§ Mr. Hume, seeing the Secretary-at-War in his place, begged to ask him whether the statements which had appeared in the public papers were correct, that a soldier of the 11th Hussars had been flogged on Sunday, the 11th inst., and whether there were any regulations at the Horse-guards with respect to military punishments on that day?
§ Mr. Macaulayreplied, that, although the discipline of the army was not immediately connected with his department, yet, 957 as he might be supposed to be more connected with the army from the office which he held than other Members of her Majesty's Government, he had felt it to be his duty, in anticipation of any questions being put to him, to obtain such information as would enable him to give an answer. With respect to this case, the facts were not precisely as they had been stated in the public prints. It was not the case that the punishment had been inflicted on the soldier under such circumstances as if it were a continuance of divine service. It was not the case that the troops were kept in the place where divine worship was performed, for the purpose of seeing this punishment inflicted, nor was it the case that the soldiers of another regiment, which attended divine worship at the same place, were detained for this purpose. He was assured that the soldiers of the 11th regiment were marched out of the riding school, and the other regiment was marched to its quarters. The former regiment was then inspected for about half-an-hour, and then marched back to the riding-school, where the punishment was inflicted. On the ground of a want of humanity, he believed that no one could throw a charge on the officer commanding this regiment. As long as they retained corporal punishment for the preservation of the discipline of the army, the offence of which the soldier who underwent the punishment was guilty, was one for which it should be inflicted. Whatever other imputations there might be cast on Lord Cardigan, a disposition for the infliction of corporal punishment was not one which could justly be thrown on him. From inquiries which he had made, he had found that since 1839, up to the recent case, there was not an instance of the infliction of corporal punishment in this regiment. The charge, however, for which he 1 was justly liable to public censure, was the immediate infliction of punishment on a Sunday after divine service. Such a proceeding was clearly contrary to the religious feelings and habits of the people of this country, and could not be reconciled with either good sense or good feeling. Under such circumstance, he (Mr. Macaulay) never could appear as the advocate of such proceedings. The case, however, was not peculiar, as similar instances had occurred in the army, as well as in the other branches of the service; but all the officers he had consulted on the subject, distinctly stated that such a proceeding could only be justified under circumstances of extreme 958 exigency. Such notice, however, had been taken of this proceeding, and such further notice would be taken, as to render it impossible that a recurrence of it could take place.