ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

"

"

"the

on Friday, the 18th of March, for the in- the flogging was almost wholly done troduction of a Clause into the Mutiny away. Generals PHIPPS and PORTER Act for the TOTAL ABOLITION OF are stated so have said, that, FLOGGING throughout the whole of the "instances, in which the punishment of army, whether Regulars or Militia. This "flogging was inflicted, were NOW so .proposition, which was introduced by a "greatly reduced in number, that they were speech of great length, was finally re- hardly worth reporting to the Commander jected, there being only 8 votes for it and" in Chief." But, if this be really the 79 against it. But, the debate was very case, why not agree to the total abolition? interesting, and brought forth some facts If so very rarely inflicted, how can it be which were new to the public, especially so essential to the subordination of the that mentioned by Sir Samuel Romilly, of army?-Mr. WHITBREAD, however, said, a soldier having died in consequence of that these statements were calculated to receiving 224 lashes out of 1,000 lashes that excite indignation; he contended, that he was sentenced to receive; and thus, said the punishments by flogging were both Sir Samuel Romilly, "the sentence of a frequent and severe; and he said, that dis"coùrt martial had imposed a punishment cussion had, with regard to this subject in four times as great as God had enabled a particular, been of great service, having •«human creature to endure." And yet Mr. produced a complete change of tone in those SUTTON Complains, that Mr. Brougham who were formerly advocates for flogging, should suppose that the diminution of and who now boasted how few, whereas flogging arose from any efforts of mine so they formerly boasted how many, the flogmuch as from the judicious discretion of gings in their regiments were.The proofficers composing courts-martial!- position of SIR FRANCIS BURDETT, was not, During the debate it was contended by indeed carried; but the making of that SIR GEORGE WARRENDER, who, as the proposition will not fail to carry its effect reader will bear in mind, did upon a late far and wide; and, finally, as I have often occasion, express his wounded feelings said, the object will be obtained; and we that Mr. Brougham should bid the army shall look back with up-lifted hands to the look up to Mr. Cobbett for redress instead time when such a punishment existed.of looking up to their own officers, and who, This proposition was followed by another, it now comes out, is himself the Colonel of on the 16th of March, upon the third readsome militia regiment, and consequently one ing of the LOCAL MILITIA BILL, when of the army's own officers;" it was con- Sir Francis Burdett again proposed his tended by this gentleman, that, if flogging Clause, making it applicable to the Locat were abolished, the abolition "would create Militia only.What passed upon this ́" a disorganization in the army." Colonel occasion was extremely curious and interFRANKLAND said, that the power of inflict- esting; and, as it was (according to ing the punishment of flogging was " the report) very short, I shall insert it entire, as I find it in the news-papers. "SIR FRANCIS BURDETT then proposed an "amendment to a clause in the 38th sec"tion. The amendment went to prevent

[ocr errors]

es

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

sential to due discipline and subordination of "the army." Mr. YORKE said, that as to the proposition for doing away the punishment of flogging," he could conceive no measure that involved greater dangers, flogging in the Local Militia. The "or that more deeply bore the stamp of "Hon. Baronet did not think it necessary, political suicide and madness."--Why, "after the arguments adduced by him on a really to hear all this, one would imagine," former evening, to go into the general as the Honourable MR. BENNET observed, subject of flogging again: but as it rethat SIR FRANCIS BURDETT had been progarded the local militia, he could not posing to do away some great and known" help saying, that he thought English blessing; something containing within it- gentlemen must feel great disgust at seeself the means of affording health or plenty ing their tenantry subjected to so disor security. Who would ever imagine," graceful and horrible a punishment. He that the abolishing of the power to flog "should again refer to the case noticed the naked backs of Englishmen was big" last year, that of Taylor. This person with danger to England; that it ought to 66 was educated and esteemed,-he had an be regarded as an act of political suicide and "exceeding good character, and his offence 'madness?--Yet, while this was said by "was one springing in fact from his edusome of those who objected to the abo- "cation-that of writing a poem, which lition, others of them contended, that "was by no means destitute of merit. Gen

