presented a Petition from the fishermen of the salmon fisheries on the rivers Barrow and Nore, signed by about 1,000 persons, complaining of great distress. They stated that they obtained a good livelihood until about five years ago, when a company was formed in Scotland to fish on those rivers with stake nets. That company was, in his opinion, perfectly illegal, by two Statutes, namely, the 28th Henry 8th, cap. 22, and the 10th Charles 1st, cap. 14. Some time ago a private individual prosecuted a party for using those nets on the Shannon, and a verdict of 40s. damages was obtained, thereby establishing the illegality of the use of stake-nets. As, however, the Statutes did not give costs, the plaintiff was put to the expense of 400l., and, consequently, persons, particularly in the condition of poor fishermen, were deterred from further prosecuting. The former Statute empowered the Sheriff and his officers of the three counties of Kilkenny, Carlow, and Waterford, on notice being given to them, to destroy weirs. The petitioners had applied to the Sheriffs, and on their refusing to act applied to the Government, who, however, postponed any reply until a case between the Duke of Devonshire and Mr. Smith, which was then pending in the ourt of King's Bench, was decided. The Court of King's Bench did decide in favour of the noble Duke, and thereby again established the illegality of the weirs. They applied to the Lord Lieutenant again, and were informed that the Government would not interfere. What was the consequence? Two Statutes were distinctly violated by a wealthy company, who could easily contend against a poor man, as the notion of a poor fisherman going to law, who never in his life, perhaps, could scrape together as much money as would pay for the first process, was as wild as to dream of paying off the National Debt. He submitted to the House whether this was not a case in which the prayer of the petition ought to be attended to? They might proceed against those who violated the Statute by indictment, and in the present case there could be no difficulty. Though he had not the honour to be the legal adviser to the Irish Government, yet he had no hesitation in stating, that, there was no lawyer who saw the Statutes but would tell them at once that there was a distinct mode of proceeding, and an easy remedy.

said, that he had received a letter from Mr. Dundas, against whose appointment as a stipendiary Magistrate he had on a former day remonstrated. He thought it but just to the individual to read it. It appeared to be dated from Liverpool, on the 7th instant, and stated that the ground of charge connected with the police force of the county of Wexford had occurred seven years ago, when the writer had resigned his situation as Chief Constable. He had made good all deficiencies to the utmost farthing that had been demanded, and had appeared at the head Police-Office of Dublin, where he had given bail to appear to answer any charge that might be subsequently brought against him. No charge had been brought, and he denied, that he had been guilty of any malversation in the discharge of his office; but having resigned it, and having a large family to provide for, he had applied for a situation in the colonies, the individual who recommended him being quite ignorant that he (Mr. Dundas) had held any situation in Ireland. He deeply regretted, that Mr. O'Connell had thought it necessary to bring forward the case at so distant a date, when proofs of innocence were so difficult to be procured, and claimed the benefit of the maxim, that every man was to be considered innocent until he had been found guilty by a Jury of his country. The hon. Member added, that in consequence of the receipt of this letter he had applied to his informant, Mr. Walker, a Member of the House, who had acted as a Magistrate of the county of Wicklow in the original investigation of the case against Mr. Dundas, and from him he had received a statement, in answer to the foregoing bold assertion of innocence, which he would also read. It represented that the original suspicion of the inaccuracy of the accounts of Mr. Dundas had arisen in 1824, and in 1827 distinct charges were brought against him. A Commission had been appointed to investigate the whole case; and on the thirteenth day of the inquiry it appeared that Mr. Dundas had given 10l. to one of his clerks to go to London, promising him more money to enable him to proceed to America. The name of this clerk was M'Cann, who subsequently confessed that the evidence he had given in favour of Mr. Dundas was untrue. Mr. Dundas then pleaded illness; and being allowed to withdraw, made his escape, and warrants were issued for his apprehension. Another person implicated in some way with Mr. Dundas was a Mr. Powell, who stated, that the frauds committed in the county of Wicklow, in connexion with the police force, were carried on in all the other counties of Ireland. It appeared that the charge for the quarter, after the removal of Mr. Dundas, was 220l. less than for the preceding quarter; and that, in the whole, the sum of which the country had been defrauded, was 3,200l., or about 800l. a-year, since Mr. Dundas had held the office of Chief Constable. It further appeared from Mr. Walker's statement, that after his removal, Mr. Dundas had applied to the Irish Government for some new appointment; but that he had been more than once silenced by a renewed inquiry into the transactions of the year 1827. He had subsequently obtained from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, the situation of stipendiary Magistrate in the West Indies. He (Mr. O'Connell) thought, that the letter which he had just read formed a curious contrast to that written by Mr. Dundas; and, in order that that Gentleman might have an opportunity of proving, if he could, the truth of his statement, he should move for "A copy of any warrant issued against Lawrence Dundas, formerly Chief Constable of Police in the county of Wexford, and an account of the proceedings, if any, taken in consequence of the issue of the said warrant, and of the manner in which those proceedings terminated."

, in moving the further consideration of the Report on the Exchequer Receipt Bill, said, he should postpone his statement respecting the general scheme of the measure until the House resolved into a Committee for the purpose of considering the amount of compensation to be given to the officers who were affected by this Bill. The right hon. Baronet moved, that the House resolve itself into a Committee to consider of the compensation to be allowed for the abolition of certain offices in the establishment of his Majesty's Exchequer at Westminster, in consequence of the passing of any Act in the present Session for the reduction of the same.

had to thank the House for the courtesy it had shown in having allowed him to advance so far in a measure of so much importance as the present without calling on him at an earlier stage to state its principles and justify its details. The subject was of a very complicated nature, and though he was at the same time deeply convinced of its importance, and that it well deserved the gravest attention of the Committee, he was afraid that he might make it neither attractive nor clear. In the first place, he had to explain the circumstances under which he had been selected to bring the matter under the notice of the House. He had been called upon to introduce the measure on the part, of Government, having had the honour of serving on a Commission appointed by his Majesty to inquire into the Public Accounts, over which the right hon. Baronet, the member for Dundee, (Sir Henry Parnell) then a Member of his Majesty's Government, presided; but as his Majesty's Government had not now the honour to reckon that right hon. Gentleman as one of their colleagues, and as it was considered that a measure of such importance as the present should be brought forward by one of his Majesty's responsible advisers, although, in the presence of the right hon. Baronet. (Sir Henry Parnell), he deeply felt his unworthiness, yet, as it had been judged adviseable, he (Sir James Graham), being one of the Commission, had ventured to undertake the task. In the next place, he had to submit to the Committee some explanation of the circumstances which had led to the introduction of the measure itself, which had been contemplated, in its principle at least, by the predecessors of the present Government, and recommended in its details by the Commission to which he had alluded. First of all, then, he had to state to the Committee, that the importance of the measure had received the most mature and anxious consideration; and perhaps he might here be permitted to allude to a circumstance which would appear on the face of the Report—namely, that the late Auditor of the Exchequer, Lord Grenville, having entertained certain objections to the proposed alterations, the feeling both of the First Lord of the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer with respect to that distinguished individual had operated on their minds as an obstacle to the introduction of so extensive a change; but considering the peculiar state of his health, and the subsequent death of that distinguished person, the original impediment had not only been removed, but the event itself had rendered some change indispensably necessary to the working of the Exchequer establishment, in which that noble Lord had held so distinguished a place. Having thus referred to the circumstances under which the measure was introduced, he would next briefly state to the Committee the provisions of the Bill under discussion; and in the outset he would beg leave to observe, as those who were acquainted with the proceedings of the Commission on public accounts must be aware, that the main provisions or the measure were founded on their published Report. For the sake of clearness, it might perhaps be expedient to point out to the Committee, first, what the Bill proposed to abolish,—next, the offices it would create,—and lastly, the objects of the change, and the means by which it was to be effected. It appeared to the Commission, and also to the Government, acting in conformity with the view of the Commission, that it was expedient to introduce so extensive a change into the whole frame of the Exchequer, as to abolish absolutely all the existing offices and the mode of conducting the public business in that great department. The Bill, therefore, would abolish the offices of Auditor of the Exchequer, of the Clerk of the Pells, and of each of the four Tellers of the Exchequer. Already he had opened to the Committee a very extensive change; and it, was only necessary for them to consider what had heretofore been the functions of the Exchequer, to be convinced of the importance of the measure now under discussion. From the earliest period of our history—he believed from the time of the Norman conquest—the Exchequer had been the great conservator of the public money, not only having to provide the safe custody and proper appropriation of the public Revenue, but exercising a direct and decided control over the office of the Lord High Treasurer, the Commissioners of the Exchequer, and the executive Government; and whatever might be the objections to the present Constitution of the Exchequer, he was bound in justice to say, although the operation of its machinery had been tardy, yet it had in the main effected its object. It had safely preserved the public Revenue committed to its charge—no great frauds had been committed; on the contrary, many great frauds had frequently been detected and defeated; and more than that, on many occasions of great importance the Auditor of the Exchequer had exercised his control over the executive, and enforced a strict attention to the Appropriation and other Acts of Parliament regulating the expenditure of the country. He might be asked, having made so large an admission, why he should advocate so extensive a change? But if the Committee attended to what he was now about to state, they would see, that the machinery which the present measure was intended to supersede was so complex and inappropriate to the whole pecuniary transactions of the present day, that the time had arrived when, if means could be devised for providing equally efficient checks, it would be expedient to alter the forms and constitution of the Exchequer, for the purpose of facilitating the great objects which, as now existing, it had not failed to achieve. The present system had its origin in, and attained ninny of its characteristics from, that period, when all the facilities and securities now in operation for the transfer of money,—when banks, bank credit, bank checks, bank paper, were entirely unknown. All the machinery or the Exchequer and its entire constitution had reference to periods when the receipts were either made by weight or by tale; but now the checks necessary to such a state of monetary transactions had become useless, although the operations themselves had not changed their character. On this point it was only necessary to refer to the mode in which the receipts of the Exchequer were at present conducted. The numerals made use of were Roman, and the receipts were written in a species of Latin, which nothing but a knowledge of the Exchequer itself could understand, and its whole complicated machinery was so antiquated that even those who had the greatest respect for the wisdom of our ancestors must admit, that the time had arrived when a change should be effected. The object of the Bill under consideration was to abolish all those antiquated forms,—the Exchequer Latin with obsolete numerals, the forms of introitus, exitus, pells, complicated receipts, and all those intricate forms which it would be too tedious as well as useless to describe, and to place the whole system on an intelligi- ble footing, observing the great principle of severing the duty of payment from the duty of control. The bill also abolished that part of the present plan to which the hon. member for Middlesex had so frequently objected—he meant the system of fees, which would get rid of a great deal of complication and confusion, arising from the method of deducting from salaries and payments paid in with one hand and drawn out with the other, which was useless in practice, and most objectionable in principle. Although the principle of the highest function performed by the Exchequer was that of control, yet there was incident to it also the actual payment of money. For the management of this branch a general paymaster was proposed to be appointed, having the same control as the other paymasters of the navy, army, and ordnance. He had now stated all the parts of the present system which it was proposed to abolish by the present Bill; it remained, that he should shortly point out what offices were proposed to be created in lieu of them. And here he had also to observe, that this part of the measure was in exact conformity with the Report of the Commissioners. It was proposed to establish a Comptroller-general of the Exchequer, and inasmuch as he was to exercise the duties now performed by the Auditor and Clerk of the Pells, and to see that all payments paid were sanctioned by acts of that House, it was of vast importance that he should be altogether independent of the executive Government; and with this view it was proposed that he should hold his office by letters patent under the great seal for life, removable only on the Address of either House of Parliament. As, however, his duty would be daily, it became necessary to provide for the sickness and occasional absence of the Comptroller-general; under these circumstances, and in conformity with the recommendation of the Commissioners, the Bill provided that there should be an assistant-comptroller, who, in the absence of the Comptroller-general, should be enabled to perform without exception all his functions in the Exchequer. These were the only offices of a permanent character; the however, provided, that power should be given to the Treasury, subject to the cognizance of Parliament, of increasing their establishment, and generally of regulating the office; and in as much as there would be great incon- venience in giving precise directions as to the strictly best mode of keeping their accounts, an extensive power should be given to the Treasury in this respect, over not only the new paymaster, but also in all the departments which the Bill would establish. The Bill then provided how the payments now made to the Exchequer should be regulated for the future. It provided that, under the sign-manual, the money should be deposited in the Bank to the credit of the Comptroller of the Exchequer; that no payment for the future should be made to the Exchequer, but that it should be directly lodged in the Bank; that, before any check or draft was issued or paid, the order of the Comptroller directing the payment should be issued. The Exchequer would have to operate under the royal order; and the Treasury warrant directing the transfer of any sum from the general fund of the Exchequer lodged at the Bank to the credit of the respective departments, that it must state the particular Act or vote of Parliament sanctioning such payment. The royal order was also to be deposited in the Exchequer as well as the Treasury-warrant. The monies were now paid by a circuitous mode through the Bank, but it was intended that there should be a general account kept at the Bank. The Comptroller of the Exchequer, previous to issuing his draft, would have the opportunity of examining the Royal warrant and Treasury-warrant, and he would have to see whether the money directed to be advanced or expended was within the provisions of the Appropriation Act or the authority granted by Parliament. He was very well aware of the difficulty of explaining the machinery of a Bill which was somewhat complicated; but he did not hesitate to say, that if the details of the Bill were followed, its working, would be successful. He had been assured by several gentlemen of great practical experience, that the measure would answer the expectations that had been formed of it; and that it would establish a simple and satisfactory mode of keeping the accounts, and at the same time it would give an efficient control over the executive as regarded the public expenditure. The Bill also provided that the paymaster should know from day to day the amount of the payments made into the Bank on account of the Exchequer, and that the Treasury should weekly have an account specifying the monies paid out, and also a statement of the balance in the Bank. The Comptroller of the Exchequer should also be informed day by day of the money paid into and out of the Bank on the public account, and also that Parliament should have an annual account of the receipts, and also of the payments made on the general account, and by what authority they were appropriated, and would thus be aware of the state of the financial balance in the Bank at the end of each year. He should state to the House, that the order issued from the Treasury authorising the payment would specify the head under which the payment was made. A new system of keeping the accounts by double entry would be adopted, so that the balance taken from day to day both at the Exchequer and the Treasury would be constant checks on each other. He was not aware that there was any other important provision of the Bill which required to be stated; he should, however, be happy, as they were now in Committee, to give any further explanation if it should be required; and if any suggestion was offered in the spirit of fairness, it should be readily adopted, provided it were considered in the nature of an improvement. He had now a word or two to say as to the effect of the proposed measure, as to the pecuniary saving it would effect. The present establishment of the Exchequer amounted to sixty-five individuals, the cost being 41,900l. Now, although he could not pledge himself to the exact number of clerks which, especially at the commencement, would be required, the effect of the change would be, speaking in round numbers, that instead of 41,900l., the cost would be 11,000l.; thus saving effectually 30,900l. to the public, and instead of sixty-five only twenty-nine sub-ordinate officers would be required. [Mr. G. F. Young: Does that include the new Pay-office?] The estimate included all the departments, except the office of the Paymaster of the Exchequer-bills, and also that of the Teller of the Exchequer in Ireland, which were not interfered with in the present Bill. He had also no hesitation in stating, on the part of Government, that it would be their object in every case, consistently with a due regard to the efficiency of the public service, to select the twenty-eight or twenty-nine individuals to be employed in the new establishment out of the sixty-five at present employed. It only remained for him to touch on that point to which the resolutions with which he should conclude more particularly referred—namely, the compensation which should be awarded to those individuals whose offices it was proposed to reduce; and he could not better state the principle on which the Bill in this respect was framed, than in the words of the Report of the Commission, which he had the honour of signing in conjunction with the right hon. Baronet the member for Dundee. "In proposing these changes in the establishment of the Exchequer, we trust it will not be supposed we mean to recommend that so many officers should be reduced without due consideration of their past services and present claims. We hope that none will suffer in their pecuniary circumstances, for we believe, that the most certain as well as the most satisfactory means of introducing great changes in the public establishments, with a view to economy, will be found to consist in as little interference as possible with the just claims of individuals." That was the principle laid down in the Report embodied in the Bill, and the foundation of the Resolutions with which he should conclude. With respect to the Auditorship of the Exchequer, the death of Lord Grenville having vacated that office, the noble Lord who succeeded him had taken it on the complete understanding, that it was subject to the regulation of Parliament. The Tellers of the Exchequer, and the Clerk of the Pells were regulated by Statute in 1817. These offices were enjoyed by the present holders for life; and the Bill provided compensation for them until other offices of equal value were obtained. It was felt, that these retiring allowances ought to be made, because, the offices which the parties held, were considered to be of a permanent nature. As it was the object of preceding Parliaments to make the Auditor of the Exchequer the Clerk of the Pells, and the Tellers of the Exchequer independent of the executive, so it was proposed by the present Bill to render the Comptroller and the Assistant-Comptroller of the Exchequer, independent of the executive also, by declaring that they should hold their offices by patent for life. Since the introduction of the Bill, a circumstance had occurred, which rendered one of its provisions unnecessary. He alluded to the death of Mr. Yorke, one of the Tellers of the Exchequer. The unexpected demise of that Gentleman, last night, would make it his painful duty to exclude his name from the list of those to whom compensation would be given by the Bill. When he stated, that he had long enjoyed the friendship of Mr. Yorke—had, on many occasions, received the advantage of his advice—and, on others, the encouragement of his approbation—when he stated, that there never was a more honourable a more independent man, nor one who ever brought greater ability and integrity to a faithful discharge of his public duty, the House would readily believe him, that it was with deep and sincere pain, that he excluded his name from this Bill. With regard to the case of the Marquess Camden, he considered it a very peculiar case—indeed, so very peculiar, that, he thought it right to set it forth fully and distinctly, in a separate clause, in order that it might be for ever known to his fellow-countrymen, that the noble Marquess, having as clear a right to the full and unabated fees and perquisites of his office, as any private gentleman had to the rents of his estate, had, from the best and purest motives of patriotism, contributed from those fees and perquisites to his Majesty's Exchequer no less a sum than 245,000l. He conceived, that no act would be more ungracious, no act more ungenerous, no act more prejudicial to the public interests, than to fetter such generosity of spirit, so long exerted for the public good; and his Majesty's Government had, therefore, deemed it expedient to reserve to the noble Marquess, for the remainder of his life, uncontrolled and unabated power over the profits of his office, leaving it to his generosity, on which, his past conduct proved, that the public might confidently rely, to deal with the public as he might think fit, and not fettering his free-will in any way or in the slightest degree. That was the least the House could do to mark its sense of the conduct of the noble Marquess. Less than that it would be unworthy of the House to do—more than that it could not do at present. With regard to other officers in the Exchequer, who did not hold patent offices, but who still had a permanent interest in their offices, he proposed that the Commissioners of the Treasury should be empowered to give them compensation, subject, however, to their laying the amount of that compen- sation before Parliament, in order to enable it to judge of the manner in which the Lords of the Treasury exercised their discretionary power. He had also a list of the names of certain officers, who, under the Act of the 23rd of George 3rd, had pensions to the amount of 8,300l. charged upon the Fee Fund. These pensions, he proposed to charge in future upon the Consolidated Fund. As the lives of the holders dropped in, the amount of those pensions would diminish, till at last, there would be no charge at all upon the Consolidated Fund. As far as possible, the Government was disposed to fill up the new offices created under this Bill, from the old officers of the Exchequer, thereby diminishing the loss which the public would otherwise incur, by the amount of allowances which would be granted under it. He was not aware, that he had omitted any point of importance. He was sorry that he had been obliged to detain the Committee so long; but he could not avoid entering into the details of so extensive a change as that which he had now the honour to recommend to Parliament; a change, which was as extensive as the Government thought to be safe to make in the first instance. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving his first resolution, to this effect; "That it is the opinion of this Committee, that the Comptroller-General of the receipt and issues of his Majesty's Exchequer should receive an annual salary of 2,000l.; that. the Assistant-comptroller should receive an annual salary of 1,000l.; and that the chief clerk, and the other clerks and assistants should receive such salaries as should be established and regulated from time to time by the Commissioners of his Majesty's Treasury, to be paid out of the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland."

