HC Deb 13 April 1836 vol 32 cc931-1009

Lord Howick moved the order of the day for the House to go into Committee on the Mutiny Bill.

On the question that the Speaker do leave the Chair,

Major Fancourt

rose to move an amendment. He was anxious to be favoured with the indulgence of the House, while submitting to its consideration the grounds on which he felt it his duty to bring forward a motion for the entire abolition of flogging in the army. It was his wish to have submitted such a motion last Session, but the appointment of the Commissioners, who had recently laid their report on the Table of the House, rendered it, as he thought, inexpedient to press the question to a division. It appeared to him respectful to his Majesty who had appointed, as also to the members who composed, that Commission, to wait the result of their labours. To this course he was further advised by some of the most sincere advocates of the abolition of flogging, and though he had been subjected to misrepresentations out of doors for the course he had thus pursued, he felt assured that it was not only a proper course, but the one best calculated for the attainment of his object. Had he pressed the question to a division last year, should he not have been told that the Commission, having been appointed, should be allowed to effect its object—that they could only legislate on the question after full inquiry? He was satisfied this language would have been held, and thus it was very probable that he should have been deprived of the support of many hon. Gentlemen who, with the Report in their hands, were now in a situation to judge of the question in all its bearings; and he hoped that they should thus come to a definitive settlement of the long-agitated question. This was the only object he ever had in view when soliciting the attention of Parliament to this important matter. The inexpediency of periodically agitating the public mind on a question of this kind must have been felt by all; and he appealed to those Gentlemen, who honoured him with their attention on a former occasion, as to whether he did not then state his chief object to be the putting an end to such agitation by a definitive expression of the views of Parliament? He has stated, and he must repeat, that this was a national, not a Ministerial, question. That any Government would secure to itself a large portion of no unworthy popularity by the abolition of the punishment he sincerely felt, but that was a point which he did not urge on a former occasion, and he should not urge it then. It was to the wisdom, the justice, ay, and to the firmness of his Majesty's Government, that he appealed, when soliciting their attention to the settlement of a painful and long-agitated question—a question, be it observed, strongly appealing to the popular sympathies, and therefore constantly resorted to out of doors by any one wishful to inflame the public mind. If the noble Lord and his Colleagues, from their undoubted experience in public affairs, saw cause to withhold their consent from the present motion, he must regret that such influence and abilities were opposed to him; but believing the course he advocated to be as just and prudent as it was humane, he should feel it his duty to divide the House on his motion. He would not detain them by any lengthened recapitulation of the arguments which he adduced when last he brought the question under the consideration of the House. They might be very briefly stated. The right hon. Gentleman, who then held the office of Secretary at War, directed the attention of the House to a circular letter from the Horse Guards, in which the punishment of flogging was restricted to certain offences therein specified, and in which it was further suggested to officers of the army to restrain the practice as much as it was possible to do with safety to the discipline of the service. He then told the right hon. Gentleman that this order left the evil untouched, and that an officer disposed to severity would find nothing in that order to restrain him. It was against the principle of this mode of punishment that he had appealed to the House. He had urged that flogging had rarely, if ever, been known to reclaim an offender, that it inspired among his comrades sympathy with the criminal rather than reprobation of his crime, and that if the experiment of its discontinuance was ever to be tried, it surely might be so at a period of profound peace like the present. The question of the substitute naturally presented itself. He had stated to the House, and he must repeat the statement, that solitary confinement would furnish an efficient substitute. The only objections he had ever heard made to this mode of punishment were, first, that the soldiers would be lost to the service during the period of their confinement; and, secondly, that the building of cells would be attended with very great expense to the country. With respect to the first objection, he would wish to ask, whether the services of the soldier were not necessarily forfeited, when, under the present system, he was removed from the place of punishment to the hospital, there to await his recovery from the torture to which he had been subjected? Recent occurrences rendered it doubtful (to say the least) whether even the life of the delinquent was not perilled by corporal punishment. At all events, the temporary loss of service would, he thought, be as great under the present system, as it could be under that proposed; while the general efficiency of the soldier would be left unimpaired after solitary confinement. As for the expense, he need not, for a moment, trouble the House; he was confident that no hon. Member would treat this as a question of economy. The House could always afford to be just. It did so in a late instance in our colonial policy; it would, he felt, be no less generous, when legislating on a subject affecting the interests of the army and the feelings of the whole nation. If any addition must be made to the burthens of the country for such a purpose, he was confident that such addition would be cheerfully borne. In cases where the extreme punishment failed of its effect, and the offender continued incorrigible, he contended that, for the honour of the army, such offender should be ignominiously expelled. He did not think the cases would be very numerous. But that was not the precise question: the precise question was, whether a man irreclaimable by solitary confinement, could be deterred from crime by the lash? No man, he would imagine, would say this. Then the instances of such hardened offenders did not justify the practice of flogging; it could not restrain them, and he contended, that expulsion, with ignominy, from the army would, under any circumstances, he the best mode of dealing with that class of offenders. But when so sentenced, care should be taken to accompany the expulsion with hard labour for a term of years, as suggested by Sir John Woodford, in the evidence he had given before the Commissioners of Military Inquiry. With respect to the necessity of retaining the punishment on active service, he thought that, even admitting that necessity, it formed no ground for refusing to abolish it in time of peace. Should the abolition be attended by the disadvantages apprehended by some, it would be for Parliament to provide for any emergency that might arise. For his own part, he felt, that on active service flogging was a punishment peculiarly objectionable, by reason of the state to which it reduced the soldier; and he would add, that any partial abolition of the punishment must of necessity prove abortive. He quite agreed with the gallant officers examined before the Commissioners, that nothing could be more inconsistent than the exemption of the troops on home service from this mode of punishment; that is to say, the Life Guards, the Blues, the three regiments of Foot Guards, a portion of the army which were never ordered on colonial service, while the remainder, in addition to any other inconveniencies, should remain subject to so disgraceful a distinction. And here he might be permitted to direct attention to a step taken by a noble Lord, now a Member of that House, but a short time since holding the high offices of Governor-General and Commander-in-Chief in the East Indies. That noble Lord, by an order, dated Fort William, February 24, 1835, abolished the practice of flogging in the native army. Now, he should wish to ask any hon. Gentleman, whether there was anything in the character, habits, or disposition, of our fellow-countrymen to render them unworthy the consideration which the noble Lord felt justified in extending to the natives of India. He had omitted to notice an objection which had, he believed, been urged against adopting expulsion from the army as the extreme punishment, that it would hold out a temptation to those who were anxious to be relieved from the restraints of the service. He did not think the objection well founded. A man must have passed through a long career of delinquency and of punishment before expulsion would be resorted to; and it was scarcely probable that a man would propose to himself an object to be attained by stages as tedious and vexatious as disgraceful. But he ventured to say, that once abolish the practice of flogging, and they would find very few, if any, among the soldiers anxious to leave the service; for, with that single drawback, the army was a profession presenting many enviable considerations to those engaged in it. He would further suggest that, while a degrading punishment should be abolished, they might advantageously establish a scale of rewards for distinguished service or exemplary conduct. This was a suggestion which he had the honour to throw out when under examination before the Military Commission, and he thought it right to mention it for the consideration of the House, because he believed it would, if acted on, inevitably tend to the elevation of the position and character of the soldier, which, after all, in any view of the subject, should be the chief consideration. And this important part of the question he could wish to submit to the advocacy of his right hon. and gallant Friend, the Member for Launceston (Sir H. Hardinge). Though he feared he should not have the benefit of his gallant Friend's support on the motion he was about to submit to the House, still he thought it just, and not unsuited to the subject in debate, to state, that no hon. Member of that House, no officer, whether in that House or out of it, had given more sincere and advantageous attention to the interests of the British soldier than his right hon. and gallant Friend. He believed he was correct, in representing his right hon. and gallant friend as favourable to a well-considered system of rewards, honorary distinctions, and other advantages, for good conduct on the part of the soldier. He knew that on the subject of discharges and pensions his right hon. Friend entertained opinions which, if acted on, would inevitably tend to the improvement and elevation of the service; and he trusted that, should the House decide on the discontinuance of corporal punishment, his right hon. Friend would be induced to undertake a question for which his great experience, military and official, qualified him, and which he felt confident he would carry to a successful issue. Before he sat down he might, perhaps, be permitted to make an observation on the mode in which he had formerly, as well as now, felt it right to treat the question. On all occasions he had studiously avoided those exciting, and minute, but not very profitable, details of torture, which had been so often paraded before the public mind. In so doing, he was actuated, not by any insensibility to the effect which they naturally produced, but by a deep conviction, that in a deliberative assembly, it became them to come to a consideration of all topics, but more especially of one so painful in its nature, with minds undisturbed by passion. Unless the punishment of flogging in the army were discontinued by reflecting and right-minded men, he, for one, should see no cause to rejoice in its discontinuance. It was from no false sympathy, but because he believed that it was not only inadequate, but diametrically opposed to its declared objects, because he felt that it was not only a revolting but a morally indurating cruelty, that he called for its abolition; and he trusted that all those who shared that conviction with him would, by their vote that night, join in removing a long-standing cause of irritation from the public mind. He was aware that many hon. and gallant Gentlemen differed with him on that question. He was fully sensible of the attention due to their opinions, many of them having achieved distinguished rank, and all of them possessing a natural and ardent interest in a profession second to none in its claims on the respect, and he would say on the affections, of the people. But that question was one on which every dispassionate man was competent to form a judgment. It was one on which he firmly believed the public mind was made up. Such was the state in which he found it when first he had the honour of a seat in that House. Unfortunate circumstances had since occurred to confirm the general conviction of the cruelty and practical inefficiency of the punishment, and he trusted, that by the result of that night's debate, they would at once put an end to a system which he, for one, felt it impossible much longer to maintain. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by moving as an Amendment on the motion, that the Speaker do leave the Chair, the following Resolution:—"That it is the opinion of this House that the punishment of flogging should be entirely abolished in the British Army."

Captain Boldero

rose to second the motion, and was understood to say, that although he had had the honour of being a commissioned officer for twenty-two years, he would not have taken so prominent a part in the discussion upon military flogging were it not that the evidence contained in the report of the Commissioners clearly proved the possibility of abolishing that mode of punishment in the army without injury or disadvantage to the service. As a soldier, then, he felt it his duty to second the motion which had been proposed by the hon. and gallant Member, and he would say that everything that ingenuity coupled with humanity could devise should be resorted to for the purpose of effecting the abolition of such a system. The opinions which he was anxious to express on the subject he found fully to accord with the general tenour of the report. It appeared, he was glad to say, that the military code had been from time to time relaxed, and that the severity of the discipline in the army had gradually diminished. With regard to corporal punishment, it was known to have existed in the British army from the earliest period; but he was sure that no one would be found to advance the antiquity of the practice as an argument for its continuance. In page 10 of the Report, it was stated by the Commissioners, The antiquity of any practice, however, cannot be set up as a defence of it, if there are strong and cogent reasons for its being discontinued; and in nothing is this more true than in the question of the efficiency of any punishment, which must in a great measure depend upon the state of society, and the feelings of the people among whom it is to be used. Upon this principle, much of the severity of the civil criminal code of this country has been relaxed of late years; and upon it, also, have been the restrictions now in force in the army, as to the frequency and extent of corporal punishment. But if the practice was ancient it was iniquitous, and he would refer to the evidence contained in the Report to show that it ought to be abolished. Previously to the issuing of the circular from the Horse Guards, limiting corporal punishment to certain offences, our military code was frightfully severe; there was scarcely an offence committed by a soldier which did not subject him to corporal punishment, at the discretion of the court-martial before which he was tried. In page 143 he found the following evidence given by Colonel Stephen Galway Adye, who had been in the service for forty-two years, and had served in all parts of the globe. He was asked— In the artillery, after a man has been punished more than once, and is generally of a very bad character, you are in the habit of getting rid of him by what you call drumming out?—Yes, there have been instances; and I think that if it was extended it would be very good, particularly as to cases of habitual drunkenness, when all other modes of punishment have been found of no avail. It becomes a case of notoriety among the men, and every body hears and talks about it. It enables you to get rid of men who are a hinderance to the discipline of the regiment?—Yes; they are often very reckless people, and pride themselves in getting hold of young men and instructing them in all kinds of vice. Their presence is a great annoyance?—Yes; notwithstanding the expense of getting another man, the benefit to the service is of much greater consequence than the expense incurred. Have you found by experience that it has induced other men to misconduct themselves, that they may get their discharge?—That may happen in some particular cases, but I think that it is very rare. He must be a very reckless wretch who would do so, and would be no loss to the service. The men generally know that they are well off, and would never resort to this mode of obtaining their discharge. The evidence of another officer, in page 198, corroborated this testimony. One of the questions asked was— Have you been enabled to carry on the discipline with the dépôt without recourse to corporal punishment?—Yes, I have great facilities for so doing. There is a gaol within two hundred yards of the barracks, and I consider that the immediate marching off an offender to the gaol, in the presence of his comrades, has a much greater effect than if such an interval were to elapse between the sentence and the punishment as commonly occurs. Some important evidence to this point was given by Sir Willoughby Gordon, who was as great an authority as could be quoted. It was as follows:— When a French army is in the field, and a soldier commits the offence of insubordination, or some of the minor offences which occur, is he sent to the rear and not suffered to serve, or sent to prison?—I cannot with any accuracy answer to the details of the practice in the French army, but from everything which I saw of them, they managed their discipline with great effect. Are there not fortresses in every part of France to which soldiers who have committed offences may be sent and employed on public works?—A great number of them. So that the punishment of confinement can be carried into effect at a very short notice, and with great facility?—Yes, it must be in the cognizance of every one, on all parts of their extensive frontier. A soldier thus employed does not lose his military character during confinement as he would in England, where he is sent to a civil gaol?—That would depend upon the manner of the confinement. If an English soldier is sent to a civil gaol, there is this hardship, that there are many military offences of a very serious character, which in civil life are no offences at all—I mean no immoral offence. If you send a man convicted of a military offence to gaol, and associate him with felons, you do him a very great injustice. Does not a prisoner sent to a fortress in France still maintain his military character?— He may be employed as a military man, or employed upon the works, working with a spade and a mattock. But he still works under military control, and his military character is less impaired?—Yes, it is a military prison. Is not there a punishment in the French army called 'Degradation Militaire?"—Yes. What is the ceremony—what effect does it appear to have upon the soldier?—The ceremony is this: that the regiment in which the man is is drawn out; the man is stripped of his uniform, and has the prison dross put upon him, and he is paraded in front of his regiment in a most humiliating manner; and he is then sent to the prison or the galleys, according to his sentence. It certainly does make a very great impression upon the mind of every soldier who witnesses it. He would next refer to the evidence of the gallant and distinguished Member below him, and the passages be should quote would be found most conclusive with respect to the possibility and the practicability to abolish i flogging. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said— Having resided, in 1817, for nearly three years in garrison with the Prussian army of occupation in France, my attention was naturally drawn to a military system so different from our own; I was struck with one part of their system, that of having two classes of soldiers, it) the first of which no soldier is liable to corporal punishment, unless previously degraded into the second class, when he is liable to the cane and every species of punishment. The soldier can only be degraded into the second class by the sentence of a court martial, approved by the general officer, and confirmed by the King. The class of crimes for which degradation can be awarded are strictly laid down, such as desertion, mutiny, striking a non-commissioned officer, gross frauds, thefts equal to felony, burglaries, &c. The national cockade is taken from him, and he wears a grey cockade as the badge of degradation. In order that the degraded man may be excited to amendment, after one or two years according to the term in the sentence, a Court of Inquiry investigate his conduct, and if the result be favourable, he is recommended to be restored to the first class; the King, or the War Minister, admonishes the culprit in public orders, and he is restored to the first class. The practical effect of this system was certainly very extraordinary: during two years, in a garrison of 1,500 men, there were never more than three degraded men, one of whom shot himself the morning the King reviewed the regiment. In the whole of the Prussian army of occupation, of 16,000, men, the numbers degraded did not exceed twenty men at one time. The circumstances under which this remarkable system was practically carried into effect were those of an army occupying cantonments in an enemy's country, the French and Prussians having at that time a strong haired of each other. The troops had regular supplies of provisions, regular pay, good barracks, and regular peace duties to perform, and nothing could exceed the order and discipline of the whole corps. That was the important evidence of the hon. and gallant Member, and if that did not prove that flogging might be dispensed with here, for it actually was dispensed with in the Prussian army, he was at a loss to know what would be accepted as a proof. But it was argued, that the men did not like the system proposed on account of the additional duty placed on them. On this point he would quote the opinion of the Adjutant-General. Sir James Macdonald in page 4 was asked, Is there any feeling upon the part of the other soldiers of a regiment of the hardships upon them in consequence of the confinement of an offender in their regiment in the civil prisons for a length of time?—I cannot say that I ever heard that brought forward as a source of grievance. In page 50 he found the following evidence delivered by Lieutenant-Colonel John Townsend, an officer who had been thirty years in the service, and had never been absent from his regiment:— Have you ever known complaints made by the men of the additional duty imposed upon them in consequence of the solitary confinement of any of their comrades?—No, I never have. Who takes charge of the horses of the men when they are under confinement?—They are taken in charge by the rollster. Has that additional duty imposed upon them ever led to any complaints?—No, I never heard of any. A man who is confined never pays anything for his duty being done. Have you found in towns where you have been quartered, that there is a strong feeling on the part of the public against the corporal punishment of soldiers?—There is a very strong feeling against it. In Gloucester we were all in billets, and I was obliged to take the men out four miles. The Mayor interceded, and I forgave the man, and be has turned out a remarkably good soldier ever since, which previously he was not. Have you met with other instances of the existence of that feeling you have referred to?—Only at Gloucester; that is the only place where I had an opportunity of learning it. Now if that man who had been forgiven had been punished by the stripe, in all probability he would have turned out a bad soldier. He admitted that there was an increase in the number of Courts-martial, but that was in consequence of the new system, taking away the discretionary power which was vested in the officers. If a man committed a crime he must be tried. The great crime in the army was drunkenness; that was the root of all the vice which existed, and they never would suppress it by flogging. This was his opinion, founded on the evidence contained in the Report. To get rid of drunkenness, and the consequent demoralization of the army, the system must be changed. Not only must the military code, as regarded punishment, be altered, but a system of reward for sobriety and good conduct must be contrived. In page 26, Sir Octavius Carey, speaking of the degradation of flogging, says— In my opinion solitary confinement, or flogging, comes to pretty much the same thing. Do you think the disgrace attendant upon the punishment has no effect?—None whatever; I am quite certain of that. As to the fine feeling of the soldier who is punished, it does not exist. Then what is the effect on the man himself? is he degraded in the eyes of his comrades?—Not in the least; it would depend, perhaps, upon the nature of the crime he had committed. It is vain to suppose he is degraded by punishment for crimes such as soldiers generally commit. I do not think he is degraded in the least. Do you not think that well-behaved soldiers, who never have been tried, are held in higher estimation than those who have been tried?—Yes, decidedly; but I do not think that an inference can be drawn from that, that a soldier is disgraced among his comrades by being punished. I have known soldiers who have been punished held in very high estimation among their comrades. That is not one of your reasons for wishing to get rid of the punishment?—No; I do not believe in that at all. My principal reason for wishing to get rid of the punishment is, that as long as it remains upon the Statutes, and forms a part of the military code, it must be inflicted; and that we should do better without it. If it does not degrade the individual, it must act as a considerable example?—I do not think it does. We can only reason from analogy. The best argument is, that you have been flogging in the army ever since the army has existed; and the more you flogged the more you have to flog. It has been restricted?—Yes; and the more it was restricted, the less necessity there was for inflicting it. Would not that rather prove, that the constant infliction of corporal punishment did exercise a brutalizing effect upon the men?—That has been always my opinion, It renders them indifferent to the punishment. Generally speaking, those who are punished are men of had character, and previously depraved. That was the evidence of Sir Octavius Carey, who was very strongly opposed to the continuance of the practice of flogging, and it went on to state that he had made an endeavour to preserve discipline without capital punishment, and he had succeeded. This one fact was worth a thousand opinions. Sir Octavius Carey was asked the question—"But the men knew you had the power to inflict corporal punishment?" to which he replied, "Yes; but I had rather that they had not known it." Colonel Evans also had commanded in many regiments, in which not a stripe had been inflicted for two or three years. Several officers had been trying the experiment of imprisonment also, but it had not yet had full effect. Under the present system, the men who were subjected to imprisonment were contaminated by it; they came out of gaol, in many instances, infinitely worse than they went in. If proper places of imprisonment were provided, instead of the ordinary gaols, he was certain that the system would work well. Again, the selling of necessaries was a crime very common in the army; the remedy should be to punish, as for a very heavy crime, the individual who purchased them. Let the punishment be of a severe nature; but let the Magistrate at once impose a penalty on the receiver as well as the seller, and he thought that it would have the effect of checking that crime now so common in the army. The existing want of cells, also, was a subject which required consideration. There existed at Chatham cells which might be rendered available as receptacles for those condemned to imprisonment in London, Dover, Maidstone, Woolwich, and Hounslow. In other parts of England, Portsmouth and Plymouth for instance, no great expense would be necessary for this purpose; in Ireland there certainly would be a necessity of incurring some. If the House that night decided that the continuance of flogging was not necessary, one consequence must follow, they must intrust to every commanding officer in his Majesty's service the power of discharging—with what limits be need not define. Flogging at that moment was, in his opinion, virtually abolished. The order issued by the noble Lord, the Member for Glasgow, for the entire abolition of corporal punishments among the native troops in India some months ago—that order being once issued and enforced, and no means having been taken to counteract it, must be taken to have upset the system. They were told, in justification of this, that the Sepoys were a better set of men than European soldiers; but he had found, upon inquiry, that during the last year the number of stripes which had been awarded in the native army to these good men, among whom corporal punishment was now relinquished, was 293,615. The average number of lashes inflicted in each regiment on the Sepoys of the native army of Bombay during the five years, 1829 to 1833, was 7,657. How was it that this quantity of corporal punishment had been inflicted, if that class of men consisted of such upright and steady characters? It was plain, however, that having done away with the system in reference to one portion of the army, they must now extend the abolition to the whole of it. He would not detain the House further. He would appeal to his Majesty's Government, whether the evidence which they had previously before them, expressed in the most decided terms in favour of the position that flogging ought to be abolished, had not been strengthened ten-fold by the volume from which he had been reading? He put it to them whether, if they persisted in continuing corporal punishment, they would not render themselves liable to the charge of having liberty on their tongues and tyranny in their hearts? He appealed to the House and to every man in whose mind a doubt existed—not whether the punishment of flogging ought to be abolished (because every man who heard him must have as honest, as anxious, and as sincere a desire as he himself had to see the total abolition, though some were afraid that the securities offered by those who wished to have it immediately brought about would not prove sufficient)—he appealed to those hon. Members in whose minds a doubt existed as to the sufficiency of the securities, to abolish their fear and give the benefit of their doubts to the side of mercy and humanity.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