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

"MR. WHITBREAD was of opinion, that

The

**tlemen argued now, that education was "above all things necessary in the lower" the abolition of this species of punish"orders, and chiefly because it would tend "ment, instead of relaxing, would pro"to prevent the commission of crimes. "mote the discipline of the army. "Here, however, was a person of educa- "Local Militia was extremely different "tion; and it was quite plain that it was "from the other branches of our service. "bis education that prompted him to the "Persons were obliged to serve in the "offence for which he was subjected to the " Local Militia often totally against their "lash. He thought it right also to notice "wishes. As to the fact so pompously "the case of the persons whipped in the "alluded to by the gallant Colonel, ex"Isle of Ely: the offence of those poor "tracted from the book which was found "fellows was exaggerated into mutiny, al- "and lost, and if found again would be "though, it was, in his mind, very trivial. "brought before the House, he was not They were taken from their smock "aware that that fact, even if it were "frocks, and every one of them sentenced "proved, could substantiate the alleged 500 lashes. It was highly improper" practice of corporal punishment in the "that the whole people of England, who "French army. As far as he could un"were liable all to serve in the Local "derstand the gallant Colonel, it only "Militia, should thus be subjected to flog-" went to shew that people were shot in it. "ging. He proposed his amendment, "MR. HERBERT spoke against the "however, not with any hope that it ❝ amendment. "would be carried, but merely to record " his opinion.

"LORD PALMERSTON followed on the "same side..

"ADMIRAL HARVEY recollected, when

"MR. GOULBURN was persuaded that "perfect justice was done to the parties in" coming once from Gibraltar, that the "the two cases alluded to by the Hon. "Baronet.

"French people borrowed our cats to flog "their own people. (A laugh.)

"MR. H. THORNTON Considered the "Local Militia as different from the other

[ocr errors]

"COLONEL WOOD said, that when the "general subject of the propriety of cor"poral punishment in the army was" parts of our army. His natural prejubrought forward, he was unavoidably "dices were entirely against imposing "absent; and he should, therefore, now upon them the same system of military "take the opportunity of mentioning one government. "circumstance which would serve to show "that corporal punishment existed also in" "the French army. After the battle of "Fuentes D'Honore, a book belonging to the "86th French regiment was found, from "which it appeared, that within 6 months "there were no less than 320 Courts"martial, and chiefly for desertion. Those "found guilty were all sentenced capi"tally, and the relatives of the convicted "were besides obliged to suffer fine and "imprisonment. This fact he had the "authority of General Beckwith for stat"ing. THE BOOK WAS LOST, how"ever, in the movements which afterwards "took place, but the General assured him, "that if ever it should be found, he might "have it for the inspection of the House.

"MR. W. SMITH thought that the best "conclusion to be drawn from the fact " mentioned was, that the French had "such a horror of the suffering and disgrace of corporal punishment, that they "would rather be at once given up to "death than subjected to it.

66

"MR. DAVIES GIDDY was afraid that "the punishment of flogging could not be dispensed with.

"Mr. C. WYNNE did not see how the power of flogging could be taken away, "although he was extremely averse to it. "MR. GIPPS and COLONEL ELLITON OP"posed the amendment; and it was then "put and negatived without a division." What Sir MARK WOOD's book had to do with the matter it would be very difficult to say. Mr. Whitbread could not discover, nor can I. But, suppose the book that was found and lost and might be found again had given an account of a thousand Frenchmen having been punished, and even flogged, would that have been any reason why every poor mau in England, between the age of 18 and 30, should be liable to be flogged? We are told, that it is necessary for us to make all the enormous sacrifices that we make in order that we may not be subdued and ruled by Buonaparte; but, what sense is there in this, if the example of Buonaparté is to be cited in justification of any thing that we complain of? The Book, however, the famous found and lost book, said no. thing, it seems, about flogging; and, therefore, it could not have any thing to N 2

