the general rule to which their opinion referred, and which, therefore, made that opinion substantially favourable to the claims of Captain King. The noble lord then concluded by moving, that a Committee be appointed to inquire into the conduct of those who advised the drawing up of the warrant, and to report their opinion thereupon.

Sir W. Scott opposed the motion, and went at some length into a statement of the facts. He said the claims of Captain King had been referred to the Privy Council, and had been determined upon just and honourable principles. His case had been attentively heard, most anxiously and repeatedly; and if the Privy Council could have decided in his favour, he, for one, knew that that decision would have been gladly given. He felt satisfied, however, that if it was a case of liberality, that liberality ought to be looked for from the brother-officers of Captain King, all of whom resisted the claim in the strongest manner. He would observe also upon the' dangerous precedent which would be established, if a motion like that then before them was sanctioned by the House. It would be transferring to that House the office of judging upon questions very differently from the judicial way in which they were examined by the proper persons, who compared case with case and prece dent with precedent.

Mr. Hutchinson rose, and entered into an animated and zealous defence of Sir Home Popham, in the affair of Buenos Ayres. He spoke of him as his friend, and being absent, he was the more anxious to justify his conduct. In doing that he was partly actuated by the apparent negligence which seemed to have been displayed by the Privy Council towards the merits of Sir Home Popham, according to the statement of the honourable and learned gentleman who spoke last. That gallant and meritorious officer, however, could not be too highly praised, for he had distinguished himself in every quarter of the globe during the last and present war. He thought the case of Captain King could not be separated from that of Sir Home Popham, and it was more to defend him in his absence that he had risen, than from any thing he expected from the noble lord's motion.

ob

Lord Castlereagh contended that it would be establish ing a dangerous precedent, to countenance a motion like that then before the House. . He thought it sufficiently vious that Captain King had no just ground for complaint, and that consequently no remuneration could be given.

Colonel Bastard asked, if a subject was to be aggrieved and could find no remedy, where he was to apply but to Parliament? The prerogatives of the House ought surely to be exercised for the remedying of all acts of oppression and injustice. If this was the first time the House had ever entertained a claim of this nature, it was, undoubtedly, because it was the first time a similar injury had been sustained.

Mr. Dent wished the name of Sir Home Popham had not been introduced into the present discussion. That gentleman certainly entertained a persuasion that he had a right to hoist a broad pendant, and if any man had a right to complain, it was himself, not having received the share of prize money he would otherwise have been entitled to.

Captain Beresford said in explanation, that Sir Home Poplam had no right to hoist a broad pendant, and he be lieved that no Officer in the Navy, but himself, would have acted in his situation as he did.

Lord Folkestone shortly replied. He did not wish to give the House the trouble of dividing on the subject. The motion was then put and negatived.

FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.

Mr. Bennett seeing a right honourable gentleman in his place (Mr. Manners Sutton), wished to ask him if he knew whether any General Order had been issued to the Army, that no soldier should receive a greater number of lashes than he could bear at one time; or whether he had, in conformity with this opinion, delivered by him formerly in that House, ever advised the issuing of such an ortler?

Mr. Manners Sutton said, that no such order had ever been issued, and he had never advised it to be issued up to the present time. What he had formerly stated to the House he believed to be this, that as no limits were laid down in the law as to the extent of punishment, it struck him to be the intention of the law, that no greater punishment should be inflicted on any man than what he could bear at any one time; and that he conceived the awarding a punishment beyond what human nature could endure at one time, was not justifiable by law. This was still his opinion.

Mr. Bennett intimated his intention to bring forward a motion next session on this subject.

MR. ST. JOHN MASON.

Mr. Sheridan began by warmly extolling the opinion delivered by the right honourable gentleman over against him on the subject of corporal punishment.

The Speaker observed, that this was not the question now before the House.

Mr. Sheridan said, he could easily have brought it to bear on the question some way or other-(a laugh). He then proceeded to combat the opinion delivered by the noble lord (Castlereagh), that this House was not the proper place to bring grievances before. If the noble lord meant that the House ought not to be open to every case of civil discussion and dispute, he was ready to agree with him, but he contended that in all cases of abuse or mismanagement by any Court of Law or the Privy Council, the House of Commons was the proper place to apply to. If this was not the case, what was the meaning of the Standing Order, that on the first day of every session a grand Committee of the House should be appointed to inquire into grievances in matters of justice and religion? There was, he said, a great difference between the cases of Captain King and Mr. St. John Mason. The former was a complaint of an unfair distribution of prizemoney; but the case which he had now in hand, was nothing but the perseverance of the high spirit of a man who con ceived himself deeply injured in his profession and fortune, and more especially his character, by the most groundless imprisonment for a great number of years that ever any individual was subjected to. That this gentleman was highly respected by others before the case came into his hands, he would proceed to shew by letters which he had now in his possession. The first letter was of Mr.Hume, Member of Parliament for the county of Wicklow, a gentleman of the most respectable character, expressive of his strong belief of the innocence of Mr. St. John Mason. He himself never knew any thing of Mr. St. John Mason till his case came before him, when he brought forward a motion for inquiry into the horrid treatment of persons confined in prison at the commencement of the rebellion. His motion was acceded to by the Ministry at that time, and a commission was appointed to inquire into the subject. There was a general belief at present, that the bad state of the prisons was exaggerated; this belief he had also witnessed with the honourable baronet, his friend (Sir F. Burdett), when Coldbath-Fields Prison