could but compliment the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple on the manner in which he had introduced the subject on that as well as on a former occasion. He would venture to say, that a speech more moderate, more discreet, and more to the purpose which he sought to attain, than that delivered by the hon. and gallant Member could not have been made; above all, he was entitled to praise for having by his own example shown how necessary it was to abstain from all irritating topics—an example which he (Mr. Cutlar Fergusson) trusted would be followed in the course of that evening's debate, the question being one which should be decided not by the passions of the audience, but by the exercise of their sober judgment and reason, after full deliberation. Still, while he did what seemed to him no more than justice to his hon. and gallant Friend, if he would allow him to call him so, in thus speaking of the manner in which he had introduced his motion—he must say, that he felt that his hon. and gallant Friend had, notwithstanding, left the main and substantial part of the question wholly untouched—that question being, in fact, not whether there are grave and serious objections to flogging, but whether they were prepared, by a resolution of that House, to declare that a punishment, hitherto considered essential to discipline, should instantly and for ever be struck out of their military code without its being proved to the satisfaction of the House that a substitute could be found to maintain the discipline of the army. The question must be decided, however, not by the feelings and sentiments of individuals but on information and evidence, weighed by that good sense which ordinarily distinguished the Acts of that House. His hon. and gallant Friend had told them that he had abstained during the last Session of Parliament from bringing the question to the test of a division in that House; yet he had not said one word as to the effect which, since then, the Report and evidence, which had been published, had had on his mind, though he must have read it with great attention and felt a deep interest in it. He must presume, therefore, that it had had the effect of convincing his hon. Friend, that his former views were erroneous, otherwise he would have endeavoured to show that the Commissioners were mistaken and that the Report was not justified by the evidence. He would venture, on the contrary, to say, that any person who dispassionately read that Report and evidence, must have all doubt expelled from his mind upon the subject. With respect to the main question whether they would part with the power—not the exercise of the power, but the actual power—of inflicting corporal punishment in extreme cases, there was no person opposed to the immediate abolition of it who had ever said that they ought to inflict it in a single case in which they could avoid it. That was the principle on which he defended the law as it now stood; and proceeding as they were with measured strides towards, not the total, but the almost total abolition of that punishment, he thought that if the Government and the military authorities of the country were allowed to continue in the course which they had been following for the last eight years, the power would remain, but the exercise of it would be totally discontinued. In his opinion the House would see that it was not possible to do more than had been done, nor to have done it more effectually, towards restricting the infliction of that punishment, especially when they found, by the returns which had been laid upon the Table of the House, that eight years ago the number of corporal punishments exceeded the number of punishments of every other description, and that in the year past, the number of corporal punishments had been to the number of other punishments as one to nine. It would be scarcely possible for any one to say, that the Government and the military authorities had evinced any neglect, or that the course which they had pursued of proceeding gradually in the attempt to abolish, was not likely to lead to a favourable issue of this question, much more than an immediate and entire abolition, which would, in his opinion, strike at the very root of the discipline of the army, and leave them no protection for anything dear to them, nor any means of repelling foreign aggression or of avenging the honour of this country, if necessary. It was a great object to abolish corporal punishment, if it were possible, for this best of all reasons—that it was a punishment from which the mind revolted: the sight of which, as he could believe, though he had never witnessed its infliction, must excite feelings, at the least, of the most unpleasant and painful character. But all punishments were in that respect nearly alike; and this punishment being even so cruel and severe, still he should say that the end of punishment being example, the fact of its being of that cruel and severe character was not in itself a reason why it should be abolished. If it were so, capital punishment itself, the infliction of an ignominious death upon the gallows, ought to be abolished for the same reason. He knew, indeed, that there were some persons who advocated that abolition; but there were crimes of such a nature, and among them murder, that the mind would revolt if the life of the person who had committed them were not forfeited. The object of punishment was to deter others from committing the offence for which it was inflicted; and on the same principle that the punishment of death ought to be abolished, because it was productive of pain to the individual, every punishment that was ignominious, severe, and cruel, ought to be abolished. The hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple seemed to have viewed the object of punishment in one light only—namely, in that of reclaiming the individual upon whom it was inflicted; that was an object, but it was undoubtedly not all that was desired, it being an object at the same time to deter others from the commission of crime. He was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member had not noticed this part of the case, he had contended that the punishment hardened the individual without operating as an example. In fact, however, it was a most efficacious example and frequently reformed individuals. He could show that every officer of standing who had seen service, had declared it impossible to abolish the power of inflicting corporal punishment, without shaking to its foundation the discipline of the army. He could bring such witnesses to the number of thirty-three or thirty-four. He would first, however, state what had been done towards the discontinuance of flogging, because it was his object as much as it could be that of other hon. Members if possible to put an end to that punishment, but, at any rate to restrict it within the narrowest limits. From the returns before the House it appeared that in the three years 1825–6–7, the number of corporal punishments exceeded the number of punishments inflicted in any other manner whatsoever. In the year 1827, or eight years ago, the number of corporal punishments was 2,632 and the number of men sentenced to various punishments other than corporal was 2,541. In 1828 the number of corporal punishments was less than the number of other punishments, and since then the proportion of corporal punishments had been gradually diminishing. In the year 1834 there were, he was sorry to say, 10,212 soldiers tried by Courts-martial; but of this number only 1,057 were sentenced to corporal punishment, and on 963 only was the punishment inflicted, whilst 8,946 were sentenced to punishments other than corporal. Comparing this with the number of men punished in 1827 he was entitled to say, that they were making rapid strides towards abolishing corporal punishment. [Mr. Hume: the one is the number for Great Britain, the other for the whole army.] The return was for the whole army. [Mr. Hume: No.] The hon. Gentleman may know better than the Adjutant-General;—I have the Return here from the Adjutant-General's office, "showing the establishment of the British army in each year, from 1825 to 1834, both years inclusive, the number of persons tried by Courts-martial, &c." [Mr. Hume: Read the memorandum underneath.] The hon. Gentleman was always finding mare's nests,—he had never known him to find any others. The note to which he had alluded referred to certain years for which the returns were incomplete, stating that they had not been received, "for 1832, the 4th regiment; for 1833, part of 2nd West-India Regiment; and for 1834, the 40th, 50th, and Ceylon Regiments." To these he had not referred; he had only shown what had been the numbers in 1827, and then that, in 1834, the number of persons tried being 10,212, there had been 1,057 sentenced to corporal punishments—the number of those sentenced to various punishments, other than capital, being 8,946. This reduction had been brought about by the efforts of the military authorities. So early as 1812 a circular had been published, as would be found stated in the evidence of Lord Hill, for the purpose of limiting the operation of regimental Courts-martial. Previous to that time regimental Courts-martial were not restricted in the matter of corporal punishment; they were competent to award any number of lashes. In that year a restriction was made to the amount of 300 lashes. In 1830 the award of a district Court-martial was limited to 500 lashes, and in 1832 to 300, and the award of a regimental Court-martial to 200 lashes. He had to mention to the House that it was intended to limit still further those powers. He thought that this was a very wise measure; but upon former occasions, when the power existed of inflicting five, six, seven, and eight hundred lashes, this was an oppression as great as could be conceived. Such an enormous power ought not to be left in the hands of any persons; but the question was not then before the House whether corporal punishments ought to be moderated—not whether they ought to be reduced to a proper number as they were now—the power being henceforward confined to allowing one class of Courts-martial to inflict 200 lashes, and the other class 100—the question was not whether they had done all that they possibly could do to alleviate the evil, but whether they were to abolish the punishment altogether, and thus interfere with military discipline. He believed, if they asked the British soldier—would he exchange his situation to take service under any other power in Europe? he was perfectly satisfied with Sir George Murray, that the British soldier would, with all its inconveniences, prefer serving in the English army, to that of any other power on earth. The hon. Member who had seconded the motion, had referred to the opinion of Sir Willoughby Gordon respecting the French army, and as to its being perfectly well conducted. This had nothing to do with corporal punishments. That gallant officer was asked as to that of which he had official knowledge, the description of the French army; but not as to corporal punishments. He must, with the permission of the House, as the hon. and gallant Member had referred to the evidence, make a few remarks upon the information that afforded on the question, whether corporal punishments ought entirely to be done away with? Now he found only two, amongst a great number of persons who were examined, who declared themselves favourable to its entire abolition. There were but two hon. and gallant Gentlemen; these were the Members for Barnstaple and Hull. Five hon. Members of that House were examined, but only those two of the hon. Members stated, that the abolition of corporal punishments in all cases was proper. And let the House recollect, that if this motion went to the full extent, no crime, no matter how disgraceful, theft itself, if they passed the resolution, could not be visited with corporal punishment. And yet they were to find the discipline of the army maintained, though they could not punish the most disgraceful offence! How could they maintain that discipline in England if they could not punish theft by whipping, because the offender was in the army, when, under the provisions of the Act of the right hon. Member for Tamworth, the punishment of whipping was still continued for not less than seventy or eighty different offences. What was to be done, then, with the soldier? A return moved for by Mr. Hunt in 1832, had been noticed by the hon. and gallant Member for Launceston, by which it appeared that upwards of two thousand persons had been flogged in that year by the order of the Magistrates. That punishment was inflicted by the ordinary tribunals of the land, and there was not one person came forward to object to it. It was not so popular a topic as that of corporal punishments in the army. He had a list in his hand of the different offences for which the punishment of whipping could be inflicted, with which he should not trouble the House, but it included felonies as well as misdemeanours. It was not said, that flogging was to be struck out of the criminal code, it was every day practised, but they heard nothing of it, and the reason was, that no popularity was to be gained by declaring against it. One particular point, had been relied upon by the hon. Member who seconded the motion, and that was as to there being no corporal punishments in the French army. Why was that? By a decree of the National Assembly, corporal punishments were abolished in all France. It was not so in England: corporal punishments were inflicted by our criminal code. Were they, then, to render Courts-martial incompetent to punish, by whipping, offences that were deemed disgraceful, and which were punished by whipping when the offence was cognizable by the civil power? If they passed the resolution thus proposed, it would be incompetent for a Court-martial to inflict corporal punishment, but they still might take the soldier out of the barrack, where he could not be flogged, and send him to the jail, where he might be flogged. Let them send the soldier to the House of Correction—to the jail at Maidstone for example, and there, under the law of the land, he must undergo the discipline of a House of Correction. The Commissioners had been told by Mr. Thomas Eager, the governor of the jail of Maidstone, that upon one occasion the soldiers were very riotous, and he sent for the visiting Magistrates—"the ringleaders were discovered and flogged, two of them severely, by order of the Magistrates." They were, he said, much more severely flogged than the punishment amongst soldiers. Mr. Eager was asked, what was the effect of the flogging? and his reply was—"It had a very great effect. Those soldiers have been extremely well-behaved ever since. They acknowledged that they deserved it, and that they were extremely sorry for it." The Commissioners had received the testimony of about 120 or 130 officers of long experience, all to the same effect; none of those officers said that they could do without being intrusted with the power of flogging. Of the five hon. Members of the House who were examined, only two were for the abolition, The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster said, he would get rid of it in Great Britain and Ireland as a preliminary; that in two years it might be done away with in the Colonies, and in three years in the East Indies; but that, as to taking away the power from officers commanding in the field, that was totally out of the question. There the commanding officer ought to be a dictator. The Member for Westminster could not be cited as an authority for the motion of the Member for Barnstaple; and if he were in his place, he could not have voted for it. The hon. Member for Surrey, in his evidence before the Commissioners, said, that in actual service in time of war, corporal punishment could not be dispensed with; that he never has maintained that it could be done away with in the field; and that it stands to reason, that the officers must then have additional power. Even in time of peace, the hon. Member did not speak with entire confidence. After saying that there was a great difference of opinion, he was asked— You think it would be well to make an experiment, but you do not speak with entire confidence as to the result?—Just so; and I do not certainly speak with confidence of it, without reference to the adoption of a system of honours, rewards, and promotions. He expected, therefore, the vote of the hon. and gallant Member for Surrey against the motion. The evidence of the hon. Member for Middlesex was this. He was asked— Is it your notion in respect to the alteration of the discipline of the English army, that corporal punishment should be entirely abolished, or that the power should remain, of inflicting it in certain cases?—That it should be entirely abolished, except in the field, which I have always said should be considered, after the trial was made in cantonments and in peace. Again— You are understood to say, that, upon service, you would still not do away with the use of the lash?—In emergencies, where men openly plunder, or violate the rules laid down, and where order must be maintained, I do not see that there are any other immediate means of checking them. Here was another authority against the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple. Let the whole of the evidence be sifted and examined, and he would venture to say, that the motion would find no support from the authority of any officer who had been examined, except his own, and that of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, on whose testimony before the Commission he must make a few remarks. He says— A great, and perhaps the principal, fault of corporal punishment is, that it fails before the enemy. And how does the hon. and gallant Member support this proposition? Will the House credit it? By adducing an instance of the most perfect and complete success of that punishment before the enemy. [Colonel Thompson: read the evidence.] Since the hon. and gallant Member wished him to read it he would do so. In page 234 of the Commissioners' Report, to take the second instance which the hon. and gallant Officer gave, he found this statement— I recollect, in the 14th Dragoons, having occasion to make a complaint against soldiers who had committed what I consider a military crime. I was ordered, in the Peninsular war, with, I think about eight dragoons and sixteen Spanish infantry, I believe it was in the neighbourhood of St. Severs, to ascertain whether a division of French cavalry was at a certain point six or seven miles off. I contrived to arrive there near night-fall, and ascertained that they had been gone about four hours. As I returned, the Spaniards got very frightened, and begged the dragoons would not leave them. I ordered different individuals of the dragoons to move in advance of the detachment, my fear being that we might fall in with a body of the enemy; and if we had timely notice of it we might retire by some cross-road, or, in case of extremity, disperse. As fast as I sent a dragoon out of sight, he trotted off and made the best of his way to camp. Not one man staid with me but the corporal. The Spaniards, the corporal, and I, arrived safely in the English out-posts. I immediately complained to the colonel, who did not punish the men, and all he did was to apply a strong expression to them, but the men were never punished. That struck me as a proof of the inapplicability of corporal punishment before the enemy; for I feel certain, that if those men had committed anything like a similar irregularity in a barrack-yard in England, they would have been very severely punished. In that case the commanding officer differed in opinion from the hon. and gallant Member, and the men were not punished. But there was another case mentioned by the gallant Officer, a case of real emergency, in which flogging was successfully used, and he would read the very words of it:— I can give two instances bearing upon the fact. I will first give one which occurred in the 95th, or rifle regiment, where corporal punishment was not carried to its usual extent in consequence of that feeling. The day before we landed on the unfortunate expedition to Buenos Ayres, being the officer on watch, I heard a private say, 'The officers had better take care of themselves, for we shall have them in our from to-morrow.' I knew what that meant; that if an officer did anything in the way of discipline which the men did not like, he should be shot. I brought the man up for punishment, and the man was tried. At that time, corporal punishment was almost the only punishment in vogue except for very slight crimes. The court-martial found him guilty, and inflicted upon him, if I recollect right, 150 lashes; which, although it may be a severe punishment in itself, was a very slight punishment in reference to the scale of punishment then existing in the army. For a man would have received 150 lashes on any complaint of a captain; for instance, of his being once or twice drunk, or being habitually dirty. I had been told in quarters in England, when trying to bring down a man's punishment to 150 lashes, at a regimental court-martial, 'You must not make a joke of the service.' Therefore it struck me strongly, that upon that occasion there was a manifest letting down of the scale of punishment—a failure of the system; it was avowed practically to the soldiers that the officers would not, or could not, maintain the scale of punishment previously in use. Did he receive his corporal punishment?— He did. Did that put an end to that sort of feeling?—I heard no more of it. But the soldiers must have seen that there was a great difference in the application of the scale of punishment then from what it would have been if they had been in quarters. Did you happen to sit on that court-martial?—I apprehend not. I was, in fact, the accuser, the prosecutor. Do you think that punishment, which you think was smaller than the occasion justified, was awarded from the feeling of its not being advisable to punish the soldiers actually on service, or from some opinion, that the man deserved a punishment of that amount only?—I cannot tell what was the feeling of the officers of the Court-martial. My feeling was, that the act of the soldier was an act of gross mutiny or tendency to mutiny. I believe I may say it is almost the only time in which I have brought forward a soldier for corporal punishment, but in this instance I did bring him forward resolutely, being the officer on. the watch, and having heard it while on duty. My impression was, that the smallness of the punishment was in consequence of the sense the officers had of the inapplicability of corporal punishment at a time like that. You are not aware of having heard that repeated?—I am not. I certainly heard no more of that kind. Now, in this case, what mattered the alleged slightness of the punishment, which however was 150 lashes, if it effected the purpose? In that ease, too, it appeared that the corporal punishments put an end to the party feeling that prevailed. And how those instances could be adduced by the gallant Officer, to prove that corporal punishments failed in the army, he, to the last day of his life, should be unable to conjecture. He had now read the evidence of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, and he thought it quite conclusive the other way; but if they were to handcuff soldiers, and order them to solitary confinement, while on service, what was to become of the service? He should on this point refer to the evidence of another military officer, Lieutenant Blood, a person of great merit, who, though the son of a gentleman, had enlisted in the army, and had been promoted from the ranks for his gallant services. He was asked this question:— When you enlisted, were you sensible you made yourself liable to this punishment if you misconducted yourself?—Most unquestionably I was. Was any impression made on your mind by that circumstance when you enlisted?—No; I knew I should conduct myself properly; I never felt the necessity of considering it, as far as my own feelings were in question. I was never, under any circumstances, for one moment a prisoner in a guard-house, or elsewhere. This he thought was perfectly conclusive for retaining corporal punishments. It was the opinion of this officer, that they were more necessary in the field, for he says— It appeared to have had a very desirable effect; if the power of inflicting this corporal punishment was not in force, it is my firm opinion, that it would be attended with the most serious and fatal consequences, and particularly so in the field before the enemy. You think it would have had the effect of destroying the energy of that regiment upon that occasion?—Yes, I do, considering what was the description of some of the characters we had to do with then; and if he was not instantly punished in the summary way he was, it would have induced him and others to set all their officers and all authority at defiance. In this month I also witnessed another drum-head punishment in the division, on the line of inarch, on three of the 95th Rifles, by order of Major-General Robert Crawford. While actually marching these men fell out for water, which was a violation of his orders. He had two or three dozen lashes inflicted. This had the desired effect also. No soldier of that division, for more than two years I was marching with it after, committed a breach of that order. Now surely men are not to be shot for such crimes as these, when a few lashes are effectual, and the men preserved; and yet, under such circumstances, either punishment must be put in force. There is no other that can be established for immediate example on the march or before the enemy. That was the testimony of a most competent witness, and as far as authority could go, must be held to be conclusive on the point. He had already said, that Genera] Evans, who, it was well known, had the strongest objection to the infliction of such a punishment, had declared it could not be done without, and it was known, that he now employed it. There could be no doubt, that corporal punishments were disliked by the officers of the army. Was it to be supposed, that the gallant men who were examined were lost to the feelings of humanity?—that they took a pleasure in shedding the blood of their fellow-creatures? Nothing was, or could be, more abhorrent to their feelings than such punishments, and none could have a greater dislike than they had to their infliction. He could not describe their feelings better, while he corroborated by very strong testimony, the opinion that flogging could not, be abolished, than by quoting the words of Sir Henry Fane upon this point. The hon. Member then read the following extract from the evidence of Sir H. Fane:— You have been questioned with respect to the effect of the alteration of the punishment in the army, from corporal punishment, to solitary confinement in garrisons at home; do you conceive that an alteration of that kind could be effected when the army is in the field, and that the discipline of the army could be kept up?—It must be utterly impracticable. I think my brother officers, who are members of this Commission, will all agree with me in that statement. I will put a case as an example. It chanced that I was ordered to conduct from Toulouse, after the battle of Toulouse, to Boulogne and to Calais, the whole of the cavalry, some artillery, and the materiel of the Duke of Wellington's army. I marched them in two columns through France, and embarked them at Boulogne and Calais. By the power of maintaining discipline which I had in my hands, I was enabled so to conduct them as to receive so much of the approbation of the French Government as to be offered, as a distinction, the order of the Legion of Honour. I will ask any member of the Commission how I could have conducted those two columns, had the power of inflicting corporal punishment, if necessary, been taken out of my hands, and the power of solitary confinement only substituted in lieu of it? In point of fact you could not?—That is my opinion. Supposing solitary confinement had been the only punishment allowed, how would you have proceeded, upon your line of march through France, to put that into execution?—I should have found it to be utterly impracticable. Nothing could be clearer than the justice of this observation. He would next quote the same gallant officer's opinion upon another point:— When you commanded a regiment, did it appear to you that the infliction of corporal punishment upon the soldier always carried with it considerable degradation in the eyes of his brother soldiers r—I will say of myself, as I should say of almost every one of my brother officers, that the task of inflicting corporal punishment was always so painful to us, and our feelings towards our soldiers were so different from what persons seem to suppose—indeed so much more like the feelings of a father towards his children (at least it was always my own)—that the infliction of corporal punishment was the most painful duty we ever performed. I never did it when I could possibly avoid it. When I did it, I did it for the sake of example. I did it with that degree of severity which was calculated to make an impression. The degradation depended upon the nature of the crime. The same sentiments pervaded the whole of the evidence in the volume before the House. If hon. Gentlemen had read that volume, they would see the universal feeling to be that the punishment of flogging was in itself not disgraceful—that it was the nature of the offence for which it was inflicted, such as thieving or swindling, which cast disgrace upon it in the eyes of both officers and mm. It would be seen also from the same evidence that the infliction of this punishment was in itself no impediment to future promotion. He would now refer to the evidence of a gallant relative of his (Colonel Fergusson), who, he believed he might say, was a gentleman of the very mildest and most humane disposition, approaching almost to a fault—but at the same time he could add, for that gallant officer that he was a soldier, and as a soldier he had always done his duty. Colonel Fergusson stated that there had been nine or ten cases of corporal punishment inflicted in the 52nd regiment within the last three years for violence, insubordination, and conduct of a disgraceful nature, including one or two instances for theft. He would beg the attention of the House to the following passage in this gallant officer's evidence:— Recourse is now had to solitary confinement and imprisonment, with or without hard labour, in lieu of corporal punishment, in many cases?—Yes, in many cases. Do you find that the discipline of your regiment has been deteriorated by the substitution of those punishments for corporal punishment? Certainly. More offences have been committed since the restriction has been made. Do you find that the late regulations, restricting the power of the commanding officers more than they were before, have had a good or a bad effect on the discipline?—A bad effect, decidedly. You think the example is more striking of corporal punishment than of imprisonment, and more effectual in deterring others from crime? Yes, decidedly so. The effect is greater in consequence of the punishment being inflicted immediately, and the whole gone through in the presence of all the men?—Yes, exactly. Where, for reasons, punishment cannot follow the offence immediately, but must wait for trial by court-martial, do you think imprisonment with hard labour, especially if it was in a place in the sight of the men, would be sufficiently effectual for the object of maintaining discipline?—No, I really do not think it would; for we have instances of men who have been two and three months in imprisonment, and when they come out they will commit the same offence in three or four days again. Do you not find that men who have received corporal punishment have done the same?—No, we have but few instances; and I find that the rarity of it increases the effect. I have had several instances of men who have received corporal punishment, come to me afterwards and say, "Sir, if you will forget what is past, you shall find me in future a good soldier;" and in almost every instance the man's conduct has improved; and I am confident we have many instances of young soldiers, whose conduct has been so violent that we have been obliged to resort to corporal punishment, and that its effect has invariably been good, and often has saved men from committing serious offences, for which they would be transported. Do you think that young man you refer to has lost himself in the opinion of his comrades?—Not the least; it is the crime that injures them in the eyes of each other, not the description of punishment. He would next refer to the opinions of some officers favourable to the view taken by the hon. Member for Barnstaple.