Let us see.

do with the matter; it only showed, as Mr. Wm. Smith observed," that the "French preferred death to flogging." -This Book is, really, a rare article! It was found just after one of our glorious victories; and, in the movements, that took place afterwards, it was lost; but, if found again, it will be sent home for the inspection of the House. Lost! how came it to be lost? There was time, it seems, to read it. It is an odd story! But, if anybody choose to believe it, still, I say, what is the book to us? If all the population of France were flogged, is that any reason that we should be flogged? -It is good to observe, too, that it was looked upon as a crime in Mr. Drakard and Mr. White and me to make any comparison between the treatment of the French and that of English soldiers favourable to the former and disadvantageous to the latter. This was a crime in us; but, it seems, that, for other purposes, such comparison may be made; it may be made as often as we please, so that we make it in favour of the proceedings of our own government! Glorious privilege! We have the privilege of writing in praise of all the acts of men in power, till we have not the stump of a pen left!The Book, the lost book, being silent upon the subject of flogging, Admiral HARVEY said, that officers of French Prisoners borrowed our Cats, upon a certain occasion, to flog their men with. Indeed! What, they had no Cats of their own, then ? And, besides, I did not know, that, when there | were a parcel of Officers and Soldiers prisoners on board ship; I was not aware, that, under these circumstances, these Officers had the command of their soldiers. I always thought, on the contrary, that all the prisoners, officers as well as men, were under the command of the Captors.But we lent the Cats, it seems? a polite nation; a " highly polished people," as the cant phrase is; and so, of course, we could not refuse to lend our Cats. Thus, then, the Frenchmen got a taste of Pussy. I dare say they will feel the worse at the miawling of a cat as long as they live. This was giving them a specimen of what we possessed.Really it almost makes one sick to hear such stories as these. This is not answering Sir Francis Burdett, who complains, that, as the law now stands, every Englishman between the age of 18 and 30 years, if he be unable to pay a fine of ten pounds, is liable to be flogged. To tell him, therefore,

[ocr errors]

We are

that a Book has been found and lost, and may be found again, recording sentences of death inflicted on French soldiers; to tell him that certain French officers borrowed our cats to flog their men with; to tell him this is no answer at all; for he has never told any one that he will be content to see Englishmen treated in the same way that the French are. He is not inquiring how the French are treated; but, he is complaining, that the English are not treated in the manner that he says they ought to be. But, at any rate, if this mode of answering him be adopted, shall not we be allowed to cite the example of Napoleon in support of our arguments? And was not Mr. White fully justified in citing that example in the article for which he was prosecuted? Let the reader judge.

FOREIGN TROOPS.Upon this subject, which I am glad to see has been, at last, noticed in the House of Lords, I left two points untouched in my last Number; namely; the justification built upon the necessity of the case; and the justification built on the Act of Parliament.We will take the last of these first, for, if what is done be lawful, all that will remain to do will be to show the necessity of the law.

-First, then, there is a law, which forbids, and that, too, in the clearest and strongest terms, the suffering of any foreigner to hold any place of trust, civil or military, under the Crown of this kingdom. And, what law is this? Why, it is one of the fundamental laws of the realm. It is that very law, by which, and by which alone, the present Royal Family became entitled to reign here, or to have any authority whatever in this country; it is, in short, that very law by which the Crown of this kingdom was bestowed upon them. -The occasion was this. JAMES II. had been driven from the throne on account of his tyranny; his son-in-law, the Prince of Orange, who had married his eldest daughter, was invited over to fill his place, and he with his wife Mary were crowned king and queen of England, Ireland, and Scotland, under the title of William and Mary; his queen died leaving no children; and the Princess ANNE, afterwards QUEEN ANNE (a younger daughter of James II.) having lost her son by death, and there being no likelihood of either her or the king having any more children, it became necessary to provide against the contingency of their deaths. James II.

