every other Englishman, to express his opinions upon questions of politics. But there must be a line drawn, beyond which that, right should not be exercised; and he thought it a question of very great delicacy and difficulty, to determine where the line should be drawn in the case of a soldier. There was at present no reason for going into the discussion, and he put it to the House, whether the Motion ought to be agreed to, notice not having been given of the hon. Gentleman's intention to make it.

thought it but reasonable the House should acquiesce in the Motion, for it went only so far as the production of the minutes of the court-martial and the sentence pronounced. It was not the province of that House to take into its consideration the question of how far it was competent to a court-martial to punish for a breach of orders or of discipline. That was a subject of too much delicacy for the House to intermeddle with, but the House would never suffer that the sentence of a court-martial should be applied to the purpose of inflicting covertly a military punishment on a soldier, for something else which made no part of the accusation against him upon his trial on the court-martial. Surely this Government in particular would never shelter a proceeding of so grossly unjust a nature as this, if the facts were as had been stated. But the complaint now made was, that this soldier was not only punished disproportionably to his alleged offence, but that by regimental arrangement, a trap was laid for him so as to cause him to commit this act of insubordination, and thus afford an opportunity, under cover of this sentence, to inflict not punishment for this offence, but vengeance for something industriously kept out of sight, namely, the offence of a political kind committed by him in writing a letter to the Dispatch newspaper. This trap consisted in the man's being removed into a higher grade (for which, not an hour before, he had been pronounced unfit), in consequence of which he was appointed to ride an undisciplined horse which he could not master, and which caused the man's refusal to peril his life wantonly, having been but four months in the regiment. And yet it was alleged that this was made the pretext for inflicting on him a severe and brutal punishment, for that which was not in fact a military punishment cognizable by that Court. The right hon. Baronet, the Secretary-at-war had said, forsooth, that this part of the grievance complained of, did not appear upon the face of the proceedings of the court-martial. No one could expect that it should—or that the finding of the court-martial should specify, that the sentence was carried into execution, "because of this man's having written a letter to the Editor of the Dispatch." He conceived it would have been highly becoming in the right hon. Baronet to have made personally the proper inquiry into these facts, whether they were true, as stated in the petition, before he had attempted to set up such a defence for the punishment inflicted. As no denial of the allegation in the petition was attempted, he must take those facts as so far proved, that the right hon. Baronet was bound to have instituted an inquiry officially into their truth; and the House, of course, in the absence of all such endeavour on the part of that right hon. Gentleman, was also bound to institute that preliminary inquiry, the first stage of which would not be accomplished without the production of these minutes. Five weeks had elapsed since that man had received these 100 lashes, with a severity which it appeared still confined him to the hospital; and yet the officers arraigned by this petition, had not thought it their duty, as he felt they should have done, to volunteer a statement in their own defence.