was sure, that if his right hon. friend had deemed it necessary to apologize to the Committee for detaining it with so dry a subject, while he submitted to the House an explanation of the details which he had offered to its consideration, it was still more necessary for him to offer the Committee a similar apology, for the demand which he was now about to make upon its attention. He was happy to find, that his Majesty's Government had at last brought before the House this very useful recommendation of the Commissioners appointed to report upon the Exchequer. He regretted that so much time had been allowed to elapse since the Commission to which he had had the honour to belong, had ceased to act, and since the Commission which succeeded it had made its report, without any practical measure having been introduced into the House, as the result of their anxious and diligent labour. He availed himself, however, of the present opportunity, to say, that his right hon. friend had not, as it appeared to him, done Lord Grenville justice, in supposing that that distinguished nobleman had been desirous of throwing obstacles in the way of this Bill. In all the communications which the Commission to which he had belonged had deemed it necessary to make to that noble Lord, they had found him ready to give them his opinion, to afford them every information in his power, and to co-operate with them in obtaining an insight into all the forms and processes of the Exchequer. He was, therefore, confident that they would have experienced no difficulty in inducing that noble Lord to agree to any proposition which might have obtained the sanction and approbation of that House. He fully agreed with his right hon. friend opposite, that nothing but a sweeping abolition of the system at present adopted in the Exchequer, could be either useful or efficient He did not think that his right hon. friend had swept away one bit too much. Whilst he (Lord Granville Somerset) was in office, he was prepared to agree to as complete an abolition of the existing system, as that which he was going to agree to now. At the same time, he was of opinion, that some great constitutional check should be established upon the receipt and issue of public money, in lieu of that check which was now to be abolished. He thought, that his right hon. friend had not dwelt sufficiently upon the value of the check which existed at present, but which was to be done away with in the plan which he proposed for the adoption of Parliament. Indeed, he doubted whether his right hon. friend substituted so useful a check as that which he was abolishing. He conceived, that many of the forms now adopted in the Exchequer were useless; but he did not conceive that the constitutional check on the issue of the public money by the Auditor of the Exchequer and the Clerk of the Pells, was in any respect unnecessary. In placing that check in the hands of a single individual, instead of placing it in the hands of two persons of high character and station, who were perfectly independent of each other, the House might do away with one of the most useful safeguards on the correct appropriation of the public money. The plan of his right hon. friend went to the establishment of a check in the hands of a single individual, to be styled the Comptroller-General of his Majesty's Exchequer—of a single individual, who was to be free, however, from all bias in the exercise of his office. As to the propriety of this last regulation, he fully agreed with his right hon. friend; but he should have liked his right hon. friend's scheme much better, if he had invented some secondary check upon the discretion of this individual Comptroller. He was of opinion, that no single individual would be able to resist the strong pressure which was occasionally brought into play against him, whenever he put his view of what was right in opposition to the wishes of the executive Government. The point which he was now raising was not visionary, was not imaginary; for there was on record a case in which, as many hon. Members knew, the Auditor of the Exchequer and the Clerk of the Pells had made strong remonstrances against the orders of the executive Government. He saw, by the gestures of noble Lord, that he disputed his last assertion so far as it regarded the Clerk of the Pells. Now, if the Committee would bear with him whilst he referred to some evidence which was given by Mr. Roberts, in 1830, he thought that he could convince the Committee, that he was not incorrect in his statement. The case was an old one, it was true, but not, he hoped, the less deserving of attention on that account. It was stated by the present Mr. Roberts, that many years ago, when his father was ordered by the executive Government to issue certain monies for purposes which he considered illegal, he had refused to do so—that he had gone to the Treasury, produced the key of his chest, laid it upon the table of the Commissioners, and offered to resign his office rather than comply with their request. He mentioned this fact, to show, that the Clerk of the Pells had sometimes made to the Treasury an opposition which was something more than theoretical. It was also stated, that Lord Grenville had, upon one occasion, strenuously resisted the orders of the Treasury. He would not enter into the question of the legality or illegality of paying the interest on the Russian loan; but, without going further into that subject than was necessary to remind the House that the question had been raised within it, he would say, that it was clear, from what had transpired, that the representations of Lord Grenville, as Auditor of the Exchequer, had been of the most valuable kind. It was satisfactory to know, that that noble Lord, who, for many years had been unconnected with party, had represented to his Majesty's Government, in terms that could not be misunderstood, his opinion on that transaction. The new Comptroller, however independent he might be by his office, and however free from the trammels of politics, would scarcely have that weight which belonged to the Auditor of the Exchequer, from ancient prescription, and from the Gothic paraphernalia by which his office was surrounded. When he saw, under the old system, that the Auditor was supported by another officer, who was also uncontrolled, he could only arrive at one conclusion, and that was, that there ought to be two officers of independent position and situation, each exercising an independent control upon the issue of public money ordered by the Executive. He was as anxious as any man could be, that the person at the head of this department should be a real efficient officer, and that nothing approaching sinecurism should appear in the constitution of his department; therefore it was, that even if he had not stated other grounds which made him anxious for an establishment different from that contained in this Bill, this alone would make him object to it—that he found it provide for the Comptroller—General a Deputy-comptroller. It was clear, that it you had a Comptroller-General, and then a Deputy or Assisting-comptroller, and then again a Chief Clerk, that the Comptroller-General would do little, that his Deputy would do not much, and their Chief Clerk would do all the business of the establishment. He wished to prevent this species of abuse. Let it not be supposed that he wished to do this to advance some theory of his own. In the Report of the Commissioners he found a sort of programme of the duties to be performed in this new office, from which it appeared that the Comptroller would have the supervision of everything that occurred in his department; but that the Deputy-comptroller would have to see all the work performed. The chief clerk in the absence of the Deputy-comptroller would have to perform all his functions. [Sir J. Graham: That was not in the Bill.] It would be the case in practice however. The Deputy-comptroller was to examine the receipts and payments of the day, and was specially charged with the examination of the Treasury warrants, and with the consideration of their legality. He was bound to see, that they were in conformity with the grants of Parliament, and with the royal orders of the Crown. Now, supposing that a Comptroller and a Deputy-comptroller were appointed, it was quite clear, that though the Comptroller had the chief office, the Deputy-comptroller would have to exercise the check which, in reality, was the only valuable part of the office. That being the case, he thought that the country could do without a Deputy-comptroller. He would leave the Comptroller to the full possession of all the duties which at present were to be performed by his deputy; for if either of these two officers was to be an efficient officer, he was convinced that it was necessary that that efficient officer should be the Comptroller. He was aware that he should be met with the practical objection, that it was impossible, if the accidents of illness, excessive fatigue, &c., were taken into consideration, for any man to perform all the duties of so responsible an office without a coadjutor. But allowing that to be the case, it, ought not to be forgotten that the Commissioners, in their report, had provided for the occurrence of these very incidents. In case the Comptroller was absent, the Deputy-comptroller was to act for him; and in case the Deputy-comptroller was disabled, the chief clerk was to perform his functions. The report referred to the schedule, containing an enumeration of the duties of the new offices. He objected to the office of Deputy-comptroller, and he could show from the Report that the division of labour which was to take place between his principal and him and his subordinates was not very business like. He conceived, that the Bill was drawn up in conformity with the Report, and was arguing accordingly upon the Report. It was his endeavour to show that there was no necessity for a Deputy-comptroller, and that he was an officer who might well be spared. He wished to sup- ply the place of this officer by one who was perfectly independent, and therefore, calculated to act as a second check. If he had made himself understood by the House it would be clear that if the Deputy-comptroller were got rid of, there would be an office to spare with a salary of 1,000l. a-year. Now, upon such a salary an officer might be created as perfectly independent as the Comptroller; and by the word "independent" he did not mean independent of the Comptroller only, he meant independent of the Treasury also. That officer should also be a recording officer, but he should not record anything except what was in conformity with legal enactments. He was now merely stating the opinions which he had formed some years ago, when he was in office, and which he knew had been adopted by the right hon. Baronet near him and the rest of his colleagues. Feeling them to be well founded, he considered that he should fail in his duty if he did not press them distinctly upon the Committee. Having referred to the leading features in the Bill before the Committee, and the principal objections which he entertained against it, he would add, that it seemed to him to be natural that the Clerk of the Pells should be continued and should be that independent second officer he had alluded to; he should receive the same salary as at present, but the same salary should not be continued to his successor. By such an arrangement you would consult economy, for you would save the superannuation allowance of the Clerk of the Polls, and, what was equally important, would have an experienced officer at your command, who would know something both of the old and the new system. He admitted, however, that this was a point entirely at the disposal of the executive Government. There was another point of considerable importance, to which, as it appeared to him sufficient weight was not attached in the Bill—he was alluding to the position of the Comptroller. There was no provision to prevent that officer from sitting. in Parliament or holding another office under the Crown. Now, if this office of Comptroller was worth keeping up at all, there ought to be a special enactment introduced into the Bill to prevent the holder of it from enjoying any other situation in the gift of the Crown. He threw out his observations not from any wish to impede the progress of the Bill, or to obtain a triumph for his opinions, but from a sincere desire that they should be adopted by the Committee. He felt the force of his suggestions himself, and he hoped that they would meet with a candid consideration from his Majesty's Government. With regard to the preamble of the Bill, he was of opinion, that as allusion had been made to the meritorious labours of the one commission, some notice ought also to be taken of the no less diligent labours of the other. He also recommended that as the Roman numerals employed in the accounts of the Exchequer were now to be abolished, care should be taken that the knowledge of them should not be lost, and for that purpose he suggested that a small portion of the accounts should still be kept in those characters. He also wished to have the Bill recommitted pro formà, in order that such alterations as hon. Members might think expedient might be proposed and fully discussed. His right hon. friend had given little or no explanation as to the amount either of the salary of the Paymaster of the Exchequer, or of the establishment over which he was to preside. He reminded the Committee, that during the long series of years in which the Exchequer Rolls had been kept in their present form, no defalcation, no pecuniary loss, had been sustained by the State. It was, therefore, necessary that the Committee should proceed with caution in forming a new scheme in lieu of the old which he certainly thought ought to be abolished. It was not his intention to make any Motion on this subject. himself; but he hoped that what he had said that evening would be taken into the candid consideration of his right hon. friend.

