Punishments.

HC Deb 19 June 1879 vol 247 cc183-283

Clause 44 (Scale of punishments by courts martial).

MR. J. HOLMS

moved, after " lashes,'' to insert— And shall not be inflicted upon a non-commissioned officer or on a reduced non-commissioned officer for any offence committed while holding the rank of non-commissioned officer. He understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was prepared to accept the Amendment; therefore, he should not trouble the Committee further.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. OTWAY

said, he had no desire to intrude unnecessarily upon the time and patience of the Committee; but it did seem to him that the question of corporal punishment and the proceedings of the Committee having taken a somewhat unexpected turn, that an opportunity was afforded for making a suggestion by which much valuable time would be secured to the Government for the prosecution of Public Business, and by the acceptance of which many hon. Members sitting on the Opposition side of the House felt that satisfaction would be given to the soldiers of the Army and to the people of the country. It was not too late to make that suggestion even now, and, therefore, he should presently make it. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War should think fit to interrupt him by expressing his assent, he would willingly spare the Committee the observations he should otherwise think it his duty to make. He hoped the Committee would acquit him of any presumption, if he said that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had shown, in the spirit in which he entered upon this discussion yesterday, a fairness and conciliation which deserved all their praise. But it was obvious that his heart was not in the cause which he defended; and probably he (Mr. Otway) might say the same of all the hon. Gentlemen who sat on that side of the House. Ho would never cast upon those hon. Gentlemen the imputation that they could desire to maintain a punishment which must be in itself odious, as odious to them as to those hon. Gentlemen who sat with him. No doubt they, and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, were actuated in the part they took in this matter by a sense of right, believing it to be necessary for the maintenance of discipline in the Army that corporal punishment should be continued. He had no doubt, indeed, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was supported in his opinion by the authority of those who had guided him in this matter. It was the value of that authority which he should have to examine presently; but what he wished to point out to the Committee was this—that, guided by that authority, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman informed them, at an early period of the discussion of this clause, that he was unable to assent to any abatement of the punishment which it was proposed to be put upon the soldiers. Well, what took place? At the onset, his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) pointed out that the inconveniences and irregularities—he might say the mischief—arising from this punishment being inflicted for crimes which were not determined, would be so great that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was obliged to make a great concession, and agree to put in a Schedule, to be hereafter appended to the Bill, all the offences for which corporal punishment should be inflicted. Again, an hon. Gentleman on that side of the House rose, notwithstanding the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that he could not, under any circumstances, assent to a diminution of the punishment as fixed in the Bill—an hon. Member moved a further and considerable diminution of the punishment, to reduce it, in fact, by one-half; and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, yielding to better influences, yielding to the strong expression of opinion which came from the Opposition side of the House, gave way on that point, on which he had formerly declared it would be impossible for him to make any concession. Therefore, what was the state of things? Fifty per cent of the punishment the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had abandoned; and by the fact that all the offences for which corporal punishment would be given had to be hereafter scheduled, 49-50ths of the remaining punishment would not be inflicted. The question he wished to put to the Secretary of State for War was this. Having given up 99 per cent of this barbarous and odious treatment —treatment applied to the British Army alone, for there was not a soldier of any other civilized State in the world who was subjected to this punishment—having abandoned 99 per cent of this treatment, was it worth his while to contend with the House for the maintenance of the fragment that remained? It occurred to him to make this suggestion to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in the hope that it would meet with his assent. The suggestion was that he should consent that they should now report Progress on this Bill [" Oh, oh! "], and that he should confer— [Interruption]. He regretted to see hon. Gentlemen treat a proposition on a matter so serious as this with levity, for it was not a laughing matter to the British Army, neither was it a laughing matter to the British people. The proposition which he had to make to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was that he should assent to report Progress on the Bill now, and that he should consult with those military authorities by whom he had been guided hitherto as to whether it was really worth the while of the Department over which he presided to retain the fragment of the punishment which they originally considered necessary? If so, then the other clauses of the Bill might be proceeded with with expedition, and they would not have those complaints which were continually being made about the stagnation of Business, and of the impossibility of carrying the Bill through the House. He regretted to see that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made no sign of approbation of that course. If he had done so, he should, as he had previously said, most willingly have abstained from making any further observations. Inasmuch as the Secretary of State for War had not signified his approval, it was required of him to ask the attention of the Committee to the nature of the punishment. Corporal punishment could only be inflicted by cat-o'-nine-tails; and it was to this barbarous, and degrading, and exceptional treatment of the soldier that he desired to call their attention. What was the scene that was presented in that House on Tuesday last? He asked hon. Gentlemen to recall for one moment the statement that was made by an hon. Member of that House. He did not wish to harrow the hon. Member's feelings unnecessarily by referring to the subject; but it was indispensable that he should notice one part of his statement. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) stated on the floor of this House that his father had been subjected to corporal punishment by the cat-o'-nine-tails for a breach of discipline which was never proved against him; that the punishment by that instrument was, in its nature, of that severity that when he followed him to the grave, between 30 and 40 years after it was inflicted, the marks were almost as plain on his back as at the time they were made; and the hon. Gentleman further added that his father suffered to the day of his death, not only from the stigma and degradation, but from the pain that was caused by the wounds 30 years after the punishment. On the ground of cruelty alone, if there were no other reasons, it was time that this country should abolish for its soldiers treatment such as that. Let him for a moment inquire whether it was really impossible to carry on the discipline of the Army without the infliction of this punishment. He would never speak lightly of any matter which affected the discipline of the Army, for he knew that in military quarters it was absolutely necessary to enforce certain rules, and equally necessary to maintain discipline. But it had never been proved that the enforcement of these rules, and the maintenance of discipline, could alone be secured by the infliction of the lash. It had been stated; but it had never been proved. Those arguments had been used a hundred times previously. They were used 10 years ago, when he submitted a Motion to the notice of the House—a Motion which was eventually carried by a narrow majority, but which abolished for ever this degrading punishment in times of peace. They heard all these arguments then. The right hon. Gentleman the then Secretary of State for "War came down and read a letter from the highest military authority in the country, stating that the discipline of the Army could not be maintained if flogging were done away with in times of peace. But had the discipline of the Army suffered in consequence? Had not the discipline of the Army been maintained? Notwithstanding the adoption of the Motion he then submitted discipline had been preserved, and that should cause them somewhat to distrust those statements when they were made concerning the Army when engaged in war. But he would also examine that question; and he thought he should show them that this punishment was not only degrading and barbarous, but that it absolutely failed as a deterrent, and that it was absolutely unequal for carrying out what was expected of it. When he submitted his Resolution on this subject in the House of Commons, in 1867, he thought it better that they should deal with the question as it related to times of peace. Now they were, unhappily, engaged in a state of war. If he was wrong in what he was now about to say he wished that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would contradict him. He was informed—in fact, he knew it to be so—that the punishment of flogging was being carried on in South Africa to an enormous extent. A shallow-minded man would answer— "You will see that is a proof that flogging must be kept up." His answer to that was complete, for it was this—that as they were obliged to flog every day it was a proof that the punishment was of no value whatever. It would be unfair, when discussing the question, not to meet the statement which was often made, that if they abolished flogging they would be obliged to institute some severer punishment. He was prepared to meet them on that ground; and he would say at once that a state of war was a thing so exceptional—unfortunately, under the auspices of Her Majesty's present Government, it had been less exceptional than hitherto—that they must meet the circumstances which arose in an exceptional manner. If a soldier deserted to the enemy in time of war, if a soldier betrayed his post, if a soldier imperilled, by firing his musket or by some other signal, the lives and safety of his comrades, what treatment would they mete out to him? He (Mr. Otway) would not flog him; but he would put him exactly in the same position as a civilian, who had merited punishment in his country by crimes equally serious. He said, treat military offences in times of war as military offences were treated in times of war by all nations; but he would not subject men in times of war to a treatment which was not efficacious, but which was degrading. Take the cases of the commission of these offences by the soldiers in South Africa. It was said— We do not wish to shoot a man committing the offence; we cannot imprison him; and, therefore, we must inflict this punishment of flogging. But he took exception to the statement that the soldier could not be imprisoned. He could be secured under guard, and what would happen? He would be treated in this way—on the first occasion when Zulu prisoners were to be transported to the nearest station—for it was not to be supposed that they could be kept hanging about the Army—then the man could be sent to the station with the other prisoners under guard. What was more easy than to send this soldier handcuffed, if necessary, in this manner to the station, there to be tried and punished for his offence? [Laughter.] It was surprising that hon. Gentlemen should scoff at this proposal, as if they alone had any knowledge of this subject. He had been in the position of having command of small bodies of men in the penal Colonies; and there never was the slightest difficulty in so managing the punishment of a soldier who misconducted himself, without flogging, although the punishment of flogging might then have been enforced. What was proposed to be done? The Secretary of State for War, contrary to his own opinion, had reduced the quantum of punishment proposed to be inflicted; but he stood out for the maintenance of the remaining 25 lashes, and these to be inflicted by the " cat-of-nine-tails." But if he could offer the right hon. and gallant Gentleman one word of advice, it was to consent to the Amendment proposed, as one more step in the path of concession, and which would gain the good opinion of the people of the country. For it was a great mistake to think that the opinions held by many hon. Members opposite were shared by the country. This Parliament had not much longer to exist; he did not know they would decide this question; but he hoped, for the credit of the Parliament, it would be decided that this barbarism, so exceptionally degrading to our soldiers, should be abolished. But whether or not that should be the case, he was certain that in the Parliament to come —public opinion being aroused on the subject, and seeing the weakness of the arguments in its favour, and the concessions that were made to retain a fragment of the punishment as being necessary for the state of things now existing in South Africa, where alone we now had a war—people would be awakened to the truth, and see what it was that prevented respectable men entering the Army—what it was that impeded recruiting. What mother would allow her son to enter the Army while it was known, and maintained by hon. Gentlemen, that the lashing of a soldier with 25 lashes was absolutely indispensable to the maintenance of discipline? Was it thought such a system would bring men into the Army? Look at the change in the sister Service since the rules of discipline had been relaxed. There was a different class of men to those in the Service years ago; there was a better class in the Army than there was years ago; and if this remnant of degradation, now put upon the British soldier, were done away with, there would be in the Army a still better class of men—men who would conduct themselves in a manner that flogging would not be required. Let the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War be guided by good, by wise counsels, and take a course creditable to himself, and which he, in his heart, desired, as did many more on his side of the House—let him away with this fragment of the punishment, and announce to the world that the English Army was fit to be put on an equality with the Russian, at least, if not with the German, the French, and the Austrian Armies: let him announce once and for ever, in peace or in war, that corporal punishment had been abolished by the good-will of a Minister leading the House of Commons to that desirable end. In conclusion, he begged to move, in page 19, line 28, after "lashes," to insert— But corporal punishment shall not he inflicted on any soldier by an instrument known as the cat of nine tails, of which a sealed pattern is deposited at the Admiralty.

Amendment proposed, After the word " officer," at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words " but corporal punishment shall not he inflicted on any soldier by an instrument known as the cat of nine tails, of which a sealed pattern is deposited at the Admiralty."—(Mr. Otway.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

COLONEL STANLEY

thought the hon. Gentleman could hardly have been present during the last discussion, or he would have then heard what he (Colonel Stanley) distinctly stated—

MR. OTWAY

said, he had been present during the whole time.

