MUTINY BILL.—COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 26 March 1868)

MR. OTWAY
said, that this question had been so often argued in the House that he should not dwell upon it at any length. Last year he showed that corporal punishment had failed as a remedial measure; that those soldiers who had been subject to it had become worse men; and that, in modern armies, with one exception, corporal punishment had been abandoned. In the Russian army he believed the lash was still administered; but even there it was more equitable than with us, seeing 322 that not only private soldiers, but officers, and even noblemen, were occasionally subject to the infliction. The question had very much progressed since it had last; been discussed in that House, although in the House itself the cause had retrograded; their proceedings with respect to the practice having been something like the Pyrrhic dance — a step forward and then another backwards. Although flogging had been abolished for certain offences, the distinction which had before prevailed was abolished. Formerly all soldiers when first enlisted belonged to the first class, on which corporal punishment could on no pretence be inflicted; but, in a weak moment, the Minister for War yielded to the representations of Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side of the House, and abolished the distinction of classes which Lord Herbert had pronounced to be the great protection of the soldier. It might be said that this question should not be discussed now, because the larger question of Courts martial was submitted to a Royal Commission. Of late an extraordinary theory of Government had been acted upon when difficult questions were for settlement, which was to relieve the Executive of its responsibilities by referring the matter to a Royal Commission. Passing that by, the Royal Commission in question could not command the confidence of the country. With the exception of the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), until the hon. and gallant Member for Truro (Captain Vivian) was appointed the other day, the Members of that Commission had, by voice or vote, expressed themselves in favour of corporal punishment. Yet he assumed that the most important thing to be decided by the Royal Commission was this very question of corporal punishment. Pending the decision of this Royal Commission, he maintained that it was important that the punishment of the lash should be suspended. What would be the feelings of any man who was punished while the question was under consideration? And who were the men on whom we inflicted this degrading punishment? In all times, from the days of Cressy and Agincourt to those of Waterloo and Lucknow, the British soldier had been a model of valour and discipline, and yet he was to be subjected to the same degradation as a cowardly garotter or a convicted felon. Parliament had recently admitted the fathers and brothers of British soldiers within the pale of the Constitution; let them do one thing 323 more—let them endeavour to elevate the soldier rather than degrade him; let them make him feel that he was the armed citizen of a free country. In conclusion, he moved to omit part of the clause, and to insert— No court martial shall for any offence whatever committed under this Act during the time of peace, within the Queen's Dominions, have power to sentence any soldier to corporal punishment.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, that considering the present position of the question, he should not think it necessary to follow the hon. Member at any length. He would merely remind the Committee that very great concessions were made upon this subject last Session. Corporal punishment was now in a very different position from that in which it had ever been before. The Government had recommended the appointment of a Royal Commission, which was to inquire not only into the constitution of Courts martial, but into the whole system of military punishments. Under these circumstances, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.

MR. HEADLAM
said, he rose to correct two inaccuracies of the hon. Member for Chatham. Before last Session men might be flogged for mutiny and insubordination, whether they were in the first or second class, and that rule was continued; and besides the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Whitbread), there was another unpledged Member of the Royal Commission, and that was himself. Last year he expressly guarded himself against giving any opinion as to whether corporal punishment ought to be done away with or not. As the subject was now before a Commission, of which he was a Member, he must abstain from taking part in any division upon it.

CAPTAIN VIVIAN
said, last year he voted against the continuance of corporal punishment, and he held the same opinion still; for he believed it would be a good thing if the right hon. Gentleman would state that it should be abolished — that would, he thought, tend to increase the morâle of the army more than anything else; but the House had been informed that he had been appointed a Member of 324 the Royal Commission; and, after consulting the other Members of it, he felt it was a delicate matter to give a vote upon a question which that Commission had to try. Therefore he trusted that the question would not be pressed to a division.

§ COLONEL WILSON-PATTEN
said, that having the honour of being Chairman of the Commission which had been alluded to, he also should refrain from voting on the present occasion.

§ SIR CHARLES RUSSELL
observed, that last year it was said by the hon. Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) that men were deterred from entering the army by the existence of corporal punishments. Now, the fact was that, during the last year, 26,000 men had re-enlisted; and this was a larger number than those for the whole seven years before amounted to, and recruiting had during the year enormously increased. The cases of corporal punishment had also during the year amounted in number to only seventeen for the whole army. They, at this time of day, were rather in favour of jumping to conclusions all of a sudden. Much improvement had taken place in the army, and this was caused to a great extent by the measure of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (General Peel), who increased the pay of the soldier 2d. a day, and the consequence was that they were getting better and more contented men. As a proof of this, he might mention that out of the 812 men who composed his own battalion, there were only two who could not sign the pay-book. He hoped that corporal punishment would grow less yearly; but his own opinion was that, for the ruffians who were in the army — for there were some such—there ought be retained the power of inflicting corporal punishment, which power should be exercised with discretion and with great reluctance.

§ MR. TREVELYAN
said, that the strongest statement in favour of the Amendment was that there had, in the year, been only seventeen cases of corporal punishment, whilst enlistments were largely increased by the extra 2d. a day. This being so, there was no reason why they should not send the seventeen bad bargains packing, and do away with this degrading punishment.

§ MR. DARBY GRIFFITH
moved an Amendment. The hon. Member explained that, according to the present regulations, Government only allowed 1s. a day for the maintenance of military prisoners in county gaols, which, in many cases, was not sufficient to cover the expenses. He moved that words be added to the clause enacting that a sum equal to the expense which each prisoner might occasion for maintenance and establishment charges in such prison should be allowed by the Government.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
resisted the Amendment, on the ground that 1s. a day covered all expenses in the case of military prisoners.

LORD OTHO FITZGERALD
moved an Amendment, with the view of placing Ireland in the same position as England and Scotland with respect to the billeting of soldiers. In the latter two countries private individuals were exempted from having soldiers on the march billeted upon them, and what he wanted was that Ireland also should be included in the exemption, which could be effected by leaving out of the clause the words "in Great Britain." The noble Lord moved accordingly.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. WARREN)
opposed the Amendment. The grievance complained of was seldom experienced, and limited to a few persons. The fact was that the scarcity of public-houses in certain parts of the country in Ireland rendered it necessary to billet soldiers upon some private houses.

CAPTAIN VIVIAN
said, that having exempted England and Scotland from this grievance, the Government sought to impose it upon Ireland. This, then, might be considered one of the causes of Irish discontent.

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
said, that having made inquiries upon the subject, he found that, from the scarcity of public-houses on certain roads in Ireland, it became necessary sometimes to billet soldiers on private houses.

§ MR. CHILDERS
believed that the same reasons precisely had been urged in favour 326 of the power of billeting soldiers in Scotland. In spite, however, of such reasons, Scotland was exempted from this annoyance, and no inconvenience had been experienced in consequence.

MR. OTWAY
said, that words were inserted in the Preamble which were not true—namely, that the British army was kept up for the purpose of "maintaining the balance of power in Europe." If he wanted an authority upon this point, he need only refer to the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who stated that the British army, which consisted of only 40,000 or 50,000 men, could have no effect upon the balance of European power. He therefore proposed in lines 7 and 8 to omit the words "for the preservation of the balance of power in Europe."

§ SIR JOHN PAKINGTON
, though not concurring in the reason urged by the hon. Gentleman for the omission of the words, nevertheless did not consider them of sufficient importance to contest the point.