knew nothing of this case, except what was contained in the petition presented to the House. He agreed in the statement of the case made by the hon. and learned Gentleman; he admitted the superior power of that House, but he contended that the case, so stated, did not warrant the exercise of the delicate jurisdiction which was vested in the House of Commons. There were other ways of coming at the real nature of the case, which might, and should, have been resorted to before the hon. member for Middlesex applied to the House. The hon. Member might, for instance, have applied, in the proper quarter, for an inspection of the minutes of the court martial; and, after reading them, he could then have ascertained whether there was any just ground for the more solemn proceeding of an appeal to Parliament. With reference to what had been said of the conversation that took place between the commanding officer and the soldier, and to the assurance, that if the soldier expressed his contrition for the one offence, he should not be punished for the other, he was confident that the conversation had no effect on the minds of the five gentlemen who composed the court-martial, and that they decided purely on the evidence brought before them. Of this court-martial the commanding officer, with whom the conversation was said to have taken place, was not one; and he was confident—relying, as he did, on the honour and probity of five gentlemen, bound to administer justice on their oaths; that the soldier was tried and sentenced for the military offence alleged against him, and not for any political offence which might have been known to the commanding officer. He said that common justice, common fairness, common consideration for men discharging a judicial duty upon their oaths, ought to be set against the conversation which was alleged to have taken place. He did not, in his conscience believe that the court-martial inflicted this punishment as a punishment for a political offence. Why did he think so? Because that was but justice to the judicial persons who stood between the soldier and the commission of his first offence. Those persons must receive that credit from the House which those holding high judicial stations always had, and justly claimed. Let the House suppose, however, that this was not the fact, but that the court-martial began with a feeling, and with a view of punishing an offence that was not charged. Did this individual, or did he not, commit an offence within the Articles of War, subjecting him to this punishment? Was the finding of the Court, that he had committed the offence right, and was the sentence just, that that offence should be so punished? Suppose this were not the case, were there not a hundred safeguards to prevent the improper exercise of this description of power? Did not this soldier stand before a court-martial to make his defence? He was a person, too, apparently, well able to express his opini-ions—indeed, that was stated to be his real fault. Had he any ground for denying the military offence? Was there no proof of its commission? Was there nothing which called for the pronouncing of this sentence, and the infliction of this punishment? If not—if these persons did punish this man, actuated by unjust and private motives of their own, were they not liable to the severest punishments, both civil and military? There were many good common lawyers in the House, who could answer that question much better than he could. Was it permitted in this country for a number of persons to conspire together in order to abuse the judicial authority? Was there no remedy? Had application been made at head-quarters? After all, were the military officers, generally, so indifferent to the interests and the welfare of the soldiers, as to permit such an act of injustice to pass unnoticed? Was there no justice in any quarter, and was it a common occurrence, that a person oppressed by an unjust court-martial should cry in vain to the fountain of all justice? He said, that there was not now before the House a sufficient degree of evidence to justify it in taking that step, which he did not, however, say it might not be obliged to take hereafter. He admitted all the general principles that had been laid down in the course of this discussion. It was quite absurd to say, that every soldier was debarred from exercising his judgement on matters passing around him, so that he acted consistently with a proper observance of military discipline. He did not dispute the civil rights which belonged to the soldier, but, he said, that although the soldier possessed those rights, he might be wrong in the frequent exercise of them. His noble friend had very justly observed, that it was not fitting that soldiers should always assume the character of political disputants. There was another principle which he thought would not be controverted; namely, that they ought to look with jealousy on the deliberations of those who deliberated with arms in their hands; a principle, in his opinion, quite as important as civil liberty itself. When this question was before the House on a former occasion, this court-martial was represented to be a district court-martial. It did not appear to have been so, and all he could say with respect to it was, that even supposing, as he was very unwilling to suppose, that the commanding officer was influenced in acting as he did from political opinions, which he did not and could not believe—he said, even supposing that to have been the case, he could not believe that the members of the court-martial would lend themselves to such an atrocious act of oppression, nor did he see one allegation in the petition, or the letter produced by the hon. Gentleman, that connected the conversation of the commanding officer with the court-martial itself. He had no doubt that the gentlemen who composed the court-martial, not only acted in rigid observance of their oaths, but that they possessed feelings which, he was sure, were not scarce in the hearts of British officers—lie meant, regret and commiseration for the private soldier against whom the offence was charged, and a determination not to find him guilty until it was clearly proved against him—above all, not to punish him for an offence not committed, or not proved against him. He would say in conclusion, as that court-martial was acknowledged to have been held with strict propriety, and the punishment awarded according to the Articles of War, he certainly did not see the use or necessity of producing at present the papers which were required.

was satisfied, from what he knew of the manner in which courts-martial were conducted, that the soldier had been fairly tried for the regimental offence alleged against him. He would venture to assert, that the allegations of the hon. Member were not founded in fact. He should, however, vote for the production of the minutes of the court-martial, in order to do justice to the character of Major Wyndham.

