said, he wished to call the attention of the House to the principle which was involved in the Bill before them. Hitherto the trade of our Colonics had been always regulated by the British Parliament; but in this Bill there was a departure from that principle. Before the House passed such a Bill, they ought to know why the usual course of proceeding was departed from. According to the present mode of proceeding there was an uniform rate of duty passed on all articles coming from foreign countries. Not only had the British Parliament hitherto retained the right of which he had spoken; but it also retained the right of appointing the places where foreign ships should trade with them—that was, it appointed certain ports for that purpose, which were called free ports. This Bill proposed, instead of having the duty imposed by a British Act of Parliament, to give to certain Colonics the power of imposing a duty on foreign goods coming from foreign countries. This was, as he conceived, a very inconvenient course. No one, after what had passed that Session, could refuse to admit the necessity of lowering the duties in those Colonies; but the question for the House was, whether that was to be done by the provisions of a British Act of Parliament extending to all the Colonics; or whether the Colonies should have a discretionary power to do so in their colonial assemblies with the consent of the Crown, and superseding the authority of a British Act of Parliament; or whether in giving them that power they would act wisely in regard to the future regulations of their colonial system? In his own opinion, many inconveniences would arise from the course now proposed to be adopted. They wished to give relief to these Colonies; but he did not think they would effect the desired remedy as well by the proposed Bill as they could by a British Act of Parliament. For instance, the Government here might decide that the Colonial Assembly had not taken that view of the subject which was for their own advantage and for the benefit of the Empire at large, while the Colonial Assembly might take another view of the matter, and there would be by this no power to alter their determination. All that the Crown could do was to say yes or no to the decision of the colonial legislature. Thus, then, he inferred there did exist some necessity for further consideration of this subject; for great delay—not only delay in the imposition of those duties, but delay in sending back measures to the Colonics, and of having the colonial legislatures to reconsider the determination at which they had originally arrived — would certainly arise, and thus the relief which they desired to afford the Colonics must be delayed for a very long period. Let them suppose that a colonial legislature proposed one duty on goods from America, and another duty on goods from other places, they would soon find themselves involved in dissensions with foreign countries, and that too under the most disadvantageous circumstances. The Foreign Office must be placed in the very embarrassing position of being obliged to defend different duties imposed by different Colonics on the goods of the same foreign country. And how were they to avoid it? He was sure they ought to have kept in their own hands all that related to the intercourse of the Colonies with foreign countries. He was convinced the course they were about to pursue would be the means of deferring that relief which the Colonies required, and which they, he believed, intended should be immediate; and he was also afraid that it would involve them in serious discussions with foreign countries with respect to colonial trade, and even with the Colonies themselves. This, he did say, was a point to which the attention of the House should be directed. They were here called upon to give up the great imperial principle that the trade of the Colonies ought to be regulated by the Legislature of the mother country. If they passed this, the Colonics might have a claim as to the retention of the jurisdiction of this country on other matters, when once we had abandoned this. The House would find, in deciding on this question, that it was closely connected with our navigation laws. The Colonies might hereafter make a claim that these laws should not be dealt with by the British Parliament alone, but that they should also be enacted by the colonial legislatures. He feared the time might come when the colonial assemblies would lay claim to the right of interfering with our navigation laws, and of not allowing these laws to act in a manner which they conceived to be injurious to their interests. They might find it difficult to make distinctions as to the duties to be imposed, and the ships which brought articles on which duties were to be imposed. The House, as he thought, was entitled to an explanation from Government, why it was they departed from the course which had been hitherto adopted—a departure which would, he feared, he attended by great inconvenience hereafter.