Sir Octavius Carey gave it as his opinion, that all sorts of punishments, no matter of what nature, whether of extra drills, of flogging, or solitary confinements with hard labour, all were ineffectual in the way of example, except that of death alone. This gallant officer, in the course of his evidence, stated—and in that statement he entirely concurred—that "the constant infliction of corporal punishment exercised a brutalizing effect upon the men, and rendered them indifferent to punishment." He stated further, that "he thought the army would be kept in better order by minor punishments, executed certainly and promptly; and that on foreign service solitary confinement would be impossible; and that he would therefore allow corporal punishments under this circumstance, by drum-head Court-martial and no other." The right hon. Member read the following passage in the evidence of Joseph Hume, esq., M. P.— The gallant officer's reason for them was, that the punishment would then be instantaneous; so that he was not an authority for the views of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple. Again, the hon. Member for Middlesex gave the following evidence:— You are understood to say, that upon service you still would not do away with the use of the lash?—In emergencies, where men openly plunder or violate the rules laid down, and where order must be maintained, I do not see that there are any other immediate means of checking them. I do not pretend, therefore, to say, that I would do away with the power in such cases, but, like the offence of stealing, the punishment, though disgraceful, would, I think, meet the approbation of the army, if thus justly administered. It must be well known to military men, that the success of any enterprise in the field depends upon the following it up; and if men will disobey orders, and have recourse to plunder, success may be by that means turned to defeat, and there must be, I apprehend, the means of repressing it on the instant. He would next refer to the evidence of Sir John Woodford, which he certainly must characterise as most extraordinary, though it had been much relied on by those who were opposed to flogging. This gallant Officer stated, that, Under particular circumstances of emergency, requiring an instant example, corporal punishments would be fittest, and, he presumed, most effectual in impressing fear at the moment. It would be more effectual for only being resorted to on such occasions of necessity. In that opinion he entirely agreed; necessity alone should warrant the infliction of this punishment. But the gallant Officer stated, also, That corporal punishments, as formerly exercised, had, in his opinion, a less good effect than the present mode of confinement and hard labour, solitary confinement taken into account, which he considered the best kind of punishment. He was of opinion further, That supposing the means of applying the punishment of imprisonment with hard labour to be made more perfect and complete, corporal punishments might be dispensed with on home service, for common military offences committed under ordinary circumstances. Among the extraordinary circumstances under which, in the opinion of this gallant Officer, corporal punishment might be inflicted, was wilful disobedience of a soldier on parade, or under arms, to the lawful command of his superior, or for striking or offering violence to an officer, theft, or other disgraceful conduct, and for the second offence for drunkenness on duty, sleeping on duty, striking or using violence to a noncommissioned officer. These offences the gallant Officer proposed should be punished by a prevotal Court-martial, who are to be invested with the authority of a distinct garrison Court-martial, with the power to inflict—how many lashes did the House suppose?—no less than 500 lashes. Now certainly it was rather inconsistent in this gallant Officer, who expressed himself as opposed generally to the infliction of corporal punishment, to propose to give a prevotal Court-martial the power to inflict as many as 500 lashes, whilst, by the rules at present in force in the service, a general Court-martial could only order 300 lashes. The next authority to which he would refer was that of Colonel G. Burrell, whose evidence was as follows: Taking all circumstances into consideration, are you of opinion that, as far as Great Britain and Ireland are concerned, it would be possible to do away entirely with corporal punishment?—I must say, I should be sorry to be deprived of the power; but, I think it would be practicable, for we might apply for general Courts-martial, and these men might be transported; but we must have reference to a higher power for such Courts-martial, and the delay would be injurious. I will state why I should object to the power being taken from us; suppose, in time of peace, we can obtain men of that description, that we can carry on the discipline of a corps without corporal punishment, if we should unfortunately get involved in a war, we must take any able-bodied men who can be got to fill our ranks; and if the power were taken away from the Courts-martial, I am persuaded that the Legislature would never restore it. The power had better, therefore, remain, though a dead letter, with troops at home. The same gallant Officer, being asked his opinion as to the possibility of disusing the practice to the same extent in the colonies, replied, that "he found it would not answer;" and being asked for his reason for this apprehension, replied that, "the men drank there (in the colonies) to a great extent." Being asked, also, whether he thought it would be possible to do away with corporal punishment when the army was in actual service in the field, he replied, "Certainly not." Lieutenant-Colonel Duncan Mac Gregor, who commands the 93rd regiment, and had been thirty years in the service, had a great horror of corporal punishment, and, if possible, would like to see it abolished, except in the field, where he said it was unquestionably necessary; and, perhaps, in certain other cases, where a man, for instance, would peremptorily and perseveringly refuse to undergo the punishment of hard labour. His evidence was this:— So that your opinion is, that it might be possible to do away with corporal punishment in most cases, but that the power ought to be reserved?—Yes; but if I could firmly believe—what I am disposed to hope—that the absolute abolition of corporal punishment would have the effect, along with other expedients, of drawing to the army a more respectable description of recruits than we generally have at present, I would give it up in all cases except the field. But he afterwards said, I do not feel a very strong opinion on the subject. I should, however, be rather inclined to try the experiment. It was clear, that much was required to be done, particularly in respect to the composition of our army, before the experiment could be tried which was suggested by Colonel Mac Gregor. That gallant Officer, who commands a Highland regiment, says, That as long as it was composed of Highlanders only, he could preserve discipline without corporal punishment; but that, when it came to be mixed up with other materials (which the gallant Colonel considers less worthy materials), he was obliged, in the West-Indies, where even his own Highlanders had been contaminated, to have recourse to corporal punishment for violence to non-commissioned officers, drunkenness on guard, or sleeping on their posts, generally arising from drunkenness. Lieutenant-General Lord Edward Somerset, who had been forty-two years in the army, said in answer to question 390:— I have always felt anxious to avoid it [cor- poral punishment] if I could carry on discipline without it; but I have never yet been able to discover any other effectual means of punishment, such as could be brought into practical use in all circumstances of the service at home and abroad, in case of notorious irregularities that required severe example to suppress them. He would call, therefore, upon the House to recollect, that they were required to provide for the time of war as well as that of peace, by their vote on this question to-night. He would entreat them, therefore, to pause before they totally, and in every case, prohibited a practice which, though at present but sparingly required, was found, under certain circumstances, to be indispensable. He would next refer the House to the evidence of Colonel Towns-end, which was very much relied on by the advocates of the abolition. This officer stated before the Commissioners, that he had been very anxious to do away with corporal punishments in his regiment, and had endeavoured to make a fair experiment to substitute another system of punishments, the result of which, however, was, that "he was almost convinced the punishment of flogging could not be entirely done away with." He stated his opinion, that the infliction of corporal punishment bad more effect upon the men than any other. He would also beg attention to the following passages of this gallant Officer's evidence:—. Have you had many instances of renewal of offence after flogging in the same individual? — Not since I commanded the regiment. Have you had many renewals of offence after solitary confinement?—Yes, we have. From that observation, the impression upon your mind would be, that the one punishment had less effect upon the mind of the individual than the other?—I think the solitary confinement had less effect upon the mind of the man than corporal punishment in improving him; and also by way of example. Have you any idea that the infliction of corporal punishment in sight of the men has an injurious effect, in rather exciting sympathy on the part of the soldiers?—No, I do not think so. Corporal punishment is not resorted to except in very extreme cases. The next testimony he would refer to was that of Major General Sir Thomas Pearson, who stated that "he never saw any good effects, but on the contrary, bad effects from the punishment of solitary confinement;" and being asked, "Are you of opinion that the system of solitary confinement, in lieu of corporal punishment, such punishment being entirely forbidden, would have the effect of maintaining proper discipline in the army?" He replied, "I consider that, if corporal punishment were abolished in the British array, the command of the British army would be virtually given up. I consider that it would be totally impossible to maintain such discipline as would be necessary to uphold the character and reputation of the British army, without corporal punishment remaining to be resorted to in case of necessity." Being asked also, "Is it your opinion that the infliction of corporal punishment, attended by all the solemnities with which it is accompanied, has a considerable effect on the other soldiers of the regiment who witness it?" He replied, "decidedly so." Another very gallant officer, Colonel Mackinnon, after recommending the removal of the incorrigible to some corps on a foreign station, said, that Until some plan of that kind was adopted, no abandonment of the punishment of flogging could be thought of. Whether with the aid of some such plan as that it. might be found possible, even on home-service, he was not able to say; but there could be no doubt that the sudden promulgation of a law for the immediate abolition would be equivalent to a proclamation in favour of mutiny. The punishment of flogging, if ever it were to be abolished, should be made gradually to disappear in practice by the silent substitution of other methods, before its express and formal abolition. The gallant officer, in reply to questions put to him by the Commissioners, gave the following remarkable evidence also:— Supposing that an order was to issue from head quarters entirely to abolish the practice of flogging, could you be answerable for the discipline of the Coldstream regiment, which is now under your command?—I think not, decidedly; I could not be answerable for it. I think there would be mutinous conduct, and that would increase very much. Are we then to understand that your opinion is, that corporal punishment should be resorted to in cases of necessity only, but that the power of inflicting it should be retained?—Most decidedly; I conceive that if you were not to retain the power of punishing men by flogging, the officers might as well pull off their hats to the regiment, and wish them good-by. Colonel W. Augustus Keate gave the following evidence:— Are you of opinion that corporal punishment has more effect in deterring an individual from the re-commission of crime, than imprisonment with hard labour?—Yes, certainly. What is your opinion of it as an example to other soldiers who witness it?—I have no doubt it is an example, and that the other is none. After what you have stated, it is scarcely necessary to ask you, whether you conceive it would be possible to keep up the discipline of the 3rd regiment of Guards, without the power of inflicting corporal punishment in certain cases?—It is my decided opinion that it would not. From your experience when on service, do you think it would be possible, under any regulations whatever, to carry on the discipline of the army without corporal punishment? I should say, certainly not; I cannot conceive how it could be done. Major-General Sir J. M'Lean's evidence contained the following passage:— Since corporal punishments have been less frequent in the Artillery, is it your opinion that the discipline of the regiment has been more or less easily maintained?—I am humbly of opinion that it has not been of advantage to the service; that in former times you tied up a man and flogged him, and the example was immediate and good; now a man knows exactly how far he may go; he knows he will not be tried by court-martial unless he goes to a certain extent; he will keep within the extent, knowing he will have only a few days confinement for that. This gallant officer's experience went to show, that the punishment of confinement, with hard labour, had been of no use whatever in reforming the culprit. The right hon. Gentleman quoted other portions of the evidence given before the Commissioners at considerable length. It all went to show that corporal punishment could not be wholly dispensed with. In conclusion, the right hon. Member observed, that if hon. Gentlemen in that House had read any portion of the Report of the Commissioners, they had certainly read the evidence of the Duke of Wellington and Lord Hill, and the gallant Member for Launceston. It was not that he did not attach the very highest importance to such evidence, but because he presumed that every Member of the House had looked, with more or less attention to the Report; and he did not believe that any one could have opened it without reading with attention that evidence, which sanctions, with its high authority, the testimony of the other witnesses to which he had referred. In opposition to this overwhelming mass of evidence and authority—such as he would venture to say had never been produced upon any great inquiry before, they were called upon to legislate on the sole authority of the gallant Members for Barnstaple and Hull. Was the House ready to incur such a tre- mendous responsibility? He could not entertain any fear upon the subject, when the judgment and good sense of a British House of Commons were to decide the question. The object of the hon. and gallant Member was, to sweep away from our military code the punishment of the lash for every offence—no matter how aggravated, no matter how disgraceful—for mutiny and for theft, it was equally to be abolished. It was not to be used in any case, either for example or retribution. It had been called a degrading punishment—it had been called a cruel punishment, without stopping to observe that the whole evidence proved, that the soldier who was punished by the lash was not disgraced among his comrades, unless the offence for which he was punished was disgraceful. He would repeat that the objection to punishment, that it was disgraceful, or that it was cruel, is not, by itself, sufficient to make a case for its abolition. Was the House, then, prepared to say that, henceforth, in no one case of crime however disgraceful—whether, for instance, of theft, cheating, or embezzlement—the lash should be used by way of punishment appropriately disgraceful? If the House were prepared to say, that neither at home nor abroad, in peace nor in war, for any offence whatever, corporal punishment should be used in the British army, then he very much feared the whole system of military discipline was at an end. If they parted altogether with the right of inflicting corporal punishment, they parted with the right arm, as far as regarded the proper discipline of the army. For his own part, he felt that he had but done his duty to his King and to his country by agreeing to the Report which had been laid before the House. The Commissioners had entered upon their task of inquiry with unbiassed minds, and with every desire, if it were possible, to assist in promoting a milder code of punishment; but from a careful examination of the evidence, both as it was being delivered, and since it was printed, having read it over and over several times, he felt bound to say, that he did not see the possibility of effecting any more rapid improvements than were at present in progress.

