CORPORAL PUNISHMENTS IN THE ARMY.

HC Deb 30 June 1808 vol 11 cc1115-22

Sir F. Burdett

rose, and shortly observed, that the object of his motion was, for the purpose of bringing regularly before the discussion of the house in the course of the next session, a matter which he conceived to be of the first importance, and which had already been discussed incidentally. He concluded, by moving, "That there be laid before the house, early in the next session of parliament, Regimental Returns of all Corporal Punishments sentenced and inflicted during the last ten years, ending on the 1st of Jan. 1808, in every regiment of Regulars, Militia, Garrisons, and Artillery; specifying the causes, the sentence, and the number of lashes given at one or more periods."

The Secretary at War

rose to give the, motion his decided negative, and he trusted that the house would coincide with him in the vote he should give. He would not enter into much argument upon the subject, as the lion, baronet had not prefaced his motion with many observations; but he would appeal to the house and to the hon. baronet himself, whether any good consequences were likely to result from such a motion, at this particular time? For his part, he was convinced, that it could produce no good, and might produce great evil. On this ground, he would have opposed the motion, even if the return moved for had been a simple paper, which was already in the hands of all the members. Although he had already given his opinion on the subject when it was discussed incidentally, yet he should now repeat, that there was nothing which history made more evident than that a body of men subjected to military discipline, and governed by a particular law, were much more to be depended on in the field than those who were not so disciplined. If this, then, were to be considered as a general truth, he saw no reason why, at the present moment, and with such an enemy as we have now to contend with, that the discipline which had so long subsisted in the British army should now be shaken. It appeared to him that great evil might be produced from this question being agitated among the common soldiers. He was perfectly aware of the competence of the house to discuss this or any other subject which should be brought before them relative to the army, as it was competent to them to address his majesty on all such subjects; but, at the same time, it would be for the discretion of the house, and also for the discretion of the individual member who brought forward such motions, to consider whether they could be productive of any good, and whether, on the other hand, they were not likely to produce much mischief.—No member rising to speak,