could assure the right hon. Gentleman, that he was not insensible to the inconvenience that might result from the operation of the Bill before the House; but the right hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the circumstances under which the Bill was introduced. He believed it might be better on the whole to regulate the trade of the Colonics in the same way as it had been done before; but it was impossible to have any communication with the Colonies with a view to the alteration of the import duties; and thus they would have been depriving them of a portion of their revenues without any notice being given them, taking away those ways and means on which they had a right to calculate, without preparing them for it by any intimation. It was thought better, therefore, to leave this matter in their own hands, especially as the Queen's consent was necessary to the carrying of any Acts which they might pass. There could not, however, be the least doubt that it would be desirable in all cases that the regulations of those duties should lie with the Colonies themselves. There were at the same time many obnoxious regulations affecting the trade of one Colony with another which ought to be abandoned. They had differential duties among themselves which were highly objectionable. Nothing, for example, could be more inconvenient than that the Colony of New South Wales should have differential duties on articles of produce between that Colony and Van Diemen's Land. It might be desirable in the course of the next Session to introduce a Bill to put matters of this kind on a sound and proper footing, though he did not think it was possible to do so during the present Session. In the mean time the Colonies ought, without delay, to be relieved from the import duties to which they were exposed. They should not be exposed to protection against them, while protection in their favour was taken away. He thought, in reference to any inconvenience that might arise from the present course, that it would be in the power of this country to take care that no undue consequences should spring from it.

said, he objected to this Bill because it was not a temporary measure, but a measure to enable the Colonies to impose duties which would last permanently. He did say that the House ought not to part with the important power which the Imperial Legislature was supposed to possess; and he thought the British Parliament could certainly make better regulations on these subjects than small local legislatures.

observed, that the present was a very instructive discussion. They had here the principal mover in the cause of free trade, whose principles had been carried by the aid of those hon. Gentlemen opposite, expressing very great alarm about the navigation laws. He believed the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in that alarm—those laws were in imminent danger. The Colonies might not think it right to employ British shipping, when they could have foreign shipping to carry their goods; and if this Bill passed, they would be very likely to impose a countervailing duty on British shipping, and to send home their sugars and other articles in Russian ships. It was, in his opinion, of great importance to this country that the House should not give up its control over the acts of the colonial legislatures.

said, that there might arise under this Bill certain regulations between the Colonies with respect to trade which would become of a permanent character. Those regulations might assume a permanent form, and come at length to assume the character of vested interests, not that the colonial body could hope for much consideration under the present system. Still, in his opinion, they would be giving up a great advantage if they allowed their Colonies to deal with foreign countries, as if each were a separate State, and that too without the knowledge of or taking into consideration its relations with other Colonies attached to the British Crown.

wished that the noble Lord at the head of Her Majesty's Government would consider how far the Bill before the House interfered with the rules laid down as to the regulation of our Colonies. The principle of legislation in the Imperial Parliament, as to the Colonies, ought to be uniform. He objected to see the power of that House interfered with by any other authority. He wished them to observe that various custom-house officers whose services might be dispensed with, were now kept up by means of the various Colonial Acts. There was no less than 575,000l. levied under the heads of those duties at present. That money was all spent in the Colonies; and in addition to it, this country had to pay 24,000l. to support the establishment necessary to impose such duties. Thus the whole of this large sum of money went to the Colonies. He really wished the noble Lord would postpone the Bill until Monday next, in order that he (Lord John Russell) might look to the evidence taken by the Committee on Colonial Expenditure, in reference to this subject.