Mr. Poulter

said, it could not be denied that much had been done of late years towards the abolition of military flogging; but still, in spite of all the high authorities which had been referred to by the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he thought a better system might be adopted, which should render corporal punishment altogether unnecessary. As to the extreme cases so forcibly put by the right hon. Gentleman in the course of his speech, and stated in the Report at considerable length, in such cases he thought that upon the principle salus exercitus est suprema lex, a code of common law might be enforced against offenders, as was the case with the rest of the community. He would not object, for instance, to severe measures in such extreme cases as disobedience or mutiny in the very presence of the enemy. "The schoolmaster was abroad," but he certainly was not as yet given a fair and just trial in the barracks. Indeed, he was hardly admitted within their precincts. No doubt hon. Members were aware that parochial lending libraries had been established throughout the country, and that these tended much to improve the moral, religious, and intellectual condition of the people. Had any body heard of such a thing established in any regiment? [Hear, hear! from Lord Sandon.] Well, if by the cheer of the noble Lord he was to understand that the experiment had been attempted, why was not such a change carried to a greater extent? Was a system of improved instruction generally resorted to? Had they adopted a reward for good conduct, either civil or military? Was the prospect of promotion to police offices or other offices ever held out to the soldier? For every good soldier who would be lost to the service by such an advancement, at least ten as good men would be secured by the example which it afforded. Had any effort been made to put a stop to the progress of that demoralizing vice of drunkenness which was acknowledged on all sides to be at the bottom of all military excesses, by improving the moral and intellectual condition of the soldier? It was most preposterous to say, that in the absence of all such attempts at improving the discipline of the army by the most effectual means, that that discipline could only be preserved by having recourse to the lash. Most singular opinions were unquestionably stated in the report of the Commissioners. Amongst other grounds of objection to the abolition of this degrading punishment, it was alleged, that the practice was necessary to preserve discipline in our army, when it was not necessary in the armies of other nations, because our soldiers belonged to an inferior class to that from which the men of foreign armies were generally chosen. He could never consent to attribute the achievements of the British army to that miserable expedient for insuring obedience—military flogging. The ultimate and real cause of those glorious victories by which our armies had been distinguished, was to be sought for only in the natural energies, the popular spirit, and gallantry of the British people. He wished hon. Members on the opposite side would take a less narrow, a less professional, view of the question, when propositions were made for reducing or disbanding the regiments of guards. He thought that, instead of charging hon. Members at his side of the House with effecting paltry savings in the estimates, the best answer which they could offer to such propositions was to assert, that the guards were the special representatives of those truly national qualities which distinguished the people of this country, and therefore ought to be the last to be exposed to the hostility of the popular Representatives in that House. He was aware that he spoke in the presence of a gallant General (Sir H. Hardinge), in opposing whom he felt no slight degree of nervousness, particularly when he recollected how skilled that right hon. Gentleman was in the arts of peace as well as distinguished in the exploits of war. But he hoped he might be excused if he took the liberty of asking that right hon. Gentleman whether, in point of mere military experience and habits, he was not, beyond comparison, inferior to those whom he first fought on the continent of Europe? How was it, he would further ask, that the gallant General triumphed in fifty different battles, and opposed a force of 20,000 with only 10,000 men? He would tell him the reason: because he brought qualities to the contest which those with whom he contended did not possess—namely, the qualities of a high-minded Englishman, endowed with great natural talents, which were improved by education. As he had already said, the subject was looked upon by the gallant General, and those who coincided with him, in too professional a light. Lawyers were never—as he could say from some experience—the first to propose improvements in the law. Church Reform was begun by the wish of the laity, though undoubtedly sanctioned by the approval of those who belonged to the Church. They must all remember the prognostications of those who opposed the Reform Bill, the Slavery Bill, and the Factories' Bill, and the evils which it was said would arise from the passing of each of those different measures; and yet all those measures had been passed into law with great advantages, and without giving rise to any one of the threatened evils; and of this the House might rest assured, that military reform could not and would not begin in the army. It was said, that no measures could be found so efficacious for preventing insubordination and disobedience and other offences for which it was inflicted as this practice of military flogging. All knew the effect of solitary confinement on the most hardened mind. Why should not an experiment be made of the effect of that punishment? Again, it was notorious that transportation had been resorted to with the most successful result in cases of forgery. If this substitute had worked so well in civil, why should not the same principle be applied to military life? The argument used by those opposed to the abolition of this punishment, when the example of France was cited in refutation of their position, was, that in that country it was true they did not flog, but they went further, they shot military offenders. Now he had had an opportunity of procuring from the War-office of Paris an account of the French military code; and though it was perfectly true that death was assigned by it to a vast number of offences, he was most positively assured, by an officer of high rank belonging to that service (he meant Count de Bouillet), that, in point of fact, it was carried into execution only in three cases—namely, of desertion to the enemy, of treason, and of striking a superior officer. The punishments in the French army were imprisonment of different sorts, hard labour and irons. It could not for an instant be questioned that the French army was in a state of high discipline. If the discipline of the soldiers of Austerlitz and Friedland had been maintained by these means, why should their conquerors, the soldiers of Waterloo, be subjected to an unnecessary degradation? The real question for the House to consider was, would they pass this measure, or leave it to be passed by the Parliament which succeeded them? Now as he was not perfectly sure of having a seat in the next Parliament, he wished to share in the honour of abolishing a punishment which was totally unworthy of the enlightened and civilised slate of society in which we lived. It was quite certain that the public were so much opposed to this system, that they would return a majority against it. He was shocked at the false and disgusting accounts which he had seen in some of the papers, of officers looking on with pleasure at these inflictions. Such statements were as disgusting as they were untrue; but it was true that the system excited general disgust, and there was no doubt it must at no distant day be altogether abolished.

Colonel Thompson

thought that the direct appeal which had been made to him must be considered by the House a sufficient justification for his referring to two cases which he mentioned in his evidence. The first case to which he referred was thus given in the Report:— I can give two instances bearing upon the fact. I will first give one which occurred in the 95th, or Rifle regiment, where corporal punishment was not carried to its usual extent in consequence of that feeling. The day before we landed on the unfortunate expedition to Buenos Ayres, being the officer on watch, I heard a private say, 'The officers had better take care of themselves, for we shall have them in our front to-morrow.' I knew what that meant; that if an officer did anything in the way of discipline which the men did not like, he should be shot. I brought the man up for punishment, and the man was tried. At that time corporal punishment was almost the only punishment in vogue, except for very slight crimes. The Court-martial found him guilty, and inflicted upon him, if I recollect right, 150 lashes; which, although it may be a severe punishment in itself, was a very slight punishment in reference to the scale of punishment then existing in the army. For a man would have received 150 lashes on any complaint of a captain; for instance, of his being once or twice drunk, or being habitually dirty. I had been told in quarters in England, when trying to bring down a man's punishment to 150 lashes at a regimental Court-martial, 'You must not make a joke of the service.' Therefore it struck me strongly, that, upon that occasion, there was a manifest letting down of the scale of punishment—a failure of the system; it was avowed practically to the soldiers that the officers would not, or could not, maintain the scale of punishment previously in use. The next was:— I recollect, in the 14th Dragoons, having occasion to make a complaint against soldiers who had committed what t considered a military crime. I was ordered, in the Peninsular war, with I think eight dragoons and about sixteen Spanish infantry, I believe it was in the neighbourhood of St. Severs, to ascertain whether a division of French cavalry was at a certain point six or seven miles off. I contrived to arrive there near night-fall, and ascertained that they had been gone about four hours. As I returned, the Spaniards got very frightened, and begged the dragoons would not leave them. I ordered different individuals of the dragoons to move in advance of the detachment, my fear being that we might fall in with a body of the enemy; and if we had timely notice of it we might retire by some cross-road, or, in case of extremity, disperse. As fast as I sent a dragoon out of sight, he trotted off and made the best of his way to camp. Not one man staid with me but the corporal. The Spaniards, the corporal, and I arrived safely in the English out-posts. I immediately complained to the colonel, who did not punish the men, and all he did was to apply a strong expression to them, but the men were never punished. That struck me as a proof of the inapplicability of corporal punishment before the enemy; for I feel certain that if those men had committed anything like a similar irregularity in a barrack-yard in England, they would have been very severely punished. The fact was, that the difficulty of doing away with corporal punishment was vastly increased by its being at all allowed. He had not uttered any rash opinions before the Committee; he had not called for the hasty abolition of this practice; and he had not a doubt but that if the attempt to do away with it were made by a single lieutenant-colonel of a regiment, it would not prove successful. He had stated why he arrived at that conclusion. The ground on which he had done so was this—because the officers under the command of such gentlemen, would declare they found it impossible to dispense with it. If, however, the practice were once made illegal, then he was inclined to think that officers would soon find out an effective substitute. If the experiment were made of raising one or two regiments on the understanding that they should be disbanded if their officers could not manage without the infliction of corporal punishment, he could not help believing that the discipline of such regiments would in a short time be placed on the soundest and best footing. It appeared, from the Report of the Commissioners, that officers of the highest rank had expressed their persuasion, that the British soldier was insensible to the de- gradation of corporal punishment. Now, how could this opinion be reconciled with the account of the mutiny of the European Artillery in India, on the ground that they were placed on a different footing from the native troops. He warned the House against allowing this practice to continue, and abuses of a like nature to prevail in the army, until the chance of such a mil-tiny in the army as that which formerly broke out in the navy was rendered likely. Was it wise and politic to allow the opportunity to a man acting under strong and excited feelings, or under the influence of ill-humour, to express to the men under his command his sense of the disgusting, filthy, unmanly, degrading, and abominable punishment to which they were subjected in his presence? The man who then addressed them was not very easily moved, but he could assure the House that upon an occasion when this punishment was inflicted, he was as near—as makes the difference between pulling a trigger and not pulling it—saying to his men, "If you are fools enough to stand by and see this, I am not." He hoped, then, that the House would not hesitate to abolish the evils of such a system, particularly when the country was at their feet demanding its reform. And he was convinced, from his own knowledge, that Ministers would find that their constituents and supporters in the country, rejoicing in the same political designation, had gone ahead with the current of public intelligence on this subject—while Ministers, from some cause or other, had remained stationary.

Viscount Sandon

said, that, as one of the Commissioners, he had given the subject the greatest attention, and had weighed the whole of the evidence, and he had come to this conclusion—that it was not practicable to carry on the discipline of the army on foreign service without the power of inflicting the punishment of flogging in certain cases, but he would confess, that with the exception of offences committed on a march or stealing, which is in itself disgraceful, he thought that dispensing with flogging would be practicable in the home service; but still he thought that the power of inflicting the lash should not be given up until something was found which would prove an efficient substitute for it. Formerly the execution of the sentences of district Courts-martial were delayed until they lost much of the salutary effects which punishment immediately following the crime was calculated to pro- duce, but that defect had, in some degree, been remedied, and might be wholly removed. The hon. Member (Mr. Poulter) had said, that he would not allow flogging until he saw something done for improving the condition of the army; that he should like to see regimental libraries established, and other means of amusing and improving the soldier's mind. It was well known that much had been done in that way, and he was anxious that everything should be done which would make the condition of our soldiers better; but at the same time, he must say, that before those means were tried, he would not consent to give up a power which the most experienced officers held to be necessary. He would admit, that it had, heretofore, been the practice to govern the army with too great severity—that there was too little of reward, and too much of punishment. He would raise and improve the condition of the soldier, so as to make his situation rather an object of envy than of dislike. He would not have them excluded from public walks or amusements, to which, in some cases, there were refusals to admit them. He would also hold out every encouragement to better classes to enter the army. In this way the necessity of punishment would, in time, be done away with. One reason for getting rid of corporal punishment, before other means were tried, was the assertion, that officers would not resort to any other means so long as the power of inflicting that punishment existed, but he thought that any one who had read the evidence would see the groundlessness of that charge. It was put beyond all doubt, that there was nothing which officers more disliked than, the necessity of inflicting corporal punishment. The officers, he was sure, would not resort to that mode of punishment if they could get any other system which would be as effectual for maintaining discipline; but until such system was brought into operation, he repeated that he would not relinquish the power of flogging. In the evidence of Colonel Sir John Wood-ford, there was a catalogue of the offences for which be would inflict punishment. The part of Sir John Woodford's evidence to which he alluded was as follows:— You have said there are peculiar circumstances, even on the home service, when it would be necessary to recur to corporal punishment, will you state those circumstances?—On prisoners already undergoing, by sentence of a former Court-martial, imprisonment, or confinement in a cell, guard-room, or prison; on board ship; on the march; under extraordinary circumstances, as of treason, sedition, mutiny, concerted insubordination, or insubordination extending to more than three individuals of the same corps, or for wilful and persevering disobedience of a soldier on parade, or under arms, to the lawful command of his superior, or for striking or offering violence to an officer; for theft or other disgraceful conduct for which the offender is usually discharged with ignominy; and for the undermentioned crimes, in some cases of a second offence of the kind by the same individual; drunkenness on duty, sleeping on sentry, striking or using violence to a non-commissioned officer, or using insulting or insubordinate language to a non-commissioned officer. He (Lord Sandon) would not extend the catalogue to so many offences, and most certainly he would not inflict 500 lashes for any, but he could not consent to abolish it for all. It had been argued on the other side, that the practice of inflicting corporal punishments in the army had not produced the effects anticipated, because crime had not disappeared. The same argument would apply with equal force to the use of education as a means of improving the condition of mankind, for education had not abolished crime; but was that a reason why education itself should be abolished? It had likewise been contended that, inasmuch as corporal punishment could be dispensed with in France and in Prussia, it might likewise be given up in England. Surely the House could not forget that the elements of which continental armies were composed differed essentially from those which went to make up the armies of England, and that, therefore, a similar system of discipline could not be observed. Besides, as regarded Prussia itself, he was borne out by the testimony of a gallant Friend near him, that in any war, less national than the last in which the Prussians were engaged, it would have been impossible to have maintained the discipline of that army without the aid of corporal punishments. And then, as to France, there was not the least ground for supposing that the French Government would dispense with punishments of that nature, were it not that their army was made up of conscripts generally taken from a more respectable class in society than the soldiers of this country were usually selected from; in a word, the same rule could not, under such different circum- stances, apply to this country and to that. In each of the European countries alluded to, there was likewise a substitute, and in most instances an efficient one. This, as yet, was not the case in England, and until it was, he for one would never assent to the removal of the existing checks. It was not an unwise maxim to keep up the old prop, even though somewhat impaired by time, until a sound substitute could be found. He would entreat the House, therefore, not to abandon one security for the discipline of the army before they had obtained another—not to give up a punishment, the efficacy of which had been proved, till they were assured of a substitute which afforded at least a fair probability of producing as advantageous results. This was the principle upon which his opposition to the proposition was founded, and ha trusted a majority of the House would join with him in asserting it.