COLONEL STANLEY

then was sorry he should have thought it necessary to put his Amendment on the Paper. Because he had stated on more than one occasion, as distinctly as he could, that it was his intention to seal a pattern of the cat of nine tails—not that he himself thought it necessary to do so—but as the desire had been expressed, he said it was his intention to seal a pattern of the instrument as used at the present moment. He had been asked not to make it so severe as the present pattern —which he had not seen—at the Admiralty. To this he had replied that, without entering into minute definitions of how many thongs, &c, he would seal the existing pattern, leaving matters to stand as they were. He had said he believed it did not differ throughout the Service; but, if there was any doubt, he was willing that a pattern should be sealed, to prevent any deviation from it. That, he thought, was an answer to the question of the hon. Gentleman. [" No, no! "] But he thought it was. At least, he had given a distinct promise; and, while he held the office he did, he did not look to have that promise questioned. What he had said was, that the pattern used should be still used, and that it should he neither more nor less severe, and that was accepted as a fair statement by the Committee. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition went further, and said this was really not a matter for regulation by the House; it was a matter of detail unworthy of the House; it was a matter to be left to the administration of the Department; and, if the House could not trust the administration of the Department, then they had better get rid of them. With that view, thus pithily expressed, he (Colonel Stanley) entirely agreed. He adhered to what he had said on Tuesday—he was willing to seal the existing pattern, used in the British Army from time immemorial; he was not prepared to depart from it, one way or the other, to make it more or less severe. With regard to the larger question, which was debated at length on the Motion of the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown), he must really point to the position in which the Committee stood. On May 20 the question of corporal punishment in con- nection with the Bill first arose. On that day the Committee—and not, by any means, in an empty House—decided that corporal punishment should be inflicted. They affirmed that by a majority of 239 to 56, something like 4 to 1. No doubt there had been a great many speeches made since, and arguments used, some of more and some of less force. The other day he stated his own views, and why he did not consider it desirable to reduce the number of lashes below 50— he did not say that that number should always be inflicted; but he was advised that if that number were lowered it would be necessary, for purposes of discipline, to have recourse to the more severe alternatives of punishment enforced in foreign Armies. Notwithstanding this, there was a general appeal from various quarters of the House; and it was pointed out that, in the majority of cases, the whole punishment of 50 lashes was not inflicted. Twenty-five lashes was the usual sentence of courts martial. ["No!"] Yes; that was an argument used. Well, taking into consideration what he believed to be the general feeling of the Committee, weighing the matter carefully, not willing to take the responsibility of a step weakening the bonds of discipline, and, on the other hand, willing to defer to the feeling expressed in Parliament, under the statutory power of which the Army was regulated, he accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Horsham. There were many Members who spoke against the more severe punishment who were prepared, though reluctantly, to assent to the punishment of 25 lashes. But, unquestionably, if he had known this was to be made a mere stepping-stone to the attempt by a more inconvenient mode to reverse the decision to which the House had come by a majority of 4 to 1, it would have been his duty, at all hazards, to resist the Amendment, and insist upon the clause as it was. He must ask hon. Gentlemen to remember that, after all, the Bill was for the purposes of discipline; it was not for the purpose of regulating the conduct of good soldiers, but of those rough elements of the Army under circumstances requiring to be dealt with in somewhat of a rough manner. He might resort to arguments already used ad nauseam, in reply to those hon. Gentlemen who conscientiously advocated the abolition of the punishment altogether, to show that, as the Army now stood, such a course must lead to a large number of capital sentences. The responsibility of that he was not prepared to assume. For light offences which, under certain circumstances, might become more serious, to deprive a man of life, and possibly the State of a gallant and efficient soldier, was not a course he was prepared to take at the present time. Finally, after this matter had been discussed, under one form or another, for four days, he ventured to make one appeal to the Committee. This clause was considerably less hard against the soldier than the punishment existing under the present Act. He had always, year after year, thought the Mutiny Bill might be improved; and he had left not one hour unoccupied in thinking how to redeem his promise that the Bill should be improved. Now, was there any advantage to be gained for the soldier by those who made themselves his champions, by delaying the passage of this Bill, tending, as it did, to a more certain administration of justice, and more in accordance with the nature and degree of the offence? He would not have been justified in making these remarks, but for what had been said by the hon. Member for Rochester. This he might say—that already he had agreed to limitations proposed. He had thought, in any case, that non-commissioned officers should not be liable to the same punishment as privates. He had also agreed to place two Schedules on the Table, when the time arrived for their consideration, in connection with the 7th section, showing distinctly the offences for which the punishment should be inflicted by courts martial, or by the provost marshal, and also regulating the punishment on board ship. These would include the most serious offences—such as were specified in the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeenshire (Sir Alexander Gordon). There would be also a limitation of the time during which the provost marshal could order punishment. If it was fenced about so securely with these safeguards that he could not agree to abrogate the power altogether. The reasons he had given were simply these—he was not willing to see corporal punishment inflicted wherever it could be avoided; but the maintenance of the discipline of the Army, a matter important to the honour and safety of the country whenever war was carried on, required, as he had said, the power should be retained. These were the reasons why he opposed the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, and he hoped now the Committee would proceed with the Bill.

MR. PARNELL

wished to say a few words before a Division was taken. He would ask the right hon. and gallant. Gentleman to re-consider the determination he appeared to have arrived at. Frequently they had been told it was necessary to inflict this punishment, because no other punishment than that of death could be substituted; but, surely, in such offences necessitating the punishment of death it would be easy to find a sergeant, with a couple of rank-and-file, to keep the man in custody until he could be imprisoned and punished in a different way. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman had stated that the House, on the 20th of May, sanctioned the principle of flogging, and, consequently, it could not now retrace its steps; but the House, in the same Division, also sanctioned the principle that flogging should be administered for every offence for which imprisonment might be the punishment. Now, on Tuesday, the Secretary of State for "War assented to overturn that decision of May 20, by agreeing to the insertion of the Schedule to which he had referred. Having done so, the Secretary of State for War now sought to shelter himself under that concession from the necessity of taking any further step. He (Mr. Parnell) wished to make an explanation, which was, to some extent, personal to himself. When the Bill was taken into Committee he decided, for reasons of his own, to refrain from all interference, except on certain points on which he had at all times taken much interest. One of these points was the question of prison discipline, and another was this very question of flogging. In pursuance of that resolve, lest he should be tempted to enter into discussion, he remained away for a month during the progress of the Bill, until the question of corporal punishment came on. He felt very much pleased at the concession which the Secretary of State for War had made in reducing the punishment to 25 lashes; and he should feel that his own duty had been entirely discharged if they could now, as a result of this day's proceedings, secure the total abandonment of flogging. He should then wash his hands of the Bill, and refrain from any further connection with it during its progress through Committee. But he could not help seeing that if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman persisted in his defence to stand by flogging, it would be necessary to ask the Committee to hedge it round with a variety of provisions and limitations which did not exist in the Bill, in addition to the Schedules. It would also be necessary to ask the Committee to sanction the principle that certain classes of military men should be exempted from the punishment of flogging. He did not think the House was generally aware that Volunteers on service were by the Bill subject to that punishment. In case it was necessary to call them out, every Volunteer would be liable to a sentence of flogging passed by a court martial composed, not of his own officers, but of officers of the Militia and of the Regular Army, or by a provost marshal. These were very serious points which would have to be considered, and which would take considerable time. Undoubtedly, friction would be induced by the desire, on the one hand, of the Government to pass this important measure this Session; and by the desire, on the other hand, on the part of Members to see that these important questions had due consideration, and that due attention was attracted to them, and the real sense and opinion of the House obtained. Complaint had been made of the time which had been devoted to this question of flogging; but if it had not been so devoted, what would have been the result? If these discussions had not been prolonged by a very small minority from the 20th of May to the 20th of June, this clause would have been passed without the limitation as to the crimes for which flogging should be inflicted, which were agreed to amidst the plaudits of the House on Tuesday afternoon. It was because of the action of that small minority, and because the conscience of the House had been pricked, that that concession was made; and that small minority, having called public attention to the question, were amply justified by the result which had been already achieved. He entreated the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to extend the spirit of conciliation and the desire to make concessions, which he had already shown, to the total abolition of flogging in the Army; and to mark his government by a noble deed towards the soldier by agreeing in the strong opinion which had been manifested, in and out of the House, in favour of doing away for ever with that degrading punishment.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, it appeared to him that the reply made by the Secretary of State for War to his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Chamberlain), who obtained this concession, was really of a very serious character; and although he (Sir Robert Peel) had not taken part in the discussion of this question, he felt bound to call attention to that reply. The threat which was held out to the Committee by the Secretary of State for War, when he intimated that if he had known the discussion would have been prolonged to the present date, he would not have sanctioned that concession on Tuesday, was not fair.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he rose to Order. He was not aware that he made use of any threat to the Committee. What he said was this—he accepted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) on Tuesday, as being practically the decision of the Committee; but if he had been aware that that would be made a stepping-stone—

THE CHAIRMAN

said, he understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to rise to Order. In that case, he was entitled to priority; but, otherwise, the right hon. Baronet was in possession of the Committee.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

regretted very much if he had misrepresented the Secretary of State, and, if so, he at once withdrew the expression; but, really, he hardly understood the full tenour and aim of the remarks which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had just addressed to the Committee. However, he understood the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Otway) to suggest that they had now arrived at a state of affairs when it would be necessary to move that the Chairman do report Progress. That was a question which had much concerned him (Sir Robert Peel) during the last few days. No one who had listened as he had to these debates for the last month could fail to perceive that there appeared to be a desire on the part of the House that this Bill should not pass. ["No! "] At all events, the Bill had been so modified by the determined and active opposition of ton. Members opposite that it became a very serious question whether, inasmuch as the Bill was admittedly ill-drafted, and had since been so mutilated, it would not be judicious to adopt the suggestion to report Progress. When he said the Bill did not meet the general approval of the House, he was also satisfied that out-of-doors it did not meet with that amount of confidence which it was important that a Bill of that character should receive. The right hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) truly said yesterday, in a manner which must have impressed everyone in the House, that a Bill for the Discipline and Regulation of the Army, brought in at the close of this Parliament, which still maintained punishments of this extravagant character, must affect the character and influence the disposition of young men who might be desirous of entering the Army, and must also affect the willingness of their families to allow them to do so. It would be far better, in his (Sir Robert Peel's) judgment, that they should proceed to the Business which the country wanted to have passed, and which was now delayed. When the Secretary of State for War said he hoped now this Bill would make rapid progress, it should be noted that the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down pointed out that there were still matters which would lead to the most serious discussion, and which would occupy a month, perhaps. And what was the state of affairs on the Paper? There were 180 clauses in the Bill, and, exclusive of 13 put down yesterday, there were no less than 196 Amendments, some of them extending over three pages of the Papers. Was it likely that the House of Commons, which was interested in the well-being of the Parliamentary Army of the country—an Army that cost the country some £16,000,000 a-year—was it likely that they should lightly allow the Government to pass a measure which deeply involved the real interests of those who served in the military ranks? Military Members had repeatedly asked questions in this sense. There was to be a Committee for the re-organization of the Army, on which only military men were to be appointed. Would it not be far better to allow the Committee to consist both of military men and of civilians; and, also, that the Committee should report upon the re-organization and regulation of the Army before Parliament embarked on a Bill of this kind—a Bill involving 180 clauses, and which was to be a substitute for the Mutiny Act? He did not like the substitution of this Bill for the admirable opportunities which they had of annually discussing the Mutiny Act; but the Chancellor of the Exchequer had told them the reason why. He told them, at the beginning of the Session, that however much in a businesslike manner they might discuss this Bill, one of the chief reasons of the Government for introducing it was in consequence of the factious opposition with which the passage of the Mutiny Act had been met. Now, he (Sir Robert Peel) thought it was very unfair to limit the opportunities of the House for the discussion of provisions affecting an Army which cost the country £16,000,000. He thought the Government had far better adopt the suggestion to report Progress, and take the Committee into their confidence, and proceed with Business which was really pressing, and to which hitherto only little strips of time had been allotted. During the last two or three years their time had been solely occupied with matters affecting foreign interests. There were now on the Paper 21 or 41 Government Bills, and as many others; and before another month all those would have to be set aside in favour of the discussion of a Bill upon which the House looked with a very askant eye. He urged the Government to listen to the opinions expressed both in and out of the House, and to proceed with Business of infinitely greater importance and infinitely greater interest.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Sir Robert Peel.)