The hon. Member for Montrose seemed to differ from the hon. Member for Kendal. The hon. Member for Kendal said it would be very inconvenient to have legislative power in the hands of different colonial legislatures; while the hon. Member for Montrose wished to have that power given to the Colonies. He wished to describe what he conceived to be the state of the law to which the hon. Member had adverted, if it were attempted to make one colonial possession contribute to the expenses of the mother country—to contribute to our army, navy, and fortifications, by duties to be levied on the Colonies. It was that which led to the resistance of the United States of America; and Parliament, in consequence, passed an Act after that event, by which it declared that all duties which might be levied in future in the Colonies, should be applied, not to any purposes of the mother country, but to the purposes of the Colonies themselves. That was as he understood it, and the observations of his right hon. Friend. The question next occurred, whether, having given up that right, Parliament should interfere with respect to the trade of the Colonies. He differed very much from the hon. Member for Kendal, who said we ought not to allow any considerable power to the Colonies to regulate their trade with respect to their own washes; while the right hon. Member for Cambridge thought the House ought, as hitherto, to regulate those matters by an Imperial Act. With respect to that subject, he should feel very great difficulty in legislating that Session. The Parliament had adopted a general principle, that they should not enact differential duties, that they should not impose duties on foreign productions more than on colonial productions, nor on colonial more than on home productions; but, in doing so, they were not altogether consistent, inasmuch as they did, for the sake of revenue, make certain alterations in duties on various articles. The hon. Member for Kendal ably and warmly, as he usually did, supported the proposition that there should be a duty of 15s. charged on foreign timber, instead of the existing of 25s. That approached a protective duty in favour of home-grown timber over foreign-grown timber, and in favour of colonial timber also. Again, with respect to silk. The House imposed an ad valorem duty of 15l. per cent on the productions of the manufactures of foreign countries. He thought they were perfectly right in doing so. He quite agreed with the hon. Member for Kendal as regarded the timber duties, and he agreed with the House in the Resolution they had come to respecting the silk duty; but he thought that having taken the liberty of establishing free trade as a general principle, and of making certain exemptions in the application of this principle for the sake of revenue, we ought to treat our Colonies as we would wish to be treated ourselves — that we should, in the first place, not keep up any protective duty which the Colonics may think unnecessary and injurious; and that we should not, on the other hand, deprive them of those duties which they may think necessary to keep up for the purposes of their revenue. He had before him a list of the articles the duties on which it was proposed to allow the Colonies to repeal or retain; and here he might observe that the whole power which they gave the Colonies was to repeal duties already existing; they did not give them any power of enacting differential duties, or of imposing duties on British goods which they did not at present possess. Here were the articles to which he had alluded:—Glass manufactures, silk, and spermaceti, 15 per cent; cotton manufactures, linen manufactures, woollen manufactures, leather, 7 per cent; oil and gums, 15 per cent; articles not enumerated, 4 per cent. Now, he had stated in reply to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, that with respect to the duty on provisions, there would be no difficulty in taking it away altogether. At the same time, he did not feel that it was a question of any urgency; for by all accounts there was plenty of provisions in the Indian Colonies. But as to the other duties, he avowed that if the House had now to reconsider or to re-enact their old established protective duties, he thought much difficulty would be found to exist in certain cases. He might say—"Here is a protective duty on British goods; do not retain it, take it away." But the Legislature of the Colonies might say, "True, this is a kind of protective duty; but it adds to our revenue; and we cannot allow it to be removed." Not knowing the sentiments of the Colonics on those matters, he, therefore, thought it fair to give those Colonies the power of dealing with these duties as they thought fit, with a reservation to the Crown of a controlling power, by which means a multiplicity of duties would be avoided, while it was also in the power of the Government at home, through the Colonial Secretary, to direct the Governor of the Colony to explain to the Colonial Assembly what were the views and principles of that Government. He thought, as regarded the present occasion, that the best way was to give our Colonies as much power as possible—to treat them as ourselves; and if there were any uniform system of duties, to let it be established by the Colonics. But he did not say, as the hon. Member for Kendal did, that all our Colonies were ignorant of the principles of trade, and that, therefore, we ought not to let these foolish notions as to their own interests have any influence over us; and he was willing, in general, to allow the Colonial Government to manage their own affairs, under these general regulations of trade on which Her Majesty's Government wished them to proceed.

asked the Secretary to the Admiralty "how many iron war steamers are being built? Also, whether any experiments have been tried as to the effects of cannon shot upon iron vessels; and if those experiments have been satisfactory or not? And whether the Government intend to persevere in the building of iron war steamers?"

replied, that there were now sixteen iron steamers in commission, including the Dover mail packets; four iron steamers were built, but not in commission, including the Birkenhead of 1400 tons and 556 horse power; and seven more iron steamers, including the Simoom of 1953 tons and 780 horse power, were now building by contract. With regard to the second question of the hon. Member, "Whether any experiments have been tried as to the effects of cannon shot upon iron vessels, and if those experiments have been satisfactory or not?" he begged to state that one experiment, and one only, having been tried, it would be highly improper in him to pronounce an opinion at present as to the effects or the probable effects of that experiment on the employment of iron steamers for purposes of war. What had been done, however, was quite sufficient to make the Government cautious in giving any fresh orders as to the building of new iron steamers; and he could assure the hon. Gentleman that nothing had yet been resolved upon with regard to persevering in their construction.

rose to move—

"That there be laid before this House a Return of Persons flogged in the Army in Great Britain and Ireland, in the years 1845 and 1846 to the end of July; specifying the offence; the regiment, the place of station, the time; the sentence; the order for its execution; whether the trials were open to the public, or only open to the regiment, or with closed doors; the number of lashes inflicted, and the day; how soon after punishment the man was able to return to his duty, and at what place he was then quartered; whether death has fallowed within twelve months of the fogging, and the date of such death; whether the punishment was inflicted, if in cavalry regiments, by the trumpeter or farriers; if in infantry regiments, by the privates or drummers, and with what instrument; together with Copies of the surgeon's minutes of all such punishments, and any subsequent observations on their consequences."