Mr. Hume

—The noble Lord who just sat down had alluded to the general order lately promulgated from the Horse Guards, as having had the effect of materially limiting the number of corporal punishments in the British army. Now, he (Mr. Hume) most unhesitatingly denied, that the order in question had had any such effect. Indeed, it was to him a matter of surprise, that after the expression of opinion upon the subject of corporal punishment by a majority of that House in 1833 (he called it a majority, for although the motion for suppression was lost by a majority of eleven, if allowance were made for the thirty-five Members then composing Ministerial corps, it was allowable to say, that the preponderance of opinion was in favour of the Motion), it was he said a matter of surprise that the authorities of the Horse Guards should have thought to silence the public voice by such a make-belief as in reality the order in question amounted to. The Motion of 1833 was only lost by the manner in which the Ministerial phalanx voted, and as the influence of office invariably actuated it—there was in point of fact a majority in favour of the Motion. How the Ministerial phalanx was likely to vote upon the present occasion he would not take upon himself to say, although from the specimen they had had in the case of the learned Judge Advocate there was every reason to fear that the same baneful influence which lost the Motion of 1833 would defeat that of 1836.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

—I entirely deny being influenced in my opposition to the Motion by the consideration to which the hon. Member alludes.

Mr. Hume

—The right hon. and learned Gentleman might deny that such was the fact; and no doubt he flattered himself that such was the fact, but he contended it was impossible for any man who heard his speech of that evening not to believe, though it might be without his being conscious of it, that the learned Judge was influenced by office. He had certainly taken a great deal of trouble to bring forward extracts from the evidence, but, in his humble opinion, he had studiously avoided calling attention to those passages which threw the most light upon the subject. There was, for example, only one passsage of his (Mr. Hume's) evidence, which could in any way be brought to sanction the infliction of corporal punishment, and that the right hon. Gentleman had quoted, and omitted all the rest. As a Judge he was bound to have given a fair abstract of all his opinions, or to have abstained from quoting one of them. But in speaking of corporal punishment, as inflicted in the army, he did not at all consider the extent to which it was administered. He spoke of it generally, as conveying a description of punishment by which men were degraded; and if, as he believed was the case, the infliction of the lash, were applied once or five hundred times, excited an equal sense of degradation, it mattered little what the degree of torture in each case was. What the result of his hon. Friend's Motion might be he could not anticipate; but he was confident, even though it did not now succeed, that ere long public feeling would compel the Legislature to put an end to a practice which, while it degraded, tended to brutalize the British army. He owned it was with some satisfaction he heard hon. Members on the opposite side of the House declare that atrocious cases of punishment had taken place in the British army. But a few years ago that which was now admitted to be atrocious would have been designated by those same individuals as harmless and necessary. This was something, and he welcomed the change as a happy omen for the future. Again, a few years ago it was urged, that the least interference with regard to the subject would tend to the disorganization of the army. Many of those who so argued, now admitted that much good had resulted from the trifling limitation which had been made in the number of offences corporally punishable, This was again auspicious, and he hailed it with satisfaction. Why, he asked, in the present enlightened times should those who perilled their lives in the defence of their country be exposed to such brutal acts as those in force amongst the British soldiers? Was it not a monstrous absurdity to expect that the liberty and rights of Great Britain would be in the hour of need adequately defended by a set of brutes?—for brutes the soldiers of Great Britain were, and it was the Parliament of Great Britain which alone made them so. It was the Parliament of Great Britain alone which sanctioned such atrocities; and every member who voted against the Motion would become responsible for the military torture that would ensue. He would state the extent to which corporal punishments were carried in the army, navy, and marines. By Returns in his hands it appeared that there were in those three services 9,529 flogged in four years, 1830–33, being 2,382 on an annual average of those years. Let hon. Members ponder over the Returns he would read, and remember that they were the parties to blame, and not the officers, whom the system had corrupted. The following was the

Abstract of the Number of Corporal Punishments inflicted in the Army, Navy, and Marine, in each of the four years, from 1830 to 1833, both inclusive.
Army p. p 88 of 1834. Navy p.p. 419 of 1834. Marine p.p. 393 of 1834. Total number in each year Average of these four years.
1830 655 2022 71 2748 2382
1831 646 1727 89 2462
1832 485 1762 101 2348
1833 370 1502 99 1971
Total number in each Service. 2156 7013 360 9529
But to return to the point from which he set out. The noble Lord opposite told the House, that by the order of the Commander-in-chief, a great limitation had been imposed upon the exercise of corporal punishments. Now this was not the fact. He held in his hand the document in question—it bore date "Adjutant-General's-office, August 24, 1833," and was signed "John Mac- donald." Three sentences of that paper—the order of the general commanding in chief, to which the noble Lord referred, would show, that so far from limiting corporal punishments to three offences therein specified, they might he extended to almost any imaginable offence. To prove his position he would read the order in question to the House: (Circular—confidential) Horse Guards, August 24, 1833. SIR,—His Majesty's Government having signified to the General commanding in chief, the King's command that, until further orders, corporal punishments may be applied to the following offences only, I have the honour to express Lord Hill's desire that you guide yourself accordingly, taking care that, except in the instances herein specified, the said punishment shall on no account be inflicted, viz.:
  1. "1. For mutiny, insubordination and violence, or using or offering violence to superior officers.
  2. "2. Drunkenness on duty.
  3. "3. Sale of, or making away with arms, ammunition, accoutrements, or necessaries, stealing from comrades, or other disgraceful conduct.
 It will doubtless occur to you that the object of these instructions is not to render the infliction of corporal punishment for the future more frequent or more certain than it is at present, even in the cases to which it is now to be restricted; but, on the contrary, that the intention is to restrain it as much as it may be possible to do so, with safety to the discipline of the army.—I have the honour to be, Sir, your very obedient humble servant. JOHN MACDONALD, Adjutant-General. Officer commanding. By this, corporal punishment was, it was true, limited to three descriptions of offence; but was it possible for any man to assert that in that classification every offence which a soldier could commit was not included? Take the first class of offences, "mutiny, insubordination, and violence, or using or offering violence to superior officers." Now, he asked, what was meant by the term "insubordination?" Who was to define it? Did it not, in point of fact, mean anything which any officer or any Court-martial might choose to construe it to mean? Again, take the third class, "sale of, or making away with arms, am- mu nion, accoutrements, or necessaries, stealing from comrades, or other disgraceful conduct." Other disgraceful conduct! Did not this, again, mean any or every offence which the English language could express? In short, he contended that, under the combined terms of "insubordination and disgraceful conduct," every offence of which a soldier could be guilty was, at the discretion of any Court-martial punishable corporally. It was on this ground he asserted that the noble Lord, in stating the extent of corporal punishment in the army to have been lately limited, had asserted what was not the fact. There was now no limitation whatever. He doubted not he could get as many, if not more officers, than had been brought into the field by the opposite side, to say with him that the order in question was a mere pretence, and that by leaving to the officers serving on Courts-martial, discretionary power, as to the interpretation of what should be deemed "insubordination," or "disgraceful conduct," had extended, instead of circumscribing, the limits to which corporal punishments had hitherto been carried. He had now a word or two to say in reference to what had fallen from the right hon. and learned the Judge Advocate. He had told him (Mr. C. Fergusson) in consequence of his having dissented from a statement of his during his speech, that he (Mr. Hume) knew nothing about the returns from the Horse Guards upon the subject of these corporal punishments. Now, with all due deference to the right hon. Gentleman, he must be permitted to say, that his information upon the subject of those returns was even better than that of the right hon. and learned Member; and further, he must tell him, that not only had he failed to quote the correct returns, but that the returns he did quote were altogether erroneous and false. It so happened that he held in his hand at that moment three returns connected with the subject, all subscribed by the Adjutant-General, which would at once prove how entirely the real nature of the case was suppressed by the Learned Judge Advocate. The first he would quote, was as follows:—The hon. Member accordingly read a

"Return, showing the establishment of the British Army in each year, from 1825 to 1833, both years inclusive; the number of persons tried by Courts-martial in each of the said years; the number sentenced to various punishments other than corporal punishment; the number sentenced to corporal punishments; and the number on whom corporal punishment was inflicted.

"Adjutant-General's Office, 21st Feb. 1833."

Year. Establishment of British Army. Number tried by Courts-Martial. Number sentenced to various Punishments other than Corporal. Number sentenced to Corporal Punishment. Number on whom Corporal Punishment was inflicted.
1825 98,916 4,708 2,280 2,259 1,737
1826 111,058 5,524 2,653 2,722 2,242
1827 111,107 5,340 2,541 2,632 2,291
1828 110,918 5,314 2,779 2,370 2,143
1829 103,747 4,782 2,705 1,943 1,748
1836 103,374 5,747 3,748 1,814 1,662
1831 103,413 7,370 5,497 1,611 1,477
Total 28,553 17,270 10,370 9,321

"N.B. The above numbers do not include Courts-martial held in the undermentioned regiments, the annual returns not baring yet been received from those corps abroad, viz.: In 1830—the 13th, 29th, 49tb, and 98th Regiments; in 1831—the 16th Lancers, and 13th and 49th Regiments.

(Signed)

"JOHN MACDONALD, A. G."

From this it appeared, that in the five years beginning in 1827, and ending in 1831, 28,553 soldiers had been tried by Courts-martial, and that of this number 17,270 had been sentenced to various punishments other than corporal; that 10,370 had been sentenced to corporal punishment, and that such punishment had been inflicted on 9,321 of this number. It further appeared from this document, that in 1825, the proportion of those on whom corporal punishment was inflicted to the entire establishment of the British army, was 1 to 57; in 1826, 1 to 49; in 1827, 1 to 48; in 1828, 1 to 51; in 1829, 1 to 59; in 1830, 1 to 62; and 1831, 1 to 70. The next return to which he would direct attention, was one dated the 26th of February, 1834. From this it appeared that the number of corporal punishments inflicted in the army in each year, from 1830 to 1833, both inclusive, was as follows:—

Years. Number flogged.,
1830 655
1831 646
1832 485
1833 370
Total 2,156
Thus there was a total of 2,156; and yet the right hon. Gentleman fixed the numbers of punishments since l830 at 1,440. But in four years alone of that period they had amounted, as he had just shown, to 2,156; and let it not be forgotten, that he had shown the greater number to have been inflicted upon the army in Great Britain and Ireland, while it was asserted, that the lesser number comprehended the whole of the punishments inflicted upon the army at large. He had now set the Judge Advocate right on this point, and he would leave it to the House to judge between them. The House would please to observe, that the lowest proportion given by the returns was as one to seventy in the army generally; in 1825 it was one in fifty-seven; in 1826, one in forty-nine; in 1827, one in forty-eight; in 1828, one in fifty-one; in 1829, one in fifty-nine; and at present, one in seventy. As he had already said, no limitation to anything like the extent which the noble Lord had represented had taken place with respect to the infliction of corporal punishments: nevertheless, it was clear, that as the numbers declined, the discipline of the army improved. He should now, having briefly adverted to these few facts, proceed to direct the attention of the House to the question really before them, and he should begin with that most absurd argument which rested upon the alleged countenance given to military punishments by the sentences of courts of law. Why, what comparison was there between the tremendous cat, with he knew not how many tails, and the petty fogging sentences of courts of justice, with their twelve or thirteen stripes; one lash inflicted on the soldier was worse than a whole dozen from the arm of the civil power. Let it not be supposed, that he sought to soften in the least the character of corporal punishment, even as inflicted by courts of law—quite the contrary; but he had been long enough in that House to recollect the warm praises bestowed upon punishments, then forming part of our criminal code, which had since been repealed. But now they were called atrocious though they were laudable then. He wished, therefore, to guard hon. Members from being carried away by vague and general phrases, for he hoped the day was not distant when the punishments now declared to be necessary and advantageous, and now so strenuously defended, would be denounced like the abolished portions of our criminal code as atrocious. Even now he hoped and believed, that no man with the common feelings of humanity could avoid feeling a chill at his heart when he heard of such a thing as 1,000 lashes given to one human being. No man could help feeling a chill of horror when he reflected upon such a brutal act as such treatment of the men whom he recognized as the defenders of our lives, liberties, and properties. Much importance, as it appeared to him most unduly, had been attached to the peculiar elements of which the British army was composed. What! were they sepoys, or Bengalees, or French, or Prussians—wherein did the difference consist? If any. it was in favour of the British soldiery; being, as they were, chiefly selected from amongst the agricultural labourers, whose lives were supposed to be, generally speaking, the most virtuous class of the community. For forty years of his life he had had opportunities of witnessing the effects of corporal punishment upon the mind of a soldier, and the result was, a conviction that nothing more calculated to degrade and break the spirit could be devised. It had this effect, not only on the individual punished, but on his comrades who witnessed his sufferings, and the officers who had to see it carried into execution. Nothing, he felt convinced, more disgusted an officer with his duties than the necessity they imposed upon him of carrying into effect the sentence of a Court-martial for corporal punishment; and if with no other view than to relieve that class of such an irksome duty, he would be inclined to support the motion. The learned Judge Advocate said, that although he was desirous of seeing the practice of flogging discontinued, he felt it necessary to keep the power. So did every man who used power badly. This was, however, just the kind of discretion against which he (Mr. Hume) had ever, and ever would raise his voice. To whom was the discretion confided? Why to boys of seventeen, or even under, who, for the most part, were found to concur in what they knew to be the wishes of their seniors. Would the British army, under the present system, be ever likely to fall into the ranks of citizens? Certainly not. While it continued, none but the very refuse of the land would look to the army as a profession. Supposing, by a rule of the House, Members of Parliament were placed in the situation of private soldiers, and exposed to corporal punishment for any act of insubordination or mutiny—such, for instance, as not voting with the Treasury Bench—would there be so much respectability and talent to be found entering either House? Undoubtedly not. And why should it be different in the case of the military profession? It was admitted, that the system of rewards had not been sufficiently tried in the British army, and certainly never was admission better founded. In the British army there was no prospect of advancement for the meritorious and well-conducted soldier. What was the strongest inducement with every man to enter into a profession? Was it not the prospect of advancing himself to an honourable situation in society? Was this inducement held out to the British soldier? No; he alone was, by the present constitution of the military regulations, placed without the pale of civilization. What was the principal use of the army in England? Why was it kept up? To support a certain aristocratic party solely. [No, no!] Hon. Gentlemen and noble Lords might cry "No, no!" but they would not alter his opinion, nor the opinion of the country. Was the hope of promotion, or the chance of obtaining rank, held out to a soldier on entering the British army? Never. There had been during the war one or two instances of a private soldier being elevated to command, but the circumstance was of most rare occurrence, and in these days was seldom or never heard of. It was said, that the army of England was not to be judged of by that of France; and the system of conscription was given as a reason why corporal punishments had been dispensed with in the latter. But was that the true cause why the French soldiers could be more trusted than the English? No. The true cause was to be found in the great chance of advancement and promotion to rank held out as rewards for good conduct. There a man might rise from the ranks to the highest military honours. In the army of Napoleon every marshal had been raised from the ranks. Was this the case in England? Out of the existing 390 English generals, how many had been raised from the ranks? Not one. It was his conviction that until the whole principles on which the army regulations were framed were altered, the British soldier would never be effectively raised from his present degraded situation. The soldier in the ranks must have a stimulus given him, by having a large portion of the commissions thrown open to him. This would at once induce persons in the rank of gentlemen to enlist in the hopes of rising. At present it was a bitter reflection upon the state of the army that, with a redundant population, such as existed in England, such difficulty in recruiting it should be experienced. All that the higher military authorities who were examined before the Committee had suggested, in the way of incitement to good behaviour in soldiers, were honorary rewards. Honorary rewards, medals, strips of white upon the collar and sleeves. Good God, what did these men expect? Did they think that such idle subterfuges as these would conceal their secret indisposition to permit the soldier to share in the honours and emoluments of his profession. Away with such idle, such shameful trifling! Why should men in the ranks be supposed to be exempt from those feelings of ambition and interest which actuated the commissioned officers? Why should mere honorary rewards be held out to them whilst their officers still retained the profit and real honour? He must contend that the report, instead of taking a bold and Statesmanlike view of the subject—instead of holding out to the House the prospect of inspiring the army with generous feelings, and instead of pointing out the way in which this might be effected, the Commissioners had confined themselves to the narrowest ground, and by this defect they had most signally failed in effecting the object for which they were nominated. He, therefore, called upon the House to reflect that whatever they did that night in the matter, ought to be justified to the army, for the people had their observation directed to their proceedings; and he could not conclude his remarks without recalling to the recollection of the House the strenuous opposition which was formerly offered to the abolition of the punishment of death, which was then going on at the rate of from sixteen to twenty a month, and which, it was said, would, if not persevered in, render life and property alike unsafe. Had such a result followed? By no means; and he confidently looked forward to the time when death should be inflicted in none but extreme cases. So in the army, he looked forward as confidently to the time when the soldier in the ranks should be treated with that justice and humanity which, to the disgrace of the Legislature, had been so long denied him.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

explained: That the hon. Member for Middlesex, when he professed to correct him, had been referring to a totally different document from that which he (Mr. Fergusson) had used; his statements were therefore not misstatements though they were not the statements of the hon. Member.