Burdett would vote for the Motion, whether it was pressed now, or withdrawn, to be produced hereafter in an amended form, as a method of procuring a satisfactory elucidation of the case. The question at issue was important to every class, for there could be no doubt that the punishment awarded on this occasion greatly exceeded the measure of the offence. The hon. Member opposite said, that it would be attended with danger if the soldier were allowed to discuss political subjects. He did not think so; for, as Blackstone says, "a soldier puts not off the citizen when he enters the camp, but it is because he is a citizen, and would wish to remain so, that he makes himself for awhile a soldier." The bounds of military obedience had not been clearly defined; for there had been cases in which soldiers had been brought before Courts of Justice for obeying the orders of their offcers. It was perfectly clear that this matter was left in a vague condition, and it was the duty of the House, in a time of profound peace, to revise the law relative to military discipline. The power which was at present allowed by the Mutiny Act was much too great, and, as was said by Blackstone, "Perhaps, in some future revision of this Act, which was, in many respects, hastily penned, it may be thought worthy the wisdom of Parliament to ascertain the limits of military subjection and to enact express Articles of War for the government of the army." Blackstone carried his doctrine to an extent which, in the present day, would be considered dangerous. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last but one, displayed a great deal of ingenuity in his mode of treating this question; but he must excuse him for saying, that he would perplex a plain case. When, therefore, he said, that there was no truth in the statement, and when charges were made, that the soldier was punished on other grounds than those upon which he was tried—there was sufficient reason to call for inquiry. Colonel Wyndham, from what he knew of him, was the very last man whom he would suppose likely to be guilty of anything approaching to cruelty or oppression. He admitted that; but it was necessary for the safety of the soldiery, the satisfaction of the public, and, still more, for the character of Major Wyndham, that the case should be fully understood. He should vote, therefore, for inquiry; for he believed, that if there was one duty of the House more important than another, it was, to watch over the courts of justice, and to see that they did not go beyond the limits marked out by the law. To prove that this had ever been the practice, he would refer to the circumstance of appointing a Committee of Justice at the commencement of every Session, to prevent irregular proceedings in military, as well as civil, courts. He regretted that he was not in the House the other night when the hon. member for Preston brought the general subject under the attention of the House, as he should have availed himself of the opportunity of going more at length into the subject. He had flattered himself that flogging was hardly ever practised in the army, but, unfortunately, the practice seemed of late to have been growing up from the comparative disuse into which it had sunk. He said, the practice had increased, for he was sure, that recently no person could have read the papers who must not have been shocked with the accounts of the punishments inflicted upon soldiers. The argument which had been urged, that all the officers in the army were men of honour, did not appear to him to be entitled to much weight, for men would do things under particular circumstances, which they would not do in a different situation. He be- lieved, that men of higher honour and of greater humanity, did not exist than the officers of the British army; but supposing severe discipline necessary to secure the efficiency of the array, they reconciled themselves to practices of which their hearts and their better reason disapproved. He did not intend to impugn the proceedings of this court-martial, for he had not sufficient evidence to give an opinion on the subject; but he maintained that the state of the public mind rendered inquiry necessary. Within the last twelve months, general attention had been directed to this subject, and there was a feverish anxiety that the practice should be got rid of. He therefore implored and entreated his Majesty's Ministers to take the whole subject into their consideration, and look over the articles of war, with a view to correct such abuses as might exist under them. He thought that the present period was peculiarly adapted for the examination of the whole question, and he trusted that it would be proceeded in without delay. As to the power in question of subjecting men to this species of torture, the thing was monstrous, and the abuse of it intolerable. It had been said, that it would be most unsafe to abandon this power, but surely it could be much lessened without danger, and there could be no doubt that the crimes for which it was to be inflicted should be most accurately denned. There was no one—he would not say a humane man, but no man, however desirous of keeping up the discipline of the army, who would not say that the power of punishment should be exercised with the greatest forbearance. The hon. Baronet in conclusion praised Mr. Shipp, and again entreated the Ministers at once to revise the Mutiny Act, and take away the possibility of the recurrence of such offences.