thanked his noble friend for the great candour with which he had discussed this question. Some of the suggestions which his noble friend had made appeared to him to be so well founded in justice and common sense, that they appeared to his colleagues and himself to be worthy of adoption in the Bill. The suggestion which appeared to him to be the most important was that which prohibited the Comptroller from holding any other situation under the Crown. He would on a future occasion add to the Bill an enactment containing that prohibition. He had no objection to make in the preamble the insertion which his noble friend desired. With regard to what the noble Lord had said respecting the deficiency of his explanations on the office of Paymaster of the Exchequer, he would endeavour to supply that deficiency. The noble Lord was aware of the number of payments made at the Exchequer—they extended to the payment of all public officers not provided for by the grants of the House. They amounted to 3,000,000l. or 4,000,000l. a-year. The Paymaster was therefore made a public accountant. It was intended that his office should form part of the Treasury, but that was a mere matter of local convenience. His noble friend had asked what was to be the extent of the establishment over which the Paymaster was to preside. When the Treasury had formed the establishment, an account of the expense of it would be found in the Estimates, and would be annually voted in the Committee of Supply. He had already stated, that the expense of these new offices would not amount to more than 11,000l. a-year; the expense of the existing offices amounted to 41,000l. He believed of that 11,000l. nearly one-half would be expended on the Paymaster's office. There would be a paymaster, a chief clerk, and ten or twelve subordinate clerks. With regard to the double check proposed by his noble friend, he would only observe that the opinion of the Clerk of the Pells was decidedly against that proposition. That Gentleman expressly said, that the two officers placing reliance on each other, weakened the sense of responsibility in both. That Gentleman had stated also, that such an alteration would be productive of great delay and impediment to business. The right hon. Baronet concluded by declaring that the Bill would be of great advantage to the public in the form of keeping their accounts at the Bank.

said, that the country had great reason to be well satisfied at the introduction of this measure, which was one step towards financial reform, and he hoped that the principles laid down in the Bill would sooner or later be extended to other branches of the public expenditure. He could not agree with the noble Lord (Lord Granville Somerset) in his notion of the advantage of a double check. On the contrary he entirely concurred in the view taken by his right hon. friend, and he could prove if it were necessary that the introduction of a double check was altogether owing to the impel- fect manner in which the public accounts had been kept. The double check was only productive of expense, and of diminished responsibility. On the whole he approved of the measure, though one alteration recommended by the Commission, which he would have liked to see was, not introduced into it.

felt great satisfaction at the proposal of the measure, for ten years, at least, had elapsed since the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day had pledged himself to effect the alteration the present Bill was directed to accomplish. The plan laid down was a simple one, but he thought it might have been made more extensive. He wished, however, to ascertain one point, which was, whether Lord Auckland was to hold his present office in Greenwich Hospital and likewise the comptrollership specified in the present Bill? He hoped that under the present arrangement, no individual holding a plurality of offices would be entitled to superannuation allowances. He regretted that the measure, as he had said, did not go further, because he was convinced that, until the whole of the gross revenue was paid into the Exchequer, it would be quite impossible to check the extravagant expenditure of the Customs, Excise, Post, and Stamp Offices; which paid only the amount of the nett revenue raised by them into the Exchequer, making whatever deductions they pleased, if the Treasury chose to allow them. This system had led to great abuse in the expenditure of these departments. It was contrary to the spirit and principle of the English Constitution, that the House of Commons should have no control over this part of the expenditure of the country. He was anxious to hear from the right hon. Baronet what objection there could be to this additional 3,000,000l. or 4,000,000l. being paid into the Exchequer?

said, it was precisely because the measure was so extensive that his Majesty's Government was induced to think it went far enough. The most advisable course certainly was, to proceed cautiously, and to ascertain the effect of the present measure, before adopting a more extensive one. He was sure he might appeal to the high authority of his right hon. friend, the member for Dundee (Sir Henry Parnell), whether if the present measure were successful, it would not greatly facilitate the progress of those more extensive measures which the hon. member for Middlesex required. In proposing such an important change as the overthrow of the existing system of the Exchequer, establishing an entirely new one, surely it became the Executive to see how the new system worked, before changes more extensive, more decisive, and involving more important consequences were effected. The hon. member for Middlesex said, that the cost of collecting the revenue of the Excise and Customs was not laid before this House. Why, an account, entering into the most minute details of that expenditure, and showing the difference between the gross and the nett amount of the revenue, was annually laid before the House, in compliance with the provisions of an Act of Parliament, and so far from his Majesty's Government not making the necessary inquiries upon this point, he begged to say, that the subject was now under the consideration of a Commission, over which his right hon. friend, the member for Dundee, was presiding. With reference to the noble Lord concerning whom a question had been asked, that noble Lord was now auditor of the Exchequer, and in the event of the Bill passing he would be Comptroller under it. That noble Lord, he could assure the hon. Member, had no intention of claiming or receiving any pension while he was Comptroller. The noble Lord (Lord Granville Somerset) had asked him (Sir James Graham) whether he would be able to hold any other office in addition to this Comptrollership, and he had told him in reply that he believed that could not be the case. At the same time he must observe, that the office to which the noble Lord alluded was not held during pleasure, though being himself connected with Greenwich Hospital, he could hardly express in terms sufficiently strong the loss that establishment would sustain by the retirement of the noble Lord, whose talents, experience, and integrity were so conspicuous.

hoped it might not be understood that in asking the question he should be supposed to be under-rating the talents of the noble Lord. No one was more ready than himself to acknowledge the noble Lord's talents for business. His only object was to enforce the principle of non-pluralities. On one point the right hon. Baronet had not understood his remarks. The Exchequer Office was constituted for the purpose of keeping an account of the total revenue of the country, but it never exhibited that; it was an absurdity which existed in England alone, that the Exchequer, which ought to keep an account of all the receipts of revenue, never did so, for the officers who collected the money were allowed to deduct the expense of supporting their own establishments. He would mention an extraordinary instance, to show how necessary an alteration was. A loan to the amount of 7,000,000l. was contracted for, to supply the Emperor of Austria. One would have supposed that this would have been entered in the Exchequer account; but the money was paid into the Bank, from the Bank it was paid to the Emperor of Austria, and it never had been entered in the Exchequer account, although the country paid the interest on it to this moment.

did not think it a matter of more importance to provide efficient checks on the public accounts than to lessen the amount of the public monies placed in the hands of public officers. As a measure of economy he approved of the present Bill, but he hoped that some alteration would be made in the clause which related to the appointments of the Comptroller and Assistant-comptroller of the Exchequer. He disapproved of public officers being appointed to their situations for life, and thought that no one should hold a public situation except during pleasure. The amount of the salaries at present paid was 40,900l.; but the right hon. Baronet had forgotten to state to them what the saving was which the proposed abolition of offices would effect in this branch of the public expenditure, or whether the amount now paid for salaries was to be continued to be paid under the name of pensions or retired allowances. He complained that it was on those who really did the work of the public that the reductions pressed most heavily; and he could not help saying, that the salaries of principal as well as those of subordinate clerks should be diminished in the same proportion. The measure proposed to abolish the office of Clerk of the Pells, but he saw no reason why the principle to which he had adverted should not be applied to the salary of the right hon. Gentleman who held that office as well as to the salaries of other persons. Indeed, he thought that, instead of allowing the right hon. Gentle- man a retiring pension of 1,400l. a-year, it would be much better to retain his services by making him Assistant-Comptroller of the Exchequer. This course would not only be the wise one, but would have the advantage of economy to recommend it. The salary of the Assistant-Comptroller of the Exchequer was to be 1,400l., and if the right hon. Gentleman were appointed to fill that office, his pension as Clerk of the Pells being saved, the public would have the benefit of a reduction to that extent. The right hon. Gentleman was the only person who had ever held the office of Clerk of the Pells for life, or otherwise than at the pleasure of the Crown, and, therefore, he could see no hardship in pursuing the course which he had suggested with respect to transferring the right hon. Gentleman, who was comparatively new to the public service, to the Exchequer, instead of permitting him to enjoy a sinecure pension.

stated, that this was, undoubtedly, a measure of economy, and calculated to create a considerable saving; but economy ought not to be considered as its primary object. It was a measure of still higher importance,—for the regulation and greater accountability of those intrusted with the public money, for affording easier access to the public accounts, and improving the mode of keeping them, and creating a more effectual control over the public expenditure. He could not admit the principle, that the selection of officers belonged to the House of Commons: it was the duty of the Government to charge itself with that responsibility. It was represented, that Mr. Ellis was only new in the public service. That was not the case: he had served his country in every part of the globe for twenty-two years. In 1812, Mr. Ellis entered the public service as Secretary to Lord Buckingham, then President of the Board of Trade. In 1814, he proceeded to Persia on a special mission, and concluded a treaty of importance with that country, to the satisfaction of the English Government. In 1815, Mr. Ellis was appointed one of the Commissioners for concluding a treaty with the United States of America. He subsequently proceeded with Lord Amherst on his embassy to China; and in 1817, on his return to this country, resumed his situation of Commissioner for the commercial treaty with the United States. He continued in that situation till 1819, when he went out to the Cape of Good Hope as Secretary to the Governor-General. He remained at the Cape till 1822, when he returned home, and was appointed Secretary of Revenue Inquiry. In 1824, Mr. Ellis was appointed one of the Commissioners of Customs; and in 1825, he was selected, by the Earl of Liverpool (then at the head of the Government), not in consequence of any application from himself or others, but voluntarily selected by the noble Earl, to fill the office of Clerk of the Pells, under the new regulations fixed by the Act of 1817, which converted the office from something of a sinecure, into a complete and efficient and useful office. He had proved to the House, that, so far from being new to official life, Mr. Ellis had been twenty-two years in the employment of the public; and he now wished simply to state a point on which he would appeal to the generous feelings of Members of the House, as gentlemen and persons of liberal sentiments. The inducement which prevailed upon Mr. Ellis in 1825 to exchange the office of Commissioner of Customs for the Clerkship of the Pells consisted in this circumstance, that he changed a subordinate for an independent office, the salary of both being the same (1,400l. a-year), the Clerkship of the Pelts being during good behaviour, and the tenure of the office of Commissioner of Customs pretty nearly the same; for there was no instance of a Commissioner of Customs being removed, except for misconduct. Thus, the whole inducement to Mr. Ellis to remove from one situation to the other was, that he might fill an independent office. But what condition was it that the hon. member for Whitehaven called upon the Government now to exact from Mr. Ellis? Mr. Ellis was to be required, after twenty-two years of faithful service, and having filled various important public employments in different parts of the world, and being placed nine years ago in an independent situation by Lord Liverpool,—after this Mr. Ellis was required to accept a subordinate office. The hon. Member called upon Mr. Ellis to retire from a situation of perfect independence, co-equal with the Auditor of the Exchequer, and become Assistant-Comptroller. If there was any great public saving to be effected by this plan, it might be admitted to be justifiable on economical grounds, although not upon any other principle; but no such saving would result from it, as there were four other individuals in the Exchequer receiving nearly equal salaries. One was the First Clerk of the Auditor; then came the First Clerk to the Clerk of the Pells, a person of long experience, whose salary was very nearly equal to that of the Comptroller, and who would be entitled to a retiring allowance of almost the same amount; then there were two Tellers of the Exchequer, who stood upon nearly equal grounds; so that Government had su cient choice of persons to enable them to fill up the Assistant Comptrollership without detriment to the public, and without imposing a hard and humiliating condition upon Mr. Ellis. He had drawn a distinction between the Tellerships of the Exchequer, which were sinecure offices, and performed by deputy, and the Clerkship of the Pells, which did not partake so much of a sinecure character, and was not performed by deputy; and he had stated, that Government proposed to deal differently with the two cases. To the Tellers it was proposed to grant retiring salaries unconditionally, for the reasons he had stated when first mentioning the subject, but to the Clerk of the Pells (who held office under a tenure different from that of the Tellers) a superannuation allowance was granted conditionally,—the condition being, 'that no such compensation shall be paid to any person holding an office in the present establishment of his Majesty's Exchequer (including the Clerk of the Pells) who shall be appointed to an office of equal or greater emolument under the Crown.' Under these circumstances, in the event of a fit office becoming vacant, it would be the duty of Ministers to offer such office to Mr. Ellis, with a view to save the superannuation allowance which he would enjoy as retired Clerk of the Pells. He had used no dissimulation with the House; and he now appealed to Members, as gentlemen and men of honour and liberality, whether Government would have been justified in dealing out so hard a measure as that proposed by the hon. member for White-haven to an individual after twenty-two years of valuable public services, and after nine years' possession of an important independent office? Would Gentlemen call upon Government to deal thus harshly with such an individual, when it could, by acting generously and fairly towards him, without injury to the public, abstain from wounding the feelings of a man of high honour and acknowledged ability?