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

hoped the Committee would not adopt the suggestion which had been made. It was plain that the right hon. Baronet had not been a constant attendant at the discussion of this Bill, or he would hardly have given the description of it to which they had recently listened. In the first place, the right hon. Gentleman told them that this was a very ill-drafted Bill. That was a matter of opinion.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he had heard the hon. and learned Gentleman say so himself.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

replied, that he was very much astonished at the statement, for it was entirely contrary to the opinion he had always held. He had always thought, considering the difficulty of the subject, that the measure was a marvel of drafting. He had always thought so and said so. What was more, he could prove it, even to the right hon. Gentleman himself. The Bill had been very minutely examined, and he did not think he ever recollected a Bill in the House of Commons which had been so little altered. The Amendments, until they reached the present clause, had been extremely slight, and of the objections raised hardly one had been sustained. If they were to examine the record of the House, they would see that there had been hardly any alterations in the first 43 clauses. Therefore, he entirely demurred to the statement of the right hon. Baronet that the Bill had been mutilated. At the last Sitting, it was true that, after considerable discussion, an Amendment was accepted by the Secretary of State for War; but he did not call that mutilation.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

must correct the hon. and learned Member; what he said was that the Bill ran a risk of being mutilated.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

thought his ears must have deceived him. Apparently, his right hon. Friend and he reciprocally misheard one another. The right hon. Baronet seemed to have heard him say that the Bill was ill-drafted, which ho never said; and he appeared to have heard the right hon. Baronet say that the Bill had been mutilated, which he never said. But, then, if the Bill had not been mutilated, he thought he might maintain there had never been a measure of such a character so little changed. They had disposed of the whole of the clauses as to crimes in the British Army—practically speaking, therefore, of almost the whole of the subject-matter which came under the consideration of the Committee last year; and that having been done, they were now told that this Bill was so ill-drafted, and was so likely in the future to be mutilated, that they ought not to go on with it. As practical men, he would ask the Committee whether they were going to throw away all the labour that they had expended upon this Bill up to this time? The right hon. Baronet, at the end of his remarks, suggested that they should go on with other pressing Business; but was not this pressing Business? How came this to be the first Bill pressed on by the Government? Because, at the instance of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) and others, the Ministry gave a pledge last year that before the Mutiny Bill was again brought in, an amending Army Bill should be introduced. Therefore, the most pressing Business with which they had to deal was this very Act, which they must pass this Session. If they did not, they would have the existing law in force, and under that law the 50 lashes would still remain. They would also have this discussion all over again on the Mutiny Bill, and a more unpractical course for a House which professed to be composed of men of business he could not conceive. To take the course recommended by the right hon. Baronet would he simply to stultify the Committee in its own eyes and in the eyes of the world. The Government were now under a pledge to the hon. Member for Meath that the Mutiny Bill should not be proceeded with without amendment. If they failed to pass the present measure, did they think this Government, or any other Government, would undertake such a course again? It would be most unwise to part from this Bill, for if they did they would part for many a long year from any hope of improvement. [" No, no?"] The hon. Member for Meath shook his head. Perhaps he might be the head of the Administration which would introduce the amending measure; but, at any rate, if this Bill failed, it would be a long time before the Government would touch the question again. Would it not, therefore, be far better for the House to introduce such Amendments into the proposed law as they could? He ventured to ask the attention of hon. Members below the Gangway especially to another reason. They had heard a good deal of late about the assertion of the Prerogative, and the decline of Parliamentary powers; but there never was a measure which more enlarged the authority of Parliament than this Bill. It incorporated into the Statute and brought under Parlia- mentary authority the whole of the Articles of War; and surely, for that reason alone, it ought to be received with eagerness, and supported with heartiness, by the whole of the Liberal Party. This was one reason why he thought this a most valuable Bill. If they rejected it, they re-instated the Articles of War in the position they occupied before. He always thought it an immense concession that those Articles were incorporated in this Bill; and yet if the measure were rejected now an enormous Constitutional advantage would be thrown away, which he did not expect they would ever get again. The right hon. Baronet had said that he had heard considerable objection made to this Bill; but from whom did the objection come? He knew that there were a great many persons connected with the Army who did not like the Bill for the reasons he had stated. There was a strong feeling in the minds of many military men against inserting the Articles of War in a Statute, and that was why there was a strong disposition in some quarters to reject it. Was not that also a reason which should tell with hon. Members on that side of the House? They now had an opportunity of settling this question, and they could do what they liked with it. They could pass all the clauses as to the Articles of War, for all the most important parts were incorporated in the Bill. Was it worth while to throw away all the labour which had been spent in perfecting this Bill? There had certainly been a good deal of discussion; but he had seen nothing like undue obstruction, although the measure had been examined very carefully upon this question of flogging. He had thought that the matter wag settled at the last Sitting by agreement. What then happened? The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain) urged that the crimes were too extensive which were to be punished by flogging, and that those crimes ought to be scheduled. He supported that contention, and the Government accepted the Amendment. That of itself was an immense concession; because he was quite certain, when they came to the Schedule, it would be the feeling of everybody in the House that the crimes which were inserted in it should be crimes which certainly must be severely punished, as they were crimes of a very heinous nature. There were offences which it would be impossible to punish in any other way. The hon. Member for Meath said that an officer might be sent to the rear with two or three soldiers to guard the prisoner. But how could that be done, for instance, when on the march in South Africa? Unless they had this corporal punishment for heinous crimes, the result must certainly be to largely increase capital punishment. Next, what happened? The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) proposed six lashes. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) suggested 25; and he might be mistaken, but he understood the hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway to say that if the Government would accept the 25, that should be taken as a settlement of the question. Certainly, the hon. and learned Member for Stockport did withdraw his Amendment, in order to make room for the other Amendment, and that was accepted by the Government. That seemed to him to be a reasonable settlement of the question, and he thought the House so accepted it. He did not at all understand that they were to go on discussing whether there was to be any corporal punishment at all. Certainly, he did think that they might now come to a final decision upon this clause, and then they would have done with all the definitions of crimes and punishment; and the remaining parts of the Bill, though matters of importance, were certainly of less moment and of a far less contentious character than those which they had up to the present considered. He could not understand how it could be consistent with any decent common sense, after proceeding as far as they had done in a very satisfactory way, or, at all events, in a way with which Members were not dissatisfied, that they should throw away everything after all. The right hon. Baronet had talked of measures of more importance, but he knew of none which were of so much importance as this, which concerned the discipline of the British Army; and he knew of none more pressing than this, because it was absolutely necessary that they should pass it before the end of the Session. He, therefore, hoped the Committee would not accept the proposal.

MR. SHAW

rose also to express a hope that the Committee would not agree to the proposal. After the time, the care, and attention which had been spent on discussing this Bill, if they took the course suggested by the right hon. Baronet, both sides of the House would look exceedingly foolish. It was very important to pass this Bill. The Government evidently felt it to be so; and, as far as he was concerned, he was inclined to help them through with it, provided fair opportunity were given for discussion. He had watched what took place with great care, and he quite agreed that nothing like obstruction had been offered to the Bill. There certainly was a deep dislike to flogging, not only in the House, but in the country; and hon. Gentlemen who sat near him were doing nothing but their simple duty in attempting to modify and, if possible, entirely to get rid of the corporal punishment of our soldiers. He said that, because there were rumours in the House that the Government intended to press this Bill through by means of something like physical force. It was said that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Judge Advocate General were to take command of the Ministry that night, and that re-inforcements were arranged to follow at various times. He did not believe that for a moment; and he did hope that nothing of that kind would be attempted. The Committee might be quite sure that that could only result in dissatisfaction. Although he had not spoken, he had voted against flogging, because he disliked it exceedingly, and believed in his heart it was one of the greatest injuries to the British Army. The way to make men brutes was to treat them as brutes. Certainly, no one could deny that flogging was a barbarizing punishment; on the other hand, if they abolished it, he believed they would do much to raise the character of the Army, and, for this reason, he would do everything in his power to get rid of it. No doubt, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was placed in an exceedingly difficult position. He tried to put himself in the right hon. Gentleman's place, and to ascertain by that means what he would do. He had listened to every lawyer who had spoken on this subject, and he would not, if he were the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, say a word to any one of them in reply. He had listened to every military man who had spoken, and he would treat all those in the same way. But he would, in spite of all of them, try the effect of abolishing this punishment for three years; and he would introduce a clause to that effect into the Bill, feeling quite certain that flogging afterwards would never again be allowed in the British Army. The troops, he believed, would not be worse, but better than they were at the present time. They would get a better class of men in the Army, and this would be made a real Profession, not a body of men drawn from the very lowest class. He did not know whether it was too late to suggest this alteration to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman; but, certainly, if he could see his way to trying it, he would be perfectly safe in doing so. He was asked what could be done with men who were guilty of these abominable offences, as it was said they could not send them to the rear. But what did they do with them now? They made invalids of them, so that they were scarcely able to walk. If a man committed some beastly crime, he would not flog him, but he would put some brand upon him. [An hon. MEMBER: Shoot him.] No; he would not shoot him at once. While with the Army he would make him work by carrying baggage; he would put him amongst the bullocks. He would have the full value out of him whilst he had him; and then, when they got to some town, he would put some brand on him, and send him into the world with that brand upon his forehead. He did hope the Secretary of State for War would think of the possibility of trying the suggestion he had made of abolishing this punishment for three years.

COLONEL STANLEY

hoped the Committee would not assent to the Motion of the right hon. Baronet; and, after the clear manner in which his hon. and learned Friend opposite (Sir William Harcourt) had stated the question, he did not think it was necessary for him to say anything as to that part of the argument. With regard, however, to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, he might say that he had never himself complained of obstruction, although he might have his own opinions about the discussion, and he might think that it had been somewhat long on certain points. He did think, however, that the Committee might now come to a decision. Certainly, no attempt would be made by the Government to pass the measure by physical force; but he did hope that when the question had been fully debated, and the discussion had been fairly conducted, that hon. Members would then record their votes in the ordinary way. He had not complained of obstruction. On the whole, he thought the discussion had proceeded in a very fair spirit, and he hoped it would continue in that spirit.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

did not wish to press his Motion for reporting Progress against the desire of the Committee; but his object had been to look beyond the Bill to the state of the Army. They all knew that a Committee had just been appointed to consider the condition of the Army; and he was of opinion—and he had a right to express that opinion— that it would be far better to wait for the Report of the Committee before they proceeded to discuss the far wider question of Army regulation. He would not allude specially to Afghanistan, or to South Africa; but, in common with many others, he had not failed to observe—what military men had told them over and over again—that the present system was defective. That being so, it would be far better to have some plan of removing these defects before they proceeded to an Army Regulation Bill. The hon. and learned Member opposite (Sir William Harcourt) said that all their labour would be lost if they proceeded with other Business. But the hon. and learned Member must know that there were most important Bills on the Paper of the House; and if he had had a seat for as long as he himself had occupied one, he must often have seen most important measures, forced even at the very last moment to be abandoned by the Government, because there was not time to pass them. The hon. and learned Member had made a strong appeal to them to support him in the views he took; but the hon. and learned Member was interested in the matter, and had not formed an independent opinion, as he himself had done. The hon. and learned Member was the Chairman of the Committee which prepared the Bill. It was his own offspring, and he could not look at it in the larger and broader view which others might take. He (Sir Robert Peel) did not, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, look at it merely as his own offspring, but from a statesmanlike point of view. He must take the hon. and learned Gentleman to task, also, with regard to one observation he had made, for he certainly heard him say, during the earlier stages of the Bill, that in 180 clauses there must be defects and mistakes and printers' errors which would be detected in the course of the discussion. ["No, no!"] If he had not heard the hon. and learned Member say so, somebody else had stated it, although he was under the impression that the hon. and learned Member used the expression. He did not wish to press his Motion for reporting Progress; but he was anxious to have some discussion on the whole question. He should not, however, have moved it; but he was under the impression that the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Otway) had done so, and that he was merely moving in the line which he had opened.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, as the hon. and learned Member for Oxford had addressed a great portion of his speech to those below the Gangway, he desired a few words in reply. They were ready to receive his advice with respect at all times, and with the greatest desire to be guided by it; but, in the present instance, they had received it with suspicion, because they thought he was more partial to this wretched Bill than he would have been if he had not had some part in the re-arrangement of its clauses. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to think there had been some sort of agreement between the Members below the Gangway and the Government with reference to the decision arrived at on Tuesday. He wished hon. Members to give up opposition on consideration of what they had gained from the Government. Now, he did not at all deny the importance of the concessions the Government had made; and he only regretted that they should have wasted so much time by refusing them so long. Some of them, at least, were recognized by every Member who spoke on both sides as necessary, proper, and just; and yet they only came to that result after four days of persistent opposition. If there was any threat in that House or out of it of anything like obstruction, they must not lose sight of the fact that the Government only made reasonable concessions after four days discussion— in fact, they could get nothing from the Ministry except by what was commonly called obstruction; and, therefore, the Ministry had no right to complain if opposition were carried further than previously they had been accustomed to carry it. Well, he accepted with gratitude the concession of the Government; but, at the same time, he intended to continue and persist in his opposition to the practice of flogging. His hon. and learned Friend said they were doing very wrong not to utilize the opportunity given by this Bill, and that if they did not accept what was now offered it would be a good while before they would get another chance. His hon. and learned Friend was mistaken in that assertion. If the present Bill did not pass they would have an opportunity of amending the Mutiny Bill, not once, but every year; and he was quite certain, now that this matter of corporal punishment had once been raised, that it would never be dropped until the experiment of its abolition had been tried. If, then, this present Bill were abandoned, the Mutiny Bill would be opposed year after year by an annually increasing number of Members, backed by an enormous support outside the House; while, if they passed this present Bill, with its regulation for 25 lashes, they would be passing a permanent measure which they would have no opportunity of revising, except by promoting a Private Bill, which, as they all knew, had very little chance of being carried. Under these circumstances, he contended that he and his Friends were justified in offering the kind of opposition which had been already successful, until they had succeeded in dragging fresh concessions from the Government. He had hoped that some consideration would have been given to the suggestion just made by the hon. Member for the County of Cork (Mr. Shaw), to abolish the punishment for a limited time. He quite understood the feeling of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War, and he knew that he had a conscientious conviction that the discipline of the Army could not be maintained without the infliction of this punishment; but then the right hon. and gallant Gentleman must give him credit for having an equally conscientious conviction that the condition of the Army would be materially elevated if it were abolished—and the right hon. and gallant Gentleman need not let his convictions stand in the way of such an experiment as had been suggested. Let them try its abolition for a year; and if they then found that the bonds of discipline had become loose because they could not flog the soldiers, they could then come to the House and confess their failure. He would only add, on sitting down, that the friends of humanity and the friends of the British Army owed a great debt of gratitude to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) for standing up alone against this system of flogging, when he himself and other Members had not got the courage of their opinions. The hon. Member had opposed flogging in the Mutiny Bill, but unsuccessfully; he had opposed it unsuccessfully in the Prisons Bill; but now he raised it again, and he hoped that his efforts would be crowned with success.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

wished to say just a word in explanation, for he had been rather misunderstood. If the present Bill were passed, the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), or any other Member, would not be debarred next year, or any other year, from raising again this question of flogging. In one sense this Bill might be called a permanent measure, but in another sense it was only an annual Bill; and it would be quite competent for any hon. Member, on the ordinary annual Bill, to move a provision that flogging should be abolished, or to move any other Amendment which he could move on the present Bill.