said, the charge was, that a soldier had been punished for one offence, having committed another; and that was a question totally distinct from the corporal punishment to which the hon. Baronet had endeavoured to direct the attention of the House. He, thought it would have been better if that question had been left untouched; but, convinced as he was, that if they constituted themselves a tribunal for the examination of the proceedings of this court-martial, on the mere statement of the offender, they would have a petition for the same purpose from every person who might hereafter be tried, he should certainly vote against the Motion. By consenting to constitute themselves a tribunal on such grounds, for the investigation of the proceedings of a court-martial, they were withdrawing from the officers of the regiment, and from the Commander-in-chief, the whole of the authority delegated to them by Act of Parliament, and at the same time placing the matter under the worst possible jurisdiction which could be selected. He candidly admitted that nothing ought to be more severely condemned, than that an officer should accuse a soldier of one offence, and cause him to be punished for another. He would begin by stating this; but he must at the same time say, that it would be utterly impossible to maintain the discipline of the army, if soldiers were allowed to be political partizans, correspondents of newspapers, or members of political clubs. Then, indeed, a standing-army would be in truth a curse—then might they bid farewell to civil liberty. He thought, accordingly, that it was fully in the power of the officer in command to interdict a soldier's communication with the newspapers, and prevent him from being a member of a Political Union. He denied the truth of the doctrine, that a soldier continued to enjoy all the rights of a citizen. It was quite clear the soldier must forfeit that portion of his civic right which would interfere with the discipline of the army. But to address himself to the matter immediately before the House. The question simply was, had they sufficient prima facie evidence to induce them to believe that this individual had been punished for one offence while he had been accused of another? The expediency of corporal punishments had nothing to do with this charge; and it was most improper to appeal to men's passions on this topic. Now he did not think a prima facie case had been made out; he disbelieved the charge. He could not believe that Major Wyudham and the other officers on the court-martial could have violated their-oaths by trying a soldier on one charge and punishing him for another. He did not believe that Lord Hill and the other superior officers of the army would have suffered the proceeding to pass unnoticed, if anything appeared against this line of conduct pursued by Major Wyndham. Wishing, therefore, to leave the army to its natural protectors, desiring not to establish a precedent for the interference of the House of Commons in such matters, which must be fatal to the discipline of the army—he would give his decided vote against the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex, however it might be shaped.

was quite convinced, that it was impossible the charges brought against Major Wyndham and the other officers could be founded in fact. The charge against the prisoner was necessarily referred to one or more of the Articles of War, and this most strictly, and no verdict could be given except upon the charge. He was quite convinced that the court-martial had been properly conducted, and that the officers upon it had acted as became gentlemen and men of honour.

did not understand how Gentlemen could complain of having been taken by surprise, as the subject had been so long before the House. The hon. Baronet had denied that soldiers had a right to express their political opinions when not on duty. If that was so, every military Officer in that House should be restrained in the expression of his political opinions. It was said, there was no complaint against the Commander-in-chief. He complained of the conduct of the Commander-in-chief, because the charges had been published in all the public papers, and no inquiry had been instituted by that officer. It was most extraordinary that his Majesty's Ministers should resist the Motion. The man had been tried for one crime, and punished for another. After the soldier had written the letter to the editor of a paper, he was ordered to ride an untrained horse. When dismounted, he refused to mount again, and was tried by a court-martial. That was the charge, and his hope was, that the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex would not be rejected. He thought the Secretary-at-War ought, at least, to discharge the man, and send him about his business, in order that they might have the benefit of his testimony at their bar.

thought it better that the matter should be left to the military authorities, who, he had no doubt, would do justice to the injured party, and who, he could take upon him to say, were uniformly disposed to act in the humanest manner, compatible with the efficiency of the service, towards the soldiery. Within his own period an immense progress had been made towards doing away altogether with corporal punishment in the array; so much so, indeed, that he would say, that the time was arrived when the experiment might be tried, so far as the home service was concerned, though he feared that it would not be possible to preserve the discipline of the army in the colonies, unless the commanding officers possessed some discretionary power with respect to the infliction of bodily punishment.

, if the statements made against Major Wyndham could be proved, there could be no doubt that he should no longer remain in the service. He must add, however, that he had known Major Wyndham for years, and he could say, that from all he could gather from the facts of the case, and even from the petition itself, there was not the least ground for the charge against him. Notwithstanding these circumstances he would vote for inquiry, because he was well aware that no individual could be more anxious for it than Major Wyndham himself, and he was sure he would come out of the inquiry with credit. The petition bore on the face of it three or four falsehoods. It stated, for instance, that the soldier had received 100 lashes, and had been sent back to prison to receive the rest at another time. This was contrary to law—it was contrary to fact—and, seeing such a falsehood stated, he had a right to doubt the rest.

gave great credit to the noble Lord who had just spoken, for the way in which he had argued the case. He would admit that it was a subject for inquiry, but, after the statement made by his Majesty's Ministers, he could not see how the hon. member for Middlesex could persevere in his Motion. He would, therefore, recommend him not to press his Motion. If it should turn out that there was any truth in the statements, he would be the first person to assist in bringing the offender to justice.

thought, it would be time enough for the House to think of interfering, when it was seen that the military authorities had neglected to make the proper inquiry.

