HC Deb 15 April 1842 vol 62 cc519-37
Sir H. Hardinge

moved the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Mutiny Bill.

Bill read a third time.

On the question that the Bill do pass,

Captain Bernal

said, that some apology was due to the House and to the country, that a subject which had been heretofore brought forward by men of considerable experience should now be brought under their notice by one who had so slight a claim to their attention as himself. He hoped, however, that he should have the support of hon. Members, who on former occasions, had identified themselves with the measure he was about to propose. The hon. Member for Chippenham, who some years ago entertained strong opinions on the subject, had lately declared his intention to vote in favour of a clause for the mitigation of punishment. [Captain Boldero: No.] It was distinctly understood the other evening, that such was the intention of the hon. and gallant Member. He would put it to his hon. Friends on that (the Opposition) side of the House, whether their impression of what the hon. and gallant Member said, was not the same as his own. But he was about to add, that he hoped that the hon. and gallant Member, when he reflected upon the additional weight his present position under the Government must necessarily give to the subject, would not give a silent vote in furtherance of that cause which he was formerly so energetic and eloquent in supporting. He trusted, that the House would allow him to state, that prior to 1812 there was no limitation to the number of lashes that might be awarded by the sentence of a regimental or other court-martial. By a circular issued from the Horse Guards, dated the 25th of March, 1812, the number of lashes to be awarded by a regimental court-martial was limited to 300. In 1830, the number by a district court-martial was limited to 500. In 1832, that number was reduced to 300, and in the same year, the number by a regimental court-martial was ordered not to exceed 200; but in 1833, in consequence of the strong expression of feeling in that House, there having been a majority of only 11 in favour of corporal punishment, the numbers being 140 to 151, that punishment was, by an order dated Horse Guards, the 24th of August, 1833, limited to the following offences: first, for mutiny, insubordination, and violence, or using or offering violence to superior officers; secondly, drunkenness on duty; thirdly, for the sale of, or making away with arms, ammunition, accoutrements, or necessaries, stealing from comrades, or other disgraceful conduct. Finally, in 1836, the punishment was further limited; viz., by general court-martial, to 200 lashes, by district court-martial to 150, and by regimental court-martial to 100. Now, whilst no one would attempt to undervalue the great improvements which had taken place both in limiting the number of lashes and the crimes for which they were ifl,nicted he confessed, that his objections were directed not only against the quantum, but the nature of the punishment; because, in his judgment, it was totally inefficient to reform the man, as well as to deter others from committing similar offences. He quite agreed in a portion of the evidence that was given before the commissioners appointed in 1835, for inquiry into military punishments. In that evidence. Lord Hill was reported to have said, with reference to the mode of punishment that formerly prevailed, of fastening a weight to the leg, and which was abolished in 1830, that he objected to it because it was more fit for a beast than a man. He would ask the House whether those sentiments were not more applicable to the punishment of the lash than to the fastening a weight to the leg? He knew it might be said, with respect to that commission of 1835, that the report was conclusive against the abolition of flogging in the army. But he had studied that report with the best attention, and he fully coincided with the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham in the opinion he had expressed upon it. That hon. and gallant Member, on seconding Major Fancourt's motion, in April, 1836, declared that the evidence contained in the report, "clearly proved the possibility of abolishing that mode of punishment in the army, without injury or disadvantage to the service." In that opinion, so ably expressed by the hon. and gallant Member, he fully concurred; but, at the same time, he was aware it would be said, that none but military men were competent to give a judgment on this point. Against that doctrine, he most humbly but decidedly entered his protest. Every page of this report showed that the commissioners had rather endeavoured to justify the existence of the practice than to institute a dispassionate inquiry as to what the practice ought to he. Having had the honour to hold a commission in the army, he must be sensible that military men were as humane and considerate as Members of any other profession; but the House would call to mind, that alterations in the received forms of discipline, had scarcely ever been popular with members of any profession. It was matter of history that the judges had shown themselves as averse to the relaxation of the criminal code as the officers of the army to the abolition of corporal punishment. He considered it, and he thought the House would regard it as a rather curious fact, that in 1834, when the question was put by Lord Hill to 214 Field Officers:— Are you enabled to suggest any means of restraining or eradicating the propensity to drunkenness so prevalent among the soldiery,' and confessedly the parent of the majority of military crimes? That out of the whole number only two or three suggested a moral and intellectual remedy for the prevention of that crime. Sir G. Arthur and the late Colonel Oglander were the only officers who proposed the schoolmasters' drill. Considering all that had been written and said on the subject, it was astonishing how little had been done to prevent crime in our army. During the last few years a new system of drill had been introduced; the clothing and knapsacks had been improved, and a better description of arms had been put into the soldiers' hands; much had been done to perfect the machine, little to improve the man. It was a libel on human nature to say, that instruction tended to render the soldier insubordinate. The teaching of morality, in connection with the sanction of religion never indisposed any man to the proper performance of his duty. He was aware that there were some hon. Members who held that in this case, "ignorance was bliss," but he would refer them to the gaol returns which had been within the last four days placed in their hands for the refutation of such an opinion. He found that in the Preston House of Correction out of 378 males and 94 females committed for felony, 230 males and 65 females were unable to read at all; 61 males and 19 females could read only; 73 males and 10 females could read and write ill; the other 14 males could read and write well, but of superior education there was none. In table 24 there were 140 males and 34 females quite ignorant and knowing nothing of religion; 220 males and 58 females ill instructed, and knowing nothing of the Scriptures, and only 12 males and two females well instructed. He looked upon that report as almost conclusive on the subject of education. It was not his intention to delay the House by allusion to the trite topics of the corresponding merits of the French or continental armies, because he believed that there were regiments of this country in which discipline was maintained without the use of the lash. He believed that the household brigade might challenge competition as to its internal economy. But there was a large body of men who were not included in the service upon the tenure of soldiers, and therefore not subject to be flogged. They were drilled after the manner of the regular troops, but were not subject to corporal punishment. He alluded to the Irish constabulary. Lord Vivian, in speaking of that force, said it consisted of 7,000 of the finest men on the face of the earth, and during the time he had been in Ireland he had never seen a drunken policeman. Why, then, should not the same principle that was applied to them be applied to the regular troops? The House would doubtless recollect that, by an order dated the 24th of February, 1835, the late Lord William Bentinck abolished the flogging of the native troops in India, and he begged hon. Members who were disposed to favour him with their support would bear in mind that Lord William Bentinck did that in direct opposition to the military commission which sat on the subject. Lord William Bentinck on that occasion said,— There is an unanimous agreement in all the committees, that flogging, however degrading and injurious, cannot entirely be abolished. They do not even stop for a moment to inquire into the practicability of an adequate substitute. With them corporal punishment is the sine quá non, without which the discipline of the army cannot be maintained. I denounce this opinion as prejudice, because it is opposed to reason. Though I am not surprised at the opinion, I cannot forget that for many years, in conjunction with ninety-nine hundred parts of the officers of the British army, I entertained the same sentiments. It is only from my reflection and discussion that my own prejudice has given way. I now feel confident that this degradation will speedily disappear before a more reasonable and- enlightened legislation even in the British army. But no one would attempt to defend the practice of flogging upon its own merits. He was aware he should be told that unless he could propose an effectual substitute, it was impossible to maintain the discipline of the army without flogging? but did they find their present practice so efficient for the purpose? He thought also, that the system of recruiting might be revised with great advantage to the service. He naturally wished to fortify his argument by the authority of great names. He must, therefore, state, that Mr. Fox had declared that "enlistment for a life was unsuited to the genius of the British constitution." In 1806, Mr. Wyndham brought in a bill for the limitation of service, and said,— That he thought by this means a better description of men would be induced to enter the army, and the better the men you get the less necessity for severe and ignominious punishment.

