HC Deb 16 February 1832 vol 10 cc421-4
Mr. Hunt

rose to move for the production of some Returns relative to the number of Military Punishments inflicted during the last year. He had mentioned the subject last night to the new Secretary at War, who, he regretted to find, was not in his place. He, in the first instance, wished to have the return confined to the regiments of guards, but that right hon. Gentleman said, such a return would appear in vidious, and therefore at his suggestion, he proposed to extend the returns to all the regiments in the service. The right hon. Gentleman said, that he had no objection to produce the papers, but he wished the matter to be discussed in the House. If there should be any opposition to his Motion, which he did not anticipate, he trusted that those hon. Members who were opposed to the infliction of punishment on the slaves in the West Indies would come forward and endeavour to prevent the continuance of the revolting practice of flogging in the British army. He did not know that this species of punishment could be done away with when the troops were on foreign service in time of war; but, it was too much that such a practice should be continued in times of peace. Accounts were continually published in the newspapers of the infliction of this degrading punishment, and, within the last few days, there was an account of the flogging of three soldiers of the Scotch Fusileer Guards. The statement he alluded to appeared in a respectable Sunday paper, and it affirmed that one of the men, namely, John Hill, was cut on the back until the blood ran down into his shoes, and he was taken to the hospital in the most lamentable condition. He recollected reading a speech made, relative to the flogging of soldiers, by the right hon. Baronet the Secretary at War, in which he alluded to such punishments as a disgrace to the country. The right hon. Baronet stated, that several of the inhabitants of Birdcage Walk had been compelled to leave their houses in consequence of the flogging of the soldiers, and that the drums were beaten to drown the cries of the soldiers He regretted that the hon. Baronet was not present to support his Motion, but he did hope the right hon. Baronet would use his endeavours to put a stop to the system complained of. He was happy to learn, that no flogging could now be inflicted, except by the sentence of a Court-martial. They beard, however, of men being sentenced to receive 500 lashes, which was a greater punishment than a man could bear. He understood, therefore, when it was inflicted, that a surgeon stood by, and when he saw the man was sinking, he directed the executioner to stop. A case was stated in the newspapers, a few days ago, of a man having received 200 lashes, who fainted, and was conveyed to the hospital. He knew a great many military officers, who stated, that punishment of this sort was quite unnecessary in the army, and that, it might safely be put an end to. He trusted, therefore, that the present liberal Government would put a stop to this most inhuman custom, and as a first step to which, they would grant him the papers he now moved for. His Motion was, "that there be laid before this House a return of the number of Courts-martial held upon private soldiers of the army in Great Britain and Ireland, between the 1st day of January, 1831, and the 1st day of January, 1832, stating the several charges upon which each individual was tried, and the sentences passed; specifying the number of lashes of the cat-o'-nine tails which each person has actually endured.

Mr. Hume

seconded the Motion. He had repeatedly attempted to get a return of this nature, but hitherto without success. He hoped that it would have the effect which the hon. Member anticipated, and would lead to the putting a stop to a practice which was disgraceful to the country. He knew nothing that tended to sink a man so much in his own estimation, and was such a moral degradation, as military flogging. Flogging had been already advantageously abolished in several regiments; and he had no doubt that the service could be carried on fully as well without it.

Lord Althorp

was extremely sorry that his right hon. friend, the Seretary at War, was not in his place. He had been present in the course of the evening, but probably, not anticipating that the Motion of the hon. Member would come on so early, had left the House for a short time. He must be permitted to say for himself, that he regretted as much as any man the infliction of corporal punishment; but he was afraid that it was impossible for the Government to consent, whatever displeasure the declaration might excite, to its total abolition in the army. He had lately had many communications from military men on the subject, and they agreed on that point; but, at the same time, he was happy to say, that the practice of flogging was much diminished, although it was found impossible in all cases, to substitute for it a more efficient punishment, and one which would tend more to prevent the commission of offences. With respect to the Motion of the hon. Member for papers, he could only say, it was one which the House had never acceded to in former years, and as there was nothing at the present time which demanded peculiar attention, nor, as the hon. Member had admitted, any extraordinary grounds for his Motion, he must resist it.

Mr. Hunt

observed, that, with a Secretary at War pledged by many speeches and declarations, in and out of the House, to a reformation of this abuse in the army, and under a liberal and reforming Admi- nistration, he certainly had not expected any opposition to his Motion. The noble Lord said, that the punishments had diminished—why, then, did he refuse the papers which would satisfy the public that it was so? He did not wish to accuse the noble Lord of inconsistency, or to make any offensive allusion to the former votes and motions of the noble Lord; but this he would say, that when Gentlemen went from one side of the House to the other, they changed their opinions; and after advocating measures when out of office they would not support them when they obtained power.

Mr. Jephson

was surprised that the noble Lord should object to the Motion when he must know, if he had the diminution of military punishment at heart, that nothing would be so effectual a check upon that system as the' publicity of the sentences which ordered the infliction.

Mr. Sheil

said, that if the abolition of the punishment of flogging was the question at issue, he could understand the noble Lord's objection: but when the Motion was merely for the production of papers, in order to ascertain if the practice was diminishing, he felt called on to support it.

The House divided on the Motion: Ayes 28; Noes 61—Majority 33.

List of the NOES.
Adams, C. Johnston, A.
Agnew, Sir A. Johnstone, J. J. H.
Althorp, Lord Jones, T.
Antrobus, G. C. Lamb, Hon. G.
Bankes, W. Lefevre, C. F.
Baring, Sir T. Lester, R.
Bentinck, Lord G. Marjoribanks, S.
Bouverie, Hon. D. Mangles, J.
Byng, Sir G. Mackenzie, J.
Calvert, N. Murray, Sir G.
Campbell, J. Macdonald, Sir J.
Carew, R. S. Penleaze, S.
Clinton, F. Poyntz, S.
Clive, Hon. R. Paget, Sir C.
Creevey, T. Pendarves, E. W.
Currie, J. Petit, L. H.
Denman, Sir T. Pusey, P.
Doyle, Sir M. Russell, Lord J.
Drake, T. T. Russell, Col. F.
Drake, W. T. Sebright, Sir J.
Ebrington, Viscount Smith, S.
Estcourt, T. B. Stanley, Rt. Hn. E. G. S.
Gilbert, D. Stephenson, H. F.
Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H. Schonswar, G.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Townshend, Hon. H.
Grant, Sir C. Truby, C. H.
Home, Sir W. Wall, C. B.
Hoskins, K. Watson, Hon. R.
Howard, P. Wetherell, Sir C.
Williams, Sir J. H. TELLERS.
Williams, W. A. Baring, F.
Wrottesley, Sir J. Bernal, R.
List of the AYES.
Blake, Sir F. Mullins F.
Briscoe, J. I. Paget, T.
Dixon, J. Sanford, A.
Evans, W. Sheil, L.
Ewart, W. Strutt, E.
Fergusson, R. C. Stuart, Lord D.
Gisborne, T. Stewart, C.
Godson, It. Venables, Alderman
Hawkins, J. H. Walker, C. A.
Hey wood, B. Wason, R.
James, W. Wood, Alderman
Jephson, C. D. O. Yorke, J.
Jones, J. TELLERS.
Lambert, H. Hume, J.
Leader, N. P. Hunt, H.