, as a colleague of Mr. Ellis, bore testimony to his valuable services in various diplomatic offices, and hoped that Parliament's sense of justice would not permit it to deprive that gentleman of the present small and inadequate reward for the labours of more than twenty years.

If Mr. Ellis had performed great public services, strike his name out of tile Bill, and address his Majesty to place him on the Pension-list. If this proposition were not acceptable to the House, let Mr. Ellis be called upon to fill the office of Comptroller-General, for which he was so eminently fitted by his talents and great public services.

was sorry to find it necessary to appeal to the House, lest a man of eminent public services should be degraded by being reduced to an office of subordinate rank.

wished to express his opinion on the services of Mr. Ellis. He had been described as "new to the public service." Never was there a gentleman to whom that expression could be less justly applied. Perhaps there was no public man who, after such long and continued services, had gained so little. Mr. Ellis, for the last three years, had been one of tile unpaid Commissioners of the Board of Control. His intimate acquaintance with the whole system of our Indian policy (Mr. Ellis having been in India more than once) had proved extremely valuable; and he (Mr. Charles Grant) was bound, in common justice, to confess his obligations to his right hon. friend last year, on the question of the renewal of the East-India Company's charter.

said, that there was not the slightest doubt or imputation on Mr. Ellis's merits and services; and he quite agreed with the right hon. Baronet (Sir James Graham), that it would not be justice to any gentleman who had filled such a situation as Mr. Ellis to place him in the subordinate situation of Assistant-Comptroller. What he (Mr. Goulburn) felt, was this,—that, knowing Mr. Ellis to be a man of business, who had been employed in important public transactions, and believing him to deserve the confidence of Government, he thought him possessed of abilities which qualified him for the Comptrollership. Such being the case, he thought, when that office was created, that Mr. Ellis was the individual who had the fairest claim to the situation. He would not hesitate to vote for a reward to Mr. Ellis, if necessary; but he thought, that justice would be equally satisfied, and the public money would be saved, if that gentleman were appointed Comptroller-General of the Exchequer. The real difference between the right. hon. Baronet. (Sir James Graham), the noble Lord (Granville Somerset), and himself, consisted in this,—that the right hon. Baronet thought one Comptroller sufficient, whereas the noble Lord and he were of opinion, that two would be better. If two officers were appointed (as had been originally contemplated, in consequence of the Report of the Commissioners), the two would have salaries of 1,500l. a-year each, and the responsibility would be divided, which he thought preferable to having only one responsible officer. Who was the person that had made objections to the acts of the Treasury? Not the Clerk of the Pells, but the Auditor. Objections rarely proceeded from the Clerk of the Pells. Hence the utility of a system of double checks was apparent; and a complete answer was afforded to the paper drawn up by Mr. Ellis. The circumstance to which he had referred proved how desirable was a division of responsibility, which could only be obtained by having two Comptrollers. We had an example from the practice which formerly prevailed, that a double cheek was attended with security. Why depend upon a single check in future? He agreed with the right hon. Baronet as to the advantage of getting rid of the cumbrous machinery of the Exchequer; but he objected to endangering the public security by leaving the responsibility in the hands of one officer. If two such officers as had been proposed were created, Mr. Ellis was extremely fit to be one of them. The real point was, should there be two officers or one? He was decidedly in favour of the double check, thinking that what had already proved efficient for the maintenance of public security would continue so, whereas the system now proposed to be adopted might, or might not, turn out to be successful.

The question raised by the right hon. Gentleman who spoke last was, "whether it was expedient to have a double or single check?" The right hon. Gentleman said, that the double check had not proved bad in practice, but the contrary. This might be; but there was no reason to suppose, that a single check would not be sufficient. Was there any chance that a single check would not turn out amply sufficient for public security? If there were two independent officers, there must be two establishments; and, unless it was quite clear that there was greater advantage in two cheeks than in one, he must object to the proposition. As to the propriety of Government appointing Mr. Ellis Comptroller instead of another individual, Government was responsible for its appointments, and would naturally nominate persons such as they thought fit for the duties assigned to them. Government had a right to make its choice of officers free and unencumbered. He was happy to hear every one admit, that Mr. Ellis deserved compensation. The question having been raised, whether Government ought not to have appointed that gentleman Comptroller-General with a view to the saving that would accrue from the appointment, he could only reply, that he thoght it impossible to argue a point which it rested entirely with Government to dispose of on its own responsibility.

agreed with the noble Lord in his general proposition, but thought that on occasion of the construction of a new class of officers, it involved no improper interference with the functions of Government or prerogative of the Crown to suggest the nomination of qualified individuals, who must otherwise be superannuated at some cost; neither could he see any impropriety in suggesting the adoption of the most efficient system of control over the expenditure of the public money.

was glad to see, that the general feeling of the House was, that Mr. Ellis should not be degraded by being offered a subordinate office. He did not think that Mr. Ellis had been treated with any extraordinary favour. The Tellers received compensation unconditionally, although their offices were perfect sinecures, while the Clerk of the Pells, whose situation was not a sinecure, received compensation subject to certain conditions. It appeared, that five or six years ago, Mr. Ellis made some economical recommendations, and now it was proposed by the hon. member for White-haven to deprive him of his office, and place him in a subordinate situation. The hon. Member, however, had made the amende honorable, by suggesting Mr. Ellis's appointment as Comptroller-General. If any one would propose Mr. Ellis for that situation, he (Colonel Evans) would vote for the appointment.

then proposed a Resolution to the effect, that as compensation to the Tellers of the Exchequer and Clerk of the Pells, whose offices would be abolished, the sum of 8,323l. should be paid to them annually, and that the said sum should be charged upon the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland.

thought it would be prudent not to grant compensation to any individual while he was able to work, and to discharge the duties of some other office under Government. They should not agree to this Resolution without having a distinct pledge from his Majesty's Ministers, that if any of the individuals to whom those allowances should be given should be hereafter appointed to any situation under Government, the allowance should cease. If they could not any longer employ Mr. Ellis as Clerk of the Pells, why not take the earliest opportunity to give him some other employment?

would assure the hon. Member, that it was the wish of his Majesty's Government to give Mr. Ellis employment, and that their anxious desire was to find out some employment for a Gentleman of whose abilities they entertained the highest opinion.

thought, that compensation should only be granted to Mr. Ellis on the condition of his accepting the first office offered to him.

said, that it would not be just to deprive Mr. Ellis of all power of making a choice. He did not apprehend that Mr. Ellis had any wish to refuse the acceptance of an office, and from what he knew of his right hon. friend he was perfectly certain that it was his anxious desire to be employed. He had already stated, that his Majesty's Government would take the earliest opportunity to give him some employment.

thought, that Mr. Ellis might very well discharge the duties of Comptroller-General, which office, it appeared, with a salary of 2,000l. a-year, was to be given to Lord Auckland. By that means a saving would be made for the public, deducting any pension which Lord Auckland might give up on being appointed to this new office. It should be distinctly understood, that, if Lord Auckland should be appointed to the situation of Comptroller-General, he would give up his pension.

said, he had again to repeat the assurance which he had given on the part of Lord Auckland, that while he held the office of Comptroller-General, it was not his intention to receive that pension to which he possessed a vested right. As to Mr. Ellis, it was obvious that he had a right to be placed in an independent situation before they talked of giving him another appointment. If Mr. Ellis had no right, by the nature and tenure of his office, to compensation, then, indeed, the argument of the right hon. Gentleman might have some force. But on the abolition of his office, Mr. Ellis had a right to compensation; and when that matter was decided, then it would be for him either to refuse it, or accept any situation which the Government might offer him. On the part of Mr. Ellis, he would give this assurance, that if the Government should offer him a situation (which it was their intention to do at the first moment that it was in their power), he would not refuse it.

wished to take that opportunity to put a question to the right hon. gentleman, the Secretary at War. It was well known, that great inconvenience was produced in the county gaols throughout the kingdom by the imprisonment of soldiers under sentence of Court-martial. From fifty to sixty men formed generally the average number of soldiers confined under such sentences in the county gaol of Kent, at Maidstone. It was unnecessary for him to dwell upon the inconveniences thereby produced. The imprisonment of such a number of men there put it out of the power of the Magistrates to introduce such improvements as they might wish to effect in the discipline and government of the gaol. The House, he was sure, would see, not only the inconvenience, but the impropriety of confining soldiers amongst felons in a county gaol. He hoped, therefore, that some measures would be taken by Government to remedy this evil.

could assure the hon. Baronet, that he was fully aware of the great importance of this subject. It had been very lately under the consideration of Government, and within the last week measures had been suggested to him which he had no doubt, when they were matured, would put an end to the inconvenience complained of. He trusted that this statement would satisfy the hon. Baronet, that Government were sensible of the evils to which he had alluded, and that they had done, and were about to do, all in their power to stop them. The number of Courts-martial that had been lately held had very much increased the number of prisoners that had been sent to the gaols of the metropolis and of the county of Kent. It was quite true that soldiers, after their intercourse with the other prisoners in gaols, returned to their regiments in no improved state of mind, and the evil had arisen to such a height that Government had no choice left but that of considering measures for confining soldiers separately. He trusted that he should be shortly able to introduce a measure for that purpose.

declared himself perfectly satisfied with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman.

rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given notice on this subject. He said, that in submitting to the House some of the considerations which induced him to move a clause for the abolition of military flogging, he was anxious that the motives by which he had been induced to come forward should not be misunderstood. He could assure the House, that if any hon. Gentleman, whether connected with the Ministers or not, had evinced a disposition to take up the question with a view to its final settlement, he should have been content to give a silent vote for the abolition of military flogging; but when on a late occasion he saw the hon. member for Sheffield abandon his motion on what (to him at least) appeared a somewhat vague and unsatisfactory promise from the right hon. Gentleman opposite, he thought it his duty to give notice of a Motion on the subject, and for this reason—that whether the punishment of flogging was necessary for the preservation of military discipline or not, it was of great importance that the question should be fairly met and disposed of by a definite expression of the views of Parliament. The discussion of such a question year after year, in almost the self-same terms, and meeting it by a promise of gradually diminishing a practice which, if indefensible, should be abolished at once, was not a course calculated to lend dignity to any deliberative assembly. He, therefore, indulged a hope, whatever resolution the House might adopt on the present occasion that one advantage at least would be gained,—namely, that the country would be enabled to judge from the votes of its Representatives in Parliament whether the degrading practice in question was likely to be discontinued. Certain it was, that its discontinuance might now be most naturally demanded; for, without enumerating the long list of distinguished persons who had so often and so eloquently denounced this practice, he might observe of the present Government generally, that looking at the reiterated professions of its Members, and the avowed character of its policy, the country had a right to expect something more definite than the order lately issued from the Horse-Guards. In the humane and enlightened views of the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary-at-War) he felt disposed to place full confidence; but if the practice complained of was, as he contended, a national disgrace, its longer continuance could hardly be justified on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues were anxious to abolish it. Before proceeding to a more close consideration of the arguments urged in support of military flogging, he would just say a word on the order lately issued from the Horse-Guards, in compliance with a pledge given to that effect by the right hon. Gentleman. The order was very short, and with permission of the House he would read it.—"His Majesty's Government having signified to the General Commanding-in-Chief the King's command, that until further orders corporal punishments may be ap- plied to the following offences only, I have the honour to express Lord Hill's desire, that you guide yourself accordingly, taking care that, except in the instances herein specified, the said punishment shall on no account be inflicted:—1st. For mutiny, insubordination, and violence, or using or offering violence to superior officers. 2nd. Drunkenness on duty. 3rd. Sale of, or making away with, arms, ammunition, accoutrements, or necessaries, stealing from comrades, or other disgraceful conduct. It will doubtless occur to you that the object of these instructions is not to render the infliction of corporal punishment for the future more frequent or more certain than it is at present, even in the cases in which it, is now to be restricted; but, on the contrary, that the intention is to restrain it as much as may be possible to do so with safety to the discipline of the army." Now, it really appeared to him, that this order left the matter much in the same state as that in which it originally stood. It was true, that they got rid of flogging for desertion; but a more comprehensive phrase than "insubordination and other disgraceful conduct," could hardly have been selected. The offences enumerated in the Mutiny Act under this latter head, he would read to the House. [The hon. Gentleman here read some extracts from the Mutiny Act, which showed that this phrase embraced many offences.] It appeared to him, that an officer disposed to undue severity would find nothing in this order to restrain him. Some Gentlemen might be disposed to ask, if it was probable, that officers would act in a manner at variance with the spirit of the order? That was a question which he did not feel called on to answer. He was to judge of the spirit of the order by the manifest import of its wording; and this was, he would contend, of a nature to admit of almost any abuse of authority on the part of a superior officer. Far be it from him to accuse officers generally of a disposition to abuse their authority; but his object was to place the soldier beyond the reach of any such abuse, and towards the attainment of that object, the order lately issued from the Horse-Guards, was, in his opinion, of no assistance whatever. But let them examine the actual working of the present system, and what advantage resulted from the possession of that power which it was sought to abolish. In the first place, he was anxious to point out one very important error into which many hon. Gentlemen had fallen. They entertained an opinion, that it would be inexpedient and dangerous to deprive courts-martial of a power, by the possession of which alone they could hope to deter the ill-disposed from the commission of extreme offences. Now, in point of fact, these were the very offences which were not visited by the lash. Flogging, as at present inflicted, might be termed a punishment for such offences as were tried by district or regimental courts-martial, which were the tribunals for lesser offences. District courts-martial were limited to the infliction of 300 lashes, and regimental, to 200 lashes. General courts-martial, on the contrary, before which the graver offences were tried, might inflict any number of lashes; but, as they were no longer permitted to bring a culprit up a second time for the purpose of receiving that portion of the punishment which, from exhaustion, he might be unable to undergo, general courts-martial, for the most part, passed sentence of transportation or imprisonment, as being a punishment more commensurate to the crime than the infliction of the number of lashes which, ordinarily speaking, the prisoner was able to bear. Thus the practice in question was brought into operation precisely in those cases where it was least called for, while the most flagrant violations of military duty were differently treated. But, in refutation of the fear, that the lash was necessary to keep the soldier to his duty, he would observe on a very important fact which had singularly enough been passed over in all previous discussions of this question; it was, that in the Horse-Guards the punishment of flogging could hardly be said to exist, for a man, if flogged, was usually expelled the regiment. Were they not to infer from this, that the punishment of flogging was in those regiments regarded in so disgraceful a light, that a man once flogged, was for ever degraded in the eves of his fellow-soldiers? He might, perhaps, be told, that a superior class of men enlisted in the Life Guards. That great inquiries were made as to the characters of men who wished to enlist, he was aware; but he questioned much whether men able to stand the test of such inquiry, would join the regiment but from the very fact, that they could not be subjected to the lash for any offences, save those which rendered them unworthy to remain in that regiment; and this he conceived to be a strong proof of the debasing nature of corporal punishment. He would not detain the House by any description of the barbarity of this punishment, or of the brutalizing influence which it must have on the minds of those subjected to it; on those points all, he believed, were pretty well agreed: then, surely, it was the solemn duty of Parliament to inquire, whether some efficient substitute might be provided for a class of punishments liable to such grave objections. For his own part, he was convinced, that such a substitute might be furnished in solitary confinement. That this latter would be the more efficient punishment for the reclamation of offenders, he was justified in believing, from the result of many and anxious inquiries, and also from what had fallen under his own observation, with respect to the effect of the punishment in regiments in India. He remembered one instance, in particular, of a man in a regiment in India, in which he (Major Fancourt) had the honour to serve. He was sentenced to 300 lashes, and the commanding officer told him, that he might escape the infliction of the corporal punishment if he would submit to three weeks' solitary confinement. The man said, he would rather undergo the lashes. He was aware it was unusual to give such an option; indeed, the practice was subsequently repressed by Lord Hastings, the then Commander-in-Chief; and he merely mentioned the fact as illustrative of the horror with which the soldier contemplated the punishment of solitary confinement. It might, perhaps, be said, that this case went to prove the small degree of apprehension with which the soldier regarded the infliction of the lash, but he begged further to add, that the man in question was an old offender, and, in his case, as in almost every other, it might be confidently asserted, that a man once subject to the lash, so far from being reclaimed, became a hardened and incorrigible offender. At present, the punishment of solitary confinement in the hands of regimental courts-martial, was limited to twenty days; if substituted for the lash, it might be extended in duration, and accompanied with circumstances of severity with reference to diet and other things, as the court-martial should ad- judge. As to the objection to solitary confinement on the score of the expense of building cells, surely the consideration of expense would not be urged, when they were called upon to put an end to a national disgrace. But some hon. Members might say, why interfere with the punishment now, when, by universal acknowledgment, Year after year, the lash was falling gradually into disuse? This argument, if good for anything, was, he thought, favourable to the abolition of the punishment; for why preserve to courts-martial a power the exercise of which was yearly decreasing? Unless necessary for practical purposes, why should the soldier labour under the degrading consciousness of its existence? If the army, by the progressive improvement of its men, or by the more temperate and judicious decisions of its courts, could dispense with the odious practice, was not that an additional reason for consulting the national feeling, which justly revolted at the subjecting a British soldier to the lash? He, for one, thought so; and when hon. Gentlemen talked of the yearly decrease of the punishment, he found in their argument an additional reason for its total and final abolition. But to return to the question of the substitute: if by this term was meant the substitution of one system of savage torture for another, then he would at once confess, that he had no substitute to propose; but, that a class of punishments fully adequate for the enforcement of military duty, and, at the same time, offering no outrage to humanity or natural feeling, might he adopted, he was fully convinced. The House was not, probably, aware, that there already existed in the army a class of secondary punishments, which, in addition to the solitary confinement of which he had already spoken, would, he thought, leave little to be desired in this respect. Such were the forfeiting of all advantages as to additional pay or to pension on discharge, confinement to barracks, extra duties, and other punishments of a like nature,—all, be it observed, exceedingly vexatious to the offender, while they excited none of that commiseration in the minds of his fellow-soldiers which was caused by the infliction of the lash. To these be might add, what, he thought, would be an equally just and efficient punishment—namely, the withholding the soldier's daily pay on every occasion on which the regiment was deprived of his services, either by drunkenness or misconduct, on such occasions putting him for the time on prisoners' diet. In the instance of an incorrigible offender, he could not but think, that expulsion with ignominy from the army would be the preferable course in every point or view. If it were true, that flogging seldom, if ever, reclaimed a man,—nay, that on the contrary, it caused a reckless abandonment of character, so that the soldier once subjected to the punishment, became comparatively hardened to it, and, consequently, to the offences by which it was incurred—if this were true, then what possible advantage could be gained either by the infliction of the punishment in the first instance, or by retaining such a person in the regiment at all? Granting that the pernicious influence of such a man should be productive of no contaminating effects, a supposition scarcely possible, still a well-conducted body of men had just cause of complaint if one or more incorrigible offenders, notorious for disregard of duty, were suffered to remain among them. The self-respect of the soldier must necessarily be lowered by such a course. But how different would be the result were ignominious expulsion adopted as the extreme punishment! Not only would the regiment get rid of an incorrigible offender, but his comrades would be made to feel, that an obstinate adherence to unsoldier like and disgraceful conduct, rendered a man unworthy of remaining one of their body. The moral effect of such a course was, he thought, self-evident. But some hon. Members would say, this is beginning at the wrong end; you must first persuade a superior class of men to enlist before you can bring the soldier to this lofty sense of his duty. With great submission, he (Major Fancourt) thought, that they never would be able to recruit their army from a class of men superior to the present, until they removed the disgraceful badge which now distinguished the soldier from the citizen—namely, his liability to the lash; and he further ventured to affirm, that this humane and necessary step once taken, they would find respectable persons in the working and middle classes, not only willing, but anxious to embrace a profession presenting many advantages. There was only one more point connected with this question, with which he thought it necessary to trouble the House. Many Gentlemen, officers of the army and others, though favourable to the principle or abolishing the practice of flogging, seemed to consider the power of inflicting it as necessary during active service, or during the line of march. Now, what was the fact? A man flogged under such circumstances, was necessarily disabled for a considerable time—he was laid on the hospital carts an object of sympathy, rather than a salutary example, to his fellow-soldiers. The course adopted by the French army was, he thought, much more efficient. The offender was ordered to the rear, treated as a prisoner, handcuffed during the day's march, and at night confined in the gaol of the town at which the regiment halted, till at the end of the journey he was formally tried and sentenced to such further punishment as the nature of his offence might demand. It might, perhaps, be urged, that offenders would regard such a punishment with indifference—that, in fact, it would be matter of indifference to them if they were ordered to the rear or not. Such an argument might be applicable, were being ordered to the rear the full amount of their punishment; but it was to be remembered, that in addition to being cut off from all communication with their fellow-soldiers during the day, and confined in gaols at night, they had before them the certainty of trial, and the probability of severe punishment at the end of the march; so that the period looked forward to by others as one of comparative relaxation, presented to the mind of the delinquent the fear of rigid investigation, and such further punishment as the nature of the offence might demand. By this means, also, while undergoing his punishment, the man's efficiency was unimpaired,—a point not unworthy of remark while considering the case of a soldier on active service. As the experience of officers might be quoted, he begged, in corroboration of the view which he had taken of this subject, to allude to some very striking observations in a work published by s Lieutenant Shipp, of the 87th regiment. He was not about to allude to any case of cruelty, but he thought, that even those who were unacquainted with this officer's distinguished services in India would hardly question his experience, when they were informed that he raised himself from the rank of a private soldier to that of a com- missioned officer. In the course of that gentleman's remarks on the practice of military flogging, he quoted ten instances, as having, out of many others, claimed his particular notice. In four out of these cases, the punishment of flogging was followed by habitual drunkenness and abandonment, till a premature death closed the offender's career. In five out of the remaining six cases, the soldier-like character and general efficiency of the soldier were utterly destroyed; while, in one instance, and one only, the man was reclaimed. But how was he reclaimed? By the lash? No; but by a few words of kind remonstrance from his colonel—by an unconditional remission of his sentence after he had been tied up to receive it, and by a promise, that if by his future conduct he should deserve promotion, it was open to him. This man had been flogged into obduracy, but, even in that stage of demoralization, he was subdued by a change of treatment from his superiors; and it was added, that, under such treatment, he became an exemplary soldier, and deserved and obtained promotion. Now he really thought, that, if the experience of officers was to guide them on matters of that nature, the testimony of one who, like Lieutenant Shipp, had seen thirty-four years' of active service, passing, as he himself said, through the several gradations, from the drum-boy upwards, should receive attentive consideration. The hon. Gentleman here read the following extract from the Memoirs of Mr. Shipp:—"I am fully persuaded, from my long experience, that flogging will never urge men to reformation; for I have ever observed, that it causes increased disobedience and discontent, and at last drives them to acts of sad desperation. Some of the vehement advocates for the cat also argue (but I think very fallaciously), that the minds of common soldiers are, from their early habits of life, barren and uncultivated, and hence more callous, and not so susceptible of the tenderer and nicer feelings, as those of the more enlightened. This is not quite so obvious to me, who have lived with them both boy and man. I would ask those who are enemies to the abolition of corporal punishment a few simple questions. Have they served in the ranks, and mixed and lived in social friendship with the private soldiers of our country? Have they ever sat at the bedside of a flogged man, and witnessed the agony of his heart, and the distraction of his mind? Have they ever heard the unintimidated and unbiassed opinions of the soldiers in their barrack-rooms respecting the ignominious lash? If not, they are but half-competent judges on this great question." He had thought it right to submit these few considerations to the House. In so doing, it had been his object to compress, within the shortest possible compass, any arguments or suggestions that appeared conclusive to his own mind, for he was well aware that the subject had been frequently before the House, and also that many hon. and gallant Members were qualified by long experience to propose the most efficient remedies, should the voice of Parliament pronounce the present practice a decided evil. That it was so, he, for one, was fully convinced; and he trusted that all those who shared that opinion with him, would honour its expression with their support; by so doing, they would consult the feelings of a large majority of their fellow-subjects, not less than the honour and true interests of the army itself; nor, in his opinion, would such a course be productive of any embarrassment to his Majesty's Government. It was true that, in the opinion of the country, the practice of flogging ought long since to have become obsolete; but he hoped the House would not regard this subject with the narrow views of professional prejudice, or as one at all invested with party feeling. However happy he should feel in seeing it intrusted to able and influential hands, still he could not but regard such a question as something more than a Ministerial one. It was, he conceived, a national question, and he trusted it would be entertained and disposed of in that light only, and not with reference to the narrow views of professional prejudices or party predilections. He should now conclude by moving the resolution,—"That from and after the passing of this act, the punishment of flogging should be entirely abolished in the British army."

seconded the Motion. He complimented the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had introduced this subject to the House on the very clear and able manner in which he had brought it forward. There was a universal feeling in the country that this punishment of flogging ought to be abolished. He was not a military man, and was, therefore, perhaps, not competent to speak on this matter, as it regarded discipline; but he could, at all events, say, that, within the last ten years, in the country districts in which he had resided, objections to the system had been becoming more and more general, and existed now almost universally. With a view to the improvement of the moral condition in the army, there ought, he conceived, to be changes and improvements of a character to keep pace with the advances that had been made in civil society. In support of this position, he hesitated not to appeal to hon. Members present who were of the military profession, and to the former debates which had taken place within the walls of Parliament. He would refer to what passed with respect to picketing, a sort of punishment in the horse regiments, which was formerly in vogue, by tying a man up to the ceiling by his wrists and placing his toe on a pointed stake driven into the earth; thus reducing him to the necessity of hanging his whole weight upon his wrists, or of running this spike into his toe. When it was proposed to abolish this punishment, several high authorities, military men, declared that the discipline of the regiments could not be kept up if they were to be prohibited from having recourse to it. Their prophecies were disregarded, picketing was abolished; and let him ask whether the discipline of the army had suffered in consequence? The same species of reasoning might, in the year 1834, be applied to the abolition of flogging; and he had very little hesitation in stating it to be his opinion, that the fears for the discipline of the service were fully as chimerical in this case as they were in the instance he had just referred to. He, therefore, most cordially seconded the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member.