Lord Lynedoch

and Mr. Wilberforce were also of the same opinion. In the report to which he had before alluded he found the following question put to Major-general Archibald Campbell:— Did you not find that men enlisted for a limited service were men of the best character in your regiments? And the answer of the gallant Officer was,— I did, and was always anxious to induce them to re-enlist; they came from a better class of society. It might be said, that the present system of enlistment was perfectly voluntary. It could hardly be said to be so. Boys of sixteen were entrapped under the excitement of liquor, and deceived by the hopes of promotion held out to them by a recruiting sergeant. Could they wonder, that when a youth, entrapped in this manner, and enlisted for an unlimited period, found that those representations were false, and that he was enlisted for life, with only a shadowy hope of 6d. a-day at the end of twenty years, and then only if his conduct had been good—could they wonder, he said, that men thus entrapped into the service should become reckless and demoralized? Suicides, it was well known, were much more prevalent among soldiers than among those of the labouring population engaged in the avocations of civil life. He wished to engage the attention of hon. Gentlemen opposite to the question whether a greater number of commissions might not be allotted to men who rose from the ranks; and with all deference, but with firmness, he would state it as his humble opinion, that by limiting the time of service, and holding out a reasonable hope of promotion, it would be found possible not only to abolish flogging, but also to obtain a better description of men for the service. His ultimate object was the total abolition of corporal punishment, but in the clause which he was about to move, be had limited the abolition to a time of peace, and had retained the punishment for offences committed on a line of march for theft. On reference to the opinion of a number of officers, he found them unanimous in the opinion, that in those instances the practice must be retained. And on recurring to a speech of the noble Lord, the Member for Liverpool, (Viscount Sandon), he (Captain Bernal) found the noble Viscount ex pressing himself thus:— As one of the commissioners, he had given the subject the greatest attention, and he had come to the conclusion that it was not practical to carry on the discipline of the army on foreign service without the power of inflicting the punishment of flogging; but, with the exception of offences committed on a march, or stealing, he thought flogging might be dispensed with in the home service. Without further detaining the House, he would conclude by moving to insert the following clause:— And be it enacted, that it shall not be lawful to inflict corporal punishment by flogging during the time of peace on any private soldier, corporal, or non-commissioned officer in the army or militia of the United Kingdom, save for offences committed on a line of march, or for theft.