The hon. Gentleman observed, that it had been stated that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War (Mr. F. Maule) had objections to granting the returns in their present shape. What those objections were he (Mr. Escott) was not aware; and he should like to hear them stated, in order that he might decide on the course he ought to adopt. He was inclined to pay all due consideration to any objections of the right hon. Gentleman, if they were well founded, and would be the last to press upon their attention any subject in opposition to objections well founded on the part of the Government. It might be thought, perhaps, that the investigations that had recently taken place, and the modification of corporal punishment which, had just been introduced, might render such returns unnecessary; but these circumstances induced him to suppose that the information he asked for was more than ever necessary. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman would tell him publicly what his objections to the Motion were, he would take them into consideration, and if he deemed them sufficient he would withdraw it; but without such a statement he should feel it to be his duty to act upon his own opinion, which was, that the information contained in these returns was absolutely necessary.

had hoped that after the debate which had recently taken place on this disagreeable subject, it would not have been again referred to during the present Session of Parliament. He thought that the House might place full reliance on the statements which had been made by his noble Friend (Lord J. Russell) and himself, that corporal punishment in the army should not only undergo considerable diminution, but that such punishments would be very rarely inflicted, and that they would be very closely watched by the medical and other authorities. He (Mr. F. Maule) would have no objection to consent to a return of the number of cases in which corporal punishment had been inflicted in the army during the years 1845 and 1846; the names of the persons punished, the number of lashes to which the offenders were sentenced, and the number actually inflicted. The hon. and learned Member asked, however, for the order for the execution of the sentence. Why, every order for the execution of a military punishment proceeded from a court martial, the sentence was passed by a court martial, and the punishment was inflicted under the direction of the officer whose duty it was to carry that sentence into effect. The hon. and learned Gentleman also wished to ascertain whether the trials were open to the public. He (Mr. F. Maule) believed a court martial was as much an open court as any other court of justice. He had been informed, upon competent authority, that a court martial was an open court; and, therefore, he presumed parties wishing to be present at any trial by court martial would not be excluded therefrom. The court was an open court, and would, of course, be conducted with open doors. The hon. Member also asked for a return of the number of lashes inflicted, and the day. He (Mr. F. Maule) did not see how a return of that kind, de- scending to such minute particulars, could be of any use to the House. The hon. Member also wished to ascertain "how soon after punishment the man was able to return to his duty, and at what place he was then quartered?" He (Mr. F. Maule) did not precisely understand the meaning of this clause of the Motion. He could understand the meaning of the words, "how soon after punishment the man was able to return to his duty;" but he did not precisely know what to understand by the words, "at what place he was then quartered." Did they refer to the place where the punishment was inflicted, or the place where the regiment or detachment was quartered when the man returned to his duty? The hon. and learned Member also wished to ascertain whether death had followed within twelve months of the flogging, and the date of such death. He (Mr. F. Maule) confessed he did not think that a fair requirement. Suppose a man who had received corporal punishment in January, died in December, was it meant to be inferred, though he might have died from some disease with which his punishment had no connexion, and though the case had not been investigated by a coroner's jury, that he had been put to death in the army—that his death had been occasioned by corporal punishment? He (Mr. F. Maule) knew there was a notion abroad that corporal punishment might occasion death even after the lapse of twelve months; but he believed that was an erroneous impression. The hon. and learned Member for Winchester also wished to know whether the punishment had been inflicted in cavalry regiments by the trumpeters or farriers, and in infantry by the privates or drummers, and with what instrument. He (Mr. F. Maule) believed the practice in infantry regiments was, that the punishment should be inflicted by the drummers, and in cavalry regiments by the farriers. With regard to the instrument, they all knew what the instrument was. If there had been any irregularity in the army on this subject—if the instruments had not been made with particular care, and upon the same pattern, that irregularity could be most easily remedied. The hon. and learned Member also asked for copies of the surgeons' minutes of punishments, and any subsequent observations on their consequences. Now, he (Mr. F. Maule) considered, that if such surgical observations and details were not particularly demanded in courts of justice, they ought to be regarded as confidential communications with the commanding officers of the regiments. He believed it would be almost impossible to lay these details before the House; he thought their production would interfere to a great extent with the maintenance of discipline in the army; and, so far as he was at present advised, be could not consent to produce them. He must repeat that he did not consider the whole of these returns necessary for the information of the House. He thought the House could repose confidence enough in the Commander-in-Chief of the army, and in the Government, to feel assured that every possible care would be taken that the infliction of corporal punishment, so long as it might be requisite to retain it in the British army, did not go further than it was intended it should go, namely, that it should be a simple infliction of punishment, leading to no future consequences, care being taken to guard against any permanent injury to the health of the individuals upon whom it was inflicted. He (Mr. F. Maule) felt it his duty to oppose the Motion, with the exception of the three clauses to which he had referred; and he begged to move the omission of the words; after the word "sentence" to the words "the number."