Sir Francis Burdett

rose, in reply to what had fallen from the right hon. the Secretary at War. He was extremely surprised at the manner in which his motion had been received by that right hon. gentleman, as it appeared to him, that a matter of greater importance, or more peculiarly important in the present times, could not possibly be submitted to the consideration of the house. He thought they would do ill by the country, and that they would do ill by its gallant army, if they were to leave out of their consideration entirely the sufferings to which that army, and the individuals that composed it, were daily exposed. If this consideration was at all times due to the army, it was more, peculiarly due to it at a time when it comprised so considerable a portion of our population, and when, by the institution of the Local Militia, every man in England was affected by the military code of the country.—He did not think that considerations of that nature should be answered by old trite observations, of military discipline being a necessary thing, and of disciplined troops being better than those that were undisciplined. Such general observations were not of weight enough to be entitled to put a stop to all discussion upon the subject. As to the objection of the great difficulty in obtaining such returns, he could not but conceive that those returns could be easily procured from every regiment in the service. As to the great danger that there was supposed to be in parliament meddling at all with the discipline of the army, he was enabled, in support of his own opinion, to cite the authority of Mr. Justice Blackstone, who in speaking of the Mutiny Act, said, "That the Mutiny Act was an act hastily penned, and he wished that it should be, some time or another, submitted to the deliberate consideration of parliament." It was not, therefore, extraordinary that he should view the subject in the same light that Blackstone viewed it, or that he should think that this was a lime peculiarly proper for such a consideration. When the whole population of the country were becoming military, and perhaps ought to become military, at such a time it was peculiarly necessary that the military code should be made as congenial to the feelings of the nation as was consistent with the proper ends of military discipline. He could not see what objection there was to producing information upon the subject, as the house would have afterwards the power of determining, according to their discretion, upon the information so received. If the information was laid before the house, and the house, upon deliberate consideration, found that the system of corporal punishment could not be got rid of, it would at least be satisfactory to the public to know, that the subject had occupied the serious attention of the legislature. It might, perhaps, be found, that the system was at least capable of receiving a good deal of modification; and that it should not be left to the caprice, folly, or accidental disposition and character of mind of particular commanders, what punishment those under their command were to be subject to. It was well known in the army, that under one officer corporal punishments were seldom or never known in a regiment; but that when the same regiment passed under the command of another officer, they became frequent. It was in vain to say that the character of the English soldiers made the frequency of those punishments necessary; for it was well known, that some officers, much to their credit, preserved the discipline of their regiments, and increased their reputation, without often recurring to this mode of punishment; whereas there were other officers, under whom it was much practised, and it was not remarked that their regiments were much improved by it. He should not hesitate to name a particular regiment in illustration of his argument. The 15th Light Dragoons had formerly gained reputation for discipline at home, and for good conduct when abroad. It had, as he understood, been for nearly eight years under the command of an officer who was not fond of inflicting corporal punishments, and in the space of eight years there had been, as he understood, but six corporal punishments in the regiment, which was at that time remarkable for its discipline and good conduct. That regiment had, however, now got another commander (the duke of Cumberland); and while it was under his command, he was informed that there had been no less than 80 punishments in less than half that period; and he was told that the regiment was likely to be spoiled. He thought it was most evident that soldiers should not be left, in this respect, to the caprice or accidental character of the different individuals who should happen to command it. The right hon. secretary said, that discipline must be kept up in an army: this was a thing which every body knew; but other armies kept up their discipline without having recourse to the punishment of the lash. The enemy with whom we were contending, had also disciplined armies, although there were no such disgraceful punishments in his armies. He would not believe that there was any thing in the character of English soldiers which required a much greater severity of treatment than any other army, perhaps with the exception of the Russian army.

Lord Castlereagh

was surprised at the hon. baronet having conceived that this was a proper period to bring forward such a motion. He hardly knew how to argue against the hon. baronet, as their views upon almost every subject were so totally different, that there was scarcely a point of coincidence. He wondered, however, that if the hon. baronet felt the subject of so great importance, he should have slept over it until the session was just upon the close. If the returns could be made, and it appeared that punishments were frequent, that would not support the argument of the hon. baronet, as it would be a greater proof of the existence of offence than of the impropriety of the punishment. The motion of the hon. baronet, connected with the observations he had formerly made, did look like a settled and systematic intention to bring the military code of the country into disrepute. In the French code, to which he appeared to give so great a preference, the officers could, without any trial, inflict the punishment of death, upon any soldier whom he should conceive to have committed an offence that deserved it. When they, had such a power, corporal punishment might not be so necessary. If corporal punishment existed in our army, it was because by the English code no man's life or person could be touched or shaken without the decision of a competent tribunal. The hon. baronet had, however, found an opportunity to insinuate that punishments in the army depended on the caprice, folly, or passion of commanding officers, and to mention the name of an illustrious commander. He must have known, however, that no man could be punished in the army, but by the sentence of a court-martial, the members of which were upon their oaths. The house might therefore judge with what degree of liberality and candour it was that he drew his views, from what he had stated to have taken place in one particular regiment. He must also observe, that the regiments of cavalry were much fuller now than at the time the hon. baronet alluded to, and that on that account the punishments might be supposed to be more numerous. He anticipated the feelings of the house, and the disapprobation they would express to the motion. He conceived the statement was a most injurious misrepresentation of our military code. No soldiers excelled the English soldiers in their attachment to their king, and their fidelity to their country, or who testified it more, when their fidelity and attachment were put to the test. He was sure that the majority of that house, and the great mass of the country, would disapprove of interfering with the established discipline.

