This is not the first time that we have had to comment upon such a fatal occurrence, resulting from the application of the British knout to the naked back of British soldiers. In the present instance, it is true that the unfortunate man did not receive near so many lashes, as other soldiers have received and yet survived. But we need not say, that one man will endure twice or three times the number of lashes, that will suffice to kill another. It appears that in Ramsay's case, the punishment actually inflicted was short of the quantity allotted by the sentence, the surgeon having ordered him to be taken from the halberds, before the drummers had completed their legally prescribed task. It seems that the deceased had been sentenced to receive 150 lashes, but was taken down when he had received 134. It also appears that four drummers were employed to flog him, one relieving the other at every twenty-five strokes, which twentyfive strokes should be multiplied by nine, to give the number of actual stripes. The severity of the flogging thus administered, fresh and fresh, by vigorous arms, may be inferred from the condition of the body when examined by the Jury, which is thus described::

"The Jury went to view the body, which was lying in the military hospital. It was laid on the back; but the Jury ordered it to be turned over, when the back presented an appearance that drew forth a universal burst of horror from the Jurors. It was deeply excoriated, and was encrusted with matter and blood. The Foreman measured with a rule the extent of the wound, and found it thirteen inches in length, extending from the tip of one shoulder to the other." **

*

*

We do not wonder that such a mode of punishment has the effect of indurating the feelings of those who have to administer, and those who witness it-the wonder would be, if it did not. Our object is, to obtain such a reform of the military penal code, as will take from Courts-martial the power of the lash altogether, and oblige them to use rational and reformatory punishments, in place of that implement of bodily torture and mental degradation.

*

Horse-Guards Order, as to dispersing Mobs.-June 16, 1835.

* THE people, properly so called, do not, we are sure, make common cause with the rabble whose actions would disgrace any cause-and on behalf of the people, we cannot avoid drawing public attention to a statement made by Captain MANNING in his evidence [regarding a late riot] to the following effect:"There is a recent order from the Horse-Guards, that whenever the soldiers fire, they must load with ball cartridge, and fire at the people." This we must designate, and we care not who may be offended by it, as a cruel and sanguinary order— an order also quite unnecessary, in our opinion, for the pacification of a turbulent mob-an order worse than unnecessary, for, if acted upon, it must lead to the sacrifice of innocent life; because it gives no notice, and affords no time for persons casually present in a crowd, or passengers going about their ordinary business, to get out of the way. * * The boys who were wounded by the musketry at Wolverhampton, appear to have had no participation in the riot, which caused the interference of the military.

The reading of the Riot Act, when a great crowd has assembled and when the uproar is great, can be known only to a comparative few; but firing with blank cartridge, or firing over the heads of the multitude, is a warning that all but the utterly deaf must hear, and give notice to all who are merely curious spectators to all passengers in that quarter, and to all whose object is not mischief, to get out of the way.

We hope that, upon consideration, this inhuman order from the Horse-Guards will be recalled. We know that it was some time ago alluded to in parliament with deserved reprobation, and we really thought it was recalled. Whoever devised it— whether whig or tory chief-must have a very depraved taste for degrading the character of the soldier, into that of the executioner. Why, a true British soldier would order his troops to fire over the heads of a band of New Zealand savages in the first instance, rather than pour the volleyed death into the misguided crowd, without trying to frighten and disperse them by warning of military execution. How much more

ought such a course to be pursued with Englishmen-however violent may have been their conduct-for, as countrymen and fellow-subjects, it is most revolting and unnatural to pour out their blood upon the land by the sword of military slaughter, without resorting to every possible means, in the first instance, of gaining them back to the authority of reason and the laws.

*

Temperance Societies-Members of Parliament.-Aug. 7, 1834. A sad people and a merry House of Commons may be thought by some to be no auspicious sign of the times; but of all subjects of legislative merriment, we know none more melancholy than the consideration of the deplorable consequences of the prevailing vice of drunkenness, and the best mode of eradicating that baneful habit from the community. We should have thought it impossible that any sober legislator, when called upon to devise some mode of stopping up the great source of crime and pauperism in this country-the intemperate devotion to ardent spirits-we should have thought it impossible, we say, that any sober legislator, when called upon to suggest some means of staying this pestilence in the land, could make it the subject of a sorry jest!-but we stand corrected our legislators can be sober when they treat the lamentable vice of drunkenness, as a matter of ridicule. But admitting their sobriety, what can we say of the qualities of mind and heart which they bring to the work of legislation?