MR. NEWDEGATE

complained that for the last two or three years the Business of the House had been obstructed, and he appealed to the right hon. Baronet not to aid in any way the section of the House which had been so acting. The House ought not to give up in this way to a mere section of its Members, who were persisting in the very course which the Committee on Public Business had condemned.

MR. RYLANDS

protested against the language of the hon. Member. The Committee had now before it a most important Act of Parliament disturbing Constitutional principles—[" No, no ! "] —he said disturbing Constitutional principles, not overriding or overruling them. The Bill disturbed the Constitutional principle that every year the House should have before it a Mutiny-Bill, defining from year to year the regulations and discipline of the Army and the control of the Crown. They were now asked to give up that power of control to a very great extent. No doubt, what the hon. and learned Member bad stated was exactly true, that some Amendments might be proposed in the Continuation Bill; but it could only be done with great difficulty, according to the Forms of the House, by getting instructions given to the Committee which would enable them to propose some Amendment. But did the hon. and learned Member for a moment believe that any independent Member of that House would have the slightest chance of making any such proposal? Hon. Members must know perfectly well that if they passed this Bill they passed it in a form which would be permanent for many years to come, and that they would have nothing like the opportunity they had hitherto annually enjoyed of dealing with these important matters. Yet, when they were thus dealing with important principles, they were lectured by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire as though they had been guilty of obstruction. He knew what was intended. The object of the bon. Member was to fasten upon the Opposition the charge of obstruction; but what had been already accomplished would show the public that the Opposition were fully justified in the course that they had taken.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

observed, that such observations as had just been made by the bon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) came too late, and were altogether out of place at the present moment. The hon. Gentleman raised a question, not with regard to the particular clause now before the Committee, but a question as to whether it was or was not right to proceed with a Bill which would place the military law and the system of Army discipline and regulation upon the footing which it would be placed by the passing of an Act which was to be in one sense permanent, but which would require an annual Act to set it in motion every year. That was, no doubt, an important question; but it was one which the House had already decided. It was not a question of what the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), or his right hon. Friend behind him (Sir Robert Peel), or anybody else, might think upon the matter, because that question had been decided by the House by passing the second reading of the Bill, and by agreeing to go into Committee. There would still remain, in the ordinary course of things, an opportunity to hon. Gentlemen, if they thought it right, again to challenge the principle of the Bill. It was, however, absolutely impossible that any Bill of any kind or sort could be conducted through that House if they were, in the course of the Committee, from time to time to take opportunities of re-opening and challenging the whole principle of the measure. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down said that an attempt had been made to fasten upon him and others a charge of obstruction. Nobody would fasten a charge of obstruction upon any Gentlemen who did not first fasten it upon themselves. There was no objection, and none could be made, to any fair discussion of the principles of each clause as they came to it, or of any Amendment which anyone thought right to propose. There had been a long discussion upon this very important clause, which was still in the hands of the Committee; and the Government desired nothing better than that the Committee should go on and finish the clause, with which it had already made so much progress. They had shown, in the course they had taken, that they were not indisposed to listen carefully and candidly to the arguments brought forward; but the Committee had now come to a point at which it was necessary, and at which it was the duty of the Government, to say distinctly—"We cannot accept any of the suggestions thrown out or proposals made by hon. Gentlemen in the course of this discussion." Hon. Members were within their right in proposing them, and they might take the sense of the Committee upon them. He did protest, however, against their allowing themselves to fall into a practice which would be utterly fatal to the progress of any Business which had to be conducted through the House. The House decided the principle of a Bill when it agreed to go into Committee, and if it was necessary to challenge that principle again, there was a further oppor- tunity of doing it. He did earnestly hope that after this conversation, which might not have been without some use, now that the right hon. Gentleman had asked to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress, the Committee would, in the interests of all parties, and not least, he thought, in the interests of the House itself, allow the Motion to be withdrawn, and proceed with the consideration of the Bill as it stood before them. No time could be better than the present for going on with that important discussion. The House was thoroughly alive to the points at issue. Hon. Members desired to express their opinions upon it; and he did earnestly impress on the Committee that that would be the sensible and Constitutional course to pursue.

MR. SHERIDAN

said, there seemed to be some misconception as to what took place on Tuesday. He suggested to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman on that occasion that an excellent opportunity was afforded for a compromise, by reducing the number of lashes from 50 to 25. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not avail himself of the proposition as he submitted it to him; though, subsequently, when the noble Lord (the Marquess of Hartington) had also expressed himself to that effect, he said that he had been convinced, by what had fallen from his Friends and the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire(Colonel Mure), that the time had come when he could safely make the proposed reduction. Under these circumstances, he thought it was justifiable, after hon. Gentlemen heard this, to consider they were not bound by the proposal for a compromise. He had hoped that a correct view of all the circumstances would induce his hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) to come to the same conclusion. He thought, however, that he himself was bound by the compromise which he offered; and, therefore, he should withdraw when a Division was taken on that point, because he considered himself bound by the suggestion he had made.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

wished to suggest that, instead of losing time in the discussion upon the number of lashes that should be given, or the number of tails to the lash, some hon. Member should propose a distinct Amendment that the punishment should be totally abolished, and let a Division be taken, and let that settlement be final. [" No, no!"] Well, if the decision of an Assembly like that were not to be taken as final, it would be impossible to transact Business.

MR. CALLAN

was sorry that the Committee had not disproved the charge made by the hon. Gentleman the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newde-gate), instead of by silence giving it a qualified acceptance. He wished, also, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would assure the Committee that the statement of the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) was correct— namely, that next year they would have the same power of discussing the Mutiny Bill as they now possessed. Such an assurance would greatly facilitate the discussion, and would induce him, for one, not to take the part he otherwise should in opposing this Bill. He must remind the Committee, however, that in the year 1874, on the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, it was ruled by the Chairman that they had no power to introduce any Amendments into the Coercion Act.

MR. PARNELL

said, the hon. and learned Member for Oxford contradicted himself; for while he told them in one breath if this Bill dropped and the old Mutiny Bill passed they would be unable to restrict the number of lashes, he told them almost immediately afterwards that they would be able every year to direct attention to this question of flogging, and to restrict the number of lashes in the discussion on the annual renewal of the Prisons Act.

MR. OTWAY

wished to explain to the right hon. Baronet opposite (Sir Robert Peel) that he did not move to report Progress, but merely suggested it, in order that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War might consult his military advisers as to whether this fragment of the punishment of flogging was worth preserving. He wished, also, to utter one word of warning; and to ask his hon. Friends, from his own experience, to mistrust counsels that came from the front Bench on each side of the House, especially on questions of this kind. When he first brought this question before the House, the spirit in which he was received by Mr. Disraeli and the late General Peel did them the greatest credit and honour, and was a marked contrast with the reception it met from right hon. Gentlemen on his own side, he being thon in the Opposition. He was not surprised at the support the hon. and learned Member for Oxford gave this Bill; for, if he was correctly informed, although he was not thon in Parliament, no one was more strenuous than his hon. and learned Friend, when Chairman of the Committee, in preventing this question of corporal punishment from being discussed.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

begged pardon—the question was never raised on that Committee.

MR. OTWAY

replied, that, of course, he must have been misinformed; but he received his information on authority which was more than abundant. But he wanted to show his hon. and learned Friend How far he had allowed his partiality to exceed his logic. He pressed them to accept a Bill which was such a marvel of drafting as to be almost perfection, and thon had next to state that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had made important concessions in a Bill which, they were told, had been well and carefully considered. In this Bill, the right hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge had made most important concessions in one of its most important clauses. What he wished to point out was that it was important for them who were earnest in this matter, and were determined to remove from the British Army this disgraceful thing, not to listen to, or be bound by, what were called compromises or agreements. He listened with the greatest regret to the proposition made yesterday by the hon. Member behind him (Mr. J. Brown), not because his motives were not most excellent, but because he desired only to modify a barbarous punishment. He (Mr. Otway) knew that some hon. Gentlemen would immediately endeavour to fix upon them the statement that a large section of the Liberal Party had accepted that compromise as a fit and suitable termination of the discussion. But he would tell the Committee that the Liberal Party in the country would never accept a compromise on this question; and the prospect which his hon. and learned Friend had held out to the Committee, and the con- stant repetition of these discussions, made it well worth the while of the Committee to consider whether such a thing would be desirable or not. He had seen no obstruction at present on this question. The right hon. and Gentleman opposite (Colonel Stanley), who was the best judge of the matter, had declared that the opposition offered had been fit and proper, and that he was not one to carry opposition beyond that which he considered fair and right. But up to a certain point, and at every legitimate opportunity, they would force on the notice of the House and the country the consideration of this question. He would, therefore, in the most sincere desire to see this useful measure carried through, advise the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to avoid a discussion which must evidently partake more or less of a Party spirit, and make up his mind to settle this question once and for all.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS

said, he rose merely for the purpose of answering the question which had been put by the hon. Member for Dundalk, whether the Government would endorse what fell from the hon. and learned Member for Oxford as to the right of any hon. Gentleman every year to raise this question? What had been stated by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Oxford was true; an opportunity would be afforded every year of raising the question. He regretted very much what had fallen from his hon. Friend (Mr. Otway) on the subject. He appealed to the common sense of the Committee whether anything new had been said on the matter; and he defied anyone to say whether the question had not been pressed on the attention of the House and the country. He trusted that, as common-sense people, they would now take a Division.

THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTON

I think the House would do well to proceed now with the consideration of the Bill in Committee. The question actually before us at the present moment is one raised by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth—whether it is desirable that further progress with the Bill should be altogether suspended? I am very far from saying that circumstances may not arise in the course of the consideration of a Bill in Committee which may make it necessary for the House to be invited to take a general view of the situation, and to decide whether the Bill, at the stage which it has reached, ought to be proceeded with or not; but I venture to say that nothing has taken place in the course of this Committee which would warrant the House taking such a view of the situation. My hon. and learned Friend (Sir William Harcourt) has shown conclusively that no material alteration in the form, scope, or shape of the Bill has been made; and it would be altogether a new and most unfortunate doctrine to lay down that an Amendment— even an important Amendment—of a clause was a reason why a Bill should be dropped. Some reference has been made to a supposed promise given on Tuesday; and I think it is to be regretted that on that subject the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) has not stated what his understanding was. I am not prepared to say that my recollection is accurate of what took place; but I understood that my hon. and learned Friend made a very conciliatory speech, which I thought was of the nature of a proposal for a compromise. I find I have misunderstood the situation, and that a great many Members have no idea there was any compromise at all. I do not intend to trouble the Committee at any further length. The Government have freely expressed their willingness to discuss the clauses of the Bill, and I do not think they can be expected to do more. And I am sure the Committee will be inclined to pay attention to any hon. Members. I acknowledge the importance of the subject, and the good faith with which it has been brought forward; but the importance of any subject must be, in a certain degree, relative, and very few subjects, indeed, are so important that they ought to be allowed to engross the attention of the House to the exclusion of all other questions. I am sure that if hon. Members will endeavour to discuss the subject within reasonable limits, they will find there is no imputation of obstruction; and I hope I shall not appeal in vain when I ask these on this side of the House to restrict their observations to reasonable limits. In that way we shall arrive at the end, which, I am sure, we all have in view— namely, the carrying into effect of a reasonable, mild, and salutary system of punishment.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he regretted very much if he had misled his noble Friend in any way with regard to the opposition of Tuesday. But he did not understand it at all in the Way that had been stated. He was in the recollection of the Committee as to what took place. The question then was his Motion that the number of lashes should be restricted to six. The hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. J. Brown) proposed 25; and he, conceiving that if he gave up six and 25 were carried it would be a great gain to the cause, adopted it. He asked his hon. Friends who were acting with him to allow him to withdraw his Amendment, explaining that it bound them to nothing. He also stated that he should go on with his other Amendments, one of which was to make the limit 50 stripes. The Committee would remember, also, that immediately after the 25 lashes were accepted he moved an Amendment as to the number of thongs; and How could he have done that if he had agreed to any compromise? And now he begged to ask the Ministry to remember that this question of flogging was the main difficulty in the way of the Bill. Let them remember, also, that this was a moribund Parliament; that this flogging was regarded with hate and dislike in the country; and that they must soon face the judgment of the electors. He only heard a day or two ago of a friend of his who had to meet a constituency as a candidate, and because he had voted against flogging he lost the seat. They had already fought on this question; but it was not too late for Ministers to repent, even if their repentance did come a little tardily. The Home Secretary stated that nothing new was to be said on the question. That was the ease 40 or 50 years ago. It was also the case when they first began to fight this question a month ago. Yet they had succeeded in securing, by their persistence, this wholesome reduction of 50 per cent in the number of lashes. Let them, thon, continue to fight, and they must succeed in wiping this law from the Statute Book. It was utterly subversive of humanity; and the feeling in the country against it fully justified the opposition of himself and his Friends.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he understood that the hon. and learned Member for Stockport said he would not withdraw unless the Government accepted the compromise proposed; and when that had been agreed to, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. He, for one, was very instrumental in getting that accepted on that side of the House; and he believed that the general belief on both sides was that it was withdrawn on that ground.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

hoped they would not allow themselves to be carried on from one discussion to another, and that they would not enter into what he might term this co-collateral question. They really did not want discussed what took place on Tuesday. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated what he understood was clone; and he would now earnestly press the Committee to allow this matter to be treated in the ordinary business way. His right hon. Friend wished to withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress; and, if that were done, they might go on with this Bill, otherwise he was afraid they would never come to a decision at all.

