consequence. In these times above all others, it was necessary to have an army governed by distinct, direct, and decisive laws, to fight the battles of the country. He represented strongly the danger of agitating the minds of the soldiers, by discussions of this kind, at the present moment. He adverted to the mischiefs produced by false notions of rights in the mind of the navy not many years since. He insisted on the constitutional right of the crown, from time immemorial, to the entire controul of the army, and contended that there was no ground now to limit that controul. He did not deny the right of parliament to interfere, but he maintained that the regular control over the mutiny act was sufficient. Seeing no possible benefit from the production of the papers, which could not be produced without great difficulty, and being still more adverse to the use proposed to be made of them when produced, he would give his decided negative to

the motion.

Sir Francis Burdett thought it would not be matter of any difficulty to make out the returns from the regimental records which he supposed were kept of all such matters. The great amount of our army at present, and the vast proportion of the population of the British empire which would be subjected to military law by the local militia, rendered it highly proper, at the present time in particu lar, that corporal punishment, so degrading in the eyes of all mankind, but so particularly obnoxious to the feelings of Britons, should be no longer continued. He cited the opinion of Mr. Justice Blackstone, to shew that the mutiny act was a hasty measure, requiring much revision, and by no means sufficient to afford the constitutional control over the power of the crown, with respect to the army, which it proposed to give, and which was attributed to it by the right honourable secretary at war. The house ought to have the information he required, in order to enable it to judge to what extent corporal punishments were inflicted, how far they were attended with beneficial effects, and whether the infliction of them may be diminished or got rid of. It would be of material advantage to satisfy the mind of the army, and that of the public, if the present system, should be continued, that it was on consideration found that no other could with safely be resorted to. He knew that a high spirit of honour existed in the British army, and he wished

to try how far that spirit, seconded by the corresponding principle of shame, could be made to answer all the purposes now ineffectually sought by the disgraceful system of corporal punishment. The inequality of the application of corporal punishment, proved it to be frequently matter of caprice in the individual, and this added materially to the bad effects produced by its shameful nature. He would state one instance, that of the 15th dragoons, in which, under one commander, only eight instances of the infliction of corporal punishment had taken place in six years and under the present illustrious commander (his royal highness the duke of Cumberland), no less than eighty instances had occurred in half the time. The comparative effect, so far as he could learn, was this: that under the former system, the discipline and character of the regiment were at the highest pitch; and under the present system, the regiment was likely to be rendered good for nothing. It was of the utmost danger to have such a power vested so much in the caprice of the commanding officer. It was urged against him, that the maintenance of corporal punishment was essential to the discipline of the army. Why then was it not inflicted in any other army? Why was it not in the armies of enemy, whose discipline or spirit was certainly not liable to any impeachment? He should persevere in taking the scuse of the house on his motion, and he hoped the gentlemen opposite would feel the impropriety of withholding information so interesting and important to the house.

our

Lord Castlereagh could not conceive what motives of public advantage could have induced the honourable baronet to bring forward this momentous subject almost on the last day of the session; nor could he see that any practical benefit was likely to result from the interference of the house in this business. If the honourable baronet saw so general an-interest to the constitution, to the character of the army, and the feelings and principles of the people, why did he not call the attention of the house to this matter at an earlier period of the session? Adverse as he was in every point of view to the motion of the honourable baronet, and the purposes for which it was avowedly brought forward, his opposition was confirmed by the fallacy of the arguments brought forward in sup VOL. III.-1803. 41.

