MARINE MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 8 March 1866)

§ LORD CLARENCE PAGET
said, the hon. Gentleman seemed to be under some misapprehension respecting the Bill before the Committee. It had, in reality, nothing whatever to do either with the navy or with the Marines afloat. A certain number of Marines was voted annually for shore service, and they were under the same discipline as the army. The navy proper and the Marines afloat were under the Naval Discipline Act. The hon. Gentleman had quoted figures to show that the number of cases of flogging was very high. He might, however, inform the hon. Gentleman that, according to the last Returns, out of 8,566 1785 Marines on shore, only eighteen had been corporally punished. The men were now getting to be of a very superior class, owing to the advantages they obtained in regard both to pay and education, and corporal punishment was diminishing annually, and would no doubt continue to do so if left to itself, but he thought the House would agree that it would not be advisable to put it down by Act of Parliament.

§ COLONEL NORTH
said, he wished to ask the hon. Member whether he really thought the officers of the army and navy took a pleasure in flogging. They resorted to it only for the purpose of maintaining discipline, but Gentlemen opposite had a monopoly of humanity. If the hon. Gentleman and his Friends would move and carry an increase of the pay of soldiers and sailors, he would render it possible to procure a better class of men.

§ MR. NEATE
said, he would be glad to support a Motion for better pay. The only way to compel the Government to bring forward a proposition to that effect was to force them by the abolition of such punishments not to rely on the low class of men who needed them.

§ MR. AYRTON
said, he had hoped that the discussion would be continued, not in reference to a question of money, but on the high moral principle in which it commenced. If it were merely a question between flogging and branding soldiers or sailors and increasing their pay, the former would undoubtedly be the more economical alternative. He thought the British army was not organized on a principle that recommended itself for good administration, and was by no means satisfactory. The object of flogging and branding was, perhaps, to supplement the incapacity of officers to perform the duties which devolved on them, and withdrawing the power of the lash would have the effect of securing more capable commanding officers. To listen to the remarks of the gallant Colonel opposite and other officers in that House one would fancy that the country existed for the army, and not the army for 1786 the country. He did not admit that the lash was necessary to the maintenance of discipline in time of peace. As to a time of war he would say nothing, for in a period of that kind there was violence on all sides, and when men took pay to be killed it did not seem necessary to be so particular about flogging.

§ MR. HUNT
said, he had thought that the platform of the Radicals was "peace, retrenchment, and reform," but after the speech of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Neate) it was quite evident that "retrenchment" was excised from his platform; for he now proposed that there should be a greater expenditure, and as this increased expenditure was for the purpose of having a much better military force the hon. Member could not be in favour of "peace." The question of "Reform" was to come before the House on Monday, and it would not be surprising if not the slightest portion of the Radical platform were left after that day.

§ MR. NEATE
said, he strenuously objected to be classed as a Radical.

§ SIR ROBERT CLIFTON
said, that when the question of humanity was raised, hon. Members who sat on the ultra-Liberal Benches would not allow retrenchment to interfere. Flogging was a disgrace to the country. The son of the postmaster of the town he had the honour of representing died under the lash at Hounslow some years ago. But branding was even worse. He had been informed by experienced officers that men after being flogged were never worth anything again as a soldier.

§ MR. REARDEN
said, he opposed the system of branding and flogging, as being repugnant to humanity, and because he thought more effectual remedies might be applied. He considered that soldiers could be much better governed by kindness than severity.

§ COLONEL NORTH
said, that corporal punishment was never inflicted by officers without the effects of kindness having been previously tried. No colonel had the power of inflicting corporal punishment on his own account. It must have been ordered by a court martial. He would ask, had nothing ever been heard about flogging in our gaols? Curious Returns on this point had been presented two or three years ago, from which it appeared that three boys had received forty-eight lashes of the cat-o'-nine tails for having torn the leaves out of their Prayer Book; but in the service, corporal punishment was now exceedingly rare.

MR. OTWAY
said, that the punishment of flogging was now generally regarded as barbarous and out of date. No flogging was allowed in the Indian army. It had been abolished by Lord William Bentinck. As it would be scarcely alleged that the British soldier was inferior to the Sepoy, it would be difficult to maintain that English, Scotch, and Irish soldiers could not be managed without that punishment.

§ MR. NEATE
said, that in reference to an observation of the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt), he would ask that hon. Gentleman what became of the Conservative "platform" to-day?

§ COLONEL PERCY HERBERT
said, that in these days when the maximum of corporal punishment which officers had power to inflict had been reduced from 150 lashes to fifty, the Hounslow case was no longer in point.

§ MR. P. A. TAYLOR
said, that the arguments now used to keep up the fifty lashes were exactly similar to those which had been formerly used in support of 500, 800, and 1,000.