MR. CALLAN

thought the conduct of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport had been altogether upright and Above-beard, and, in his opinion, it was very creditable to him. His Amendment was not withdrawn on any understanding for a compromise, nor had he misled anybody by acting as he had done.

MR. BIGGAR

, in reply to the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) said, that he, for one, could not at all accept the advice that he had just given. That advice was that they should take one Division upon the question whether there should be corporal punishment or not? That would not settle the question at all, for there was an endless number of degrees of corporal punishment. The Home Secretary had said that there was nothing new to be urged on the subject; but that was a very great mistake, for there was an enormous deal to be said on all branches of it. He had not the slightest doubt, if the opponents of the Bill would persevere, that they would finally get rid of this enactment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. JUSTIN M'CARTHY

said, with reference to the assertion of the Home Secretary that nothing new could be said on this subject, he thought he could bring as to this precise passage of the clause they were now discussing some evidence taken from a source not very commonly known to the Members of the House. It might be in the recollection of some hon. Members of the Committee that, in the year 1837, a Committee of that House was appointed to consider the whole question of the treatment of convicts in our Australian Colonies. They went most fully into all the details of that subject, and they contributed a most remarkable series of observations with regard to the effect of flogging on the physique of the convicts. He doubted very much whether the whole literature of the world contained so minute, so complete, or so horrifying an analysis of the operation of this practice on the physique of the men. In page after page, and column after column, were the most minute statements of the number of lashes inflicted, the effect upon each man, who bore it well, who suffered much; How many lashes nearly destroyed one man, and How many another could easily bear. At that time, under our convict system, it was in the power of magistrates in penal settlements to order the corporal punishment of convicts for very small offences. On the mere complaint of a master or a mistress, the magistrate might order up to 50 lashes for the smallest disobedience of orders. Originally, this subject had undergone much inquiry, and the Committee went into the matter very fully. The settlers raised as one objection to the system that it was not severe enough; and they said that the cat was not really so severe and so tormenting as the eat used in the Army. One witness gave it as his very distinct and practical opinion that the amount of '' torture " was not enough in all cases to deter convicts from breaking the bounds of order. He said, also, that he had seen the punishment of flogging in the Army, and that there it was much more severe and much more torturing. In these pages they had the description of How boys of 10 bore the punishment, and men of 60, and men of 30, and of what the effects were. One result of this evidence was to show that no one could give a certain opinion beforehand as to How any particular man would bear the flogging with a cat-o'-nine-tails. The Committee were told that with a cat of another construction it would be very possible to gauge the amount of suffering; but that for some reason, which he himself was unable to explain, the cat-o'-nine-tails was most capricious in its punishments. Surgeons, doctors, officials of all kinds were called as witnesses, and they all told the same story— that men from whom they would not have expected any great powers of endurance sometimes bore their lashing, and, apparently, did not suffer very much; while other men, who seemed strong, yet from their skins being thin and their muscles weak, were utterly broken down by a smaller amount of punishment. There was a case of a very strong man who broke down at the 25th lash, and thon the remainder of the punishment was inflicted while he was in a state of positive insensibility. Other men came up with every desire to show pluck, and yet were taken away insensible. It was stated by many witnesses that they had known cases whore men had gone off none the worse for their punishment, and apparently not caring about it; while in other cases they were certain the men who were punished would carry to their graves — and to graves made early by this means— the effects of the torture they had received. All this proved one thing, at all events— the utter uncertainty of the punishment. It was as capricious as it was cruel. They could not count on how it would affect a man, or what prolonged suffering it might cause him, or how it might even shorten his life. At the present time, they might have a man punished by court martial for some grave and serious offence, and they might have another man punished by the provost marshal for some trifling breach of order; and the result might be that whilst the first man would bear his punishment easily and think nothing of it, the other man, punished for a mere trifling breach of discipline, would carry away a suffering which would last him all his life, and might lead him to an untimely grave. Merely, thon, on the ground that this punishment was capricious and uncertain, he did strongly urge the Government to try and see their way to meet the strong conscientious feeling among many Members present in favour of abolishing this prac- tice altogether. If they would not do that, he could only offer to them a cry at the Elections, which were now tolerably near. They knew that the Government was charged with making very serious Constitutional changes in the system of the country; and, giving them a free rendering of a certain very famous phrase, let the Government go to the country with the cry of "Our old cat and our new Constitution ! "

MR. MACDONALD

wished to offer his protest against the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt) coming forward as the chief apologist of this Bill—in fact, it seemed as if he held a brief from the Government to plead their case. He told them it had not undergone any change, when, as a fact, merely on the suggestion of the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Chamberlain), they had shattered 40 clauses of it completely. The reduction of the number from 50 to 25 was also an entire change in the character of the Bill. They had been asked, during the course of that debate, to point out defects by speaking as to the effect of the punishment upon these persons who had been subjected to it. He had heard those who had been subjected to it state once, twice, dozens of times— and that remark he was induced to make because of a statement that fell from the Secretary of State for War, that if they had not that punishment, they must inflict the penalty of death—he had heard these who had undergone that barbarous punishment state again and again, 30 years after the punishment had been inflicted, 10 years after it had been inflicted, 20 years after it had been inflicted—that they would 20 times sooner have gone to the yard-arm than submit to such a punishment. If hon. Gentlemen did not know what going to the yard-arm meant, he would tell them that it meant being hung. These men would far rather have been hung than suffer the degradation of being flogged. He protested against it, because it was the maintenance of a class over a class. It was the maintenance of a power over these on whom the country depended that was perilous to the State — namely, its soldiers and sailors; and he ventured to say that no class in connection with the defenders of their country should be permitted to mutilate and destroy the bodies of those who were fighting the battles of the country.

MR. RYLANDS

said, he was sorry the Secretary of State for War did not happen to be present, though he was sure the Committee could not complain of him upon that ground. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman's attention to the Bill had been most marked. Now, he wished to point out that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had seemed to complain of the wording of the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway), because be had said that if his hon. Friend had been present in the House on a former occasion he would not have put down an Amendment of that kind. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said that he had given the Committee an assurance that the cat which was to be used for military punishment should be a cat to be sealed at the "War Office, in order to prevent any abuse of the proper instruments of punishment; and he also went on to say that he would take care to make no changes, but would use for the Army a cat of the same description as that which had been in use from time immemorial. Upon that statement he wished to make an observation or two. In the first place, it would be seen that the Amendment of his hon. Friend was to the effect that corporal punishment should not be inflicted on any soldier by the instrument known as the cat-o'-nine-tails, a sealed pattern of which was deposited at the Admiralty. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not say what instrument was to be used. It might possibly be the case that he intended that the eat-o'-nine-tails used for the purpose of the Army should not be of the same description as that of which there was a sealed pattern at the Admiralty. If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would say so, that of course, to some extent, would meet the Amendment of his hon. Friend. He must say, however, that he had heard with regret the statement of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that the cat he intended to adopt in the Army was of the description which had been used from time immemorial, because he knew that in years gone by the instrument used was of a character which endangered human life. He had been trying to refresh his memory as to the date of a celebrated inquest which was held upon a soldier; but he had no doubt that hon. Members would remember the date. He alluded to what was known as the Hounslow case, in which a soldier under the infliction of that cat —the very cat which was intended by the Secretary of State for War to be the sealed pattern which was to be handed down to future generations for future punishments — died, and a Coroner's inquest was held upon him, which Coroner's Jury decided that the man had been murdered by the infliction of flogging. That question was brought before the House of Commons at the time, and created a great sensation. "What he wished to point out to the Committee was this. He fancied he had been a little misunderstood by the Chancellor of the Exchequer—he was sure quite unintentionally—who seemed to think that he was anxious to raise a question which would more properly have been raised on the second reading of the Bill. He meant with regard to the substitution of a permanent measure of Army discipline and regulation in place of the annual Mutiny Bill. He did not wish to raise the question of the propriety of that course. That was not his argument at all. His argument went to this extent— that, in as much as they were now crystallizing, as it were, the military law by a permanent measure, they were justified in giving a more minute attention to the framing of that Act, and occupying more time in its consideration than they would have been justified in doing in the case of an annual Bill. He saw the right hon. and gallant Gentleman returning to his place, and he dared say that he would answer this question— "Whether the cat which it was proposed to seal and deposit at the War Office, as he presumed, was exactly the same as the pattern deposited at the Admiralty; or whether he had in contemplation any alteration or modification of the cat-o'-nine-tails which had been in use in the Army for many years past, and in some cases had had in its application very dangerous and injurious effects?

MR. OTWAY

said, he really could not conceive why the right hon. and gallant Gentleman did not accept his Amendment. It was of the simplest possible character, unless the right hon. and gallant Gentleman entirely misapprehended it. He had understood the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say that he was prepared to use an instrument of torture of a different character, and not so severe as that which was used under the auspices of the Admiralty. Therefore, why would not the right hon. and gallant Gentleman accept an Amendment so innocent as his, which simply said that if torture was to be inflicted upon the soldier it should not be by such an instrument as that at the Admiralty.

COLONEL STANLEY

considered that if he were to accept the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman, the Committee would be in a worse position than they were before. It was a negative Amendment. What he had said was this— that there would be no difference between the various cats-o'-nine-tails used in the Army, and, in order to prevent any possible difference, he would cause a pattern to be sealed, which should be taken from the existing pattern as he found it in the Army. That seemed to him to be perfectly fair. He had never heard, as a matter of hearsay, that it was more or less severe than in the Admiralty. He believed it was neither one nor the other. He considered that he was fit to undertake the responsibility of seeing that what was right was properly carried out.