Sir George Warrender

was of opinion, that the full rigour of the military code ought not to be applied to the local militia. But with respect to its application to the regular army he differed widely from the hon. baronet, as he did almost on everything he brought before the house. It was not only by the previous form of a court martial that the arbitrary infliction of punishment was guarded against, but by the inspection of the visiting general officers, who were to see the regimental returns of the courts martial, of the punishments that should have taken place, and of the degree and manner in which those punishments should have been executed; of all which particulars the commander in chief required particular reports to be made to him. The general officers were also instructed to inquire of the men, as they passed the companies, whether they had any grievance to complain of. With all these checks there could be no instance of wanton or capricious punishment. The use of the cane was entirely laid aside in consequence of the denunciation of his majesty's severe displeasure. He thought it necessary to state these facts, to prevent the public mind from receiving a false impression on a matter so important.

Lord Folkestone

supported the motion of the hon. baronet. He agreed entirely in the eulogium which was bestowed by a noble lord on the character of English soldiers; but he thought that very eulogium was an argument in favour of the motion, as it shewed that such men did not deserve to be subjected to more disgraceful or severe punishments, than were those in the other armies of the world. The noble lord, however, had advanced no reason against the motion of the hon. baronet, although he had made some comments upon his speech. If by the returns moved for, it should appear that those punishments were not very frequent, and that they were administered in a steady, even, course of justice, then the production of such a return would be the best answer that could be given to the speech of the worthy baronet. If, on the contrary, it appeared (as he believed no gentleman out of that house would deny), that the system of punishment was by no means uniform or regular, but was different in one regiment from another, and in the same regiment, when it changed its commander, he thought it was evident that that was not an equal or impartial code, and that the system ought to be reformed or modified. The object of the motion was to find out the manner in which this military code was exercised. It was well known that every regiment was subject, to the same military code, and yet, if this code in some regiments, or under some officers, should be found infinitely more severe than in others, it was necessary to guard those regiments, and the army at large, from the consequences of the caprice of individual officers.

Mr. Windham

did not conceive that such return would enable the house to form a correct judgment on the subject. It appeared to him that the principal thing which was to protect the soldier from capricious punishment, was effected in this country by making a court-martial necessary before punishment could be inflicted. He thought that by the French code, the soldier was more exposed to capricious punishment, as he had not the benefit of a trial. He hoped that the evil would be corrected in a gradual manner; and he thought that it would be best effected by countenancing those officers who kept up the discipline of their regiments without making those punishments often necessary, and by discountenancing those who only preserved the discipline of their regiments by the frequency and severity of corporal punishments. He thought the feelings of the officers, and the fashion of the service, would do more to diminish these punishments, than could safely be done by the legislature.

Earl Temple

said, that his principal objection to the motion was, that it might at the present moment do harm, and that it could not do good. If the motion was agreed to at the close of the session, it would hold out hopes and expectations to the soldiers, which would probably be disappointed. He therefore thought it would do no good to turn the attention of the legislature to the subject; but that it might do a great deal of good, to have the attention of the different commanding officers directed to the consideration of the subject. In that point of view only it appeared to him that good could result from the agitation of this question. Perhaps the different commanding officers might, by consulting together upon the subject, find out other punishments that would be equally effectual in keeping up the discipline of those regiments, without being so obnoxious to the feelings of men in general. He did not conceive, however, that the motion of the hon. baronet had justly subjected him to any reproof, as it was notorious that the punishment of the lash was much less frequent in foreign armies than in ours.

Mr. Lockhart

was decidedly adverse to the production of such returns. They would be only giving to the house the groans of the sufferers, without giving the evidence upon which they received their sentences. Corporal punishment was not peculiar to the army, but might be inflicted by the sentence of the judges for various offences at the common law. A soldier had, in addition to the court-martial that tried him, the advantage of an appeal to the commander in chief, who might order a general court-martial, and he had actually known a case where a soldier had obtained a new trial upon such an appeal, and was acquitted.—The house then divided: For the motion 4; Against it 77.—Majority 73.