had in his possession a circular, stating for what offences corporal punishment might be resorted to; and he therefore considered that the House ought to have full information on the subject, or they would not be in a situation to judge whether the punishment had been justly inflicted.

begged to submit to the House, whether it was necessary to call for such an invidious return as a statement of the regiments, the place of station, and the time when these punishments were inflicted. He thought if the House had before them a return of the total number of lashes inflicted, and the sentences of the courts, that was all that was necessary to enable them to form an opinion as to the manner in which the discipline of the army was carried on. He thought that a return of the regiments in which this punishment had been inflicted, would throw an invidious stigma on particular officers, who would not have the means of affording any explanation to the House or to the country.

considered that a return of the regiments in which corporal punishments had been inflicted, would be exceedingly odious, and disadvan- tageous to the service. He had entertained the hope, that, after the satisfaction evinced by the House the other night at the termination of the debate on this subject, and after the declaration which had since been made by a noble and illustrious individual in another place, the hon. and learned Member for Winchester would not have brought forward his Motion. He thought the House must see that the odious system of corporal punishment was fast falling into disuse in the army. He had before stated in the House that in proportion as we succeeded in elevating the moral condition of the soldier, and promoting his comfort, corporal punishment, without being absolutely abolished, would be less frequently inflicted. He believed, however, that in active service this punishment could not altogether be dispensed with. Having been for a quarter of a century a general officer, and entrusted with the command of a regiment for twelve years, he could state that corporal punishment was never resorted to when it was not absolutely necessary; never on a first conviction, nor till all minor punishments had failed; and he could assure the House that its infliction gave a degree of pain to the officers of the army, which was the best guarantee that it was not recklessly or unnecessarily awarded. He was glad to perceive so liberal a spirit pervade the House, for improving the comforts and the condition of the soldier; and to make the service more attractive, many measures were now under consideration of the military authorities, and had been recommended by them to this effect, but which had not been carried into effect on account of expense. He could not avoid specifying one, which required to be remedied, and that was the severity of colonial service. Our army consisted of one hundred and twelve battalions, of which seventy-five were at present on foreign service; and such had been the calls of those, that it had been found impracticable, for some years past, to observe the arrangement proposed by the military authorities, either as to the duration of foreign service, or the period fixed for home service of at least five years. In consideration of these exigencies the strength of the army was increased last year; but since then, fresh and unexpected demands from abroad had been made; and the strength of the army was more inadequate than ever to the services it had to perform. With respect to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member, he thought that specifying the names of regiments and other details called for in his Motion, would occasion invidious comparisons, and other impressions prejudicial to the service; he should, therefore, vote against the Motion, and hoped the hon. and learned Member would not press it to a division.