Captain Boldero

said, with reference to the assumption with which the hon. Member (Captain Bernal) had concluded his speech, he would beg to remind the House of a question that was put to him the other night, and of the answer he gave to it. An hon. and gallant Officer (Captain Howard) inquired of him whether he intended to bring forward his annual motion for the abolition of corporal punishment in the army, and his answer was, that he had no intention of bringing forward such a motion, but that if a motion to that effect were brought forward he should give it his support. The hon. and gallant Officer, in putting that short question, committed two errors: first, his motion was not an annual motion; and, secondly, it was usual, when an hon. Member was about to seek such information, to give some private intimation of it. The gallant Officer had overlooked that point, not, he supposed, with an intention to embarrass him, but no doubt with a view to the good of the service. With regard to his "annual" motion, in 1836 he seconded and voted for a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment in the army, but had he voted for a similar motion from that time to this? He said most distinctly and positively that he had not. [Capt. Bernal: In 1837 and 1838.] He repeated that he had voted once, and once only, for the abolition of corporal punishment in the army, and in support of his statement he referred to the records of the House and to Hansard. For what was Major Fancourt's motion in 1837? It was not a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment — that hon. Member shrunk from it advisedly— but for a committee to inquire into and report on the system of military punishment; for the hon. Member stated, that after having brought forward a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment without success, it would be in some sort trifling with the House if he troubled hon. Members for a repetition of their votes without bringing forward further evidence in support of his views, and to obtain that evidence he wished for a committee in order to ascertain if they could not find a substitute for corporal punishment. But what was his conduct in 1836, when on the following night Mr. Lennard, the Member for Maldon, gave notice that when the report of the Mutiny Bill was brought up, he should move that corporal punishment in the army should be abolished altogether? He then said, that No one had a greater desire to carry out the object of the motion of the hon. Member than he had, or entertained a greater horror of corporal punishment than he did, but after the fair discussion that had taken place on the subject last night, and the promises of the Government, he conceived that a great boon had been achieved"— For it was a great boon to obtain a remission of 100 stripes, the number in a district court-martial being reduced to 200, and in a regimental court-martial to 100; and he added, that He had considered the subject to-day, and consulted several military men, whose opinions were in unison with his own, and they all thought, after the fair promises of the Government that a system of rewards should be introduced, it would be injurious to the service for the hon. Member to press his motion. He had, therefore, asked the hon. Member not to bring forward his motion, and when it was brought forward he left the House and refused to give his vote. And what was his course in 1838? Did he then take on himself the responsibility not of bringing forward a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment? No; — for it having been stated by Mr. Cutlar Ferguson, the judge-advocate, that he considered it to be the duty of those who brought forward such a motion to find a substitute for flogging; and by the Secretary at War, that if such a motion were carried, they had better disband the army; —when these Gentlemen made such statements, must they not have had great effect upon him—and must he not have been a bold man had he not shrunk from the responsibility of proposing to abolish corporal punishment in the face of that statement? They bad great effect upon him; and to show what was that effect, in 1838 he took on himself the responsibility, on the passing of the Mutiny Act, of bringing forward a motion, not for the abolition of corporal punishment, but for a select committee to inquire into and report on the state of military rewards and punishments; and he stated, that in a judicious system of rewards and of solitary confinement he thought, perhaps, they might find a substitute for flogging. On that occasion he alluded to General Evans, then just returned from Spain, and told General Evans that He expected to have his vote, especially as he intended to limit the inquiry to the possibility of finding a substitute for corporal punishment on home service and in time of peace. And yet this was called a motion for the abolition of corporal punishment. He said further, that The hon. Member (General Evans) having been in command since he gave his vote in the House had, as he understood, carried flogging to a great extent in Spain, having, perhaps, found it impossible to do without it in the presence of the enemy,— And he begged the attention of the House to this— that he had found himself obliged to retract somewhat his former opinions on the subject in deference to the opinion of the gallant Officer. From the year 1838 to the present time he had allowed the Mutiny Bill to pass without any motion on the subject, so that during the ten years in which he had had an opportunity of voting against military flogging, he had only done so once, and brought forward two motions with a view to find a substitute, stating at the time, that in consequence of what had taken place, he had retracted his opinions. He had now given a plain and unvarnished statement of his conduct, and he would only detain the House further, to say, that the vote he was about to give he should give with perfect confidence, and that whatever change had taken place in his opinions, had taken place while he sat on the other side of the House.