Viscount Howick

had expected that the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, would have attempted to meet the real difficulties of this important question; for in his evidence before the Commissioners, the hon. Member had shewn that he was not ignorant of what those difficulties really were. But he had listened in vain throughout the whole speech of the hon. Member for any attempt to deal with them or any argument in support of the motion which the House had under its consideration. The only ground which the hon. Member had laid for his vote appeared to him, to be the opinion he had expressed, that by holding out a better prospect of reward for good conduct, and particularly by opening wider the door to promotion, you might do away with the necessity of corporal punishment altogether. That was the real drift of all the hon. Member's numerous observations. On that point he could not agree with the hon. Member. He certainly admitted, that the influence of rewards in our service had not yet been sufficiently tried, and that much good would result from offering additional and stronger inducements to good conduct. But though he entertained this opinion, he could not with the hon. Member form such high expectations of the successful issue of this experiment as to suppose that it would enable them to dispense altogether with corporal punishment. When the hon. Member said, that it was merely corporal punishments and the absence of reward which deterred men of a superior class of life from entering into the army, he had failed to adduce one tittle of evidence to support this position. He believed, that when it was the practice in the army to use the lash as a punishment for what might be called faults of discipline, which even the best men might sometimes be led to commit, it might be possible that the dread of the lash would deter men of high spirit and excellent qualities from entering the service. But that system was now altered. By the existing practice of the army, the punishment of flogging was never inflicted on a soldier except for the commission of very grave and serious offences, and to him it appeared very strange that the hon. Member should assert that the power of awarding this punishment, when it was deserved was a principal cause why men of a superior class would not enlist in our army. The man of a superior rank in life, according to the theory of the hon. Member, would reason thus with himself,—"I can stand the punishment of transportation, if I should unfortunately commit an atrocious offence; I can stand the boulet; I can stand being shot: but I cannot make up my mind to submit to 200 lashes." He thought the hon. Gentleman could not be serious in propounding this proposition, and he was certainly drawing too largely on the credulity of the House if he intended to say that any man entered the army calculating on committing a grave offence, and speculating on the punishments of the Prussian and French armies, and on the punishment which he was likely to incur in our own for the commission of an offence. But the hon. Gentleman went on to argue thus:—"You have nominally limited the practice of corporal punishment, but not in point of fact, because you make insubordination still liable to that kind of punishment, and the word insubordination is so wide as to take in a very great number of offences." That was very true; but the hon. Member knew that it was impossible for language exactly to define cases of insubordination which could not be passed over. The same act, under different circumstances, would take an entirely different character. If a man were to refuse to obey the order of his superior officer when on parade, it would be an act of insubordination, but still it might not call for severe punishment; but if the same man were to refuse to obey the order of the same officer when in the field, in presence of the enemy, it might be a most grave offence, because it might risk the fate of a whole army. It was impossible, therefore, to define precisely what act of insubordination was dangerous and what was not. But it was now universally known to every officer in the army, that corporal punishment was not allowed, except for really grave and serious offences, and there was the clearest proof that this punishment had not been improperly used, or in a manner not strictly in conformity with the pledge given to the House. His right hon. Friend had shewn, by a comparison of the number of instances in which corporal punishment was administered some years back, and the number of cases in which it was at present inflicted, that, eight years ago, the number of corporal punishments had actually exceeded all the other punishments put together, but under the system which had followed the general order issued by Lord Hill, the number was now reduced to between one-ninth and one-tenth of the whole. This circumstance, then, afforded the clearest and most decisive proof that the general order of the Commander-in-chief, however the hon. Gentleman might complain of the vagueness of the words in which it was drawn up, had this good and satisfactory result—that it had practically restricted the application of corporal punishment to those cases in which it seemed impossible to dispense with it. He said, then, that the power of inflicting corporal punishment being thus restricted to extreme cases, it was impossible to believe that its being so possessed by commanding officers, could have the effect of excluding men of a superior class of life from entering the service. With respect to what had fallen from the hon. Member on the subject of additional rewards, and particularly promotion, as incentives to good conduct, to which he would next refer, he could assure the hon. Member and the House that the attention of the Govern- ment should be directed to that subject, and whatever could be done to increase the rewards, and apply them to the encouragement of the soldiers, should be effected. But while he said this, he was not one of those who believed that in time of peace promotion from the ranks could be used to any great extent as a reward, or have the effect which was expected from it. [Cheers.] He noticed that cheer, but there were two good reasons for doubting the great value of the recommendation in times of peace. The House should be aware that during the war there were a considerable number of promotions from the ranks. But in peace, what opportunity had the private soldier of acquiring distinction? He might, indeed, exhibit a steady, attentive, and orderly deportment, but after a steady service of fifteen or twenty years, would it be a good reward to that man to make him an ensign? [Yes.] He entirely approved of the principle of making such men officers when it was possible, but in time of peace it was next to impossible, as opportunities of obtaining distinction could not arise, and to make such men junior officers after a long period of meritorious service, leaving them at the age which they must have, by that time, attained to begin the slow career of promotion with young officers who were not raised from the ranks, when even to these the prospect of advancement is so remote, was little better than a mockery, and it could hardly be said to bear the name or the shadow of a reward. The number of commissions given without purchase in the whole British army, during the last twelve months, was only seventy-five. Now, if these were all the commissions which had been granted in an army consisting of 100,000 men, he would put it to the hon. Member, who was so distinguished for his arithmetical knowledge, whether a private soldier's chance of obtaining a commission was much better than his prospect of obtaining the 20,000l. prize in the lottery. To say, therefore, that the distribution of so small a number of commissions would have the effect of inducing men of better character to enter the army, and of abolishing the necessity for having recourse to the lash, showed that the hon. Member was labouring under a mere delusion. Suppose, however, that in time of peace we were to hold out to a private this very remote prospect of a commission as a reward for meritorious conduct? When would he become an ensign? At twenty-six or twenty-seven years of age? No: but after seventeen or eighteen years service, which was the period in the French army, during peace, required to enable a soldier to become an officer. But at that age he would begin at the bottom of the list of officers in the profession, for the hon. Member did not state that he would confine promotions to men taken from the ranks, and the hon. Member did not, he believed, intend to prevent the purchase of commissions. Such a man would, therefore, be at a great disadvantage in the race for promotion, and the advancement would be so very trifling that it would hardly be looked upon as a reward. The real advantages then of such a scheme must be so small that they could not be considered as a great inducement for men of a better description to enter the army. In time of war he granted the case was different, since by the rapid thinning the ranks of the army, when so many officers must necessarily fall a sacrifice, as in the time of Napoleon, and there were greater opportunities of acquiring distinction, occasions more frequently offered to promote men of merit from the ranks. But even supposing you extended promotion in time of peace to a considerable degree, that would not do away with the necessity for corporal punishment. The hon. Member seemed to forget in that House, though he did not in his evidence before the Commissioners, that the hope of reward and the fear of punishment were addressed to very different classes of men. There must be found in any considerable number of men a great many persons who could have no hope whatever of promotion, upon whose conduct little effect would be produced by merely shewing them that it was their interest to behave well. The hon. Member must have a very deficient knowledge of human nature if he had not yet learned that men acted too often from the mere impulse of their passions, and if he supposed that it was sufficient to tell them they should be rewarded to induce them to do well. In the highest ranks as in the lowest, the force of reason was of feeble influence when it came into conflict with the passions, and in all situations in life, men were daily to be found acting with the most reckless disregard to their own real and obvious interest. He would say, therefore, that even if the hon. Mem- ber could effect all the improvement he supposes possible in the composition of our army, that you would still find it absolutely necessary not only to hold out rewards as an incentive to the well-disposed and orderly soldier, but also to have sharp and stern means of controlling those who were of a different character. This, indeed, was a proposition so plain and self-evident, that it did not admit of the smallest doubt; and now he had to ask, if the means of control over the bad characters in the army were to be placed at the disposal of their officers, what was the punishment to be inflicted, for this was the real question which the House had to decide? A good deal had been said of the suffering and pain of the punishment of flogging. Why were not suffering and pain essential to the nature of all punishment? They who were desirous of abolishing the punishment of flogging were bound to show, if they could, not merely that it was painful and degrading, but that, with a less amount of pain and suffering, they could as effectually control the crimes for which flogging was at present inflicted. The efficacy of the punishment in repressing crime had not been denied, and this was a strong argument in its favour. The hon. Member for Barnstaple had moved for returns to show how often corporal punishments had been inflicted during the last five years, and the number of soldiers who had been imprisoned for military offences. He did not know whether hon. Members had looked into those returns, but it appeared to him that the result was somewhat curious. The number of soldiers who had been flogged for the last five years amounted to 1,227; those who had been flogged twice during that time were 172 in number, and the number of cases in which a soldier had been flogged a third time was thirty-two. The number of persons committed to prison within the same period was 6,571, and of these 1,790 had been imprisoned a second time, and 673 a third time. On comparing these returns the difference appeared to be this—that those who were flogged a second time bore a proportion of somewhat less than one-seventh of the number of those who had been once flogged, while the recommittals to prison were in the ratio of 1 in 3½, and the number of men who had suffered the punishment of flogging a third time was as one to forty out of the whole number, but those who had been a third time in prison were as one to ten. That statement shewed, he thought, not that this mode of punishment had the effect of reclaiming men—because when a man was thoroughly tainted, no means of punishment yet devised—not even the most improved system of secondary punishment adopted in some of the states of America was, he believed, very often sufficient to reclaim him—but it shewed, that the existing system of corporal punishment produced a very considerable effect in deterring men who. had endured it from the commission of similar offences. Knowing then that this punishment was effective, were hon. Members on the other side prepared to say, what substitutes they proposed to introduce? Discharge from the army, by the general acknowledgement of the House, would not answer. If discharge were a punishment he should at once agree with hon. Members, that no other would be required. The moment any situation in life became an object of desire, then certainly the power of discharge enabled the employers to dispense with any other punishment. It was so in the Metropolitan police. He believed that the discipline of that body was most admirable; but it was maintained by and rested upon this circumstance—that dismissal from that force was a severe punishment. It appeared by the evidence of the Commissioners, that even in the last year, when the number of dismissals, from the greatly improved condition of the force, had been greatly diminished, out of a body of between 3,000 and 4,000 men, the dismissals for misconduct had exceeded 400. Some hon. Members had suggested, in their evidence before the Commissioners, the formation of penal companies. His opinion was, that any attempt of that kind must be nugatory. Hon. Members, he must suppose, since they gave their evidence before the Commission, have had the opportunity of reading the evidence also given by the French officers who were examined by that Commission; and likewise of reading the Report of the Minister of War in France, with respect to the French army, in the years 1832 and 1833. From the very detailed Reports of Marshal Soult, and of the Minister who succeeded him, it appeared that the institution of penal companies in France had proved a most decided failure; and that in the opinion of all the most eminent military men, that kind of punishment had not answered. Then hon. Members recommended solitary imprisonment. If hon. Members would read the evidence, perhaps the most instructive evidence on this subject given before the Commission—if they would read the evidence of the reverend Mr. Stuart, the clergyman of Aberdeen, they would see that this punishment had a different effect on the minds of different men, and that imprisonment and solitary confinement were not quite the panacea which hon. Members seemed to think they were, and that sometimes this punishment, which was meant in mercy, had a very different effect. They would see that solitary confinement, by way of punishment, was, not unfrequently, either nugatory, or so severe that human nature could not bear it. The punishment had sometimes no effect whatever, but, acting on a mind and temper of a very different constitution, it destroyed both mind and body, and to substitute that in the place of corporal punishment, instead of mercy, was the grossest cruelty that could be inflicted. The hon. Member did not remember, that, even in those cases in which solitary imprisonment might have a great effect upon the minds of the individuals upon whom it was inflicted, it yet failed to answer one of the main objects of punishment, by operating powerfully as an example on the minds of others. The soldier who was sentenced to solitary confinement for a term, was indeed marched off the parade in the sight of his fellow soldiers, and it might produce for the time an impression, but that impression was easily effaced from their minds, and it was found necessary in the French army to adopt some mode of punishment which would have a more direct effect, and appeal more forcibly to the senses. Accordingly, instead of solitary imprisonment, for all aggravated cases there were three classes of punishment—travaux forcés, the boulet, and the gallies. He hoped that hon. Members who intended to vote for the abolition of corporal punishment in the British army had not made up their minds to that course without fixing upon some efficient substitute. Now, what was the nature of the punishment of the boulet? Soldiers were never condemned to this punishment for a shorter period than five years, and sometimes it was given for as many as ten years; they had to work ten hours a-day in summer, and something less in winter, and that exposed to the public gaze in a convict dress. Call flogging a degradation! Why the boulet was ten times more degrading, not merely from the sense of shame and humiliation felt at the moment, but because it was calculated to deteriorate the feelings of the man, concentrating in one spot all the bad characters in the army, and collecting, as it were in one focus, all that was infectious in morals and degrading to humanity. The suffering consequent upon the punishment of the boulet was then, on the whole, greater than that of flogging; the degradation was infinitely greater, and the effect it produced on others was less. This was proved by the fact that it had been found necessary to sentence not less than 400 to this punishment in one year. But even supposing that the punishments in the two armies were equally numerous, he need scarcely remind the House of what indeed every Gentleman was aware, that the French army consisted principally of conscripts. By far the larger part of the army was levied by conscription, but a portion was composed of remplacans or substitutes, and it was much easier to keep an army so composed in order, than an army composed like ours. Now, this fact was an answer to the argument of the hon. Member for Middlesex, for even in such an army as the French, where there was not any hinderance to promotion, which had been spoken of as a sufficient substitute for the punishment of flogging, it was acknowledged that punishment, and that of a very severe kind, was necessary to preserve discipline. In the face of that fact, however, it was proposed to us at once to do away with that punishment which had hitherto preserved the discipline of our troops, without a suggestion of any proper and sufficient substitute for it. But if hon. Members would look more closely into the evidence, they would find that corporal punishment was not unknown in the French army. He knew that it was prohibited by the law, but if they would turn to the evidence they would find what kind of obedience was paid to it, and that, in spite of the composition of the French army, and in spite of the law, corporal punishment did exist. The privates themselves inflicted it on those who deserved it, and the punishment of the Savatte or wooden shoe, while it was an efficient means of restraining disorders was sometimes so severely applied that the victim was laid up in the hospital. When a whole company was put under restraint in consequence of the offences of one man, the soldiers revenged themselves on the individual on whose account they were made to suffer, by striking him with a shoe or slipper, and with such severity was the punishment inflicted that the man was obliged to be sent to the hospital. Moreover, it was known, that in our own army, in spite of the measures taken by the Commander-in-chief to prevent it, what were called company Courts-martial existed, and the flogging which was inflicted in pursuance of the sentence given, with the sling of the musket, not uncommonly exceeded in severity the punishment which would have been administered by the orders of a regular Court-martial. If, then, you put an end at once to corporal punishment by regular Courts-martial, he would ask whether you would not drive soldiers and privates in their own defence (for it was not merely the officers, but the soldiers, and especially the good soldiers, who suffered by the bad conduct of their comrades, and were anxious for the punishment of offenders)—would you not drive the private soldiers in their own defence, if anything like tolerable comfort was to be preserved, to take the matter into their own hands, and thus, in place of a recognized and lawful tribunal, you would set up an unrecognized and irresponsible authority, difficult to control and check? It was mentioned by Mr. Stuart in his evidence that the soldiers themselves felt the evils of this irresponsible authority. "It must, indeed, be a bad thing, (was the remark) when a punishment is inflicted, not according to the sober dictates of judgment and reason, but according to the impulse of blind and furious passion." He would next call the attention of the House to a remarkable fact, which showed the contradictory opinions expressed by some hon. Members. Of all the gentlemen examined before the Commission only two had expressed an opinion in favour of the abolition of the punishment of flogging to the extent to which the present motion went. That the hon. Member for Middlesex should take this course surprised him. One of the statements made by that hon. Member before that Commission had already been brought under the notice of the House, but as the hon. Member had not given, in the course of his speech, any explanation of that statement, nor denied its accuracy, he would take the liberty of reading it again to the House. The hon. Member for Middlesex, in answer to the following query—"You are understood to say that upon service, you still would not do away with the use of the lash?" said, "In emergencies, where men openly plunder, or violate the rules laid down, and where order must be maintained, I do not see that there are any other immediate means of checking them. I do not pretend, therefore, to say that I would do away with the power in such cases, but like the offence of stealing, the punishment, though disgraceful, would, I think, meet the approbation of the army, if thus justly administered. It must be well known to military men that the success of any enterprise in the field depends upon the following it up; and if men will disobey orders, and have recourse to plunder, success may be by that means turned to defeat, and there must be, I apprehend, the means of repressing it on the instant." He entirely concurred with the hon. Member in that statement, for this was precisely his argument. But let the hon. Member give a distinct answer to this question—how could he, holding such an opinion, bring himself to vote for the sudden and entire abolition of flogging? How could the hon. Member for Surrey, too, or any of those hon. Members who had been examined before the Commission—with the exception of the hon. Member for Hull and the gallant Officer by whom the present question had been brought on,—how could they, in the face of their own recorded opinions, give their support to a proposition for the entire and sweeping abolition of corporal punishment in the army? If they admitted that corporal punishment must be continued in time of service, they admitted all he desired them to admit—they admitted that it must remain a mode of punishment by law; for he drew the greatest possible distinction between the power of inflicting corporal punishment and its actual infliction. But if by law flogging were abolished in peace on service in England, it never could be maintained in time of war abroad. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster indeed thought otherwise, but had met, not by any argument whatever, but only by a contemptuous assertion, that it was groundless, the opi- nion that if the punishment were to be by law abolished at home, it would be practically impossible to have recourse to it on service abroad. He wished that the hon. and gallant Member had adduced some reasons, instead of mere positive contradiction, against an opinion which did not seem to deserve to be thus summarily disposed of. As to active service, the gallant Officer, being on the point of taking the command of a body of men in Spain, seemed to have felt that he could not venture to condemn the use of corporal punishment, and from the statement made to the House that night, it appeared that he had practically most completely recognized its necessity. He thought, that considering the well-known anxiety of the gallant Officer to dispense with the use of the lash, his experience afforded the strongest proof that it could not be safely abolished, for though he certainly was on active service, yet it did not appear that when engaged in disciplining and organizing his legion at Bilboa or Vittoria, with no enemy immediately in presence, his situation was in reality different from what it would have been, had he been training a newly-raised regiment at Plymouth or at Cork, and the same means of restraining bad conduct seemed likely to be required in both cases. He felt this subject to be one of such paramount importance, that he could hardly look upon it with calmness, and it was his opinion that if the House rashly agreed to the motion of the hon. Member for Barnstaple, it would be for the benefit of the country to follow up that vote by passing a Bill for the disbanding of the army. The experiment which it was proposed to make appeared to him one of fearful danger, and he trusted the House would weigh well the consequences of its decision. It was confirmatory of his view that, among all the experienced officers examined before the Commission, with, as he had before observed, the exception of two, (Colonel Thompson and Major Fancourt) a unanimous opinion prevailed as to the necessity of maintaining corporal punishment to a greater or less extent. There were, indeed, some other officers whose opinions had been quoted, but he denied that they made against him in reality. Sir J. Wood ford's evidence had been relied on by those who were favourable to the abolition of flogging, but that officer's opinion only went to this extent—that he would not inflict corporal punishment upon home service for military offences committed under ordinary circumstances. No more would he (Lord Howick), and there was no difference between what he and what Sir J. Woodford proposed, except that Sir J. Woodford drew out a plan, not for the abolition of corporal punishment, but for securing its more speedy and summary execution. Another authority that had been cited was Sir O. Carey, but he thought hon. Members ought not too hastily to adopt it as bearing out the present motion. He would read to the House one or two answers given by Sir Octavius Carey to questions put to him. That gentleman had commanded the 57th regiment from the year 1818 to the year 1828; and being asked whether, during the time he commanded the 57th regiment, he endeavoured to obviate the necessity of corporal punishment? he replied, "Yes, I did. I gave a good deal of attention to that, and succeeded in obviating it in a great measure, but not entirely; because there were a few instances in which there was punishment. I made a point to persuade the men as far as possible that I would not punish. The men always knew that I had the power of punishment; but the general principle on which I endeavoured to maintain discipline was, as much as possible to persuade them that I would not punish—that I did not like the punishment." Such was the feeling, he (Lord Howick) believed, of every officer in the British army. As, however, a great deal of weight had been attached to Sir Octavius Carey's opinion in favour of the abolition of corporal punishment, he begged to call the attention of the House to a statement of the number of Courts-martial held in the 57th Regiment for four months, while under the command of that officer. The statement did not apply to the time when the gallant officer first assumed the command, and when it might be supposed that rigour and severity were found necessary to remove the effects of previous want of discipline, but to a period when nearly half the term during which he commanded the 57th had expired. The noble Lord read the following return of the amount of corporal punishment inflicted on the soldiers of the 57th regiment, from November 1822, to March 1823:—