"doms of England, Scotland, or Ireland, "or the Dominions thereunto belonging

"Denizen, except such as are born of "English parents) shall be capable to be of the Privy Council, or a member of "either House of Parliament, or to enjoy any Office or Place of Trust, either "Civil or Military, or to have any grant

had left a son, who, according to lineal descent was the undoubted heir to the throne; but, the nation resolved not to" (although he be naturalized or made a have him, and to exclude that branch of the family for ever, notwithstanding its heirship to the throne. They then sought out another branch, who were Protestants, and who they thought would do better than the old branch.-James II. was the son of Charles the first, who was the" of Lands, Tenements or Hereditaments son of James I. That same James I. had a daughter Elizabeth, who became by marriage Queen of Bohemia; this queen of Bohemia had a daughter named Sophia, who, by marriage, became Electress of Hanover. She, therefore, next after King William and the Princess Anne, became heiress to the throne, if the son of James II. was set aside, as he at this time was. Now this Sophia mind, was the mother of GEORGE I. who became Elector of Hanover, and who afterwards became our king.. In the year 1700, called the 12th and 13th year of WILLIAM III., when, as was before observed, there was no longer any prospect of immediate heirs to William himself or the Princess Anne, an Act was passed, to settle the crown, in case of their dying without heirs, on the head of the Princess SOPHIA, the Electress of Hanover, or her heirs. This Act, which for this reason, is generally called the ACT OF SETTLEMENT, is entitled, "An Act for the fur"ther Limitation of the Crown, and better "securing the rights and liberty of the sub"ject." It was not an Act for merely conferring the Crown; it was not an act for merely declaring who should be kings and who should not; but, also, for securing the rights and liberties of the people.In this Act, therefore, as a foreign family were about to be raised to the throne, and especially as that family would continue to have foreign dominions and subjects, it became necessary to provide, that, after any of that family came to the throne, no foreigner should have any power of goDerning in this country; because, if this provision was not made, it was easy to foresee, that the Hanoverians would soon have a considerable part of the power in their hands, and the people of this kingdom would have the mortification to see themselves domineered over by favourites from the Electorate. -Therefore it was enacted: "That "after the said Limitation shall take effect "as aforesaid" (that is to say after the family of Hanover should come to the throne)" no person born out of the king

"from the Crown, to himself or to any
"other or others in Trust for him.".
Such was the provision made, in this re-
spect, for the better securing of the rights and
liberties of the subject. And, very neces-
sary this provision was; for, though the
King would, in course of time, as it really
happened, be born in England, still he
would, it was well known, have dominions
and subjects in Hanover, and it was not
for men who had read human nature to
suppose, that he would not have a very
great regard for the country of his an
cestors, and that he would not have a
strong liking for those of his subjects, who,
from the very nature of their government,
would be much more subservient to his
wishes than his English subjects would
be. Add to this the inevitable partialities
arising from matrimonial connections,
running in the same direction, and you
will see how necessary this provision of
the Act was, and how necessary it always
must have been.But, whatever was
the reason on which it was founded, such
was the law; And, now, let us see whether
this law has been changed, and, if it has,
to what extent.We are, at present,
speaking of the law only in as far as it re-
lates to the Foreign Troops; and, it is evi-
dent, that, according to the Act of Settle-
ment, no foreigner can be employed as an
officer in the army, that being a place of
military trust, in which the Act so expressly
forbids foreigners to be placed. Well,
then, has this Act been repealed? No;
but, amongst the other good things, which
this nation inherits from PITT and his wars
against "republicans and levellers," is an
Act passed in 1804 to indemnify PITT and
his associates for having advised the King
to violate the above-mentioned law! The case
was this. Hanover, dear Hanover, had
been taken possession of by the French;
and, great numbers of the Hanoverian
army, who had not defended Hanover
against the French, but who had laid down
their arms and given up their native coun-
try without a blow; great numbers of this
army found their way to England, and it