Captain H. Howard (Cricklade)

said, that he believed there was no power less abused or more mercifully exercised, than that possessed by a court-martial; and were he asked before what tribunal he would prefer to be tried, he should answer one composed of naval or military officers. He had otherwise come to the conclusion, but the opinion of the first soldier of the age of the necessity of flogging in the army had decidedly strengthened his opinion.

Sir H. Douglas

said, that having just returned from the command of her Majesty's forces on a foreign station, which he had held for many years, and having had under his command a large proportion of the infantry of the British army, he could not give a silent vote upon this subject. His vote would be founded on the experience he had had, and on the sincere and solemn conviction, that the mode of punishment under discussion could not be dispensed with, with safety to the British service. It was not without doing great violence to his own feelings, that he delivered that opinion; but it was consolatory to him to reflect, and to be able to state to the House, who no doubt would reject the motion of the hon. Member, that this objectionable punishment was by degrees becoming less frequent, and that in proportion as the moral character of the soldier should be raised, and his habits of providence and self-control increase, the punishment might, at" some future period, fall into entire disuse. Looking back at his own career, he acknowledged the frightful extent to which the punishment had been used in the earlier days of his service, an extent which it made him shudder to think of; but he thought, seeing all that was now done to improve the character of the soldier, and the restrictions on the punishment, both as to its infliction and the quantity, there were lines converging, which somewhere or other must meet. By the 252nd regulation of the articles of war, the infliction of corporal punishment was limited to the offences of mutiny, insubordination, or using or threatening violence to a superior, drunkenness on duty, theft, disgraceful conduct, and selling or making away with arms and accoutrements. No general officer was allowed to confirm the sentence on the first conviction, and he seldom did it afterwards, except in aggravated cases. He could safely say, that when the result of a court martial was reported to him, it was with great pain and reluctance that he had confirmed the sentence and ordained the punishment, and that he had never done so except under the conviction that it was necessary for the interests of the service. He would, therefore, entreat the House to leave the subject where it was—to the humanity of the officers of the array, the admirable regulations of the service, and the attempts that were being made every day to raise and improve the moral condition of the soldier. With respect to the clause before the House, he must protest against the proposition, that they should subject the British soldier, who was fighting the battles of his country, to a punishment more odious than was inflicted in the time of peace, which he said would be a most dangerous distinction. The hon. and gallant Member had by his motion proposed to limit flogging in the army to offences committed on a line of march, but he did not know what extent of actual service the hon. and gallant Member had seen which would have entitled him to claim the ability to distinguish between the gravity of a military offence committed on a line of march, and of one committed in garrison or on parade, or in what way the hon. and gallant Member was qualified to pronounce upon the greater detriment or danger to the discipline of the service which was involved in the one to the extenuation of the latter. All he could say was, that in his opinion the distinction, if established, would be a most dangerous one, and fatal to the discipline of the army. The hon. and gallant Member had not specified in his motion whether he would continue to punish drunkenness according to the present code, although he had stated it to be his opinion, that this crime was the worst of any that a soldier could commit, as it was the parent of all others. He had also left stealing and making away with ammunition out of his code of corporal punishment, although there was not an offence more dangerous to the service than that of a soldier making away with his arms or ammunition. He would not take up the time of the House by entering into any further details or arguments. He hoped, that whilst he expressed his determination, founded upon the experience of a long service, to vote against the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, the House would give him credit for the regret which he felt in being compelled by what he knew of the discipline of the army to advocate the punishment of flogging, and at the same time believe, that he would continue to look with sharpness, humanity, and reluctance to punish for all cases of flogging, which might hereafter come before him.