said, there was no objection to a return of the number of lashes inflicted; but he thought, if the regiments in which corporal punishment had been inflicted were particularized, invidious comparisons might be made. Such comparisons would be very unjust; for no one who had looked into the reports on this subject could have failed to perceive, that though a regiment might at one time be kept in very good order without corporal punishment, yet that under other circumstances punishment might be necessary for the maintenance of discipline. Colonel Macgregor had stated, that for a number of years he commanded a regiment in which scarcely any corporal punishment was inflicted; but, when the regiment was joined by a number of recruits from the worst parts of some towns in Scotland, it was necessary to make some very severe examples. Now, if a return of the regiments were agreed to, cases of this kind might lead persons to entertain a very unfavourable opinion of particular officers. If it was the opinion of the House that that portion of the return would lead to invidious comparisons, he hoped the hon. and learned Gentleman would consent to omit the clause.

considered that these returns, in the altered form suggested by the right hon. Secretary at War, would be useless; and he regretted that the Government should refuse to accede to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Winchester. That refusal, however, spoke even more eloquently than the returns themselves could do, for it was not a refusal without a motive; and in his opinion it would be found extremely inconvenient to grant the returns moved for by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He believed that if those returns were granted, they would exhibit facts which would, more than anything that had been stated, satisfy the House and the country that the odious, disgusting, and brutal practice of flogging ought at once and for over to be completely abolished. He inferred from the tone of the hon. and gallant Officer who had addressed the House, that he (Sir H. Douglas) believed that the practice of flogging had nearly approached its termination. The hon. and gallant Officer evidently considered that it was a very disgusting practice, and that it ought not to be continued without the most paramount and uncontrollable necessity. But that gallant Officer considered that they ought to retain the power of inflicting fifty lashes. Why, when the power of inflicting 1,500 lashes existed, the officers of the army did not admit that it would be safe to diminish the number. When the number was reduced to 1,000, although the officers rejoiced at the reduction, they still did not admit that it could be carried further. When the number of lashes to be inflicted by a general court martial was reduced to 200, the officers of the army rejoiced that the state of the troops permitted such a diminution of punishment; but they yet retained the opinion that the number could not be further reduced. The Government, much to their credit—and in spite, he believed, of great opposition and strong feeling in certain quarters—had announced that the Commander-in-Chief had reduced the maximum number of lashes to be inflicted to fifty; but he (Mr. Wakley) had heard it intimated that it would be necessary, if not to inflict those fifty lashes, at least to retain the power of doing so; and he had heard it said that—except in very rare instances—that punishment would be fully inflicted. Now, leaving out of view the physical danger which arose from the infliction of that amount of punishment, and the physical torture it must cause, he would ask, if there was not just as much moral degradation, and debasement, and brutality, in the infliction of fifty as of 1,500 lashes? His opinion was, that the soul-breaking, the spirit-destroying effect of the punishment was exactly the same. Had hon. Gentlemen ever seen the outstretched limbs of a man about to undergo this punishment extended on a ladder—resembling a rack? Had they seen human beings standing over such a man while his limbs were restrained, so that he was scarcely able to exhibit the horrible torture he was enduring, and inflicting a punishment which hon. Gentlemen would not inflict on the lowest brute in their service? Why, the degradation of receiving fifty lashes was just as deep, and might be just as permanent, as soul-destroying, and as spirit-breaking, as if they inflicted 1,000 lashes on the man. He (Mr. Wakley) hoped the next announcement the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell) made to the House would be, that this punishment was abolished, and abolished for ever. Indeed he was satisfied from the manner in which the noble Lord and the Secretary at War had spoken on this subject, that they were both opposed to the practice of flogging, and that they only consented to its retention under the conviction, which was entertained by persons of great experience and of high authority, that it was a practice of undoubted necessity. He had no objection to give to the Secretary at War the name of a surgeon, who, having resided at Hounslow for many years, was prepared to state it as his deliberate conviction, from what he had seen and heard, that no man had lived one year who had received, with full force and effect, 150 lashes. Fifty lashes with a cat o' nine tails, containing nine knots in each thong, and consequently giving eighty-one inflictions on the skin at every stroke, could not be administered without danger to life; and whatever the penetration, sagacity, or skill of a surgeon might be, it was utterly impossible for him, with any degree of certainty, to state what amount of corporal punishment might not be attended with danger to life. This punishment was inflicted under an Act of Parliament which passed that House annually, and therefore the House was competent to deal with the subject. He was willing to admit that there might be inconvenience in discussing the subject; but the discussion was forced on the House by the continuance of the practice. There appeared to be a feeling in the House that the particular regiments should not be specified in the return; but he thought that to be absolutely necessary. If it appeared that one regiment was frequently flogged, while in another there was no flogging, it was the bounden duty of the House to inquire into the cause of the difference. He was informed that, in one regiment, there had been no flogging for twenty years. It was due, then, to the commanding officer of that regiment, and to the privates (for the fact was creditable to both), that that regiment should be known, and therefore he thought that the particular regiments should be specified in the return. In reference to that part of the return which required a statement of the fact whether a party had survived the flogging for twelve months, he admitted that the mode of expression was objectionable, because it seemed to lead to the inference, supposing the party died, that there was a connexion between the death and the flog- ging. Such an inference ought not to appear on the face of the return; but all that the hon. Gentleman required was, that the fact might be correctly stated, though no medical man would deny that a man might die one year after an injury inflicted on the skin, and the death be traceable to that injury. He believed that the practice of corporal punishments might be dispensed with by adopting a different system in the army—by giving higher pay to the soldiers, which he should be most willing to vote for, and by making the soldier feel that he was also a citizen. Under these circumstances he felt bound to vote for the return.