port of it. The frequency of the infliction of punishment was a presumptive proof, not of unnecessary se verity, but of the prevalence of the offences that called for that punishment. He imputed no improper motive to the honourable baronet in agitating this subject, but he saw much mischief likely to result from rendering the army discontented with the system by which it was governed. There was no civil or military code whatsoever, that could in every point stand the test of a strict theoretic scrutiny; though there were certainly many which were found highly equitable and beneficial in practice. The honourable baronet particularly admired the French military code, and this was not the only instance in which he was disposed to follow the example of that nation. But it was not to be supposed that because Buonaparte had ordered one or two soldiers, who had been disarmed in the late affair at Madrid, a punishment founded on the principle of shame (that of carrying a stick on parade instead of their arms), that this practice, or the principle on which it was founded, was the universal rule of the French military system. The French generals, it was well known, had the power of ordering men from the ranks when guilty of any breach of discipline, and commanding them to be shot on the spot. In no instance was the slightest corporal punishment inflicted in this country, unless ordered by the sentence of a competent tribunal, judging on oath. He animadverted on the impropriety of the illustration adduced by the bonourable baronet from a particular regiment (the 15th dragoons), without any regard to the difference that may exist in the state of the regiment in point of numbers, of the character of its men, or the prevalence of any offence which it was desirable to eradicate It was very wrong to attribute the frequency of punishment to the caprice of the commanding officer, when it was known that no punishment could be inflicted without the sentence of a court martial. The noble lord then represented, the injury that may result from misrepresenting and traducing the system under which the British army had so long flourished; under which it felt itself so well situated, that It maintained the most exemplary loyalty in the most critical times; under which it acquired glory for itself and for the country, and under which, he would venture to

say, it was matter of pride to every individual in the ariny, to be a British soldier. From all these considerations he was of opinion, and he was sure the house would agree with him, that the present system of governing the army ought not to be disturbed.

Sir George Warrender was of opinion, that the full rigour of the military code ought not to be applied to the local militia. But with respect to its application to the regular army he differed widely from the honourable baronet, as he did almost on every thing he brought before the house. It was not only by the previous form of a court martial that the arbitrary infliction of punish ment was guarded against, but by the inspection of the visiting general officers, who were to see the regimental returns of the courts martial, of the punishments that should have taken place, and of the degree and manner in which those punishments should have been executed, of all which particulars the commander in chief required particular reports to be made to him. The general offfcers were also instructed to inquire of the men, as they passed the companies, whether they had any grievance to complain of. With all these checks there could be no instance of wanton or capricious punishment. The use of the cane was entirely laid aside in consequence of the denunciation of his majesty's severe displeasure. He thought it necessary to state these facts, to prevent the public mind from receiving a false impression on a matter so important.

The Secretary at War, in explanation, stated the extreme attention of his royal highness the commander in chief, in requiring regular returns of regimental courts martial, and the circumstances attending the infliction of the punishments.

Lord Folkstone joined heartily in the panegyric pronounced by the noble lord on the character of the British soldier; but he thought that an additional reason for the production of the papers moved for. For, if the present military code contributed to the high character of the British army, every thing that could elucidate that fact would be most desirable to satisfy and reconcile the minds of the soldiers and the people to the system now pursued. No mischief could result from the production of the papers, unless they would shew that the caprice of indiyidual commanders influenced the infliction of the pun

ishment. If, for the same offence, the punishment was more severe in some regiments than in others, or in the sa ne regiment under different comma ders, there certainly ust be a degree of discretion that ought not to be allowed. In every view, the information moved for was hi ly proper and desirable.

Mr. Wam was adverse to any interference of the house with the gover ment of the army. But the returns moved for would no, even if produced, enable the house to form any fair dgment of the propriety of the degree of punishn ent inflicted in any particular cave. The pres valence of the offence, the circumstances of the case, and the character of the man, were points by which regimental courts martial were generally guided, and of these the house could not possibly obtain any information. The difference between our military code and those of foreign nations consisted in this; that we more frequently inflicted corporal puni hment, and they more frequently in flicted death. This difference prevailed under the old French system as well as the present. It was to be considered whether we should gain by substituting the penalty of death. He conceived our system was amply guarded agant caprice. He believed the present practice was better tha that of any former time: but he thought improver.ent might ill be made by those at the head of the army, if in addition to the exact returns they required of every instance and amount of punishment, they shewed a marked favour to those who kept up a proper degree of discipline in their regiments without having recourse to corporal punishment. He thought the most effectual means of doing away corporal punishment would be, the adoption of the system of limited service, proposed by him, The production of the papers could have no good effect. They could not shew the facts in detail, and these could not be judged of otherwise. He propo-ed to move the order of the day, but he wished the honourable bronet rather to withdraw his motion.

Lord Temple thought a com, liance with the motion. could do no good, and may do much harm. If the case was such as to require a remedy from parliament, the whole summer would pass over in discontent, without the possibility of applying that remedy; and if no remedy was necessary, the whole summer would pass in groundJess discontent, without the power of removing the rank