was the subject of discussion-(hear! from the Ministerial side.) But if gentlemen opposite would suspend their opinion till he read but a few sentences of the Government Report, they would learn that the state of the prisons in Ireland was such that it defied all exaggeration-they would find that men had been murdered, starved, flogged, and subjected to every species of inhumanity in prisons which personal vengeance could inflict-(hear, hear!). He then alluded to some cases in the gaol of Kilmainham, which had never been refuted. He proceeded to read several extracts from the Government Report respecting the gaol of Newgate in Dublin, stating, that it was a disgrace to the metropolis, that 13 persons were confined in one cell of 8 feet square; that there was but one common hall of 20 feet by 7; that all sorts of prisoners were shut up together in the same cell, the tried and the untried, prisoners for felony and prisoners for debt; that the females were crowded together to the number of 14 in cells of 12 feet by 8; and that all the cells were destitute of beds and bed-clothes, and the prisoners lay on straw, on the flags. All these things had been done in the principal gaol of Ireland, in the capital of the country, subject to the inspection of the Judges, Magistrates, and Lord Mayor and Sheriffs of Dublin, and yet no notice of them had ever been taken till he brought forward his motion. The Commissioners did not think themselves warranted, however, to inquire into the particular case of Mr. St. John Mason. The right honourable gentleman went on to state other circumstances of the case of Mr. Mason. An inquiry had been instituted in consequence of the petition of Mr. Mason to the House, and a Report was received from the Duke of Richmond, which was communicated to Mr. Mason, but not until after a motion for that purpose had been made to the House. The Report was such a composition as was never before seen. It stated that examination had been made, and it enclosed a letter from a Mr. J. S. Townshend, stating the grounds of the arrest and subsequent detention of Mr. Mason. He entreated the attention of the noble lord, so much interested in the affairs of Ireland at this period, to the grounds stated. They were the two following: 1. That he was the cousin of Mr. Emmett: 2 That he one day came to Sea-point too late for dinner-(laughter). The honourable gentleman then proceeded to read several extracts from the letter of Mr. Townshead, in order to prove his assertions. No circumstances of suspicion were stated,

excepting that on the night after the murders in Comptonstreet, Mason had slept at a hotel near the spot! A most suspicious circumstance indeed! It was almost too ridiculous to bear a repetition, and yet upon it Mr. Mason had been confined in a dungeon for two years. There was, however, some anonymous intelligence given by some informer, one of which had this curious and intelligible title, Copy of an extract of a Letter in Book communicated by ***." In this letter Mason was charged with aiding in the escape of certain persons from Dover, which Mr. Mason, on his oath, was ready completely to deny. Under these circumstances, all that the person accused required was, that he should have an opportunity of clearing his character, without the least wish to obtain any pecuniary compensation for the losses he had sustained. The right honourable gentleman concluded by moving, that a Select Committee be appointed to take into consideration the case of Mr. J. St. John Mason.

Lord Castlereagh accused Mr. Sheridan of wandering out of the road to bring ungenerous accusations against Government, for transactions long since passed, and the abuses on which had been long since remedied. His lordship quoted a letter from Lord C. J. Downs, in which the conduct of Mr. Mason was complained of, and that of the gaoler and his subordinates highly eulogized, and contended that Government had done all that lay in their power, or could be expected, with regard to the state of the prisons. As to the particular case, the House would recollect that it was eight years since these transactions had occurred; much evidence had therefore doubtless been lost, and it was obvious, from the nature of the documents adduced, that it would not be fit that the names of the informers should be disclosed. Mr. Mason's conduct, while in prison, shewed that he was to be looked at with suspicion, since he was detected in attempting by bribery to procure the escape of a man charged with high treason. A second exertion of the same description had been made by him for General Russel. It appeared to his lordship that there was quite enough to induce the House to think that this inquiry was not only unnecessary but improper. Such an investigation could answer no rational purpose.,

Sir F. Burdelt observed that, supposing Mr. Mason had been guilty of the crime of which he was suspected, he had suffered severely enough by two years' of close confinement.