Sidebilder
PDF
ePub

barrack estimates, and after some conversation it was agreed that the articles which related to it should be deferred to that day se'nnight. The further consideration of the barracks did not, however, take place till May 1, when Mr. Free mantle renewed his objections to the estimates. He began with those at Liverpool, where it appeared that a purchase had been made of thirty acres of ground, at the expense of 27,000l. situated at St. Domingo, near that town, a favourite spot for the erection of villas by the inhabitants, and on which many buildings actually stood. The people of Liverpool had petitioned against the choice of that place, and others might be had equally eligible for the purpose, at a cheaper rate. The most serious objections, however, lay against the proposed barracks in Mary-le-bone-park, where 133,500l. was to be expended for the lodgment of 450 cavalry; besides which, there were artillery barracks, magazines, and ordnance stores, in contemplation. It was a most serious consideration, whether they would give government the power to raise a military depot in such a city as London, a sort of pretorian camp that could not but be grating to the feelings of the people, and might eventu ally be dangerous to their liberties. The honourable gentleman then entered into some particulars of the expense, which he shewed to be enormous, and far beyond all former estimates. He concluded with moving the substitution of 437,000l. for the barrack estimates, instead of $24,000l.

Several other members spoke against the extravagance of the

barrack system, and the unnecessary multiplication of these erections. One member hinted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer himself lamented this waste of the public money, but that he had not the power of preventing it, and must conform to the wishes in a higher quarter. Another alluded to what was certainly the general opinion, that the barracks at Mary-lebone were intended as ornaments of the Regent's Park. While the house appeared unfavourable to these schemes, Sir Francis Burdett rose, and spoke with great severity on the conduct of ministers, as intending to establish a military despotism in the country; murders which they bad authorised upon the people by means of the soldiers, and on the unconstitutional employment of military force in quelling riots. This language gave the Chancellor of the Exchequer the advantage, in his answer, of dilating upon the dangerous nature of such doctrines, and seemed to make a strong impression in some parts of the house. The division, however, sufficiently proved the unpopularity of the plans brought forward, by the comparative smallness of the ministerial majority. The numbers were, for the amendment, 112; against it, 134; majority, 22.

The effect of this public discussion was manifested when the new Chancellor of the Exchequer brought forward his budget. He informed the house that an additional vote of 90,000l. for the barrack department had been agreed to, but that the treasury had determined to strike off that sum ; which diminution proceeded from a resolution to postpone the exe

cution of the projected barracks at Mary-le-bone Park, Bristol, and Liverpool..

The subject of the corporal punishments inflicted in the army had at different times been introduced into parliament, and one effect of these discussions had appeared in a clause of the mutiny act passed in the last year, giving a power to courts martial to commute the punishment of flogging for that of temporary imprisonment. There were members, however, who thought that the system of punishment adopted in the British army required a further reformation; and on April 15, the honourable Mr. Bennet rose, in the House of Commons, according to notice, to make a motion on the subject. After some general observations on the ignominy and cruelty attending the practice which, he had in view, he moved, "That there be laid before the house a return of the number of corporal punishments inflicted in the army, in the militia, and in the local militia, during the last seven years up to January, 1812, specifying the of fences, where committed, and the number of lashes inflicted respectively."

Mr. Manners Sutton said, if the returns were desired for the purposes of examining whether there were any cases of abuse, he thought it scarcely a fair proceeding, and that the previous production of such cases alone should induce the house to consent to the motion. There was much variety of opinion on the subject, even in the army, and he believed as much difference would be found upon it among the men in the ranks, as among the officers. His chief ob

jection to the revival of this discussion arose from its tendency to unsettle the minds of the military, and lead them to believe that there must be grievances, though to them unknown, which caused the subject to be so often agitated. He gave great praise to the illustrious commander in chief, who had laboured incessantly to bring the discipline of the army to perfection, and as speedily and generally as possible to do away corporal punishment.

Mr. Abercromby and Mr. W". Smith both spoke in favour of the motion.

Sir F. Burdett said, that he had expected that the right honourable and learned gentleman would have produced more cogent reasons for opposing the motion. In speaking of the necessity of producing some cases for its foundation, he had seemed to forget that many such had already been laid before the house. The honourable baronet then referred to a number of instances which had been made public, of the abuse and cruelty of this mode of punishment, all of which went to establish one conclusion, that it was inhuman, and had been often inhumanly exercised. It was a system unworthy of the English nation, and the English army, and a system which he believed would not be allowed in any other country. Sir F. B. dwelt with inuch energy upon these ideas, and from the advantage to be derived from complying with the motion, as a means towards effecting the total abolition of this punishment.

Mr. W. Wynn said, he would vote for the motion; for though he was not prepared to agree to the total abolition of corporal punishment, he thought that the

frequency

frequency of it might and ought to be much diminished.