Mr. Macaulay

said, that were he disposed to do so, he, of all his late Colleagues in office, could vote with the most perfect consistency in favour of the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, for during the time that he at least had held the office of Secretary at War, the question of flogging in the army was never once mooted. But the question was one of those peculiarly painful topics of inquiry, and upon which the evidence was of so peculiar a nature, that noble Lords or right hon. Gentlemen who had held the office of Secretary at War, and who had obtained the information respecting it, which was only to be acquired in that post, had invariably been compelled by the facts which came to their knowledge, to take their share of the unpopularity which attached to its infliction, and at the hazard of losing their character for consistency to vote for its continuance, notwithstanding any former declarations against the practice. The inquiry that had been instituted into the practice of flogging in the army had terminated in regulations that had confined the legal infliction of that punishment to as narrow a limit as was consistent with the safety of the discipline of the army. For his own part, he was disposed to say, that the actual infliction of flogging ought to be confined to much narrower limits than even the law permitted; but with the knowledge which he had acquired with respect to the facts attendant on this punishment, and after having had the opportunity, which he had availed himself of during the period that he was Secretary of War, of acquiring information on the subject, he must say, that he did not think the practice could with safety be relinquished. The only way to diminish the chances of its infliction was by elevating the moral character of the soldier, and by giving him intellectual enjoyments, which would tend to diminish the chances of his resorting to degrading or un soldier-like habits or faults. As it was, he should vote against the motion of the hon. and gallant Member, and he should have done so, had it been brought forward last year. There was another question that had been incidentally mooted in the course of the observations of the hon. and gallant Member, which was the consistency that had been displayed by the hon. and gallant Member for Chippenham. The recollection which he had on the subject, was not in accordance with the course which the hon. and gallant Member had expressed his intention to pursue on the present occasion; for, in referring to a record of the debate on this subject, which took place on the 26th of March, 1838, he found the following words attributed to the hon. and gallant Member:— He (the hon. and gallant Member) called upon the House to abolish this barbarous and brutal torture, and to show to the continental nations that the British soldier could discharge his duty with equal fidelity under the impulse of more ennobling motives than that of terror. The hon. and gallant Member was here found exclaiming against the practice of flogging in the army, and calling upon the House to abolish a punishment so brutal and barbarous. He considered those expressions to be more than equivalent to any vote that could have been given in favour of the motion, and the effect which he attributed to them was confirmed by the reply which the hon. and gallant Member made to the observations of the hon. Member for Lambeth, during the course of the debate on the same evening, wherein he had stated that he would, if he had the power, abolish corporal punishment in the army altogether. Looking, therefore, at the very slight changes that had been made between the year 1836 and the year 1838, in the practice of flogging in the army, he did not think the hon. and gallant Member was entitled to shelter himself from the charge of inconsistency in the course which he pursued on the present occasion, however right and proper that course might be.

Lord A. Lennox

said, with respect to the assertion that the practice of flogging had a ruinous effect upon the future career of a soldier, and that a man who had once felt the lash became reckless thenceforward, he would only assert, that his experience went to prove the contrary; for there were at the present moment four colonels in the British army who had suffered that punishment—who were first-rate officers. Reference had been made to the practice in the French army, and to the absence of corporal punishment in that service; but the absence of this punishment was more than compensated by the severity of the military code, as was proved by the fact that eighty-one cases occurred last year, in which the men were condemned to death; and one-half of these sentences were carried into execution. What would the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe say to the substitution of the punishment of death for that of flogging? Reference had been made to the superior habits of the Irish constabulary force, and a comparison had been drawn between the police there and the soldier, for the purpose of proving that, as flogging was not known in that service, it was plain the discipline could be kept up without it. But there was no parity of circumstances between the two cases; for the British soldier received only 18l. a year pay, subjected to many deductions, whilst the Irish policeman received 24l.— he begged pardon, 32l. per annum, subject to no deductions. The experience which he had acquired during twenty years' service in the army was—and he regretted to say it—decidedly in favour of continuing the practice of flogging. He could not but consider it a brutal and disgusting punishment, but the safety of the service demanded that the power of inflicting it should be continued to the heads of the army. He had done all that was in his power to abolish the practice of flogging in effect, and had made every effort to dispense with its enforcement in such cases as came within his own sphere of action, but he could not help saying with regret, that his experience told him there was danger in its abolition, and therefore he should vote against the motion of the hon. and gallant Member.

Mr. O. Stanley

said, that the slight and limited experience which he had acquired of military discipline, induced him to think that flogging might safely be dispensed with in times of peace. There would be a better class of men enlisted for the army, if flogging were done away with; and the practice could only be justified by the most urgent necessity, in short by the fact, that there were no other practicable means for maintaining the discipline of the army. The punishment of flogging was the disgraceful distinction which separated the soldier from all other classes of society. Whatever military men might say of the necessity for having recourse to that punishment, he was certain if it were to be abolished, other means for preserving discipline would be devised. It bad been urged, that theft was a crime deserving amongst soldiers of punishment by the lash. He supposed, that the military law was founded on the civil code, and modern legislation had endeavoured to abolish all corporal punishments in jails; why, therefore, was this system of legislation not to be extended to military offenders. In India, flogging had been abandoned, as far as the native troops were concerned; whilst the British soldiers were still subject to the lash. He had never heard, that the discipline of the native corps had been injured by the change. In his opinion, flogging ought to be done away with; and he firmly believed, that if the men were to be flogged in public, instead as now, within the barrack-yard, the outcry against the practice would be so great, that within one month it would be abolished.