said, in allusion to what had fallen from the hon. member for Middlesex, that he had been taken by surprise, for he did not know that the petition was to be brought up on that evening. He, therefore, had not made himself acquainted with the sentiments of the Com- mander-in-chief; and it would be a want of courtesy to lay the papers moved for before the House without consulting; him. The only question, therefore, before the House was, whether, in the present state of the proceedings, it would be proper to accede to the Motion. He thought it would not, and should vote against the Motion.

said, that the right hon. Gentleman begged the question altogether. He said, there was nothing in the charge respecting a political offence. Of course there was none. The right hon. Gentleman admitted that a man became a soldier in order to defend his rights as a citizen. Well, then, when the man was off duty, surely there could be no great offence in his expressing his political sentiments. It was true that there were ex parte statements. His very object was, that the other party should be heard. It was a reflection on Lord Hill that he had not yet taken notice of the subject. There was, therefore, no means of appeal but to that House, and that was the reason why he brought forward this Motion. After the candid and manly observations of the noble Lord opposite, he did not wish to press the question in a manner to which the noble Lord might object. He was prepared, therefore, to withdraw the present Motion, and give notice of a Motion for this day week, to refer the petition to a Select Committee. He did this in order that no one might accuse him of taking the House unprepared.

moved for leave to bring in a Bill to remove the Summer Suffolk Assizes from Bury St. Edmund's to Ipswich. He did not wish them removed altogether from one town to the other—all he desired was, that the Assizes might be held, as they once had been, at each of the towns alternately.

was opposed to the proposed Bill, and should therefore take the sense of the House upon it at this early stage of the measure.

hoped, that the Bill would be allowed to be brought in, and that the opinion of the Magistrates of the county might then be taken on it before it came to a second reading.

had always been opposed to the introduction of measures of this sort, which he thought most inconvenient, and not very proper to be discussed in that House. If they were to be brought before the House, it was proper that some evidence should be given that the opinion of the Magistrates, who were connected with the places to which such measures applied, was favourable to them. He, therefore, thought that it would be better if the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his Motion until he could ascertain the opinion of the Magistrates assembled in Quarter Sessions.

presented a Petition from certain Persons in the Cities of London and Westminster, praying that measures might be taken to ensure the better Observance of the Sabbath. The hon. Baronet then observed, that at the very late hour which had arrived, he would not detain the House by any observations, but merely move, that a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Laws and Practices relating to the Observance of the Lord's Day.

would not object to the Motion, although the subject was one of difficulty to deal with. The law, he thought, required revision.

did not understand what was meant to be included under the word "practices," and he should recommend that the inquiry be limited to the state of the law on the subject.

thought the whole subject should be inquired into. He apprehended that the word "practices," was meant to apply to various dealings that were now carried on during the Lord's day, the due observance of which had been greatly infringed upon, especially by the Sunday markets.

did not expect much good from the Committee, but he had no objection to its appointment. He denied that there was any increase in immorality generally in the metropolis. The Sunday markets were in a great measure to be attributed to the payment of wages at a late hour on Saturday night. He objected also to the word "practices." He had no objection to the contradictions of the law being revised, but he did implore hon. Members not to do anything to take from the cheerfulness of the English Sabbath, and to give to it a character of puritanical gloom. Hon. Members also should remember, that the restrictions must fall solely on the labouring classes.

could not consent to leave the word "practices" out, as that would render the inquiries of the Committee of little use.

said, the word "practices" was essential to the Motion. If there were no Sunday markets the tradesmen would pay their men earlier than they did.

said, that if there were to be restrictions on the poor, there ought also to be restrictions on the rich. The higher classes ought to set the example. If Earl Grey gave a Cabinet dinner on Sunday, was he to be called before the Committee? He entirely agreed with the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Lamb). If a poor man was to be prevented from getting his piece of beef or greens, let the rich man be prevented from getting his ices and other luxuries.

supported the Motion, and thought the word "practices" necessary. The Sabbath ought to be a day of rest, not of amusement and riotous enjoyment, to the labourers.

was sure, that if the poor were debarred of innocent sports they would be driven to what was bad. In his opinion, more liberty ought to be allowed to the poor.

thought the hon. Member had mistaken the object of the Motion, which was to secure the enjoyment of the poor on the Sabbath.

objected to the appointment of the Committee proposed. It could have no other effect than to place additional restraints on the poor, and embitter still more their already embittered minds.