MR. PARNELL

said, that now they had the three right hon. Gentlemen there—the Home Secretary, the First Lord of the Admiralty, and the Secretary of State for War—it would be extremely interesting to know what they knew about these cats, for he rather ventured to think that they did not know anything at all about them. They were told that there was a sealed pattern at the Admiralty, and another at the Home Office for flogging thieves; that at the Admiralty being for use on beard Her Majesty's ships. Now they were told that they were to have a third sealed pattern for the Army; but if neither of the right hon. Gentlemen knew anything of the nature of the patterns they had adopted, what guarantee would there be to the House that the Secretary of State for War would not also adopt a pattern of which he knew nothing? Now, let him direct the attention of the Committee, for one moment, to the history of that question, and to the reason which induced the Admiralty to adopt a sealed pattern of the cat. In a former discussion on the Marine Mutiny Bill, it was asked by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) that a pattern should be adopted and laid on the Table of the House. The First Lord of the Admiralty—not the present First Lord, but one of his Predecessors—refused that, but offered to have a sealed pattern deposited at the Admiralty. He was induced to do that, because the noble Lord the Member for Clare County (Lord Francis Conyngham) had pointed out that during his service at sea there were two distinct patterns of cat used on beard ship—one of them being a thieves' cat, and the other, which was lighter and of a less severe description, was used for other descriptions of offences. But the noble Lord said that he had frequently seen the thieves' cat used for such offences as breaches of discipline; and he had told How, upon a particular occasion, he had seen the boatswain's mate draw his fingers through the strings of the cat in order to remove the flesh which had been cut from the man's back. It was this that induced the thon First Lord of the Admiralty — and he was relating this story for the benefit of the present First Lord— to say that he would seal a pattern at the Admiralty. But he wanted to know How this matter had progressed; and he thought they were entitled to learn, at that stage of the discussion, How much the right hon. Gentleman knew of the cat— How many knots there were in it?— because some cats had two knots, and some five or six. He wished to be informed what description of cat it was that had been sealed? Members of the House could not go and see these things for themselves. They could not go inside prisons— they could only glean from report; and they had always heard that the prison flogging was of a very severe character. But if flogging in the Army was to be made as severe as in the prisons, they would find that they had retrograded very considerably, and that the reduction of the number of lashes from 50 to 25 would be of no practical benefit to the men. He could not see why the cat should not be altogether abolished. He thought they were entitled to know the views of the Secretary of State for War upon that matter, as he had never yet expressed them. They had been told, by a variety of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's supporters, that because the punishment was of a degrading character they had retained it. Now, they could disgrace a soldier just as much by flogging him with a rod as with a cat-o'-nine-tails; and he wished to ask the Secretary of State for "War what his view was with regard to the punishment? Was its object solely that of disgrace; or was it on account of the torture it inflicted? If he desired to retain it merely on account of the disgrace, he could inflict just as much disgrace by means of a birch rod; and they were right in asking, as was asked by the Amendment, that they should know something about it. He recollected a story that made a great impression upon his mind about flogging. It was in connection with the old Irish Rebellion of 1798, and it happened close to the place of his birth. The method of flogging which was thon in vogue was that recommended by the hon. and gallant General the Member for Brighton (General Shute) — namely, tying the sufferer to a cart's tail, drawing him along, and flogging him all the time. A man in that case was tied to the cart's tail, and was flogged with a cat while walking over a space of ground that he knew well, and that was from three to four miles in length. He was flogged until his entrails hung out; and when the poor sufferer perceived he was being cut to pieces in such a way, he called out to the colonel of the regiment, though he was not a soldier, but a poor peasant. He well recollected the name of that colonel. " Colonel Leo," called out the man — '' Do you allow your men to flog my guts out? " Well, that man's entrails dropped out on to the road, and he died at the tail of the cart. If he had been flogged with a rod, he could not have been injured in such a manner. They were going to use an instrument by which they might kill a man, or, at least, do him serious injury; and he thought they ought to have the views of the Secretary of State for War upon the subject.

MR. ANDERSON

said, it occurred to him that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had misapprehended the drift of the Amendment. He had taken it up as if it were a sort of allegation that he intended to break the promise he had made to the Committee about sealing the pattern. The Amendment had no such meaning as that. Perhaps the Amendment would be a little clearer if it contained no allusion to a sealed pattern. According to his reading, it simply opened up the whole question of abolishing the "cat" entirely. If the sealed pattern was to remain, there was no objection to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman having one at the War Office, and the closer it was sealed up the better. Perhaps it would make an ancient monument. He had not taken any part in the debate for the last four days; but that was not because he did not feel strongly upon the subject. He had voted, and would continue to do so, in all the divisions which were against the brutal punishment of flogging. He must say that if they wanted to make men brutes, they had only to give them brutal punishment. If they wanted to elevate them, they should abandon punishments of a brutal nature. He believed that nothing would do more to raise the status of their Army than to let them know that there was to be no flogging in future. The Government did not allow officers to be flogged, and they had now exempted non-commissioned officers; and he would ask them just to go a step further, and exempt the men also. It was from that class that they drew their non-commissioned officers; and they could not expect to get self-respecting men to enter the Army if this degradation was to be held over them. If he understood aright, even the Volunteers, if called upon for active service, would immediately come under the Ordinance of War, and be liable to that punishment. He entirely agreed with these who had determined to do all they possibly could, and never to rest until that punishment was put an end to. He had been told that if they neglected that opportunity, they would have the same opportunity afforded them in future years. But that was like what they were told when it was proposed to change a Sessional Order into a Standing Order. They could change a Standing Order; but it cost much more time and trouble than a Sessional Order, and it would be just the same with that Bill. It was especially difficult to alter a permanent Bill; and that was the reason that they ought to do all they could now to induce the Government, having left in the Bill such a wretched rag of this punishment, to do away with it altogether.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

said, he rose with the intention of moving an Amendment to the Amendment, with the assent of the Mover, which he thought would, perhaps, carry out his views. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman appeared not to have quite understood the scope of the Amendment. He did not know whether he was representing the hon. Member for Rochester correctly in saying that he wished the instrument called the "cat" to be abolished altogether in Her Majesty's Army; and that in order to describe what he meant, he added the qualifying words —"of which a sealed pattern is deposited at the Admiralty." Now, it appeared to him that if they were to leave out these words, thon they would know what they were going to divide about. The intention, thon, would clearly be to abolish that instrument which was kept for the punishment only of English soldiers, sailors, and malefactors. It appeared to him that these three categories should not be linked together, even by a similarity of punishment. His attention had been called to the question of flogging in the Army long before he had the honour of a seat in the House; and, at the election at which he was returned, the subject was brought up. His opponent was said to have opposed the abolition of corporal punishment in the Army; and it was, perhaps, owing as much to the fact that he had opposed the proposition of the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway), when, greatly to his honour, the hon. Member moved that this punishment should not be inflicted in a time of peace, as to any other act he had performed in his Parliamentary life, that he owed the opposition he received. He (Mr. H. Samuelson) constantly heard, in the course of his canvass, and on every platform on which he appeared during the election, that his constituents had a deep-rooted feeling against a punishment which they considered degrading to humanity, and only fit to be awarded to woman-beaters and persons who committed abominable crimes that it was impossible to describe. It was regarded as a disgrace to the legislation of the country that our brave soldiers, who were always spoken of as our gallant defenders, should be awarded this punishment in common with such desperadoes; and the continued existence of flogging in the Army was looked upon as a circumstance which no Englishman could think of without feeling shame. He objected altogether to the use of the cat-o'-nine tails, believing that it was quite possible to inflict adequate punishment by some instrument, at any rate, less degrading; and for this reason, he would move, as an Amendment, that the words " of which a sealed pattern is deposited at the Admiralty " be left out.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out the words " of which a sealed pattern is deposited at the Admiralty."—{Mr. Henry Samuelson.)

Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. OTWAY

said, he had no objection at all to the Amendment. The hon. Member had correctly described the reasons which had induced him to put down the words "a sealed pattern should be deposited," and he was very glad that the hon. Member had raised the question.

MR. EVELYN ASHLEY

remarked that, though, according to the Home Secretary, it was impossible to bring forward a new argument he, at any rate, could give his contribution to the debate, by bringing forward a new speaker. He had hitherto taken no part in the discussion of the Bill, although he had sat listening to it with great interest. Nor did he intend to detain the Committee at any length. Indeed, there was one fact which, standing alone, offered matter which was incapable of an answer. The very fact that we were the one nation which resorted to this punishment ought to carry with it the condemnation of the practice. Only the other day, the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire (Colonel Mure) came forward, very ably and very rightly, to defend the status of our soldiers, and to deprecate the manner in which a man was treated who wore the Queen's uniform, in regard to the social relations of life, many persons regarding it as an emblem of social inferiority. He could not help thinking of the retort which might have been made to the hon. and gallant Member, who, with the same breath, was arguing in favour of the retention of flogging, on the ground that there was more than the average of bad characters in the British Army. He certainly failed to understand How the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrewshire's advocacy of the lash could forward his demand that the wearers of Her Majesty's uniform should be placed on a footing of equality with the rest of the community. He (Mr. Evelyn Ashley) denied that the British soldier was at present on a footing of equality with the rest of the community, although he ought to be, and we ought not to keep him in a degrading position. To one who, like himself, desired to form an impartial opinion on this question of flogging, it was striking to note that every one of the arguments he had heard were used when the hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway) brought forward his Motion, some ten years ago, to get rid of the use of the " cat'' in time of peace. Many hon. and gallant Members at that time had asserted, both in public and private, that the British soldier could not be managed at all if they got rid of flogging; but they had done very well without it at home, and be saw no reason why it should not be abolished in a time of war as well as in a time of peace, as it inevitably would be before they were 10 years older. He believed that before many years passed by they would look back with astonishment at the fact that such a degrading punishment could ever have been resorted to, or that it should have been considered necessary, in a civilized country, to retain this relic of barbarism.

MR. M'LAREN

said, he had been a silent listener to the debate since the Bill was first introduced; and, therefore, he could not be charged with having wasted the time of the House. He did not intend now to detain the Committee for more than a few minutes with what he should feel it necessary to say. He detested flogging in every shape and way, and would take every means in his power of extinguishing such a barbarous punishment. It appeared to him that there was a far better cure for keeping soldiers in good order, and that was to get better men than they got now, and the way to get better men was to increase their pay. If they gave the men 6d. a-day more, and allowed them to marry in greater numbers than they were now able to do, they would get excellent men to serve them, and men who would not need the lash. He thought that was the real way of improving the Service, and he recommended it to the notice and consideration of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War. A shilling a-day to the soldier was the ordinary wages of labourers and mechanics at the time it was first fixed; but now the case was very different.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, they often heard of the frightful state of the soldier even among his own countrymen; and Motions had been made in that House for the interference of Parliament to prevent the stripes on a red coat from being regarded as a badge of inferiority whenever a soldier appeared in church, or at a meeting, or in a music ball, or in any public place. He wondered whether it ever occurred to gallant officers, who appeared to be so bent on the retention of flogging, that there was a singular inconsistency on their part when they professed to feel sore at the contempt with which some persons regarded the position of a soldier and the uniform of a private, while they themselves were doing all in their power to perpetuate the very worst degradation it was possible to inflict upon any man —he would not say soldier, or even slave. The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Macdonald) had, he was certain, truly expressed an opinion which was widely prevalent in this country — namely, that this flogging confined to the lower ranks of the Army—this use of the lash—was a horrible survival of the old theories of caste, which had divided the country into the class which was flogged and the class which flogged. In the British Army the officer who rose from the ranks very seldom obtained anything like that position among officers who had not risen from the ranks which he obtained in the French Army. It could not be but natural that this prejudice among officers who entered the Army from the classes which were not subjected to flogging should exist towards a man who, no matter what his merits were, while carrying a firelock, belonged to that class which could be stripped and tied up to a triangle, and have three or four dozen stripes laid upon his back before all the soldiers of the regiment. One of the earliest recollections of his own life, when a child, was having seen the soldiers drawn up in the barrack-yard for the infliction of punishment upon a comrade. He had seen a man fastened to a black triangle, and had heard the lashes as they were inflicted, and from that day he had never faltered in his resolution to use all his efforts to bring about the total abolition of this horrible and degrading punishment. No doubt, they were beginning a totally new era in the discipline of the Army. Whether it was from the merits or demerits of the Irish Members who chose to criticize the annual Mutiny Bill, the Government had now brought in a permanent Mutiny Bill; and he asked the Committee if they ought not to seize the opportunity of definitely breaking away from the worst traditions of the past? In this country there were men bearing about with them the marks of the lashes they had received. These men exercised a powerful influence among their countrymen when they told their story. Even in cases whore they had really deserved the lash—even in such cases, the listener who heard of a man tied up to the triangle and receiving 50 or 100 lashes lost all sympathy with the object for which such a punishment was awarded; their feelings were excited by the horrible nature of the punishment, and they forgot, or disdained to inquire into, the nature of the crime. There was hardly any crime that could be committed, except the very worst, that was deserving of the horrible degradation of inflicting on a grown man the infamy of the lash. If the lash must be still reserved for some brutal offences, let them change the old nomenclature. Let them get rid of the horrible cat-o'-nine-tails, with all its horrible traditions. At any rate, let them abolish the words " lash " and " cat-o'-nine-tails," and administer the flogging with a rod, or a whip, or something that would enable them to break off from all the old traditions. If ever, in any exceptional case, a man was to be so degraded that he was to be lashed by any instrument, from the instant the lash descended upon his shoulders he should cease to be a member of the Army. It was possible that some such excuse might be found, as that a man would court the lash, in order to be free from the Army; but he thought the Army would be well free from any man who would court the lash for such a purpose. They ought to have regard to the fact that they had now to fall back upon a class which furnished deserters to a large extent, because the lash deterred many respectable men from entering the Army. He thought the economical advantages would be decidedly great, even if one or two incorrigible scoundrels preferred two dozen on their bare back as a ready means of escaping an honourable Service. If flogging were abolished, the prominent part the Irish Members had been wont to take in the matter would no longer be required of them. He felt—and the English and Scotch Members also felt—that no more popular speech could be uttered in that House than a speech against the horrors of the lash. If he could believe the Ministerial papers, nobody ought to be condemned more than an incorrigible Home Ruler, like himself; and yet he was every morning receiving thanks for the part he was taking in opposing the lash. He warned Her Majesty's Government to beware, lest their zeal for flogging did not flog them out of Office at the next General Election. It would be a most effective cry at an Election that the present Government had insisted on maintaining the lash for the English soldier. The people were becoming-more educated from day to day; the Beard and other schools were raising up educated classes among the masses of the nation from day to day; and these people felt, with the pride of intelligence, the infamy to all their order and to all their class—the insult to humanity itself, which consisted in the perpetuation of the brutal and degrading lash.