Mr. Wilberforce said, it was impossible to avoid being in some measure carried away by the honourable baronet's statements, at the same time he thought there should be great caution used before any important alteration was introduced into our military system. Improvements had been made, and others might be suggested; but he felt a dread of the army looking up either to the House of Commons, or to any individual member of it, for redress of their complaints. He should be glad to get the information required, but not in the way proposed.

Sir Samuel Romilly desired to recal the attention of the house to the question really before them, which was not for the abolition of corporal punishments, but for the production of certain papers relative to military punishments. In resisting the production of such papers, gentlemen on the other side did more mischief to the cause they wished to support, than could accrue from any returns, how great soever in number or extent, since it would excite a suspicion that they were afraid to make the public acquainted with the reality. One of the greatest objections to the present system was, that there was no limit to the punishment courts martial might inflict, but the mercy of the members. They might might order five, or five thousand, lashes without controul. What was the mischief to be dreaded? was it discussion? but according to the statement of the other side of the house, the discussion of the subject had produced the most important

benefits, since in consequence of it corporal punishment had of late years greatly lessened. An honourable gentleman had said, that in the militia nothing was to be feared, because the officers were frequently magistrates, or had sat on grand juries; and yet Sir Robert Wilson had stated expressly, that corporal punishment was more fre quent in the militia than in any other department of the service. It was mere hypocrisy to say, that the minds of the soldiers would be inflamed by what passed in parliament: they would perhaps never hear of it; and would those be affected by statements in a deliberative assembly, who were com pelled to witness unmoved the sufferings of a fellow-creature? It should further be considered, that most of those who were thus subject to be degraded and tormented, were forced or debauched into the service.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that thinking, as he did, that corporal infliction was a necessary evil, he was of opinion that nothing could be more detrimen tal than the language used on the other side. He did not dread so much the dissemination of the truth, as the exaggerated misrepresentations which had been employed, and bringing into notice solitary instances of severity or suffering for which no parallel could be found. He admitted that there had formerly been cases where the punishment had been partially inflicted at one time, and completed at another; but modern practice had been the reverse. Would the production of the document required throw the faintest light upon the cases selected by the ho nourable

1

nourable baronet from the newspapers; to which authority, how ever, he gave little credit? In his opinion, nothing but the most trying necessity could justify the discussion of military affairs by the legislature. It had been urged, that resistance to the motion provoked discussion. How could that be avoided, when gentlemen finding that they should not have the documents to debate on another

He

day, took this opportunity of de-
claiming on the general question
of flogging in the army?
concluded with declaring his deter-
mination to give his decided nega-
tive to the motion.

Some other members joined in
the debate; but nothing new oc-
curred in the way of argument.
The house divided on the motion:
ayes, 17; noes, 49; majority against
it, 32.

[ocr errors]

CHAPTER

CHAPTER VIII.

Motions of Lord Donoughmore and Mr. Grattan, for taking into Consider ation the Catholic Claims-Reference to Committees in both Houses of Petitions against the Orders in Council-Motions concerning Captain Henry's Mission to the United States-Motion on the Tellerships of the Exchequer Mr. Brand's Motion respecting Elections for Knights of the Shire.

THE

[ocr errors]

HE friends to the claims of the Irish Catholics, notwithstand. ing the several defeats of their efforts in parliament, were determined not to relinquish a contest, success in which appeared to them of so much public importance; and a great number of petitions on the subject having poured in from the catholics of the different counties in Ireland, supported by those of the protestant inhabitants in various parts, as well as by other bodies, it was thought expedient again to bring the topic to discussion in both houses of parliament.

On April 21, the Earl of Donoughmore, in the House of Lords, moved the order of the day for a committee to take into consideration the claims of the catholic body for the removal of the disabilities under which they labour. The

order having been read, his lordship rose to speak. Before entering into the particulars of this debate, however, we must observe, that the necessity under which the speakers lay of repeating arguments so often already advanced on each side, will excuse us from the task of reporting more respecting it than the matters by which it was peculiarly distinguished.

Lord Donoughmore began by adverting to the petitions which had previously been read, and their object-the removal of unjust restrictions-the revival of suspended rights. He anticipated the objection, that the question was one on which their lordships had twice decided during the present session, by observing, that in both those instances it had been complicated with other considerations of a weighty nature. He then took a view of what had been done in Ireland from 1792 with regard to the catholic petitions, and alluded to the unfortunate scruples whick had prevented the completion of the work of conciliation. This topic leading him to the supposed opinion of the Prince Regent on the subject, he was called to order by Lord Kenyon, as making use of unparliamentary language. He, however, vindicated the manner in which he had introduced the Regent's name, and lamented the voluntary sacrifice of his Royal Highness's avowed feelings, to the assumed scruples, and political religion, of his minister. In the remainder of his speech, which chiefly consisted in a spirited amplification of the idea last stated, the following

« ForrigeFortsett »