was judged by Pitt and his set, that these were very fit persons to defend England against those same French; or, at any rate, it was judged proper (for whatever reason) to take these Hanoverians into our PAY! Therefore, the parliament not being assembled at the time, and the affairs of these generous foreigners being very pressing, PITT took them into pay against law, gave commissions to Officers, and enlisted men; and, what is more, made no scruple to take Roman Catholic Officers, though it is well known, that our own Roman Catholic countrymen cannot be come Officers, nor enjoy any place of military trust.- -When the parliament met he came and proposed a Bill of Indemnity for what he had done; that is to say, having advised the king to violate the law of the land, he comes and proposes to the parliament to pass a law to screen him from the punishment due to such a crime; and, without any hesitation the parliament did it, as they did in the case of the forty thousand pounds, which it was discovered the same Pitt had lent to Boyd and Benfield. Here, then, the minister got a protection for having advised the violation of this great constitutional Act; but, that was not all; for the same parliament authorized, by the same act which screened Pitt, the raising of

the Act of 1804 authorised what had been done, namely, the giving Germans commissions in English regiments and posts upon the Stoff-Here, then, the parties are at issue; and, in order to enable the public to judge between Lord Folkestone and Mr. Perceval, I shall here insert the whole of the Act of 1804, which was passed on the 14th of July, the anniversary of the destruction of the Bastile! This Act, as the reader will see, was intended to authorize the king to enlist foreigners and to form them into Corps; and, as the preamble expressly states, he was to be authorised to put foreign officers into those corps, because they were best acquainted with the language and manners of the men. How, then, in the name of sincerity, can it be said, that this Act justifies the putting of such officers into our native corps? Will it be pretended, that they are best acquainted with the language and manners of our men too?But, here is the Act itself, which, as the reader will see, speaks, from one end to the other, of nothing but Foreign Corps, and leaves not the smallest room for the interpretation, which would extend it to our native regiments, or to the Staff in this country.

An Act for enabling Subjects of Foreign States to enlist as Soldiers in his Majesty's Service, and for enabling his Majesty to grant Commissions to Subjects of Foreign States to Restrictions; and to indemnify all Persons serve as Officers or as Engineers, under certain who may have advised his Majesty to enlist any such Soldiers, or grant any such Commissions as aforesaid.-Passed July 14, 1804.

Defence and greater Security of the Unit

10,000 foreign troops, and the putting of them under the command of foreign officers. Here is the legal origin of the King's German Legion and the other German Corps that we have in our pay, and the Officers of which have had, and yet have, so much authority in this kingdom. The Act of Settlement, is, then, in part Whereas it hath been deemed expedone away by this Act of 1804. This wedient by his Majesty, in order to provide all know; we know, that it is lawful to in the speediest manner for the better employ foreigners in places of military trust; but, the difference is this: while Ied Kingdom, in the present important see, and see it with sorrow and shame, that Germans may now hold places of military trust in this kingdom, I say that it is not lawful for them to hold such places in any but in Corps composed of foreigners, and that to give them commissions in our own native Corps, or upon the Staff, in this king. dom, is a violation of law. Lord FOLKESTONE and Sir JOHN NEWPORT insisted upon this, in the debate, the remainder of which will be found below. Lord GROSVENOR has since, in the House of Lords, maintain ed the same, and has said that he is ready so to do against the Lord Chancellor himself. Lord PALMERSTON, the Secretary at War, and MR. PERCEVAL, asserted, that

[ocr errors]

Juncture of Affairs, to permit certain Foreigners, now in Great Britain, to enlist as Soldiers into his Majesty's service, and for the better disciplining of such Sol‹ diers, TO FORM THEM INTO REGIMENTS, BATTALIONS, OR CORPS, and to grant Commissions or Letters of 'Service THEREIN, to certain Foreign Officers acquainted with THEIR MANNERS AND LANGUAGE; and it may 'be expedient, during the Continuance of the present War, to augment such Regiments, Battalions, or Corps, and to form other Regiments, Battalions, or Corps, and to enlist as Soldiers to serve THEREIN respectively such other Fo

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »