future debate, since the avowed object was to bring the general question under the notice of the House. In his opinion, nothing but the most trying necessity could justify the discusssion of military affairs by the legislature, and yet the present was the third or fourth time that gentlemen had volunteered to introduce the subject during the present session. To this it was answered, that resistance to the motion provoked discussion. How could it be avoided? For gentlemen finding that because they should not have the document required to debate upon on a future day, had taken this opportunity of declaiming, not on the point before the House, but upon the general question of the propriety of flogging in the army. An hon. and learned gentleman (sir S. Romilly) had set out with recalling the attention of members to the true matter at issue, but led away by the warmth of his feelings, and by the wide scope the subject gave to his eloquence, had wandered from the line he had in the beginning chalked out, and had entertained the House with highly-wrought pictures of miseries attending corporal punishment. If, therefore, the return were made, the consequence would be to ensure two debates, instead of getting rid of the subject in one. The hon. baronet had repeated now what he had before stated, that because we had a local militia, Great Britain was a flogged nation. It might as truly be said that we were a hanged nation, because all were subject to the criminal laws; and doubtless the hon. baronet (as well as others) could point out many individuals who, on this account, would wish this punishment also to be abolished; it might be urged too with much greater truth, that many persons had hanged themselves, rather than undergo the same ceremony by the hands of a public, executioner. He concluded by expressing his determination to give his decided negative to the motion. Sir S. Romilly, in explanation, pointed out several misrepresentations in the speech of the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, which misrepresentations he was astonished to find cheered by the hon. gentleman opposite. Mr. Brougham supported the motion. He was astonished at the line of argument adopted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the hon. member for Yorkshire. The House were told, that if the motives of those who supported the present motion, were not such, as to excite a spirit of mutiny among the soldiery, the motion itself was replete with every danger. It was impossible to allude to the punishments of the army; the bare mention of flogging was it seemed the watchword to discontent; and those who were disposed to avert this danger would oppose every motion which' in any way interfered with the management of the army. Where was the consistency of the hon. member for Yorkshire? In the same breath he had declared himself unwilling to interfere at all with the army, and pronounced an eulogium on the late Mr. Windham, whose plans began and ended in the amelioration of the army. He had pointed out freely the abuses of all kinds which existed in his time-the enlistment of individuals intoxicated or under age into a state of service or slavery for life. But no such motives were ever imputed to Mr. Windham. It was reserved to the present question to hear arguments of such a nature brought forward. Why, there was not a single session in which parliament did not interfere with the army, and in which they did not discuss questions which had a tendency to agitate the passions of those of which it was composed even more nearly perhaps than the present. To whom were the army to look up but to parliament ? Who paid them? Every thing, however, belonging to the army was not a proper subject for parliamentary discussion. They could not with propriety venture to sit in judgment on the shape of a button, or on the cut of a whisker or of a coat, because this being a more weighty business, required abler heads than could be supposed to be found in parliament; but the rewards which the army ought to receive and the period at which they should be discharged; the commissariat, also, that most delicate subject, were matters that came with propriety before them. The retreat to Corunna, and the expedition to Walcheren, where thousands and tens of thousands of our countrymen perished, were subjects upon which the House had deliberated; but never, till this day, did those who wished to scare them from enquiry, resort to such arguments as those of that night. Not even the planner of the Walcheren expedition, nor his coadjutor, who caused the question to be dis cussed with shut doors, ventured to hold such a language to the House. If such a ground for the refusing of papers was listened to, then there would be an end of nine subjects out of ten, which were discussed in the House of Commons. In a time of scarcity, no man would dare to speak of grain, for fear of a tumult. The hon. member for Yorkshire would not have carried his question of the abolition of the Slave Trade. No man would have dared to describe freely and eloquently, as that hon. member had described, the miseries of the West Indian slaves, though the tortures which they suffered, he was sorry to say, were not greater than those suffered by our soldiers. Then the dangers of enquiry might have been urged with greater plausibility, when a few scattered whites were exposed to all the evils of a negro insurrection. The question was, whether a document which would shew whether the powers entrusted to courts martial had been temperately or immoderately used was to be produced. The right hon. gentleman said, "Don't enquire; I tell you all is well." But were they, he would ask, afraid to look into the facts of the case? Were they to close their eyes to it? And were those out of doors who ventured to enter upon it, not to be met by argument but by persecution? Would any one who witnessed the irritability which the mention of this subject always excited, not be almost led to the conclusion that all was not so well as it should be? Now, what would be the consequence of the production of this paper? It would either prove the statemént of the right hon. gentleman opposite, which was so favourable to the Commander in Chief, or it would disprove it. The right hon. gentleman's eulogy of the reduction of flogging was quite unintelligible. He first denied the abuse, and then he said," for God's sake do not ask for the paper, as it will be productive of the most dangerous consequences." Was not this conduct much more dangerous than openly and manfully at once to enter upon the discussion of the question? So far it would appear from severity of punishment being done away, there were instances of persons suffering four several times before they could receive the whole of their punishment, and that very lately. He had a letter dated the 10th of February, 1812, from one of our North American settlements, in which a complaint was made of a Major-General, a German officer there, who very properly, as the law stood, had caused 700 lashes to be inflicted on a man. This was not a solitory instance, for it was stated to be the usual complement of garrison punishment. How could this punishment be inflicted all at once? Other complaints were made of dividing 500 lashes in such a way, as that 250 lashes should be given on the lower part of the back, and 250 on another part of the body. No man could deserve such a punishment. A trifling violation of duty undoubtedly merited some punishment, but not flogging; and in cases of mutiny, or personal violence offered to an officer-if the officer were knocked down and trodden upon, which happened in the case alluded to by him, then a severer punishment than flogging ought to be adopted. But this severe punishment degraded man to a brute, and harrowed up and cauterized the feelings of all who witnessed it. Could any thing be more abominable, than to set apart a class of our fellow-citizens, and demand from them a callousness and insensibility which we would not allow in any other class in the British dominions. While we cherished all the kindly affections in every other branch of the community, and doomed a particular class to such a rigorous and unfeeling system, had we not reason to apprehend the effects either in after times, or in times nearer our own? If the soldier ought to be set apart as little as possible from the citizen, how could they justify a punishment which was confined exclusively to the soldiers, a punishment which debased those who suffered, those who inflicted it, and those by whom it was witnessed. It was his firm conviction, that if our soldiery had not been trained and accustom ed to the system of flogging, they never would have been seen to lend themselves as they did in a certain reign of terror in a neighbouring kingdom, which he hoped yet to see investigated. Adverting to the navy, he said, that he had in his possession a book of punishments in one ship in 1809, kept by the master of arms; and in six months there were upwards of 14,000 lashes inflicted! This was enormous, when the proportion as to severity of flogging in the navy was considered. In one part of the book, a person was entered as having leaped overboard, and been drowned, to avoid three or four dozen of lashes. Mr. Robinson could conceive nothing a greater insult to the service, than such allusions to flogging in the navy as had been just made by the hon. and learned gentleman, without giving the House the means of ascertaining their truth, by a statement of names. They were little less than a libel on the whole navy. He could tell the hon. and learned gentleman that there was nothing to which the Admiralty paid so much attention, as Corporal Punishments; that returns of all the punishments inflicted in each ship were sent to them; and that had such a case occurred, it would have met with their severest reprehension. Mr. Brougham professed himself willing to deliver up the book which he had alluded to, to the Admiralty. He believed it might be of service to them. Mr. Long corrected an hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett) in an assertion he had made respecting an order of the commander in Chief, refusing pensions to persons labouring under blindness. That had occurred only where there was proof of deception. Mr. Brougham wished to be informed by an hon. gentleman, at what time returns of Corporal Punishment were ordered by the Admiralty? Mr. Robinson could not recollect when. Mr. Lambe, though not prepared to concur entirely with the hon. baronet (sir F. Burdett), or his hon. friend (Mr. Brougham), wished to vote for the motion, because the production of the paper was necessary to the case of gentlemen on the other side of the House. Mr. Bennet shortly replied, when the House divided. The numbers were-Ayes 17-Noes 49. Majority 32. HOUSE OF LORDS. Thursday, April 16. IRISH PEASANTRY.] Earl Stanhope rose to make his promised motion on this subject. He protested against the idea of making a long speech; for when the object was plain and clear, the explanation might and ought to be brief. He had to call the attention of the House to a train of sufferings not exceeded, perhaps not paralleled, by those of the slave,-in all cases equally unjust, and in most equally attended with horrid and calamitous circumstances. He alluded to the state of the Irish Peasantry under the present laws, as they related to the recovery of rent. In that country there were gradations and classes of those pernicious holders called middle-men; and the distress for all their consecutive rents might be levied upon the peasant who tilled the ground. He might thus have to pay his own rent, and the rents of ten people above him. This was a genuine oppression, and it had occurred as such to other people's minds. The noble earl here alluded to a correspondence between two great law authorities, which he had seen, and which described the practice as likely to be highly oppressive. The consequence of enforcing the law, according to the present system, was the certain beggary of the tenant, whose ordinary rent was the utmost that his labour could extract from the ground, and who, of course, when a double or a triple rent was demanded from him, had no resource but abandoning all, and wandering to beg his bread, with his wife, and not unfrequently, an infirm and infant family. Was it to be wondered at, that in a country where there were no poor's rates, such a man should be discontented, as he must be beggared? It might not be so here, where there were poor's rates, and where the whole parish would ex. claim against the landlord whose cruelty should expose them to such a burthen of pauperism: but, in Ireland, this happened frequently, the peasant was forced to seek his daily bread from cabin to cabin; and was it to be wondered at, that he should seize the first rusty pitchfork, and use it vindictively at the moment, or treasure up his revenge till it could be certain? The noble earl said he would instance a case communicated to him, on the credit of a great land-proprietor. He should arrange the classes of lessors in the order of the alphabet, and they stood as follow: B paid to A, the original lessor, a rent of 901.; B let this to C for the sum of 7001. C to D for the sum of 750l.; and D to about twenty tenants, who might be called E, for about 9401. The whole of these sums might be demanded by distress, from the tenants E as the law now stood. Was there any thing more necessary to be said on the subject? The noble earl said he was most anxious to see this grievance taken up by the legislature: but, in bringing it before them, he had only the merit of intention,-the great merit was due to counsellor O'Dedy, the author of a most excellent and feeling pamphlet upon the subject.-He would then state as the substance of the first clause of his Bill, that it should be enacted, that no remedy of distress should lie against any tenant but at the suit of his immediate lessor, saving the original lessor of the land. The second clause was one which provided, that what ever sum the tenant paid to the original | land, the remedy of ejectment was not allessor by distress, should be accounted as ways sufficient. Suppose land let for lives, part payment to his immediate lessor. or a very long term, such as one thousand The noble earl proceeded to reason at con- years, and sub-let three deep, it would be siderable length upon this part of the Bill. very difficult to get the rent by ejectment, He trusted, that nobody would be so whim- and therefore they were compelled to resical as to say that the original landlord sort to the remedy of distress. Yet, by would be injured by this proposal, when in the plan of the noble lord, this remedy reality, he would be benefited. By this would be rendered, in a great measure, measure the under middle-man could not nugatory. Take the instance which he distrain till he had paid the original rent, himself stated, for example, of land let by and the other could not distrain at all. He A to B for 90l.; by B to C for 700l.; and concluded by moving, that the Bill be read by C to D for 750l. In this case C could a first time. not distrain for his 50l. perhaps the whole of his means of subsistence, till he had paid 90l. to A and 700l. to B, which it might be utterly impossible for him to do. In Ireland, he was sorry to say, the remedy of distress was more commonly applied than in England. Almost every estate had what was called its driver. The occupiers, unfortunately, often took the lands at more than they could pay, except in plentiful years; and only the Lord Redesdale admitted the existence of the evil, but whether an adequate remedy could be applied, he very much doubted. While he resided in Ireland, his mind had been very much occupied with this subject. He had often reflected upon it, and endeavoured to find out some suitable remedy; but it involved so many important considerations, and was altogether a matter of so much difficulty, that he had never been able to come to any satisfac-produce of the land remained to pay the tory conclusion. From the difference, as to improvement in the state of Ireland some time ago, and now, and from other circumstances, he could very well conceive that land might, at no very distant period, have been let at 901. per annum, which might now yield 9401. a year. He himself knew an instance, where a gentleman had let 13,000 acres for lives, or a long term of years, reserving 800 acres of demesne lands; and now he had a greater rent from the 800 acres, than from the 13,000. But these grants of long terms at low rents, had been very prevalent at one time; and a great proportion of the Irish tenures were of this description. They had, indeed, been considered as almost equal to grants in fee simple, so far as they went. Where such small rents had been retained by the original landlord, the lands would naturally sub-let, perhaps, six deep, the rents rising progressively. His friend, the gentleman to whom he alluded, did not use the remedy of distress, but of ejectment, which was sufficient to procure the payment of such a small rent. But in Ireland, a whole year's rent must be due before the remedy, by ejectment, could be effectual; for after the landlord had got possession, if, within the subsequent six months, the tenant filed a Bill in Equity, and paid the rent and costs, he again got his land. It was clear, therefore, that in the circumstances of the landed proprietors of Ire rent. This gave occasion to many frauds in removing that produce; and these, he was sorry to say, had a bad effect on the character of the Irish Peasantry, which was not what one would wish it to be. They had, in general, no capital,-the rent could only be paid out of the produce of the land, and a bad season consequently