MUTINY BILL. (Hansard, 6 April 1835)

§ Mr. Herries
stated, that the Commissioners who had been appointed to inquire into military punishments had not yet made any report; but they were proceeding in the inquiry with great care, and he had no doubt they would shortly make a satisfactory report. Of course the substitution of confinement for corporal punishment would come under their consideration, as indeed would the whole penal code for the army.

§ Mr. Hume
stated, that he was most anxious to get rid of the disgraceful punishment of Hogging in the army, but he feared he should not succeed in doing so until there was a great alteration made in the mode of reward in the army.

§ General Sharpe
believed that the soldiers would consider themselves much more degraded by being placed on the tread-mill with felons, than by being flogged. He believed that any soldier, with proper feeling would prefer the latter punishment to the former; and he was satisfied that the discipline of the army would be much better preserved by it, as well as the character of the soldiers.

§ Sir Edward Codrington
was well aware however unpopular it might seem, that good soldiers were in favour of the continuance of the punishment. Something, 875 however, must be done, for much injury had been clone to the army by the late unhappy agitation of this Question. Some punishment must be settled. In consequence of the suspension of the flogging, men were in the habit of going away for three days at a time, and when they came back they were "built up," as it was called, which was that for a certain time they were confined. They would then go away again, finding that imprisonment was the only punishment. In this way was the condition of the army deteriorated. This system of imprisonment, too, lost the army—and the hon. Member for Middlesex would appreciate his regard to economy—the use of a man. The services of a man was worth 20l., and it made the good man work harder. He wished some other punishment could be substituted.

§ Mr. Hume
reminded the gallant Admiral that it often happened that soldiers, after being flogged, were unable to move from their beds for several weeks.

§ Major Beauclerk
stated that he was satisfied that nothing would raise the moral character of the English army so much as getting rid of the punishment of flogging.

§ Mr. Kennedy
trusted that the attention of the proper authorities would be directed to the circumstance of soldiers wearing their side-arms. He had seen a few days ago a number of drunken soldiers, who drew their side-arms in the street, to the consternation of the passengers. The practice of allowing them to wear side-arms ought to be discontinued, as no advantage could arise from the custom, and much mischief might result from it.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
was convinced that there was no country in Europe in which the troops in garrison behaved better than they did in this country. He had no doubt the statement of the hon. Member was true, as he had stated that he saw the occurrence, but he (Sir Henry Hardinge) was greatly surprised at it. He should strongly oppose abolishing the custom of allowing the troops to wear their side-arms.

Mr. Lam
felt sorry to be obliged to state, that he had on that morning occasion to send a presentation of the Grand Jury of Middlesex to the Officers of a regiment in London, in consequence of a soldier, while in a state of intoxication, having drawn his side-arms and stabbed a person. He regretted that this was not a solitary instance which had 876 come under his cognizance of the danger that had resulted from allowing the soldiers to wear their side arms in the street.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
After what hafallen from the hon. and learned Gentle man he begged to observe, that it had ever been the custom in the British service for the soldiers to carry their side-arms, and he should be extremely sorry to see the day when it ceased. He was extremely sorry to hear of the case which had been alluded to by the learned Recorder.

§ Mr. Hume
was astonished at the observation of the right hon. and gallant Officer. Did he mean to say that a practice could be justified by which the soldier, instead of being the guardian of the public, became an aggressor? It was no justification of the practice that it had existed for centuries. He was not such an admirer of the wisdom of our ancestors as to approve of a custom, merely because it had long existed. In his opinion no good could result from allowing the soldiers the constant use of their side-arms, and a change ought at once to take place.

§ Mr. Law
remarked that the object he had in view in the observation he made was, not to impose any restraint on the discipline of the Army, but he thought that if the practice were continued the soldiers should be under the wholesome fear of sufficient punishment in cases where they made an improper use of their side-arms.

§ Sir Henry Hardinge
had not the slightest objection to the most severe punishment being inflicted in such cases as had been alluded to; and he trusted that if any case came before the learned Recorder, that he would treat it accordingly. When a soldier so far forgot his duty as to act in the way described, it was impossible to condemn his conduct too severely. He, for one, would never consent to withholding their side-arms from the soldiers.