Date. Sentence. Inflicted.
November 2, 1822 300 lashes … 300
November 8, 1822 300 … 300
November 28, 1822 300 … 250
November 30, 1822 300 … 300
December 2, 1822 300 … 300
December 20, 1822 300 … 300
January 28, 1823 600 … none.
January 28,1823 800 … 800
February 12, 300 … 300
In the same month two more Courts-martial; sentence in each case 300 … 300
March 1, 300 … 300
Thus it would be seen that, during those months, no less than eleven sentences were carried into execution and the amount of punishment ordered to be inflicted by the different Courts-martial, and actually inflicted under the immediate orders of an officer who described himself as so averse to it, greatly exceeded what the Government proposed as the maximum of corporal punishment in future. Sir Octavius Carey was a gentleman whose evidence for the abolition of corporal punishment had been greatly relied on: but it was often said, that practice was better than precept, and Sir Octavius Carey's practice was certainly not in favour of that which he recommended. It had been observed, however, that until a very recent period, too great a number of lashes used to be inflicted at one time in the army. He concurred in that statement, and he believed, that there never was a greater mistake than to multiply as was formerly the practice, the number of lashes. He believed, that if this subject had been properly dealt with some years ago, the feeling which now prevailed in the country with regard to it would never have existed. But because great mistakes had been heretofore committed in one way, let not the House now plunge into errors of an opposite description, and with regard to a subject of such great importance as the present, legislate merely on the impulse of feeling, without considering the probable practical consequences of the proceeding which had that night been recommended. He agreed with his noble Friend opposite in thinking, that if the punishment of flogging was to be abolished, the only mode of getting rid of it was by letting it drop gradually into disuse, and thus practically getting rid of it before it should be formally prohibited by law. He was most anxious that, while the power should be continued, every effort should be made to diminish the necessity of exercising it and he should rejoice if the practice of which they so much complained should gradually disappear. The hon. Member for Middlesex had manfully declared it to be false that there was any readiness on the part of the British officer to inflict corporal punishment. He said truly, that the officers were always reluctant to have recourse to it, and that there was nothing but necessity, in the very last extremities, which could drive them to it. The only safe mode then was, to leave the power in the hands of those who now exercised it, instructing them to diminish the use of it, until the practice went out of itself; hon. Members must remember, that there was a great difference between the practice and the power—the power to do a thing was often the most effectual when it was never used at all. Let him refer hon. Members to what took place under the Duke of Wellington in Spain. At the commencement of the campaign the punishment was inflicted to a considerable extent; but, by the use of it, the army was brought to such a state of discipline that, towards the close of the Peninsular campaigns, the use of it was scarcely necessary—the knowledge that it existed was almost enough to render its application unnecessary. But let it not be said, because it was not used, it was not wanted. Take away the power of using it, and you break the main-spring of the machine. He must, on the whole, give a decided resistance to the motion, and he believed the House would approve of his view. It was a subject of great difficulty; it was one on which every effort had been made to create a feeling, by appealing to passion rather than to reason; but in spite of all such efforts, he believed the House would exercise its cool and dispassionate judgment. He could not but complain of one observation of the hon. Member for Middlesex. The hon. Member had spoken of the motives of the Ministry; what motives could they have in opposing this motion? Was he not aware that, as a party, if they consulted their own interest, they would have the strongest reason for endeavouring to get rid of the punishment altogether? So much, indeed, was this the case, that nothing but an overwhelming sense of the danger arising from its removal could prevent them from effecting it, Let hon. Gentle- men, however, give to the subject that dispassionate judgment which it required, and he could have no apprehension of the result.

Mr. Robinson

Sir, I apprehend that a vote of this House, abolishing military flogging in time of peace, would not necessarily imply the propriety of its abolition before the enemy in time of war. Let us then examine whether by voting for the resolution of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple, as intend to do, we are committed in respect to the necessity for taking away the power of inflicting that punishment in time of war. I admit that, looking at the words of the resolution itself, it would appear that that power is to be taken away both during war and peace; but every body knows that if the majority of this House declare their disapprobation of military flogging, by carrying the resolution of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple, it must necessarily lead to an alteration in the Mutiny Act; and then we shall have an opportunity, in considering the terms of that alteration, for deciding whether or not it is fit and proper that the power of military flogging should be preserved in time of war. Therefore, Sir, I am prepared to vote, notwithstanding all that has been said against the motion, and I admit that much has been said, coming as it did from professional Gentlemen, who are better qualified for giving an opinion upon the subject than I can be, which was entitled to great attention. I am prepared, I say, to vote in favour of this resolution; for I cannot conceive where that danger is to be apprehended about which we have heard so much, from affirming, by a vote of this House, the propriety of the abolition of military flogging in time of war. The noble Lord, the Secretary at War, who has spoken as he always does with great ability, and has adduced every argument that can possibly be brought forward in support of the present system,—that noble Lord has given us no reason to hope that if this resolution be rejected he contemplates the abolition of military flogging in this country. He has frankly and freely avowed that the only hope he can hold out is, that by adopting a better system of rewards, (which I do believe the Government, and every officer in the army are as anxious as any Member of this House to introduce) we may, perhaps, in time be able to do without this punishment. But, Sir, I do believe that this country is decided in its opinion upon this question; and that it is incumbent upon Parliament in time of peace, when I for one cannot see any possibility of danger resulting from such an experiment. I think Parliament is called upon to express its opinion upon this subject by affirming the resolution of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple. It may be said, I know, that by affirming that resolution we shall abolish this species of military punishment, and we shall not be able when it shall become necessary to have recourse to it again. Sir, this was one of the arguments used by the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, and I think I may apply to him in this instance the same observation which he applied to the hon. Member for Middlesex: viz., that he has brought forward an assertion without adducing any one argument in support of his proposition. Why shall we not be able to resort to this punishment again if necessary? Would not the very persons now voting for its abolition, from a sincere conviction that it may be dispensed with,—would not they concur with Government in re-enacting this kind of punishment in the Mutiny Act if it should afterwards be found necessary? Sir, I believe they would; I r one should feel bound to take that course. Sir, I will detain the House no longer, there being many Gentlemen anxious to rise who are better qualified than I am for delivering an opinion upon this subject; I only, in conclusion, wish to say:—my belief that corporal punishment may be dispensed with at home in time of peace, (for I go no farther than that,) is founded upon this conviction—that by a more improved system of recruiting, avoiding those desperate and abandoned characters that now find admission into the army, by a better system of rewards, and by holding out inducements to young men of good character to enter the army, (against whose entrance into the army let it be remembered the present degrading punishment forms the greatest barrier) I do believe, Sir, that the power of military flogging in time of peace may be removed; not only without prejudice to the discipline of the army, but to the great improvement of that gallant profession and with the greatest advantage to the country at large. I shall cordially support the motion of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple.

Major Beauclerk

said, the question of corporal punishment in the army had for a long time occupied a great deal of his attention; and he was now happy to find that it was no longer regarded in that House as a party question. His own conviction upon the subject was, that the abolition of the practice would not only be useful to the service, but would wipe away from the army that disgrace which at present prevented honourable and high spirited men from entering it. There was one expression in the evidence of the Duke of Wellington before the Commission, which had excited in his mind more astonishment than anything he had ever heard from the lips of any military man. When the noble Duke stated that flogging was not looked upon by the army as a disgrace, he made an assertion which it would be presumption in him (Major Beauclerk) to refute, because he was convinced that every man who had a particle of right feeling in his breast must be aware that such a mode of punishment could not be regarded by the army in any other light than that of a deep disgrace. To show the possibility of its abolition, he need only refer to the course adopted by a noble Lord, now a Member of that House, and who was distinguished alike for the excellent qualities of his heart and head—he alluded to that eminent nobleman who had ruled the native army of India without the lash, and governed the mighty empire of the East without shackling the press. If the practice could be safely abolished in barbarian India, what pretence could there possibly be for saying that there was a necessity for its continuance here? They must indeed alter their system, and hold out encouragements to enter the army. They would then find well-educated young men, men of respectable family, ready enough to enter it. He often witnessed in country towns and villages the horrors in which flogging was held. He was himself once assailed by a mob on account of flogging, and let those who doubted its effect, send a recruiting serjeant with a cat-o'-nine tails for his banner, and see how many recruits he would obtain.

Sir Henry Hardinge

, before he addressed a few observations to the House on the subject which at present engaged his attention, must express his disappointment that the hon. and gallant Member who had just sat down did not intend to vote with the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, because in the evidence given by the hon. and gallant Member before the Commissioners, he had distinctly stated he ever had maintained, and ever must maintain, that it would not be possible to dispense with the power of corporal punishment.

Major Beauclerk

begged to set the right hon. and gallant Member right. He had stated before the Commissioners that corporal punishment might be necessary in time of war, and he said so still.

Sir Henry Hardinge

did not pretend to quote the exact words of the hon. and gallant Member, because at the moment he had not them before him. On turning to the Report, however, he found that, in answer to question 782, the hon. and gallant Member had said, "I have never maintained that on service it could be done away with. I think it stands to reason that the officers must then have additional powers." He would appeal to the House, without wishing at all to take an unfair advantage of the hon. and gallant Member, whether it was possible for any man reading that sentence to come to any other conclusion than that which he had expressed? The hon. and gallant Officer had alluded to a noble Lord who had lately held a high military and civil station in India, and who had taken upon himself a step of the highest responsibility in the abolition of military punishments amongst the native troops in that country. If that noble Lord (Lord W. Bentinck) were then in his place, he was convinced, from what he had perused of the noble Lord's sentiments on this subject, he would agree with him and the hon. and gallant Member for Surrey, in asserting, that corporal punishments could not be done away with on service in the field. He repeated that, with the exception of the hon. and gallant Member for Barnstaple and the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, every Member on both sides of the House who had been examined before the Commissioners had given it as their opinion, that it was impossible to dispense with corporal punishments on service without endangering the efficiency of the army. Nothing could be more distinct than the evidence on this point of the hon. Member for Middlesex. Nothing could be more clear than the evidence of the noble Lord to whom allusion had so often been made in the course of the present debate (Lord W. Bentinck); in short, the evidence generally went to show, that to deprive a commanding officer of the power of inflicting corporal punishment would be to render it impossible to conduct an army on service with success. What was the opinion of an hon. and gallant Member of the House, not now in his place (Colonel Evans), on this point? That hon. and gallant Member had most distinctly stated before the Commissioners, his impression that the power could not be dispensed with. The evidence that gallant Officer had given was marked and characterized by great modesty and diffidence in the line he took, but it was the narrowest line that man ever took in dealing with a question of this kind. The hon. and gallant Member for Westminster said before the Commissioners, "I am for the abolition of corporal punishments at home, not because it is cruel and severe, but because it had not in practice had the effect which we expected, and because it tends to irritate the public mind, and on that ground ought not to be continued." But what said the hon. and gallant Officer when he got abroad? Why, that the power of inflicting corporal punishment was necessary abroad, and that, in his opinion, a Commander-in-chief of an army in the field ought to be a dictator. Me must say, that since the hon. and gallant Member had been abroad, he did not believe that any British force ever left the shores of this country in which corporal punishment had been carried to the extent which it had been in the army under the command of the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster.

Major Beauclerk

rose to order. As the hon. and gallant Member spoken of was not in his place, he appealed to the House whether it was fair to pursue the course now followed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman.