disabled them to pay. This made the remedy of distress so much more common than in England. It was not, therefore, any difference in the law that produced the evil, but the difference of the circumstances of the two countries in other respects. He could not exactly agree with the noble lord in his suggestion, that it was enough for the middle-man to have his remedy upon his contract, without being permitted to resort to the land. To take the example before alluded to, B had a good title to the land, paying 90l. to A; and if he had the right to sub-let to C, and chose to reserve his power of distress, it would be a violation of the laws of property to deprive him of it. If, therefore, the noble lord's provision on this point was intended to be retrospective, it would be the cause of gross injustice to many persons. Indeed, the mischief might be more extensive than some were at present aware of. Suppose C in the instance stated, died in. solvent, or assigned his interest; the noble lord's plan in cases of that nature, might be the means of great injustice, and create a prodigious new subject of litigation. The Earl of Clancarty very much doubted whether any adequate remedy could be provided and as to the measure proposed by the noble earl, he was sure that he himself must see the difficulties which stood in the way of its adoption. The noble earl said, that the middle-men might be left to their remedy upon contract in tenants were no parties; but it must be remembered, that the sub-tenants were like purchasers, with notice of the fact. They knew the powers of those above them, and took the land subject to the burthen. To deprive the middle-men of their rights by an ex post facto law, would be gross injustice; but he believed, that the practice of creating these middle tenants, was very fast going down, from the landlords better understanding their own interest, and the value of their property. It also became less the interest of those who might be disposed to put themselves in the situation of middle-men to have any thing to do with such leases, for the profits were but very small, compared with those of former demises of that nature. practice had arisen, or at least, attained the great height to which it had reached, from the peculiar circumstances of Ireland: but since the late improvements in that country, the evil was diminishing, and he trusted, would soon be done away. He would not, however, oppose the printing of the Bill. The subject was worthy of the most attentive consideration; but if the noble earl meant to restrict subletting, he wished him to consider what would be the effect, especially in large towns, such as Dublin and London, if the provisions of the Bill were to be extended to both countries, as he understood they were. The The noble earl said, that the under-tenant was no party to the contract. This was a mistake, he was a party, and in that view there was no injustice in keeping him to that which he had accepted with his eyes open. His title to the land must be derived from those above him, and he must, therefore, be a party to that upon which alone his right was founded. This, how-dependent of the land, because the subever, was a very important subject, and he hoped their lordships would consider well of it. Every one must wish that the evil should be removed; but they ought to take care not to legislate rashly, lest they might do more mischief in one way, than they prevented in another. They might cast about in their minds, whether the subdemising of land, with a power of distress, might not be checked; whether it might not be provided, that afterwards no subletting, with such a power, should be allowed. That, he thought, was the utmost extent to which they could go; that in subsequent sub-demises, the power of distress should be either taken away or modified. He himself happened to hold some land in Ireland, and had expended a good deal of money upon it. When he left that country, no purchaser could be found, and if he had not had the power of subdemising, with the remedy of distress, he should have had no remedy at all, and the property would have been of little value. This was owing to the unfortunate state of Ireland. The disturbed situation of that country gave occasion to the frequency of the instances in which this remedy was resorted to. If the country were perfectly tranquil, the evil would soon remedy itself. Those who, without capital, were now the tenants of the soil, would then be labourers on the farms of others, and the mischief would be done away, or at least exist only in the same degree as in England. In- The Earl of Suffolk agreed, that it was deed, the practice of sub-demising was almost desirable that a remedy should be ready beginning to be less frequent. provided, but doubted whether this one Landlords now began to understand that it could be adopted. He was glad, however, was their interest to grant leases with a to hear from the noble lord who spoke condition not to sub-let, and the evil was last, that the practice of sub-demising was gradually diminishing. But, however, the going down. He himself happened to subject deserved the most serious con- have come to the knowledge of an insideration, and he certainly should not op- stance which so far corroborated that pose this Bill at present. He should be statement. A gentleman of great propermost happy if a remedy could be pro- ty in Ireland, had sent his steward to survided, but he confessed that he could not vey his estates there. The steward found see any method by which the evil could it necessary to have a considerable guard be effectually cured. He could at this in going round the property. But after moment, he was sorry to say, conceive no the survey, he resolved to put an end to plan which would not do as much mischief the practise of demising to middle tenants, in other respects, as it would do good in this. and the people were so well pleased at |