Captain Vivian

regretted, that the hon. Member had thought it necessary to bring the subject before the House at this juncture, when it had been found necessary to increase the army, and when for the good of the service such topics ought to be as little agitated as possible. The army necessarily contained men of bad character, and it was not expedient that further limitations should be imposed upon commanding officers. Corporal punishment was never inflicted, but in cases of the greatest necessity, and when other means had been tried without avail. Sympathy was thrown away when lavished upon men who were destitute of the feelings and attributes that ought to be the boast of a soldier, because, as he had just said, corporal punishment was only inflicted when other measures had been re sorted to without effect, and for the sake of example. All commanding officers would be as anxious as the hon. Member, that flogging should not be resorted to, and so, indeed, would all other officers in the service; but he could not understand the distinction the hon. Member wished to draw, relative to offences on the line of march. It was quite as essential, that examples should be made in cases of mutiny and insubordination as in cases of theft. It had been proposed that the French system of punishing offenders by sending them to the hulks should be adopted; but how was that possible to be carried into effect when the army was out of the British dominions—in China, for example? With respect to what had been said about the Irish police, it should be remembered, that they were a very different body of men. They were men whose characters recommended them to their situations. In the army, there was no test of character—a man was taken because he was five feet six inches high, and was a strong able man. Nothing would give him greater pleasure than to see the army raised to that pitch, that corporal punishment could be totally abolished, as being no longer necessary; but looking to the class of men entering the army at present, it appeared to him essential, that no further limitations should be imposed upon commanding officers. No one could accuse commanding officers of abusing their power. The hon. Member concluded by repeating his expressions of regret, that the motion should have been brought forward at this particular period.

Captain Howard,

having claimed the indulgence of the House for addressing it, said he had expected to hear the same arguments adduced in the present, that they had heard on former occasions, and that he should have met with similar appeals to the sympathies of the country; but yet, where instances of individual hardship were considered, they should bear in mind that the legislation of that House had generally been conducted on more broad and comprehensive principles. He wished to quote the opinion of Sir J, Macintosh, who he knew was considered a high authority on both sides of the House. With regard to the discipline of an army, he says:— A prompt and active obedience to authority is the first principle that hold armies together, and is more necessary in an army, than in any other body of men. Without it, they will speedily degenerate into a ferocious mob. One of the greatest and wisest men had concentrated into one sentence, the description of an army, in saying, that:— An armed and disciplined body may be dangerous to liberty, but an armed undisciplined body was dangerous to society. The hon. Member concluded by stating that in 1836, the opinion of the judges of the land was against the abolition of corporal punishment.

Dr. Nicholl,

from the position which he held in connection with the Government, and from the turn which the debate had taken, he hoped he might be permitted to offer a very few observations to the House. He was perfectly convinced, in conformity with the opinions of the highest authorities, both military and civil, that it was not possible to maintain the discipline of the army unless the power of inflicting corporal punishment were retained. At the same time, he thought it necessary and incumbent upon the authorities to restrict the exercise of that power to within the narrowest possible limits. He begged to state one or two facts in illustration of the extent to which the diminution of this mode of punishment had, of late years, been carried. In 1831, the number of men imprisoned for military offences was 3,676; out of these, the number sentenced to corporal punishment was 1,462. In 1838, the number of men imprisoned was 7,170; but of these the number sentenced to corporal punishment was reduced to 850. This was sufficient to show, that the military authorities were determined, to the utmost of their power, to confine the punishment of flogging to within the narrowest limits. Since he had had the honour of holding the situation he now filled, there had not been one single instance, confirmed by her Majesty, in which the sentence of corporal punishment had been inflicted, nor had there been an instance in the whole of the year 1841. In respect to the motion of the gallant Member for Wycombe, he only begged leave to remark, in confirmation of what had been said by other Members, that it appeared to him to be utterly impossible to apply in time of war a rule different from that which obtained in time of peace. If the punishment were stigmatised in time of peace as brutalizing and demoralizing, he did not see how it could be taken up in time of war, when there was a demand for the active and zealous service of the soldier. When the gallant Member referred to the police of Ireland, he must have forgotten, that the men who composed that force were not only better paid, but were not subject to military law; and that they were not compelled to remain in the service, contrary to their own will or wish.