said, it appeared to him that no part of the return was half so important as No. 8, which required a statement "whether death had followed within twelve months of the flogging, and the date of such death." When they inquired respecting the health of a colony, they required a report of the number of deaths in it; and so in respect to the practice of flogging, he trusted that the Government would grant the information required by that part of the return he had referred to.

said, that there was no wish to withhold information; but the Government objected to grant a return calculated to mislead the public. Parts of the return moved for were so worded that they would lead palpably to the most erroneous inferences. With respect to No. 5 in the return moved for, he could state that it was a general rule of law that courts martial, whether general, district, or regimental, were open to the public, except during the period of deliberation. He agreed that there ought to be some general rule regulating this system of punishment, and he believed that measures were taken by authority to the effect that the instrument inflicting the punishment, should be in accordance with some fixed regulation.

concurred with those who thought that if the whole return were granted, erroneous inferences would be produced; and he denied the assertion of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Wakley), that when the number of lashes allowed to be inflicted was 1,500, the officers of the army declared against a less amount. The officers of the army never maintained such a doctrine; but their doctrine was—and it was a correct doctrine—that the discipline of the army never could be carried on without occasionally resorting to corporal punishment.

said, that reference having been made on a former occasion to the opinion of that distinguished officer Sir C. Napier, he wished to state that that opinion had not been correctly explained. It was true that in one part of his work Sir C. Napier admitted that in time of peace it might be possible to abolish flogging, though it must then be done gradually, and with extreme caution; but in another part he stated that it was necessary in time of war. He (Mr. M. Gore) thought the great point was to educate the soldier and improve his character by rewards for good conduct and other means, and then, possibly, this species of punishment might be abolished.

said, that if it was the law that courts martial should be open to the public, all that he wanted to know by one part of his return was that the law was properly carried into execution. As to that part of the return which was to state whether death had followed within twelve months, the very cause of all this stir was the verdict of a jury that in one case death had so followed, and that a man had suffered capitally who was only sentenced to be whipped; the information asked for related to a most important point, and there was no necessity that any unwarrantable inferences should be drawn from such a return. Then as to the copies of the surgeon's minutes, it was said they were confidential communications; but the surgeon was under no oath or imperative call of duty to withhold the information if the House of Commons called for it. However, he would not divide the House, but take as much as he could get, and hope for the rest next Session. He begged to say, with regard to the suggestion that the House ought to put confidence in the Government as to this matter, that he was disposed to put confidence in them; but in withholding this information, as well as in some other courses to which they scorned addicted, they were destroying the confidence of the House and of the country; he told them so in no unfriendly spirit, and they would hear more of it before long.

was of opinion that the power of inflicting this punishment must be retained; in case of mutiny or insubordination on a march, for instance, it could not be dispensed with. He begged to deny the position that it degraded a man, and rendered him unfit for service; he had known an instance where it turned one of the worst and most drunken soldiers, one of the latest on parade, into one of the host men in the regiment. The illustrious Duke, the Commander-in-Chief, had said he hoped to live to see the day when this punishment should be altogether discontinued; he (Captain Polhill) could express no better wish for the noble Duke than that he might really live till then.