* * The grave and decorous treatment of the subject in the legislature, might of itself do much good, by awakening reflection in the minds of many of those, who have not yet reached the last stage of degraded subjection to the power of strong drink; but when this fatal passion, so withering to the morals of the people-so destructive of domestic comfort-so fruitful in misery and crime-is made a topic of levity and laughter in the House of Commons, the moral consequences must be bad, and drunkards must become less ashamed than ever, of the habit that subverts the reason.

The Rockites [in Ireland] are stimulated to their work of

nocturnal outrage, burning, and assassination, by whisky, which maddens the heart and fires the brain. And so in this country, at least three-fourths of the crimes of violence and blood-the crimes over which the terrors of the gallows are suspended—emanate from the diabolical inspiration of ardent spirits. Is it not a task more worthy of an enlightened and Christian Legislature to prevent those crimes, by removing their cause, than to brutalize the people still further by executions— which, although they exterminate the offender, leave the offence always growing and ripening into a luxuriant crop, that the scythe of death again mows down, only to shoot up, once more, in greater abundance? When we see these things -when we look around and behold the masses of misery, pauperism, and debasement which gin-drinking, and the tippling of the beer-shop create, we cannot but regard those persons who exert themselves—either by Temperance Societies or by raising discussions in parliament to extirpate this dreadful vice, as patriots who look for other than selfish triumphs—as benefactors to their country and the human race. We have enough of impostors seeking their own ends, under the name of political reformers; but to the advocates of social reform, no loaves and fishes of the State are offered. They are consequently fewer and more sincere; and of all sorts of social reform the most beneficial to society would be the eradication of that fascinating vice, which bows the strength of man to the dust-unseats his reason-inflames his passions--and extinguishes in his degraded mind all moral perceptions, and all regard for the decencies of life.

Defence by Counsel—Mr. EWART's Bill.—June 25, 1836.

THE success of the Bill [of Mr. EWART] to enable prisoners charged with felony to make their full defence by Counsel, now seems to be placed beyond a doubt-such a cause, taken under the protection of the splendid talents of Lord LYNDHURST, cannot fail to be triumphant. On the anticipated result of the Noble and Learned Lord's advocacy, we may congratulate the

friends to the improvement of the administration of justice. An anomaly, cruel in principle and barbarous in origin, will be removed from the practice of our criminal system; and life and liberty, in questions chiefly affecting the poor, will no longer be deprived of the protection which is thrown round property by the precautionary wisdom of British law.

The admirable exposition which Lord LYNDHURST gave, in his speech in the House of Lords, of the past and present state of the law as to prisoners charged with felony, makes it needless for us to enter at any great length into the question; more especially as we have on former occasions, during the successive years in which we have advocated this measure, taken no small pains to set the public mind right upon this subject. Nor have we spoken as theorists on this, or any other branch of our system of criminal jurisprudence, the reform of which we have pressed on the attention of the legislature and the country— we have closely observed the practical working of the system. We have, we trust, temperately, but, at the same time, fearlessly, exposed its defects, whether of principle or practice; and now we have the satisfaction to say, that of the many important improvements which we have recommended, a considerable number have become law; and the rest are in assured advancement towards final success.

The speech of Lord LYNDHURST made a powerful impression on the House, where so forcible and lucid an exposition of the absurd and cruel anomaly which the Prisoners' Counsel Bill is intended to remove, was never before given.

Well did he

[+ Lord BROUGHAM's sentiments on the same subject may be inferred from the following passage, extracted from an article in the Edinburgh Review, Dec. 1826. There is a Judge now upon the Bench who never took away the life of a fellow-creature, without shutting himself up alone, and giving the 'most profound attention to every circumstance of the case! and this solemn 'act he always premises with his own beautiful prayer to God, that he will 'enlighten him with his Divine Spirit in the exercise of this terrible pri'vilege! Now would it not be an immense satisfaction to this feeling and 'honourable magistrate, to be sure that every witness on the side of the ' prisoner had been heard, and that every argument that could be urged in 'his favour had been brought forward by a man whose duty it was to see 'only on one side of the question, and whose interest and reputation were thoroughly embarked in this partial exertion? If a Judge fails to get