could not but congratulate the hon. and gallant Member who had brought forward the present Motion upon the great temper, moderation, and conciliatory spirit, with which he had submitted it to the House. He thought it necessary, standing officially as he did in the House, to call its attention to the true position in which the important subject now under its consideration really stood, because he thought that the hon. and gallant mover of the proposition now submitted to the House had been guilty of an oversight in this respect. He was the more desirous of reminding the House of these circumstances, because it had been charged as a great omission on the part of the hon. member for Sheffield, that he had not persisted in bringing forward the Motion of which he had given notice. That hon. Gentleman was even blamed for having acquiesced in what were termed the vague assurances of his right hon. friend. It appeared to him, that, if the hon. and gallant Member had accurately remembered all that took place last Session on the subject, he would have been better content with his right hon. friend's conduct, and with the conduct of the hon. member for Sheffield. He did not pretend to say, that any hon. Members were precluded from offering any proposition to the House, that, in their judgment, they might determine on; yet he must say, that, referring to what took place last Session, in his opinion, an understanding was come to, which precluded them from viewing this as an open question. But he would not speak with reference to the expression of the opinion of the House last Session, and the course upon that expression of opinion taken by his Majesty's Government. At a late period of the Session, a motion was made by the hon. member for Middlesex, not for the abolition of flogging as a general proposition, but for its complete abolition within the United Kingdom. It would be recollected that several hon. Members, who readily acceded to that motion so limited, took occasion to declare, that, if it had gone further—if it had extended the prohibition to foreign parts, where our interests were in a more critical situation—they could not have gone along with the hon. member for Middlesex in that extension. It was said, however, by other hon. Members, and with great force, that it would be perfectly inconsistent, and very impolitic, if one system of punishment were allowed to exist in the army in this country, while another system existed in our army abroad; those, too, were to continue liable to the infliction of a punishment declared to be the more degrading, who were most exposed to dangers and hardships, and who were called upon for the greatest exertions in the discharge of their duties. Such being the state of opinion, a proposition was submitted to the House to limit the experiment, not locally—not so as to have one system abroad and another at home—but to confine it for the future to three classes of crime; viz., mutiny, drunkenness on duty, and theft. Upon this proposition of the hon. Baronet, the member for Westminster, the House divided, when there appeared in its favour certainly a large minority—a minority so large, that his Majesty's Government felt that an opinion thus expressed was entitled to considerable weight in their deliberations. The Government had various discussions on the subject, as he happened to know, for he was called upon to take his share in them. Some time after—he forgot exactly the date—a motion was made by the hon. member for Sheffield, in which he pledged himself that his Majesty's Government meant to adopt a principle of restriction, agreeable to the general terms, almost of that restriction adopted by what was almost a majority of that House. Some few weeks elapsed before that pledge was redeemed, the Government feeling naturally anxious to take every possible precaution before they committed themselves to a change of such great importance. The question, then, was, whether the instructions given in the circular issued by the military authorities at the Horse Guards corresponded with, and amounted to, the pledges given to the House last Session. He would bring to the recollection of the House the part which he took in the discussion when the question was formerly before them. On that occasion he had stated, freely and candidly, that he felt himself absolutely bound by the military authorities in regard to the orders to be issued by them on the subject of Corporal Punishment; and he hoped the House would give him equal credit for candor on this occasion, when he stated, on his own responsibility, now that the orders were issued, what their effects were. He would implore the House to pause before they rushed into the plan proposed by the hon. and gallant officer, and to consider what the effects of it would be. Having said this, he would proceed to state the grounds upon which he ventured to call upon the House to suspend their decision upon the question. It would be in the recollection of hon. Members, that when the hon. member for Middlesex brought forward his Motion last Session, it was entirely different from that which they had now to consider. The proposal of that hon. Member was neither more nor less than an experiment for the purpose of endeavouring to mitigate this species of Corporal Punishment, and it was restricted in its operation to Great Britain and Ireland. The question, then, for the House to consider was, first, whether, in the time that had elapsed since the question was formally before the House, the experiment had been fairly tried; secondly, whether, if the experiment had been fairly tried, it was sufficiently so to enable them to judge of its effects; and it was only after these two questions had been discussed, that they could consider the proposition made by the hon. and gallant Member for the utter abolition of corporal punishment. He would venture to say, that the debate of last Session, on both sides of the question, gave sufficient reasons for not adopting the propositions now made by the hon. and gallant Officer. He maintained, that the experiments which the Government pledged themselves to try, and which were embodied in the Circular issued from the Horse-Guards, had been tried, and were now in the course of trial; and he would further maintain, that they had not been sufficiently tried,—at least not so completely as to warrant the House to proceed further by way of change. He would not then read the circular, as it had already been read. He observed, however, that the hon. and gallant Officer complained, that it was vague and unsatisfactory, and not agreeable to the pledges given to the House. He (Mr. Grant), on the other hand, contended, that the circular was of that general nature which ought to be issued; and that it was entirely in unison with the pledge given to the House. The wish of the authorities was not to specify the punishment to be awarded to each particular offence; but to divide the offences into classes, and to specify the punishments to be awarded to each class. They wished, also, to restrict those classes to as small a number as possible. There was, for instance, mutiny; which, with all its subdivisions, was the subject of one class, and corporal punishment was awarded to it. The only difficulty in that class was, whether insubordination should be included in it; but it was considered proper that it should. The next class was that of disgraceful conduct; and corporal punishment was awarded to every offence which could be included under that head; for it was not thought that corporal punishment should be inflicted upon one person found guilty of an offence which could come within the denomination of disgraceful conduct, while another escaped. He need not remind the House of the aphorism, that disgraceful punishment should follow a disgraceful offence; for it was as old as the Roman law,—infamia facti, infamia juris; but that was not the ground upon which he defended this general classification in the present instance. The ground upon which he defended it was, that an offence in itself disgraceful should not be punished more lightly than one which was not in itself disgraceful, but which the discipline of the army required to be severely punished. There was no distinction, therefore, between the degree of punishment awarded to theft, and all that class of disgraceful offences and drunkenness on duty, which was not in itself so disgraceful to the individual, but was a grave offence in a military view. If, then, they made drunkenness on duty liable to corporal punishment,—a punishment disgraceful to the individual,—they would be doing an injustice if they allowed the person guilty of a disgraceful crime to escape with a lighter punishment. It would be most unfair if a person guilty of purloining could boast over the man who had been guilty only of being drunk, and taunt him with having been whipped, while he (the thief) was exempt from that disgraceful punishment. He, therefore, maintained, that it was impossible to exempt persons guilty of that class of offences, which were disgraceful in their character, from corporal punishment. He felt it to be due to the military authorities to state, that they had limited corporal punishment to the very narrowest bounds which they could prudently do; and that in every case where a doubt had arisen as to the necessity of inflicting corporal punishment in any case, they had always interfered to prevent it. He could but refer the House to one paragraph of the circular to show what the feelings of the authorities at the Horse-Guards were upon this subject. They said, "These orders are not intended to render corporal punishment more frequent or more certain than at present. It must he evident, therefore, that an experiment to carry the wishes of the House into effect had been fairly and bona fide tried; and the question for the House to consider was, whether or not it had been sufficiently tried, and if the success of the experiment was such as to entitle them utterly to abolish corporal punishments in the army? It would be in the recollection of the House, that the proposition of the hon. member for Middlesex, last Session, was to abolish corporal punishments within Great Britain and Ireland, but to continue it in foreign parts. But it was admitted, that nothing was so dangerous as to limit and declare illegal the punishments at home which were still continued in foreign parts, especially as in foreign parts it was much more difficult to obtain those mitigations of punishment which, by an application to head-quarters, might, in proper cases, be obtained at home. He (Mr. Grant) contended, that, in the short time since the order was issued, it was almost impossible to judge how the experiment worked, even at home; that, as to its operation in foreign parts, it was perfectly impossible to judge. In some of the very distant Colonies the order had hardly yet arrived, or at least been put into operation; from others there had yet been no returns; and from some that were not so remote, there had been returns, but they extended only to a month or six weeks from the time when the order was promulgated, and its operation could not possibly be known. Yet, in the ignorance of the state of the experiment abroad, and with the very little opportunity of knowing the result or its operation at home, the House was called on by the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member utterly to abolish the punishment of flogging in the army. He would bring one more proof of the sincerity with which the experiment was tried by the military authorities. The House might, perhaps, wish to know what the result of the experiment, as far as it went, was; and he now held in his hand a return made to the House on the Motion of an hon. Member, which showed the number of corporal punishments inflicted by sentence of Courts-martial for the last four years, and which included the punishments both before and after the order was issued. From this Return it appeared, that the number of corporal punishments inflicted by sentence of Courts-martial, during the year,

1830	was	658
1831		646
1832		485
1833		370

So that they had decreased nearly one-half within the last four years. He (Mr. Grant) had, besides this, made up an account of all the punishments inflicted under sentences of regimental, district, and general Courts-martial in the kingdom, from the year 1820 till the year 1833, and taken the average of them. He had divided that time into four periods, till 1833, and divided the latter part of 1833 (during which the orders were in operation), and he had made an average of the proportions which the corporal punishments bore to the whole of the other punishments. From this account he found that, during the years 1821, 1822, and 1833, the number of corporal punishments, out of all the punishments inflicted, was one out of two; during the years 1825, 1826, 1827, and 1828, one out of three; during 1829, 1830, 1831, and 1832, one out of six; during the part of 1833, previous to the issuing of the Circular from the Horse-Guards, one out of nine; and during the latter part of 1833, while the orders were in operation, one out of fourteen. This showed that the military authorities had acted bona fide, and meant to make a fair trial of the experiment. But it was quite impossible that in the few months' experience which they had had, they could judge what the result would be; and that he conceived to be conclusive of the proposition of the hon. and gallant Officer. He felt it as a misfortune to himself, that he had another communication to make to the House, connected with the question, of a very painful nature. He was sensible that it was impossible to come to a right judgment as to the result of the experiment until it was ascertained whether crime had, or had not decreased in the course of the experiment. It was with regret that he had to state the result, because the announcement was liable to erroneous inferences; but still he felt it his duty to make it, and it was this:—that in exact proportion its corporal punishment had decreased, crime had increased. He, himself, however, did not believe that the whole of this increase was to be attributed to the diminution of corporal punishment. He thought that a portion of it was to be attributed to another cause; and, in stating this as his opinion, he threw himself upon the indulgence of the House, because the proportion to be attributed to the cause he was about to mention was merely conjectural. He considered, then, that a part of the increase of crime in the army was to be attributed to the circumstance, that many offences which formerly were submitted to Regimental Courts-martial were now brought before District and General Courts-martial, and were, consequently, more cursorily examined into than if they were brought before Regi- mental Courts-Martial, as formerly. This, he thought, would account, in part, for the increase of crime; but it was impossible to say to what extent. He knew that it had been said, "rob the military authorities of the power to inflict corporal punishments, and that will force them to make improvements in the army which will render these punishments unnecessary." But crimes would still be committed, and when committed must be punished. That brought him to the subject of a substitution of punishments for those that are abolished. On this he might remark, that there was no part of our internal policy more important, and, at the same time, so little understood, as that of secondary punishments. There was no comprehensive treatise on the subject, and no Report of any Committee of Parliament. Very small progress had been made in forming a good system of secondary punishments, although some of the most acute men of the time had attempted it. This, on the one hand, showed the difficulty of coping with the subject; and, on the other hand, was a strong reason why the House should not be precipitate in taking measures upon it. Yet this subject, which, in civil cases, was admitted to be difficult, they were told was quite easy in military matters. The hon. and gallant Officer had proposed that delinquents should be mulcted in their pay. But the House should know, that private soldiers were mulcted as much as it was possible for offences under the Mutiny Act. In regard to this part of the question, the Government had ventured to give a little more power to Regimental Courts-martial; and, further than that, there was little more to do. Then, there was transportation. But transportation had been found a most unmanageable species of punishment, even in civil cases, as was well known to the right hon. Secretary to the Colonies; but whatever its success might be in civil cases, to the army, and especially to that portion of the army which was abroad, it was totally inapplicable. The common objection to that species of punishment applied doubly in the case of soldiers; and the common recommendation of it was totally inapplicable to a soldier. The great objection to it was, that there was no means through it to make an example of the delinquent, to prevent others from following like practices. The objection of Mr. Shipp to corporal punishment was, that it failed in reforming the delinquent. It might be true, that corporal punishment had a bad influence over the person punished; but, on the other hand, it was an example to those who witnessed it; and if it deterred others from committing like offences, it succeeded in the main purpose of punishment,—that of deterring others from committing like crimes; though it failed in the secondary purpose,—that of reforming the individual. But punishment, though the fear of it might deter some, who were surrounded by friends and by ties to a particular spot, from the commission of crime, could have no such influence on the soldier, who had no such connection and no such feelings. On the contrary, a soldier, if he found his regiment disagreeable, or from a wish for change, might, very likely wish to move to a place where he hoped, that in the chapter of accidents, a bright page might turn up for him. Was it likely that a soldier stationed on the West Coast of Africa should be horrified at the prospect of banishment to the delightful climate of New South Wales. Was there any thing very terrible to the soldier stationed at Halifax in being sent to the Bermudas? Or was it likely that a soldier smarting under the broiling sun of Middle India, would object to a trip to the cool and pleasant climate of Sydney—the very place in which his, perhaps, broken health would be recruited. Within the last two days, two cases had come within his knowledge, which happened in distant colonies, and colonies which were distant from each other; but the events happened about the same time. In both assaults had been made; but in one of them, a cruel assault was made by a soldier on his commanding officer, without even the shadow of a reason for it. The culprit was asked, what his motives were, and he said, he wished to be transported; but the crime he had committed was of such a nature, that it was necessary to put the extreme penalty of the law in force, and the man was shot. He merely mentioned this to show, that soldiers might be induced to commit crimes, in order to be banished. The hon. and gallant Member who brought forward the Motion, had suggested the substitution of solitary imprisonment. He could assure the hon. and gallant Member and the House, that that species of punishment was under the serious consideration of Government; but the question was, could it be applied? At present, the complaints with officers was, that soldiers who were put into jails, never returned improved; but, on the contrary, that they were invariably worse. But he (Mr. Grant) would ask, if there was such a thing in this country as a system of solitary confinement? For years past, experiments had been made on the subject—a number of lessons had been given by persons knowing in these matters—there was even a Penitentiary within a few hundred yards of the House; but had they yet succeeded in establishing solitary confinement as a secondary punishment even in civil cases? How, then, could it be said, that it was so easy to introduce that into the army which had been so difficult in civil cases, where the facilities were greater? How could they, then, call upon the military authorities to abolish the present system of punishment, and adopt solitary confinement, not only in England and Ireland, but in the deserts of Africa, in the wilds of America, and the plains of India. If discipline were to be kept up in the army abroad, it would be impossible to abolish corporal punishment. Besides, the military authorities had no funds at their disposal which they could appropriate to the erection of the prisons which would be necessary to put the plan in practice. The House of Commons would be guilty of a flagrant solecism, if, under pretence of substituting one species of punishment, on pretence of solitary confinement, in all the stations where the army is near, they should unadvisedly adopt the resolution proposed by the hon. and gallant Member. He fully believed, that great anxiety had been felt by the hon. and gallant Member on the subject; but he might say, that there was, however, no one who felt more anxiety, or had given more deep, painful, and anxious attention to it than the humble individual who had then the honour of addressing them. The hon. and gallant Member, however, says to the House, "Deprive the officers of this power of corporal punishment—circumscribe them in the round of punishments—take from them the rod, and they will soon find out some other way of maintaining military discipline." The advice given by the hon. and gallant Member was, in effect, to borrow an illustration from the profession to which he belonged, to break down a bridge behind an invading force, or to burn a fleet of ships which had conveyed an army to an enemy's shores. There would, as the hon. Member asserted, be no greater difficulty behind to be overcome, and the critical situation in which they would find themselves placed, would infuse into them resolution and stoutness of heart. This might be true; but what could be done, if their advance were checked, their retreat being thus cut off? What, if there were a frightful increase of crime, and the abolition of corporal punishment were to be purchased at the expense of severer, or even capital punishment? The situation of the Government was at present that of a surgical practitioner hesitating to perform a difficult operation; the hon. Member then comes, cuts off the limb with a hatchet, and says, "Now at your peril tie up the arteries—stanch the blood—apply the proper bandages, and take every possible care to save the patient." The Government was placed in a very difficult position. They had taken the matter into their hands; they were acquainted with the difficulties that surrounded the case; and he trusted they would be allowed to proceed with what they had begun, and be spared the embarrassment of having the power of exercising this species of punishment rashly removed. To do this, would remove the terror, as well as the actual use of it. He would say one word more. Did hon. Members mean or not, that the abolition of corporal punishment should be accomplished? He had told thorn fairly and plainly, that the Government wished to abolish it, and he had told them of the probable increase of crime consequent on the abolition being immediate; he had stated, that this punishment was now in progress towards extinction, and he entreated the House not to embarrass Government in the conduct of this experiment. He did not pretend to say that, what was an experiment—which ex vi termini must be doubtful—would succeed; he would not predict that it would be expedient to extinguish this species of punishment; that it might be found so, was his most earnest hope. For its success he gave his warmest wishes, but he gave no promise; he threw out no conjecture—he held out no assurance but this—that the experiment should be fairly tried. He begged the House would trust to that experiment, and to the hands which had the conduct of it; and if the experiment should terminate according to the hopes and wishes of the majority of that House, none would be more gratified than those who had made the trial. The difficulty and anxiety sustained during the progress of the experiment would be overpaid by its eventual success.