Sir Henry Hardinge

The hon. and gallant Gentleman had interrupted him prematurely, and should have allowed him to have concluded the sentence. He, however, would repeat, that the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster had carried corporal punishments to an extent never before known in any British force that ever left the shores of this country, and, when interrupted, he was going to add, that the peculiar circumstances of the corps under his command probably justified the course which that hon. and gallant Officer had pursued, for he (Sir H. Hardinge) found from the evidence of Colonel Dickson, who had lately returned from that service, and been examined before the Commissioners, that it was absolutely necessary to apply corporal punishment, in consequence of the men having been brought together in so sudden a manner, and without an ordinary time allowed for discipline. Another witness, who had also served under Colonel Evans, had informed the Commissioners that it had the effect of reclaiming and bringing to a sense of duty, some of the most desperate and incorrigible men in that force. If the hon. and gallant Member had been a little less impatient, he would have heard him declare that, if from the circumstances in which the hon. and gallant Member for Westminster was placed, he had come from the theory of abolition to the practice of very numerous inflictions, he thought the hon. and gallant Member was perfectly justified, and that no blame could attach to him. In this force it had been found necessary to have recourse to the Provost without the interference of a Court-martial. If, when the troops were drawn out, any men were found dirty, they were at once taken out of the ranks and flogged by the Provost. Such a power as this was never exercised by the Duke of Wellington; but the House ought to make allowance for the position of the hon. and gallant Officer, and consider the many circumstances which could be adduced to justify the course which he had; pursued. He would, however, honestly say, that in his experience he had never before known of such numerous floggings applied for offences which, in the British army, would have been punished by Court-martial, and not by the Provost. Many observations had been made on the evidence of another officer, Sir Octavius Carey, who commanded the 57th regiment. He would confess that he had never been more astonished than when he read the evidence of that gallant Officer. He would also confess, that to his comprehension it was perfectly unintelligible, and that he could not at all make out that gallant Officer's system of discipline. He thought, however, that he had some knowledge of the discipline of that regiment. Thirty years ago, he (Sir H. Hardinge) was a captain in the 57th regiment, and a few years afterwards, from the circumstance of his having gone abroad on the staff, but being still a captain in that regiment, he, of course, had opportunities of knowing the materials of which the regiment was composed. The regiment was recruited in the neighbourhood of London, and at a time when it was impossible to make a selection of men. It then being war time, Government was glad to get soldiers, and he would fairly state, that the men of this regiment, though they were physically well adapted to make good soldiers, were, in point of character, not what any officer would select to command. He saw this regiment going into action at the battle of Albuera, and never did he see men, under circumstances of such peril and danger, conduct themselves with more bravery or heroism. They, nevertheless, were so thoughtless, and so fond of plunder, as to require the frequent operations of the Provost-Martial, and so general and frequent were the punishments in that regiment, that in Portugal they went by, and were known under, the nick-name of the "steel-backs." The regiment went into action, and he would state what the result of the action was. The regiment had twenty-five officers. Of these, twenty-three were either killed or wounded; and of its complement of about 520 men, 387 were killed or wounded. Lord Beresford, in his despatch, giving a detail of the action, said, that it was observed that all the men, particularly the 57th regiment, fell in their ranks as they fought, and that every wound was in front. This was not a regiment of high moral character; but he would say, that if in the course of the campaign it had been necessary to undertake any difficult and serious enterprise, there was no regiment in which he would have felt greater confidence than the 57th regiment. Sir Octavius Carey commanded the regiment in 1824, for a period of three or four years and he stated in his evidence, that it was reported to the Adjutant-General to be in a most excellent condition. It was shortly afterwards sent out to New South Wales, and when it arrived there, the men in some instances self-mutilated themselves, or committed thefts, in order to be discharged. He should, therefore, infer from these circumstances, that the system of Sir Octavius Carey had failed most egregiously in the 57th regiment. By referring to this regiment, he did not wish it to be understood that he maintained, that irregular habits tended to render soldiers braver in the field. He had cited this case in reply to the observations of those who contended that corporal punishment must of necessity degrade the character of a man. He could cite many other instances to prove that corporal punishment was not attended by any such debasing effect. At the same time, though he desired to see corporal punishments practically abolished, he thought it would be unwise to deprive officers of the power of inflicting it. Now, with regard to the English army in Spain. In the year 1810, the Duke of Wellington found the army in a very disorganized state; several of the battalions were so ill-disciplined that the Duke of Wellington was obliged to make a report to the Adjutant-General upon the subject. [The hon. and gallant Member read extracts from his Grace's report, showing the disorganised state of the army at the period in question.] What measures did the Duke of Wellington take to reduce the army to a proper state of discipline? He had recourse to the Provost-Martial—he punished severely, and in a few instances death was inflicted. But what was the result of this system? The Duke of Wellington brought the army to that state of discipline which he described in his evidence before the Commissioners. His Grace said, "My army was in such a state of discipline, order, and regularity, when I crossed the Pyrenees, that I always thought I could have gone anywhere and done anything with that army. It was impossible to have a machine more highly mounted, or in better order, and in a better state of discipline, than that army was. When I quitted that army upon the Garonne, I do not think it possible to see anything in a higher state of discipline, and I believe there was a total discontinuance of all punishment." General Fane, who commanded two columns of cavalry, having in charge the materiel of the army, said, that the conduct of the troops gave such satisfaction, that even the French Government expressed its approbation of their conduct. If he was to go into any further details, he should refer to the evidence of Sir J. Woodford and other officers in the Foot-Guards; but he would not. It was his opinion that corporal punishments ought to be retained, to be held in terror over the bad—they were not requisite for the good. What said Lord Loughborough, a distinguished officer, who had long kept the regiment under his command in a high state of discipline, when asked if he had had any means of ascertaining whether there was any feeling in his regiment on the subject of the abolition of military punishment? The noble and gallant Lord's reply was, "that so far as he had ascertained it from his regimental sergeant-major, and the non-commissioned officers, and some of the old men, they were all against the abolition, because they all say 'a blackguard deserves it, and it can never affect us as long as we conduct ourselves well.'" The noble Lord also stated, that he had six men who had suffered corporal punishment at different times.—one as many as four times, who had been promoted. He added, that he had now one man who had been a corporal; he had been flogged three times, and was one of the best corporals in the regiment. He had other men, too, who had been flogged, and were now men of the greatest trust in the regiment. He mentioned these cases to show that corporal punishment did reclaim and reform men, and was as efficient as any punishment employed. The hon. and gallant Member also referred to the evidence of Colonel Ferguson on this point, to the same effect. From these circumstances he was led to the conclusion, that though, in a large proportion of cases, corporal punishment did harm, and that it did not reclaim numbers, yet that it had not an opposite tendency, and though he was not an advocate for its continuance, he thought to abolish it would be virtually to disband the army. The hon. Member for Chippenham had referred to his (Sir Henry Hardinge's) evidence with respect to the Prussian army. It was true, that in that army soldiers of the second class were liable to be punished by lashes, or blows with a cane, and this power was vested in the captains of companies. He, whilst Secretary at War, had inserted an article of war, declaring, that if any officer struck a soldier, he was liable to be brought to a Court-martial and cashiered. It was impossible for any two armies to be more distinct than the English and the Prussian armies in their constitution and materials, and it was totally impossible to institute any comparison between them. He should say the same of the French army. The English army was now in the highest state of discipline, and he thought that it would be the height of madness to alter a system which had been found so successful. The hon. Member for Middlesex had stated, that the rewards for the. army ought to be increased. He entirely concurred in that view, and in the opinion expressed by the noble Lord opposite (Lord Howick) to the same effect, and it had been his intention to increase them, and he believed it was known that the Government to which he had belonged, did establish the distribution of a certain number of medals in each battalion in the service among the non-commissioned officers and privates, thus carrying into effect, the very thing pointed at by Colonel Evans in his evidence, as being desirable, in order to enable a man retiring from the service to his parish to show it as a certificate of good conduct, and of the approbation of his superiors. But with regard to the plans suggested by the hon. Member for Middlesex, namely, the conferring commissions as a reward, he must have proved, before its adoption, that a description of men could be found to enter the service who were fitted for commissions, if they by their good conduct deserved it. This was important to be known before this species of reward ought to be attempted; for by the evidence of the reverend Mr. Stuart, of Aberdeen, it appeared that he, the chaplain, had conversed frequently with men on the subject of admitting men of their own rank as members of Courts-martial, and they seemed to have more confidence in their officers. Non-commissioned officers, they said, raised to commissions, generally were the most tyrannical and ill to please, and that the real gentleman was the best officer. He was of opinion, that the arguments of the noble Lord, the Secretary at War, and of the right hon. Gentleman, the Judge-Advocate, were conclusive as to the impossibility of having two systems of punishment—one for foreign, and the other, for home service. Those arguments had served to strengthen his own opinions on that point —a point upon which his mind had long been made up, as he had detailed in his evidence. There was only one point of the speech of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Howick) to which he felt it necessary to advert. The noble Lord had stated, that if six or seven years ago, the same care had been taken which had lately been bestowed upon this subject, the question would not now come before the House under such difficult circumstances. If the noble Lord meant to say, that this attention to the matter had only been commenced since the right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite had undertaken the Government of the country, from that he begged most entirely to dissent. He came into the office of Secretary at War in 1828, and in the year 1829, he revised the whole Mutiny Act as well as the Articles of War. He consolidated both, and in cases of punishment, the number of lashes was restricted, and the whole military code was altered and amended by him. If, therefore, blame was to be attached to previous Secretaries at War, it properly belonged to a noble Lord, now a Minister of the Crown, who was for eighteen or nineteen years Secretary at War, and whom he (Sir Henry Hardinge) succeeded in that office—Lord Palmerston. He did not mention this invidiously, for, on the contrary, he would say of the noble Lord, though differing from his present political sentiments, that he (Sir Henry Hardinge) had, on succeeding him in office, found there traces of many steps taken by the noble Lord towards the improvement of the service. In conclusion, he would merely state, that it appeared, from the evidence contained in the report of the Commissioners now on the Table, that by almost every officer examined, amounting in number to between seventy and eighty, the most unequivocal testimony was afforded of the necessity of maintaining corporal punishments. This view was supported by the reverend Mr. Stuart, Mr. Agar, and other civilians, who had been called before the Commissioners. If that were the fact, he would ask, how could any man in the face of such testimony come to the conclusion, that it was possible to do without it? He thought that it would be most unwise to alter the present system. It was very well known as a matter of history that the present military system had been the most successful one ever adopted. But he would ask this question, was England a military nation? He (Sir Henry Hardinge) would say, that it was not; that the feeling of the people was decidedly against keeping up a large military force; but, in spite of all these obstacles, he would say, that from the days of Wolfe in Canada, Clive in India, Abercrombie in Egypt, and Wellington in Spain and Portugal, the British army had carried with honour his Majesty's arms into every quarter of the globe—that in peace it had been subordinate to the civil power—and that, in short, in pliability to all the duties of an army, it had never been exceeded. If the British army really possessed these qualities, he would entreat the House not to be so impolitic—not to be so unwise—as to take steps to alter the existing system. He certainly should support the view taken by the noble Lord opposite, and whilst he thought it expedient to retain this power, he hoped that it would be used as seldom and as mercifully as possible.

Viscount Howick

, in explanation, said, he meant to cast no imputation on the previous Governments for not having sooner regarded this matter with a view to alteration; he fully admitted and appreciated the valuable efforts of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to improve the system in the army, nor could he forget that neither he nor his noble Friend could, as Secretaries at War, have interfered. He (Lord Howick) had alluded to the number of lashes formerly inflicted, and he thought that 800 lashes was a punishment which never ought to have been carried into effect.

Sir H. Hardinge

said, that in 1829 or 1830 there had been an alteration made by him in the military code to that effect.

Sir Edward Codrington

wished to correct an erroneous impression which might have been made by the statement of the hon. and gallant Member for Hull, that the mutiny at the Nore was to be attributed to the severity of flogging in the fleet. Such was not the case; for he (Sir E. Codrington) would venture to say, that the mutiny at the Nore arose from want of punishment. He had served on board the ship in which it first broke out, and had himself told a person in very high authority, that such would be the case unless the bad men were punished and the good men encouraged. The mutiny arose from the confinement consequent upon impressment and from the want of discipline being established by punishment.

Colonel Thomas

said, he had been in command of a regiment in India for eight years, and had been obliged to have recourse to punishments of unusual severity; but, in the course of two years there was less corporal punishment in his regiment than in that of any in the army. This showed that flogging might be done away with to a very great extent; but still the power must exist. He had substituted extraordinary drills from day light in the morning till sunset at night. These substitutions were so disliked, that some of the soldiers wished for flogging to be restored.

Sir Ronald Ferguson

said, that having been in the army upwards of forty years, he did not like to give a silent vote on this occasion. There was no man in that House or in the country who was more hostile to corporal punishment than he was, and he had always discouraged it as much as it was in his power. But when he was called upon to do away with corporal punishment altogether, and to put the army on an entirely new system, he owned that it was impossible for him to assent to the motion. Although he wished to pay every attention to the wishes of his constituents, yet, as a free agent, he felt bound to express his opinion on the subject. He had no hesitation in saying, that from his experience in the army, it was impossible to do without some system of corporal punishment. The less the better, but it must remain to a certain extent, that it might be used in cases of emergency. In this country discipline might be carried on without the use of the lash, but still some other punishment must be substituted for it. He believed, and it was admitted on all sides, that the expense of trying a change of system of imprisonment would be very trifling, but although much had long been promised, little or nothing had been done on the subject.

Dr. Baldwin

had before voted against military torture, and he should do so now, were he to follow the impulse of his feelings; but he had a public duty to discharge, and he felt that he should not be discharging that duty conscientiously were he now to vote for the immediate abolition of corporal punishment in spite of the opinion of so many high military authorities, that the abolition must be gradual.

Colonel Sibthorp

said, that he had had several years experience in the service, and therefore felt himself justified in expressing his opinion on the subject; and, above all, as his sentiments had been misrepresented. He contended that they must continue the practice of corporal punishment in the army, but he had not the least hesitation in saying, that except in cases of absolute necessity it ought not to be exercised. Some language had been put into his mouth on the subject, which was very different from any thing that he had uttered. He was happy to find that he was supported in the opinion which he entertained by several very distinguished officers, of much greater experience than himself.

The House divided on the original question, that the Speaker do leave the Chair.

Ayes 212; Noes 95:—Majority 117.

List of the AYES.
Adam, Admiral Archdall, M.
Alsager, Richard Ashley, Lord
Alston, R. Baillie, Col. H.
Andover, Lord Baldwin, Dr.
Angerstein, John Balfour, T.
Anson, G. Baring, F. T.
Anson, Sir George Baring, F.
Arbuthnot, Hon. H. Baring, W. B.
Baring, Thomas Gordon, Robert
Beckett, Sir J. Gordon, W.
Bell, Matthew Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H.
Bentinck, Lord G. Goulburn, Sergeant
Bentinck, Lord W. Graham, Sir J.
Beresford, Sir J. P. Greisley, Sir R.
Berkeley, Hon. F. Grey, Sir G.
Berkeley, Hon. C. Grimston, Viscount
Blackburne, John Grimston, Hon. E. H.
Blackstone, W. S. Hamilton, Lord C.
Bonham, F. R. Hanmer, Sir J., Bt.
Bradshaw, J. Harcourt, G.
Bramston, T. W. Hardinge, Sir H.
Bruce, C. L. C. Hay, Sir J., Bart.
Brudenell, Lord Hay, Sir A. L.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Henniker, Lord
Burdon, W. Herbert, Hon. Sidney
Burrell, Sir C. M., Bt. Herries, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Burton, Henry Hobhouse, Sir J. C.
Byng, George Hodges, T. L.
Byng, G. S. Hogg, James Weir
Calcraft, J. H. Hope, Hon. James
Campbell, Sir J. Hotham, Lord
Campbell, W. F. Howard, R.
Canning, Sir S. Howick, Lord
Cavendish, Hon G. H. Jermyn, Earl of
Chandos, Marq. of Inglis, Sir R. H., Bt.
Chaplin, Thos. Johnstone, Sir J.
Clerk, Sir G. Jones, Wilson
Clive, Hon. R. H. Jones, Theobald
Codrington, Sir E. Knight, H. G.
Colborne, N. W. R. Knightley, Sir C.
Coote, Sir C. C, Bt. Labouchere, H.
Corry, Hon. H. T. L. Lambton, Hedworth
Cowper, Hon. W. F. Langton, Wm. Gore
Crawford, W. Law, Hon. C.
Crompton, Samuel Lees, J. F.
Curteis, Edward B. Lefevre, Charles S.
Dalbiac, Sir C. Lennox, Lord G.
Dalmeney, Lord Lennox, Lord A.
Darner, D. Lewis, David
Darlington, Earl of Lincoln, Earl of
Dick, Quintin Long, Walter
Donkin, Sir R. S. Lowther, J.
Dugdale, W. S. Lygon, Hon. Col. H. B.
Dundas, Hon. J. C. Mackinnon, W. A.
Dundas, Hon. T. Mahon, Lord
Dundas, J. Mangles, J.
Dunlop, J. Manners, Lord C.
East, James Buller Marjoribanks, S.
Eastnor, Viscount Maule, Hon. F.
Eaton, Richard J. Methuen, P.
Egerton, Sir P. Morpeth, Lord
Elley, Sir J. Murray, Rt. Hon. J.
Fazakerley, N. Neeld, Joseph
Ferguson, Sir R. Nicholl, J.
Ferguson, R. C. Norreys, Lord
Finch, George O'Ferrall, R. M.
Fitzgibbon, Hon. B. Packe, C. W.
Fitzroy, Lord C. Paget, Frederick
Follett, Sir W. Webb Palmer, Robert
Forester, Hon. G. C. W. Parnell, Sir H.
Forster, Charles S. Patten, John Wilson
Fremantle, Sir T. W. Peel, Sir R., Bart.
Gladstone, Thos. Peel, Rt. Hon. W. Y.
Gladstone, W. E. Pelham, Hon. C.
Goodricke, Sir F. Pemberton, Thomas
Pigott, Robert Stuart, Lord J.
Pinney, W. Surrey, Lord
Polhill, Frederick Talbot, C. R M.
Pollock, Sir Fred. Tancred, H. W.
Powell, Colonel Thomas, Colonel
Poyntz, Wm. Stephen Thomson, C. P.
Praed, Winthrop M. Thompson, Paul B.
Price, S. G. Townley, R. G.
Ramsbottom, John Trevor, Hon. G. R.
Reid, Sir J. Rae Trowbridge, Sir E. T
Rice, Rt. Hon. T. S. Twiss, H.
Rickford, W. Vere, Sir C.
Robarts, Abraham W. Vesey, Hon. T.
Rolfe, Sir R. M. Vivian, J. H.
Ross, Charles Vivian, John Ennis
Rushbrooke, R. Vyvyan, Sir R. R.
Russell, Lord John Wall, Charles Baring
Sanderson, R. Welby, G. E.
Sandon, Lord Westenra, H. R.
Scarlett, Hon. R. Weyland, Richard
Scott, Sir E. D. Wilbraham, Hn. R.
Scrope, George P. Wilkins, W.
Seymour, Lord Williams, Robt.
Sharpe, General Wilson, Henry
Sibthorp, Col. Wodehouse, E.
Smith, J. A. Wood, C.
Somerset, Lord E. Wynn, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Somerset, Lord G. Yorke, E T.
Stanley, Lord Young, G. F.
Steuart, R;
Stewart, Sir M. S, Bt. TELLERS.
Stormont, Lord Stanley, E. J.
Stuart, Lord D. Smith, Robert V.
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Hawes, Benjamin
Ainsworth, P. Hawkins, J. H.
Attwood, T. Hector, C. J.
Bagshaw, John Hodges, T.
Baines, E. Holland, Edward
Barclay, David Horsman, E.
Barnard, E. G. Hughes, Hughes
Beauclerk, Major Hume, J.
Bish, Thomas Hutt, W.
Bowes, John Jervis, John
Bowring, Dr. Johnston, Andrew
Brodie, W. B. Kemp, T. R.
Brothenon, J. Leader, J. T.
Buckingham, J. S. Lennard, T. B.
Bulwer, H. L. Lushington, Dr. S.
Bulwer, Edw. G. E. L. Lushington, Charles
Butler, Hon. Col, Lynch, A. H.
Buxton, F. Macnamara, Major
Chichester, J. P. B. Marshall, William
Clay, W. Maxwell, John
Conyngham, Lord A. Molesworth, Sir W.
Divett, E. Morrison, J.
Duncombe, T. S. O'Brien, Cornelius
Elphinstone, H. O'Brien, W. S.
Etwall, Ralph O'Connell, Daniel
Evans, G. O'Connell, John
Ewart, W. O'Connell, Maurice
Ferguson, Robert O'Connell, Morgan
Gaskell, Daniel Pattison, James
Goring, Harry Dent Pease, J.
Grote, George Plumptre, John P.
Hastie, A. Poulter, J. S.
Rippon, Cuthbert Tooke, William
Robinson, G. Trelawney, Sir W.
Roche, W. Trevor, Hon. Arthur
Roebuck, John A. Tulk, C. A.
Rundle, John Villiers, Charles P.
Russell, Lord Wakley, T.
Sandford, E. A. Warburton, H.
Scholefield, Joshua Whalley, Sir S.
Sinclair, Sir G. Wigney, Isaac N.
Smith, Benjamin Wilks, John
Strickland, Sir G. Williams, W.
Strutt, E. Williams, Sir J.
Talfourd, Sergeant Wilmot, Sir J. E., Bt.
Tennent, J. E. Wood, Alderman
Thompson, Wm. TELLERS.
Thompson, Col. T.P. Fancourt, C. St. John
Thorneley, T. Boldero, Henry G.

The House went into Committee on the Bill, and resumed.