Colonel Rawdon

said, he saw, that hon. Gentlemen were exceedingly hungry, and, therefore, he would not detain them long. He could not give a silent vote on this question. It might be supposed, that his political opinions would influence him upon this occasion, but he stood there as an independent representative of the people, and ob/>hould vote according to his conscientious view of the subject. It was because he felt that this motion, if carried, would be destructive to the internal discipline of the army, and therefore prejudicial to the interests of the country, that he could not give his support to it; and it would not be manly conduct if he did not express that opinion. He did not think it a prudent thing to bring forward this question year after year. It should be remembered that a commission was issued a few years back to inquire into this subject, and no man could read the speech which the right hon. Member for Coventry, who was then Secretary-at-War, made upon that occasion—no man could read the report of the commissioners without seeing that it was impossible to substitute any other punishment. That commission was composed of four civilians and three military men, so that if there were any bias it must have been against the practice. But the report was unanimous, and it was to this effect:— It was the opinion of almost every witness that the substitution of other punishments in the army on actual service is impracticable, and that, if it were practicable, it would be inadmissible for the benefit of the service. Again: It did not appear safe to abolish this punishment altogether, nor were any other punishments suggested which promised better results. He was sure that any opinion of the Duke of Wellington on the matter of discipline would command the attention of the House. The Duke of Wellington was asked this question— While your Grace commanded the army was it your wish, and did you endeavour, to diminish the frequency of corporal punishment as much as you could! Answer—" As much as possible. From the time I entered the army it was the desire of every commanding officer I have ever seen, and who knew his duty, to diminish corporal punishment as much as possible; and there is one remarkable circumstance which I beg the court never to lose sight of—that is that this punishment is always inflicted in public, and that, supposing the commanding-officer had no feeling with respect to it, he must know that many would feel it in a very extraordinary manner—officers and soldiers both—who are excessively annoyed at it. But it is inflicted as a matter of necessity; and as it is done in public there is a security that it will not be carried to excess. The Duke of Wellington was also asked if he knew of any means of doing away with this punishment, and he said, I have not an idea of any possible means. I have had the subject in consideration for six or seven years; I have turned it over in my mind in every possible way, and I candidly declare that I do not know of any means. An army without discipline would be no army at all; and I have not a notion how you are to go on without having a punishment which will make an impression upon the insubordinate. You talk of imprisonment, but by imprisonment you weaken yourself, for the men in prison cannot serve you. Besides, by imprisoning the bad man you throw additional duty on the good man, and thus punish him for the fault of another. It might not be difficult, perhaps, to show that insubordination towards non-commissioned officers had increased as corporal punishment had been relaxed. He was president of a court-martial in January, 1840, by which a soldier was sentenced to receive 150 lashes. By that proceeding he knew that the officers of the court-martial incurred great odium, but what was the crime of the soldier? He had quarrelled with a comrade, and was afterwards seen deliberately to load his musket with ball. It was feared that he meditated violence, and he was therefore put under arrest. The charge of his musket was drawn, and a ball found in it. For that he was sentenced to be flogged, and he would aver that the officers did their duly in making an example of such a man.

Captain Polhill

declared, that during sixteen years' service he had witnessed the beneficial effects of the commanding-officer having the power to inflict corporal punishment; and that he had known instances of the infliction of the punishment causing a reformation of the delinquent.

Captain Bernal

would only say, that he considered the whole argument to have been misunderstood and unanswered.

The House divided on the question that the clause be read a second time—Ayes 59; Noes 187:—Majority 128.