said, he would oppose the Motion; but begged the House would not infer from that circumstance, that he was an advocate for the infliction of corporal punishment, except for serious offences. In expressing his conviction, that it was expedient to invest the military authorities with the power of so punishing their men, he thought it proper to state, that he grounded that conviction on his own personal experience during the twelve years he had been in the army. In the recent discussion which had taken place in that House on the subject of the impressment of seamen, it had been justly remarked by a gallant Admiral (Sir Edward Codrington), that the scum only of the service were subjected to the lash. It was precisely the same with regard to corporal punishment in the army. The bad only were subjected to military torture; the good escaped that species of punishment. If solitary confinement were had recourse to as a substitute, the consequence would be most injurious to the discipline and morals of the army. The offender would come out of prison more demoralized, from his unavoidable occasional association with felons, than when he went in. If the power of inflicting corporal punishment were withdrawn from the Military Authorities, it would soon be found that crime greatly increased in the army. It was indispensably necessary, that severe punishments should be resorted to among the British troops. It was found necessary by the Civil-law, to inflict severe punishment for the offence of theft. It was still more necessary that such offence, when committed in the Army, should meet with severe punishment; particularly when one soldier stole from another. It had been said that, though it might not be advisable to dispense with corporal punishments in all instances, they might be dispensed with in some. He would answer that position by appealing to the House, what they conceived would be the effect of enforcing corporal punishment abroad, which was the thing meant, while the punishment inflicted at home was only solitary confinement. Would not the consequence be, that soldiers would have an aversion to going abroad, and that, therefore, we should not be able to obtain sufficient troops for our colonies in distant parts of the world? There existed the same grounds in the army as in the navy for a uniformity of punishment in the different places in which soldiers were stationed. He was aware, that in thus expressing his opinion in favour of corporal punishments, he differed from many of his friends for whom he had a high respect. Nevertheless, he could not refrain from conscientiously discharging what appeared to him his duty on the present occasion, and the consideration of that circumstance would afford him satisfaction.

said, having been twice personally alluded to in the course of this debate, first by the hon. and gallant Officer who opened this question, and since, by the right hon. the Judge Advocate, he felt it his duty to rise, in order to explain more clearly the circumstance referred to, in connexion with the mention of his name. The hon. and gallant Member—inadvertently, no doubt—spoke of his abandonment of this question, on what the gallant Officer deemed insufficient grounds, and assigned this as his reason for taking it up. The House would probably remember, that during the last Session, and subsequent to the debate on the Motion of the hon. member for Middlesex, he (Mr. Buckingham) had a notice on the books for the abolition of military flogging. On that occasion, when he rose in his place to bring on that Motion, the right hon. the Secretary-at-War (Mr. Ellice) addressed the House, and stated, that not only was this subject under the anxious consideration of his Majesty's Government, but that an Order was actually in preparation at the War-Office, which would be speedily promulgated to the army, in which the punishment of flogging was strictly enjoined to be confined to the three great crimes of mutiny, drunkenness on duty, and theft. The right hon. Secretary then appealed to his (Mr. Buckingham's) sense of justice to wait at least until the Order should be issued, and the effect of the restrictions tried:—and, confiding, as he was not ashamed to confess he did, on the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman, that the Order alluded to, would restrict the punishment to the offences named, he expressed his willingness not to abandon, but merely to postpone the Motion until the Order appeared, and wait until the next Session before he renewed any notice on the subject. There was, however, much more delay than had been anticipated in the appearance of the Order; for its official publication did not take place until after the Session was over; and candour obliged him to say, that when it did appear, it tell far short of the expectation he had been led to form; for, after enumerating the three specific offences already named, it added the words, "and other disgraceful conduct," which opened so wide a field for the discretion of the Commanding Officer, as to enable him to punish almost any offence with flogging, by bringing it within that denomination. He felt, therefore, in common with many other hon. Members, extreme sorrow and disappointment at this result, and repented the too willing confidence into which he had been betrayed. Still, however, he would do the right hon. the Secretary-at-War the justice to express his belief, that had the matter rested with himself individually, or even with the Administration with whom he acted, the pledge held out would have been redeemed. But he feared there was a higher power which ruled at the Horse-Guards, and which all their influence was unable to control, and that to this power, rather than to the right hon. Secretary-at-War, was to be attributed the extension of the offences included within the Order alluded to, and its promulgation in that objectionable shape. On the question now before the House be might be permitted perhaps to offer a very few remarks. No one, he thought could deny, but that one of the chief characteristics of the barbarism of nations was the sanguinary nature of their punishments—and one of the surest tests of progressive civilization was, the gradual amelioration of these barbarous practices. In comparing different nations with each other, this was strikingly perceived. If we looked abroad to China, to Persia, to Turkey, we should find their punishments cruel and sanguinary in the extreme. If we regarded the codes of England and America, we should find them comparatively mild and merciful. In the one case barbarism and ferocity went hand in hand—in the other, civilization and mildness gave lustre to each other. To what principle could such a contrast be traced, but to this: that in proportion as men are steeped in the debasement of ignorance, so is it necessary to coerce them by a force and suffering, and, as brutes, to overawe them by brutal punishment; and that in proportion as men advance in the scale of civilized beings, so is it found advantageous to substitute milder for more cruel punishments, and overawe the mind by the stimuli of hope and fear, rather than lacerate the body by stripes and pain. If we passed from a comparison of nations with each other, and regarded the same nation under different periods of its own history, we should come to the same result. If we looked, for instance, at England, in times past, and compared her civil or military code with times present, what should we perceive, but in the former case, the most cruel and sanguinary tortures, in the latter, a gradual abatement of these as civilization advanced, and the substitution of more humane and more rational modes of correction or reformation. It was true that these changes had been slower than could have been wished; and that too many sanguinary punishments still disgraced our penal code. But he would ask, whether it had not been the constant aim of some of the noblest and most benevolent of our fellow-countrymen to remove even those that remained. Why then should not the British soldier be included among the objects of our Legislative protection? We had abolished flogging of the person, as a punishment for civil offences: we had taken measures, Session after Session, to mitigate the flogging of negro slaves, and had now placed it under considerable restrictions, with a view to its speedy and total abolition; flogging had been almost entirely discontinued in the native army of India, and we had carried our philanthropy so far as to pass an Act of Parliament for preventing Cruelty to Animals, prohibiting or punishing by fines and penalties the infliction of stripes on the bodies of the brute creation; and yet, with strange inconsistency; we objected to the abolition of this inhuman torture on the backs of our fellow-countrymen and brave defenders. Did the House suppose that the soldiers of the British army never thought of these things, never talked of these things, and compared opinions on the great care bestowed on others, and the neglect shown towards themselves? If so, the House deceived itself; and would do well before it acted on such an impression to make it a subject of inquiry. But the practice, though ad- mitted to be crud, was defended on the ground of its producing a salutary example on those who witnessed the punishment, and deterring them from insubordination or other crime. Now, in answer to this, it might be asserted, as matter of notoriety almost beyond dispute, that the example of sanguinary punishments had generally the very contrary effect. It excited sympathy for the sufferer, and awakened a feeling of indignation in the witnesses of the pangs under which he groaned: the consequence was, that both in the Navy and in the Army, wherever the practice of flogging was most frequently resorted to, there the discipline was the most disorderly and disorganized; and in those ships and regiments in which the lash was least used, there the subordination and happiness of all parties were the most complete. He hoped the House would remember well the expression that fell from the right hon. Gentleman, the Judge Advocate, who asserted, that in consequence of the large minority on the last division on this question, the Ministry felt themselves bound (as indeed they always did) to respect the powerful expression of opinion, even by minorities, and the Order for restricting and mitigating their power of corporal punishment was the result. He intreated hon. Members, therefore, who desired to see this cruel practice for the present still further mitigated, and ultimately abolished, to give the Motion of the hon. and gallant Officer their support, in order that by another large minority, another restrictive Order might be obtained, and the punishment still further diminished. There was another reason, however, why the House should speak out on this occasion. There were good grounds for believing, that if it depended on the right hon. the Secretary-at-War, or his Majesty's Ministers, the question would be carried even now. But the military authorities at the Horse-Guards were known to be averse to the measure, and to have power and influence enough to prevent it. It was, then, a question, whether the voice of the people, as heard in that House, its constitutional organ, through the speeches and votes of its Members, or the voice of the Commander-in-Chief of the Army should prevail. Many hon. Members had given to their constituents, at the time of their election, a pledge to promote the abolition of naval and military flogging. Let them now prove the sincerity of those pledges, by acting on them in support of the Motion; and let them, by this means, also assist to rescue the Administration from that secret influence by which they were at present overruled, and make the dignity and power of the House of Commons felt and acknowledged, as the constitutional organ through which all abuses, whether civil or military, might be most effectually redressed.

protested altogether against the argument urged by the right hon. Gentleman the Judge-Advocate, to the effect that, because a fair experiment was in course of trial, the Motion before the House was inadmissible. That experiment could only properly be tried by first taking away the power of inflicting corporal punishment, and then seeing whether it could be dispensed with. As far as the soldier was concerned, it made little difference to him, whether the punishment was inflicted in a greater or a less degree; what the soldier desired was, to get rid altogether of that which he felt to be a degradation. He altogether dissented from the opinion, that flogging was a punishment which, as the British army was at present constituted, could not be dispensed with; and he was sure to find very many most competent authorities coinciding with him in that opinion. He implored the House to accede to the Motion, and at once relieve the British soldier from that unenviable uncertainty as to the future enforcement of corporal punishment, to which the right hon. Gentleman, the Judge Advocate, seemed disposed to abandon him.