MR. HOPWOOD

thought there was a word or two which might be said with a business-like eye to this Amendment. There were objections, as he dared say right hon. and gallant Gentlemen now saw, to the cat-o'-nine-tails. Assuming it to be a foregone conclusion, although it was one to which he would not submit until he was obliged to do so, that they were to have corporal punishment, he contended that the cat-o'-nine-tails was not a thing to be tolerated. Among all things applied to discipline by history, he did not think there was any authentic record to be found of the cat-o'-nine-tails. It was said that whipping was first adopted in the Middle Ages, so far the Army of England was concerned. When the cat-o'-nine-tails first sprang into existence was a matter of conjecture. It was said to be about the middle of the last century. They knew something of the history of other nations. Scourging was familiar to the Romans. He did not think there were ever stronger men in the world, in a muscular point of view, than the trained drummer or farrier-sergeants of the Toot and Cavalry; and he did not think that the ancient scourging with rods produced the effect which could be produced by a well administered blow, with all the might and muscle of the drummer, delivered on the bare back of a man. It was not on the bare back alone, but it cut and curled round the breast; and sometimes, with hellish torture, when a right-handed man was tired out, a left-handed man was substituted, so as to inflict cross-cuts around a man's back. It appeared to him that the three right hon. Gentlemen representing Prisons, Army, and Navy, were to be appointed to act as semi-executioners, in order to see that the tools were in order; that they were furnished with proper minuteness; that the instruments of torture were of the requisite strength of handle and size of cord, and so on. Eight hon. Gentlemen would have to undertake that duty if they were to say what the sealed pattern was to be; because it would be their duty to see that all these things were done. Scourging was the punishment anciently employed. There was, too, another nation from whom they derived great traditions, and to whom they were indebted for much that they believed— the Jews. They practised stripes, but not a stripe that made nine inflictions at a time. A remarkable expression of one who sprang from that nation, and the great Apostle they revered so much, was—" Of the Jews five times received I 40 stripes save one." And why " 40 save one? " Because, from scrupulosity in the performance of the law among that nation, they took care not to administer the full amount, which was 40. We had no such scruples, but were dancing with delight because Her Majesty's Government only gave us 225 instead of 450 lashes—25 lashes with the cat-o-nine-tails, instead of 50. This was the way in which the soldier was to be treated. He would just add one more matter of experience. There was a friend of his who was the governor of a goal, and a man of very strongly-pronounced humanity, of which he had given many proofs. This gentleman told him, in regard to this business of flogging— and he did not altogether go with him (Mr. Hopwood) as to its entire abolition— this gentleman said—"If you want to produce a smart, it may be done as well by a birch rod as it can be by the 'cat.'" He (Mr. Hopwood) did not know whether the gentleman he referred to acted in opposition to the rules and regulations; but he declined to use the "cat." He had almost entirely dispensed with it, even in the case of the ferocious men brought under his charge in the goal, and the rod had been substituted. He would suggest to the Government that the rod would be quite sufficient; and if anyone doubted that the punishment inflicted by such a weapon in the hands of a drummer would make him feel, let him try the experiment, and he would soon see if it was not enough. At any rate, they would part with a weapon that was likely to do fatal injury, and a barbarous indignity, which was a disgrace to our nationality and to the Army which was supplied with it.

MR. BIGGAR

said, that at the risk of being charged with saying something he had said before, he would take the liberty of saying a few words with regard to the Motion now before the Committee. A great deal had been said against the use of the cat; but he was not aware that anything had been said in favour of it. The present system of punishment in the Army was of a most brutal description. All hon. Members who had given their views upon the subject were unanimous in that opinion; and one-half of the Government, and even the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate), had not said a single word in favour of this system of punishment. He put it to the Committee whether a system of punishment which would not be tolerated towards the lower animals should be tolerated towards the Army? Torture directed against an animal—a donkey, a horse, or a cow—in the manner proposed for the British Army, would not for a moment be sanctioned. If anyone tried it, the result would be that he would be at once hauled before the magistrates, and sent to prison without the option of a fine. Even if he punished a horse in a much more modified degree, he would be brought up before the magistrates, and sent to goal; and, probably, the magistrates would order him to be flogged in goal for the offence. In all probability, a man of such a brutal nature would be very likely to commit some breach of prison discipline, and he would thon find himself dealt with in a manner in which he was not allowed to treat one of the lower animals outside the prison walls. For these reasons, he thought the Committee ought to refuse to allow the present system of flogging the British soldier to continue any longer, and should at once agree to the Amendment.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, it appeared to him very extraordinary that hon. Gentlemen opposite should insist on dwelling on this painful subject. He should like, however, to know what hon. Members thought if the discipline of the French Army were enforced in ours, and every person was shot who was liable to corporal punishment. ["Oh!"] Thon, what did hon. Members want? "What did they propose? War was not child's play. Soldiers would leave the regiment, and commit the grossest outrages —robbery, rape, and murder. Was it these who committed these offences that hon. Members desired to save from the lash? [" No ! "] Well; but was it not the fact? A court martial did not flog any soldier who remained with his regiment. Hon. Members opposite had accused soldiers of every vice. [" Hear, hear! "] " Hear, hear ! " and yet these were the men who enlisted their particular sympathies. He could not hear a murmur against that observation. They were the worst criminals who were engaging the sympathies of hon. Members opposite. He did not like flogging any better than they did; but he put it as a matter of economy. A well-trained soldier cost £110. He could not go low enough to reach the depth of sympathy which had been expressed on the other side. When a man's blood was up, he very frequently did things that he would not otherwise commit. But were all crimes committed in the heat of blood to be punished by death? He considered it imperative that there should be some short and sharp punishment for outrageous crimes committed in the field, and the view he held was that it was better to flog than to shoot. He believed that the opponents of flogging would rather shoot than flog.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

said, that the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had addressed so extraordinary an argument to the Committee that he felt bound to answer it. The fallacy that ran through the argument of the hon. Member was that if flogging was abolished they would have to shoot men; not only, as he said, men who were now flogged, but many more than were at present flogged. As to that, there could be no question whatever that the hon. Member was entirely wrong. He could understand that military authorities might say that if flogging were abolished there might be a certain number of cases which were at the present punished by flogging for which the alternative of shooting would have to be employed. He did not deny that something might be said for that view; but the hon. Member seemed to think that in every case for which flogging was now the punishment they would have to shoot. But the hon. Member had not indicated clearly whether he was referring to flogging which took place under the court martial clause, or the flogging which was conducted by the provost marshal. There were many men who were flogged by the provost marshal, whom it could not be contended would be shot if flogging were abolished. The hon. Member had said, with regard to the French Army, that a far greater number of men were shot in that Army than was the case with us. He had, however, laid no figures before the Committee to enable it to deal with the matter. He (Sir Charles W. Dilke) had seen a great deal of the French Army; he had followed them for three or four months, and he was inclined entirely to dispute the assertion that they shot more men than we did. During the Crimean War discipline was somewhat lax; but during the war in Italy not a single man was shot; and he thought the allegation which had been made altogether fell to the ground. At the time of the Crimean War the French Army had got into a very bad state, and discipline was very poor. That state of things called for very sharp and powerful measures; but he entirely disputed that since that time there had been a much larger number shot in the French Army than had taken place in our own. The French Army was an example to us in the matter of flogging; for not only did no flogging take place now, but it had been altogether abolished since the Great Revolution. It was not the case, as in other countries, that flogging had only been abolished in France for the last 10 or 12 years; but it had been unknown since the Revolution. When the Great Napoleon was asked to re-introduce flogging he declined altogether, as much for military as for political and social reasons. So strongly was Napoleon opposed to flogging that he even declined to hear any discussion with regard to the re-introduction of the punishment in the French Army in the future. In the course of his remarks the hon. Member for North Warwickshire had used two or three words—such as rape, robbery, and murder—as if flogging was only inflicted for these crimes, or for crimes equally serious. Perhaps he was not aware that it was proposed to flog a man for the most trivial offences, such as being drunk. When on beard ship, or in the Colonies in a time of war, although at a good distance from the field and under circumstances which, in time of peace, would be entirely passed over, men were to be flogged for offences which were very trivial, and were only grave because, technically, it was time of war. Flogging was to be inflicted not only for rape, robbery, and murder, but for the most trivial offences—in fact, soldiers were to be punished by a penalty which was only inflicted in aggravated cases, or upon the worst criminals of the country. On that side of the House they had a better opinion of soldiers than to think that they required to be treated like the worst criminals. No doubt, there might be criminals in the ranks of the Army, but they were but few; and there was no reason to suppose that this punishment was necessary to restrain those few. The hon. Member had said that he would put it as a matter of policy that, as each soldier cost the country £110, it would be better to flog than to shoot a man. He trusted the Committee would look at the matter in a much more practical way than that. Suggestions which had come from that side of the House had been of a strictly practical character. He was not averse himself to sentiment being brought in; but, still, flogging had been looked upon by hon. Members on that side of the House in a most practical way—they said that the punishment of flogging must necessarily degrade a man and make him a worse soldier. Moreover, they contended that the prevalence of flogging in the Army would become known by the newspapers and prevent the best class of men enlisting, which they would have been disposed to do had this punishment not been inflicted.

MR. O'DONNELL

observed, that, no doubt, the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea would confirm him, when he said that the custom in France was to have disciplinary battalions consisting of disgraced soldiers and those under punishment. All the bad characters were thus put together and kept under severe discipline in the punishment battalion. The country got good service out of these battalions, and the whole of the Army was not disgraced and degraded by the use of the lash. If necessary, the same system might be introduced into the British Army. He thought it would be very much better to have that or any other system, rather than to retain the barbarous and degrading punishment of flogging.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

wished to point out to the Committee that, under the Interpretation Clause of the Act, by which soldiers employed in the occupation of a foreign country were defined to be on active service, the clause in question would apply to the soldiers now serving in the Island of Cyprus. The hon. Member for Rochester (Mr. Otway) had obtained for the British Army the remission of the penalty of flogging in time of peace; but the policy of the Government had placed them in such an anomalous position that the most curious results followed. They were now occupying the Island of Cyprus, which was not English territory, for the Sultan had Sovereign rights over it; it was not an English Colony; it could, in fact, be described as nothing but a foreign country occupied by our troops. He would like to ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War whether, in time of peace, soldiers serving in the Island of Cyprus would be liable to the extremely penal clause of this Act? They were holding the country in military occupation; the troops there, therefore, were probably, technically, on active service. That they were occupying Cyprus as a foreign country was clear, for Cyprus was not English territory, and would have to be surrendered back in view of certain contingencies. In his opinion, some provision ought to be made for these troops serving in that country, and also with regard to troops who might be called upon to serve, under similar circumstances, in other parts of the world. It was not right that the fact that the soldiers were technically on active service abroad, though in time of peace, should make them, and them only, liable to this exceptional punishment of flogging.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that he must point out to the hon. Member that it did not appear to him that the question he had raised, as to the effect of peace and war upon the position of soldiers, was in Order. Perhaps his observations would be in Order if the clause itself were under consideration; but the Question now before the Committee was as to the use of a particular punishment. His observations appeared to him to have more relation to that clause of the Bill which provided for the use of the punishment only in time of war.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

bowed to the decision of the Chair. He would ask, however, whether, as this was the clause of the Bill which dealt with punishments, he was at liberty to discuss the clause generally, or only the sub-section with which they were now dealing? He wanted to know How far soldiers were liable to the punishments they were discussing. The information they might receive upon that matter would probably have a considerable influence upon the votes of hon. Members on this particular question.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, it appeared to him that the proper time for the remarks which the hon. Gentleman was making was upon the discussion of the clause which dealt with the infliction of the punishment in time of war, and not in time of peace. He would not be in Order in making the remarks he did in relation to the punishment only, without reference to whether it was inflicted in time of peace or war.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

inquired, whether he might draw attention to the next sub-section, which, it would be seen, stated the conditions under which corporal punishment would be inflicted?

MR. OTWAY

said, that it was impossible to conceive that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War did not know whether the soldiers in Cyprus were liable to be flogged or not. Perhaps the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would answer the question with regard to that point, which had been put to him in order that they might be better able to go to a Division. He should like to know whether the soldiers in Cyprus were in any exceptional position? He thought it would save much time if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would state the position of the soldiers in Cyprus.