List of the AYES.
Aglionby, H. A. Butler, hon. Col.
Archbold, R. Cobden, R.
Barnard, E. G. Colborne, hn. W. N. R.
Bodkin, J. J. Crawford, W. S.
Bowring, Dr. Currie, R.
Bridgeman, H. Dennistoun, J.
Brotherton, J. Divett, E.
Bryan, G. Duke, Sir J.
Buller, C. Duncan, G.
Duncombe, T. O'Connell, M.
Ellice, E. O'Connell, M. J.
Fielden, J. O'Connell, J.
Gibson, T. M. Pechell, Capt.
Gill, T. Philips, M.
Gordon, Lord F. Plumptre, J. P.
Granger, T. C. Protheroe, E.
Grattan, H. Rice, E. R.
Grosvenor, Lord R. Roebuck, J. A.
Hall, Sir B. Rundle, J.
Hatton, Capt. V. Russell, Lord E.
Humphery, Mr. Ald. Somerville, Sir W. M.
Jardine, W. Strutt, E.
Johnston, A. Thornely, T.
Leader, J. T. Villiers, hon. C.
Marsland, H. Wakley, T.
Morris, D. Wallace, R.
Mostyn, hn. E. M. L. Williams, W.
O'Brien, C. Wood, B.
O'Brien, J. TELLERS.
O'Brien, W. S. Bernal, Capt.
O'Connell, D. Stanley, O.
List of the NOES.
Acland, Sir T. D. Dalrymple, Capt.
Acland, T. D. Damer, hon. Col.
A'Court, Capt. Darby, G.
Ackers, J. Denison, E. B.
Acton, Col. Dickinson, F. H.
Adderley, C. B. Douglas, Sir H.
Antrobus, E. Douglas, Sir C. E.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Duncombe. hon. A.
Archdall, M. Dundas, F.
Arkwright, G. Egerton, Sir P.
Bagge, W. Estcourt, T. G. B.
Bagot, hon. W. Farnham, E. B.
Baldwin, B. Ferguson, Sir R. A.
Baring, hon. W. B. Filmer, Sir R.
Baskerville, T. B. M. Fitzroy, Capt.
Beresford, Major Forbes, W.
Berkeley, hon. C. Forester, hn. G. C. W.
Berkeley, hon. Capt. Fuller, A. E.
Bernard, Visct. Gaskell, J. Milnes
Boldero, H. G. Gladstone, rt. hn. W. E.
Botfield, B. Gordon, hon. Capt.
Bradshaw, J. Gore, W. O.
Bramston, T. W. Goring, C.
Broadley, H. Goulburn, rt. hon. H.
Broadwood, H. Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.
Browne, hon. W. Greenall, P.
Bruce, Lord E. Greene, T.
Buckley, E. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Hamilton, C. J. B.
Burrell, Sir C. M. Hamilton, W. J.
Burroughes, H. N. Hamilton, Lord C.
Campbell, A. Hardinge, rt. hn. SirH.
Carnegie, hon. Capt. Hardy, J.
Chelsea, Visct. Hay, Sir A. L.
Clements, Visct. Henley, J. W.
Clements, H. J. Herbert, hon. S.
Clerk, Sir G. Hill, Sir R.
Clive, hon. R. H. Hillsborough, Earl of
Cockburn, rt. hn. Sir G. Hinde, J. H.
Codrington, C. W. Hodgson, R.
Colvile, C. R. Hogg, J. W.
Corry, rt. hon. H. Hope, hon. C.
Cripps, W. Howard, hn. E. G. G.
Howard, hon. H. Plumridge, Capt.
Howick, Viscount Polhill, F.
Irton, S. Pollock, Sir F.
James, Sir W. C. Praed, W. T.
Jermyn, Earl Price, R.
Jocelyn, Visct. Pringle, A.
Johnson, W. G. Rashleigh, W.
Johnstone, Sir J. Rawdon, Col.
Jones, Capt. Reade, W. M.
Kemble, H. Richards, R.
Knatchbull. rt. hn. Sir E. Roche, Sir D.
Knight, H. G. Rolleston, Col.
Knight, F. W. Round, C. G.
Labouchere, rt. hn. H. Rushbrook, Col.
Leicester, Earl of Russell, Lord. J.
Lennox, Lord A. Sandon, Visct.
Liddell, hon. H. T. Scarlett, hon. R. C.
Lincoln, Earl of Seymour, Sir H. B.
Lindsay, H. H. Sheppard, T.
Lockhart, W. Sibthorp, Col.
Lowther, J. H. Somerset, Lord G.
Lowther, hon. Col. Somerton, Visct.
Lyall, G. Sotheron.T. H. S.
Lygon, hon. General Stanley, Lord
Macaulay. rt. hn. T. B. Stewart, J.
Mackenzie, T. Sutton, hon. H. M.
M'Geachy, F. A. Tennent, J. E.
Mahon, Visct. Thompson, Mr. Ald.
Mainwaring, T. Trench, Sir F. W.
Manners, Lord J. Trotter, J.
March, Earl of Vere, Sir C. B.
Marsham, Visct. Verner, Col.
Master, T. W. C. Vivian, hon. Major
Masterman, J. Vivian, hon. Capt.
Meynell, Capt. Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Morgan, O. Wall, C. D.
Murray, C. R. S. Wilby, G. E.
Napier, Sir C. Whitmore, T. C.
Neville, R. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Nicholl, rt. hon. J. Wodehouse, E.
Norreys, Lord Wood, Col.
O'Brien, A. S. Wood, Col. T.
Ossulston, Lord Wortley, hon. J. S.
Paget, Col. Wyndharn, Col. C.
Paget, Lord W. Wynn, Sir W. W.
Pakington, J. S. Young, J.
Palmer, G. Young, Sir W.
Patten, J. W.
Peel, rt. hon. Sir R. TELLERS.
Peel, J. Fremantle, Sir T.
Pigot, Sir R. Baring, H.

Clause rejected. Bill passed.