would have given a silent vote, but for the observation of the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat. That hon. Member spoke of the question as being left in a state of uncertainty by his Majesty's Government; but he was sorry to say, it was not even uncertain. Not the least hope was held out that the brutal and disgraceful practice of military flogging would be abolished. There would, however, he trusted, be a division. He should, at all events, have the satisfaction of recording his vote in favour of the Motion. To no set of men would he intrust the power of flogging their fellow-beings; but least of all, would he entrust that power to the officers of the British army. The idea that a set of mere striplings should have the power of torturing their fellow-subjects, was perfectly abhorrent to his feelings as a Briton, and he would ever oppose it. The strong desire to retain the power of flogging, argued badly for the character of a British officer. The Motion was resisted by Government on the ground that they were going through an experiment for the purpose of ascertaining the practicability of abandoning the power; but he put it to the House to say, whether any experiment was necessary to ascertain whether they were likely to have a well-disciplined army without flogging? What was the result of the experiment in other countries? In France or Belgium there was no such thing as military flogging; and could it be said the French army was undisciplined? What was it gained England the battle of Waterloo? Some persons were silly enough to suppose it was the talents of the British leader; but that was not only disputed, but much doubted. But it was never disputed, it could not be disputed, that the battle was gained from the French by the superior bravery and firmness of the British army; and was it not, he asked, a disgrace to the British nation, that that army, which had thus proved itself the superior, was exposed to a degrading punishment unknown to their vanquished opponents? One of the grounds for the abolition of negro slavery was the practice of flogging; and was it to be said, that a British soldier was to be exposed to a punishment which the House had decided was too degrading for a negro slave? The time was come for making the experiment as to whether corporal punishment was necessary for the efficiency of the army; and he thought the Government would justly meet with public reprehension for the course they had taken on the subject.

denied, that British officers desired to retain the power of flogging, except as a necessary means of enforcing the discipline of the army. He appealed to every military man present whether a military execution was not regarded by British officers as by many degrees the most painful part of their duty? On such occasions, the general appearance of the officers would induce a common spectator, ignorant of the real cause, to conceive that some great misfortune had befallen them. Until distinct military prisons were secured, the experiment, as to whether military flogging could with safety be abolished, would not receive a fair trial; and, if the Motion had no other effect than to direct the attention of the Government to that fact, he should not regret its having been made.

felt it necessary to intrude himself upon the attention of the House, in consequence of an expression which had fallen from the hon. and learned member for Dublin, relative to the officers of the British army. That hon. and learned Member, in his ignorance of every quality constituting the character of a British officer, had the charity to say, that they were the last men to whom he would intrust the power of flogging. He would beg to tell the House, and he did so with all the sincerity of a soldier, that the officers of the British army were the first to whom he would intrust such a power. He knew the character of a British officer well, and if there was any point on which he was inclined to find fault with it, it was a proneness to mercy where mercy was ill-advised. With regard to the Motion, he implored the House not to consent to it. In fourteen days the Mutiny Bill would expire; and if the Motion were carried, the army would, in point of fact, be left without control. If the abolition of flogging was to take place, he strongly and earnestly recommended the House to let it come from the proper authorities. The less the question was agitated in that House the better it would be for the discipline of the British army. Since the subject was first agitated it was undoubtedly true, that corporal punishment had not been so often put into requisition as before, but he regretted to say, it was not because crime had decreased. On the contrary, crime had increased; and his conviction was, that, if the power of inflicting corporal punishment was altogether removed, until an efficient substitute was provided, that increase would be carried to a truly alarming extent. He had himself spoken to many old soldiers on the subject, and they one and all concurred in declaring that, if the power of flogging was taken away, no good could be got of the soldiers.

rose to ask one question. In July, 1832, an order was made by the House of Commons for a Return of the number of cases of corporal punishment from 1825 to 1831. He wished to know where was the Return to that order? Sir John Hobhouse, then Secretary-at-War, stopped the Motion, and said he would give the Returns from 1825 to 1831. Why had they not been made? [Mr. Grant: They had been given from 1830]. He thought it extraordinary that the Returns should stop at 1830, and that the House was furnished with no specific information, from which they would have been enabled to see what effect had followed from the mitigation of punishment. The House had been told, that it would be prejudicial to the discipline of the army if the question were agitated within that House. Had the "agitated" of the question been productive of no advantage. It was at one time customary to sentence a soldier to, suppose 1,000 lashes, and after the infliction of some 300 or 400 to throw him upon his mattress, until sufficiently recovered to endure the remainder. Had not the disgraceful practice of thus inflicting punishment by instalments, been abolished by the "agitation" of the question within that House. The right hon. Gentleman opposite, had, in illustration of his argument, supposed the case of a practitioner called in to amputate the limb of a patient. The right hon. Gentleman asked the House what would they think of the professional skill of such a man, if he were to chop off the limb with a hatchet, having made no previous arrangement for taking up the arteries or staunching the blood? Now he (Mr. Sheil) would ask the House, what value they would attach to the professional character of a man, who, having deprecated a particular mode of treatment, had, when called in himself, adopted the very practice he had censured in another?

, in answer to the inquiry of the hon. and learned Member, could only say that the Returns moved for had not been ordered during his possession of office. As he had risen to answer the question of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he would observe, that with respect to what had taken place with regard to the hon. member for Sheffield and himself last Session, he had given a correct statement. But he had stated to that hon. and learned Gentleman, that measures were in contemplation which would, as far as possible, meet the wishes of the minority on that occasion. He had distinctly reserved to himself the power of acting upon the spirit of the feeling of the House at that time—reserv- ing also to himself the terms in which the order alluded to should be made. The hon. and learned Gentleman, however, had exhausted that subject. His hon. friend stated, that this experiment, as he called it, in the terms of his right hon. friend, was the most objectionable part submitted by his right hon. friend to the House. Now, the experiment of last year was to endeavour to limit as much as possible the infliction of corporal punishment; and he would offer to lay a Return upon the Table of the House, to prove, at all events, that there had been a very great diminution in the number of punishments inflicted. His hon. friend had stated, that soldiers were now punished for those petty thefts which they committed occasionally, with greater severity than civil persons; that the latter class who were punished for such offences, were punished in a much more lenient manner before the Magistracy. Now, he could not say where his hon. friend derived his information from; but he was quite willing to furnish him with all the information connected with every Court-martial, and every punishment inflicted during the last year; and, if he could prove any case in which the punishment awarded had not been accompanied with aggravated circumstances, he would then admit, but not till then, that the order of last year had not been complied with. Let it be remembered, that the proceedings of every Court-martial were strictly examined into by the Judge-Advocate-General; and he had sufficient evidence laid before him, to show that there existed no wish on the part of officers to act with severity. He could assure his hon. friend, that this punishment of flogging was not resorted to for trivial offences. He would not, however, pursue a subject which had already been exhausted by his right hon. friend, but he would wish to impress upon him and the House in general, the consideration, that an immediate change of system could not be carried into effect, even if they acceded to the wishes of the advocates of the abolition of the practice of flogging. And time must be given to the consideration of how far the peace and security of the civil citizen were concerned in this question. If his hon. friend were in the situation which he had the honour to hold, he would find that there had been a considerable increase in one species of offence—namely, that of assaults upon civil subjects by the military; which offence was not visited with the punishment of flogging, and when the number of cases was so great, was it to be expected that they should, perhaps, fill the gaols without much advantage to the public peace, and certainly render the greatest injury to the character of the soldier? He could assure the House that this subject was under the consideration of his Majesty's Government; but, being aware of the increase of crime in the army, they were sensible that it was necessary to substitute some secondary sort of punishment. The conviction of this necessity had been forced upon his Majesty's Government during the last year. The order which had been alluded to, had been enforced some nine months, and the Government were now constructing plans of confinement in different stations, and separate prisons for military offenders; and other means of punishment were under consideration. He entreated the House to reflect upon the difficulties which must attend any immediate change of system in the military law, and how difficult it was for those who had to administer it, to meet the Motion which had been that night proposed. His hon. friend, he trusted, would give him credit for this—that while he held it to be necessary to continue the power now vested in Courts-martial, he was still equally anxious to restrict this practice of flogging, especially if the Government were allowed to proceed in the course hitherto proposed, of endeavouring, as far as it might be practicable, consistently with the discipline of the army and the security of the civil subject, to diminish the number of inflictions of corporal punishments. Under these circumstances, the hon. Gentleman would arrive sooner at the objects he had in view by trusting to the Government, than by moving the resolution proposed, which, if carried into effect, must be destructive to the discipline of the army and the public peace. It was impossible, indeed, that the punishment of flogging could at the present moment he abolished in the colonies, and it never could be endured that the soldier who was undergoing hard service in foreign parts, should be placed in a worse situation than his comrade at home. Ministers, he could assure the House, required not the hint of a large minority to instruct them in their duty. They would persevere in the course they had com- menced, whether the question were agitated in that House or not.

thought, it must be allowed that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman was satisfactory in many particulars. With respect to his observations, however, upon secondary punishments, there were one or two in which he did not coincide. The right hon. Gentleman seemed to condemn the appeal to any legislation upon the subject, by the Parliament; but the feeling of the public was, that the system of punishment by flogging was monstrous, and that feeling was not to he allayed by the prospect of its diminution merely. The public feeling had been excited for a long time with reference to this question, and there was no probability of its ceasing; and it must have an effect upon the minds of the soldiers generally. The noble Lord had described in strong terms, the class of men who enlisted into the army; but, as long as the punishment of flogging existed, so long would the class of persons who enlisted into the army be bad.

, even at that late hour of the night was anxious to explain the motive upon which he should found his vote. When he had come down to the House he had hoped to have been able to support the Motion of the gallant officer, for no man in the world could have a greater abhorrence of the practice of flogging than he had. He could not join the gallant General in deprecating the discussion of this question, particularly when he looked to the small majorities which had been obtained. On the contrary, he thought that this subject was one which ought to be unceasingly agitated; and, though it was not his intention to support the Motion of the gallant Officer, yet he felt obliged to him for calling the attention of his Majesty's Government and of the country to the matter, because he was quite sure that the effect of these discussions must be to improve the situation of the army, and to prevent a recurrence of those distressing scenes which had occurred in respect to flogging in future. The right. hon. Gentleman (Mr. Ellice) might say what he pleased about the Government not being compelled to act upon the fact of large minorities in that House, but there could be no doubt that the minority of last Session had had its effect, as large minorities at all times had upon the Government. The reason why he could not vote for the Motion of the gallant Officer was, the want of another substitute in the way of punishment.

wished to say a few words relative to a statement which had been made, that in the navy it had been found that the less punishment there was, the better discipline prevailed. This was an error. The good discipline of the ship depended, not upon the quantity of punishment, but upon the justness of the punishments, however severe they might be. He would state as an illustration the case of a vessel in which in a short space of time the different courses were adopted. At first there was no pretence at discipline in this ship, and consequently nobody did his duty, if even he knew it. After this a lieutenant was promoted to the command, who determined upon introducing the severest discipline amongst the crew; punishments were rigidly inflicted when necessary, but it soon turned out that a necessity very seldom occurred for punishment. When the ship was thus reduced to good order, another officer was promoted to the command, who set out by determining to do nothing as it had been done by the previous captain. The consequence was, that the ship no longer was like a man-of-war. He was on board of this ship when twelve men were obliged to be punished in one day to keep down a mutiny. Such was the case in the navy, and he dared say it was the same in the army, that the best soldiers were to be found where punishments were inflicted, however severe, provided they were just.

hoped, he should not be accused of inconsistency in giving a vote this evening, at variance with the vote he had given last year upon this question. He had voted for the Motion of last Session because he had looked forward to its leading to a good practical result. He should vote against the Motion now before the House, because he did not consider it practicable forthwith to abolish all corporal punishments in the army. He was sorry that a more cautious and limited Resolution had not been brought forward. He was prepared to support any proposal to limit the extent of punishments in the army, and the nature of the offences to which they should be attached. There were crimes of a disgraceful nature which warranted a disgraceful sort of punishment. But there was no pretence to justify the infliction of absolute torture. The words of the Mutiny Act legalized "the infliction of punishments to any extent short of loss of limb." Yet there were some punishments awarded by Courts-martial which, if carried into effect, would be attended by loss of life. In these cases a surgeon, whose business it should be to heal and assuage the sufferings of mankind, was appointed to stand by, not to assuage the sufferings of the prisoner, but to see the utmost limit to which those sufferings could be endured without loss of life.

said, he had come down to the House prepared to vote for the Resolution of the hon. and gallant Member; but the arguments which he had heard in support of the conduct of Government, in this affair, were so just and persuasive as to warrant him in, at least, suspending that vote. He believed Government were anxious to do their best; and believing this he should suspend his vote, to give them an opportunity, before another year and another renewal of the Mutiny Act came round, to complete the arrangements they doubtless had under their consideration.

also stated, that he had been induced to change his mind since he entered the House, and should suspend the vote he had intended to give against Ministers upon the present occasion.

was also about to give a different vote to the one he had given last year. He should now vote for the Motion of the hon. and gallant member for Barnstaple, it being his firm conviction that unless some alteration was effected in the present system of military punishment, the army could not be maintained in a state of subordination.

would candidly say, that if his Majesty's Government had the power to abolish the practice of flogging, he would leave the matter in their hands. It was because they had not the power that flogging was not done away with, and their intentions were not honestly carried into effect. He would say, that no such order as that which had been adverted to had been carried into effect; and why was this? Was it not because the Commander-in-Chief ruled the whole country, and did what he pleased—and because his Majesty's Government had not the power to act, as, he believed, they wished to do? The House would certainly not do their duty unless they compelled the military authorities to abolish this system of punishment.

, at that late hour of the evening would confine himself to one or two observations, but he could not listen to a sentiment expressed by the hon. member for Rye, who had preceded him—that if corporal punishment was not abolished, the discipline of the army could not be carried on. He thought such an expression from a military man would have a direct tendency to promote mutiny. He was no advocate for the lash, but he could not support so visionary a plan as that brought forward to abolish corporal punishment all over the globe; it was impracticable; in countries where spirits were cheap, the whole army would be in a state of insubordination if the punishment were withdrawn. Solitary confinement was inefficacious; besides, a man's pay accumulated, and the moment he was released, he again got into the same state of inebriety. Corporal punishment was degrading, and yet many there were who had turned out good soldiers after receiving it. He knew officers who had risen from the ranks who had been punished. He would vote for a limited flogging, but not to its entire abolition, especially abroad.