THE CHAIRMAN

remarked, that the point made by the hon. Member would be in Order on the sub-section.

question put, and negatived.

Question put, That the words ' but corporal punishment shall not he inflicted on any soldier by an instrument known as the cat of nine tails,' be there inserted. The Committee divided:—Ayes 49; Noes 72: Majority 23.—(Div. List, No. 124.)

MR. PARNELL

said, he had to move an Amendment to insert after the word " lashes," at the end of the last Amendment the words— And in every case when more than twelve lashes are inflicted the soldier so punished shall be discharged with ignominy from Her Majesty's service. He hoped that this Amendment would be agreed to by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War; for it appeared to him that whore a soldier had been degraded by this punishment he ought not to be allowed to wear Her Majesty's uniform. He did not think that, under any circumstances, a soldier that had been flogged should be considered fit to wear Her Majesty's uniform.

Amendment proposed,

After the word " officer," at the end of the last Amendment, to insert the words " and in every case when more than twelve lashes are inflicted the soldier so punished shall be discharged with ignominy from Her Majesty's service."—{Mr. Parnell.)

Question proposed, '' That these words be there inserted."

COLONEL STANLEY

did not think it was necessary to take up the time of the Committee by discussing this Amendment. The whole spirit of what he had said on former occasions was opposed to the insertion of such an Amendment as this. He had stated that he considered that this punishment should be short and summary; but it should be subject to the man's continuance in the Service. It was not at all consistent with the infliction of such a punishment as 12 lashes that a man should be dismissed with ignominy from Her Majesty's Service. Nor was it right that dismissal, with ignominy, should invariably be added to the punishment of flogging. He hoped the Committee would not agree to the Amendment.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, that the position in which the Government had placed themselves was utterly illogical. The Government had consented to limit the punishment of flogging to certain infamous crimes. The contention was that whore a man had been guilty of an infamous crime it was much better to turn him out of the Army altogether. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary could corroborate this view—that there was nothing more conducive to the spread of crime than the continuance of the criminal classes amongst these altogether innocent. There was no more effectual way for increasing crime in the Army than by retaining the bad characters in it, as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War proposed to do. When men of the criminal class were retained in the Army their example endangered their comrades; and he was surprised that the Government should decline to embrace the opportunity of getting rid of such men altogether. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had spoken of certain crimes of violence which he considered deserving of flogging. Was it likely that it would increase the respectability, or the efficiency, of the Army that persons who had deserved to receive flogging for such crimes should be turned back into the ranks, and wear the uniform alongside honourable men? It appeared to him that every step taken in connection with this institution of flogging endangered the character of the men. By the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Meath, it was proposed that a sentence of flogging should be equivalent to expulsion from the Service; and he thought that whore a man deserved the sentence of flogging he must, also, well deserve the punishment of being expelled from the Army. He did not think that the efficiency of the Army, or, indeed, of any Army, whether civilized or uncivilized, was increased by detaining in its ranks a few score, or hundred, of disreputable characters who deserved to receive flogging for infamous crimes.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said that the hon. Member for Dungarvan had admitted that there were some great crimes for which a man might certainly deserve to be flogged; but there might also be crimes for which flogging was a fit punishment, but which, nevertheless, might not be so infamous as to deserve a sentence of dismissal from the Army with ignominy.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

did not think that the question that had been raised by the Amendment had been treated by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War with the consideration that it deserved. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman seemed to think that there was no principle in this Amendment; but it appeared to him that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman was still in favour of flogging for trivial offences. He might say that that was not an opinion entertained by hon. Members on that side of the House; and they wished distinctly to know whether it was the intention of the Government to flog only for the worst offences, or for all kinds of trivial offences? If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War said that there were many offences for which a man ought to be flogged, but for which he would not wish to see him dismissed with ignominy, thon he thought that was not a correct view. He would say again, and he would ask the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to say distinctly before they voted on this subject, whether it was his idea that they were going to flog in the British Army for trivial offences— for offences so trivial that they did not come within the definition of disgraceful offences which would render a man unfit to remain one of Her Majesty's soldiers? If that were the intention of the Government, he could only say that his opposition of the Bill, in its present form, would be intensified. He had understood that the crimes for which flogging was to be administered were such as involved danger to the security of an Army in the field, or were the most disgraceful that a soldier could commit, or were such offences as would be disgraceful either in a soldier or civilian. If flogging was to be administered for such crimes as that only, thon every man flogged ought to be dismissed from the British Army, if it were wished to keep up the character of the British Army. He thought they were entitled to ask whether they had deceived themselves as to the reality of the concession made by the Secretary of State?

MR. BIGGAR

said, that it might seem, at first sight, to be an injustice to dismiss a man from the Service with ignominy simply because he had been flogged. But if a man were flogged, and received upwards of 12 lashes, he would become worthless, in a military point of view, and would have to be sent to the hospital. The Army would be better without than with a man who had been severely flogged. He looked at the British Army, however, from a different point of view, and considered the value of a British soldier at more than so much sterling. A man who had been submitted to the degrading punishment of flogging, and who had received over 12 lashes, would not only use every effort to be revenged himself, but would encourage his comrades to do the same. He thought it would be well to pass this Amendment. He might say, in passing, that the great bulk of Irish Members were entirely opposed to flogging, and had voted against it. He thought that the hon. and learned Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) was the only Irish Member that voted for flogging in the last Division.

MR. SULLIVAN

concurred with his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar) in the condemnation the hon. Member had pronounced with respect to the conduct of the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford in voting in favour of the lash being retained. He could not help thinking that an angry feeling would be aroused in the County of Wexford, which knew something of flogging, when it was known what part the hon. and learned Baronet had taken on this question. They had been nearly two days debating the question whether the use of the lash was to be retained, and the Government had at last taken refuge in this—that if the lash was to be retained, it was only to be inflicted for grave offences. The Government said that it was only to be inflicted for crimes so heinous that otherwise the man must be shot. And the alternative had been presented to the Committee of whether it was better to shoot or to flog the men? But if a man was of a character so vile that he would be shot for the crime he had committed, thon be thought that such a man should not be retained in the ranks after he had been flogged. If a man was so brutal that flogging had to be inflicted upon him, thon he thought that such a man was of no use in the Army. What they desired was to preserve the status of the British soldier, and if he were worthy of stripes he ought not to be permitted to wear the uniform; but if his offence was not very serious, he did not deserve to be flogged. The ground now taken up by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War was that an offence might be so trivial that flogging would be sufficient punishment for it, and such men did not deserve to be discharged. The principle for which they would go into the Lobby was that flogging should only be inflicted for very detestable and heinous crimes; and that if a man were flogged for these crimes he ought not to be retained in the Army.

SIR GEORGE BOWYER

expressed his surprise that the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down should have thought fit to attack him for a vote which he had honestly given in the discharge of his duty as a Member of Parliament. He could tell the hon. and learned Gentleman that his constituents knew him too well not to be aware that he never gave a vote in that House which was not given from a conscientious conviction that he was doing what was right. That any Member of the House, thon, should rise in his place and make an attack upon him for the way in which he happened to have voted on a particular occasion was a mode of proceeding, in his opinion, so un-Parliamentary that he could not too strongly protest against it. If hon. Members generally were to indulge in such a practice, and to make similar attacks upon one another, there would be an end of that liberty which every hon. Member ought to have of recording his vote as he deemed to be right. For his own part, knowing that he had been actuated by purely conscientious motives in voting as he did, he could afford to treat the attack of the hon. and learned Gentleman with contempt. He was sorry he could not more emphatically express the opinion which he entertained of the hon. and learned Gentleman's remarks, without using words which would not probably be regarded by the Committee as Parliamentary. The hon. and learned Gentleman, he would add, and these who supported his view, seemed to labour under an entire misapprehension as to the nature of military law. They assumed that no offence should be punished under that law by the infliction of the lash which was not of an infamous nature; and that when that punishment was inflicted it was inflicted for the commission of either an infamous or a trivial crime. They were, however, entirely wrong upon that point. In the case, for instance, in which a private soldier was guilty of striking his officer, that was an offence which in all the Armies of the world was punishable with death. A French soldier who happened to strike his officer would be punished in that way, though it was, of course, possible that, under extenuating circumstances, there might be some mitigation of the punishment. But, under ordinary circumstances, the man who had so offended would be put to death, and very properly so; because if soldiers were allowed to strike their officers without being adequately punished, there would be an end to all discipline, and an Army would soon become a mob. Again, let him take the case of a soldier who was appointed to do outpost duty, and to act as a vidette. The safety of a whole Army might depend on the watchfulness of that man. If he did not keep awake and discharge his duty, as he ought, the Army might be surprised, and the lives of thousands of men might be sacrificed through his fault. Now, such a neglect of duty could scarcely be characterized as an infamous crime; but it was one which was rightly punished with death, because it was an offence against the very essence of military discipline, and of the precautions which were necessary to secure safety. As to the offence of marauding in time of war, it was one which was not, of course, so disgraceful as stealing in time of peace; but, nevertheless, it was an offence for which a number of soldiers had been tried, when under the command of the Duke of Wellington, and shot. These were not trivial offences; but neither could they be said to come under the head. So that it was ridiculous to contend, as hon. Gentlemen who supported the Amendment did, that all offences punishable by the lash must come under either one or the other of these two heads; and that if a man were once flogged he ought, as a matter of course, to be dismissed from the Army; for it was clear that if he only received one lash, he would be as much disgraced as if he got 12. No one, he might add, regretted more than he did that it should be necessary to have recourse to the punishment of flogging; and it was a punishment which, in his opinion, ought to be inflicted as rarely as possible. Hon. Members must, however, be very well aware that there were bad characters in our Army, as there were in every Army, who could be kept in order only by the fear of corporal punishment, which they dreaded more than any other mode of punishment short of death. Without the power of being able to inflict corporal punishment, it would, he believed, be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to manage an Army in the field, and to keep the troops under proper control. No doubt, flogging was a degrading punishment; but so were all punishments. Penal servitude was degrading. It was degrading to a man to have his hair cut off, to be put into a convict's dress, and to be obliged to pick oakum. But there was another thing which was more degrading still, and that was the commission of the crimes for which such punishments were inflicted; and if a man was guilty of some degrading offence, he could not fairly complain of being subjected to a degrading punishment. That was an observation which applied to all these offences which were of a degrading character. With regard to purely military offences which were not of that character, he would say that flogging was justifiable in such cases only where it was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of discipline and the preservation of the Army. But so long as soldiers were not to be controlled except by the fear of corporal punishment, the power of inflicting it ought, in his opinion, to be retained for degrading offences, or offences against military discipline of a vital character. He had only to say, in conclusion, that he was not to be deterred from giving what might by some be regarded as an unpopular vote, in the discharge of his duty as a Member of that House, by any attacks which might be made upon him by the hon. and learned Member for Louth, or these who supported his views.

MAJOR NOLAN

thought his Friends near him were hardly fairly open to the reproach that they did not know what they were talking about. The fact was that these who supported the Amendment did know what they were talking about much better than the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) seemed to suppose. On the very last occasion on which the Bill was discussed, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham (Mr. John Bright) suggested that these offences for which the punishment of flogging might be inflicted should be set forth in one of the Schedules. Up to the present moment, however, that had not been done, and hon. Members were in ignorance of what these offences were; unless, indeed, an exception was to be made in the case of the Judge Advocate General. If flogging were to be resorted to in future only for the punishment of acts which were of an infamous nature, thon, probably, his hon. Friend the Member for Meath(Mr. Parnell) would not think it necessary to press his Amendment to a Division; while, if a soldier were subjected to the lash, as was the case in South Africa the other day, for merely bathing in the river, it would be a great pity, he thought, that he should have to undergo the further punishment of being discharged with ignominy from Her Majesty's Service. Entertaining these views, he did not feel himself to be in a position to express a decided opinion on the point under discussion by his vote until he had seen the Schedule of offences, which ought, he thought, to be laid on the Table of the House at the earliest possible moment. As matters stood, he should be obliged, if his hon. Friend the Member for Meath went to a Division, to leave the House without recording his vote either for or against the Amendment.

MR. C. S. PARKER

thought it would tend very much to the convenience of the Committee if the Amendment were withdrawn; for it was very undesirable, in his opinion, that they should be asked to deal with a proposal of the kind on the spur of the moment, and without having been afforded an opportunity of seeing it on the Notice Paper. He also wished to point out to the hon. Member for Meath that there was some inconsistency between the Amendment which he now proposed and one which he had submitted to the consideration of the Committee in the course of the discussions on the Bill last week. On the occasion to which he was referring, the hon. Gentleman took a Division on an Amendment to the effect that it should not be even within the discretion of the military authorities to expel a man with ignominy from the Army for any offence for which corporal punishment might have been inflicted. Now, however, the hon. Gentleman asked the Committee to support an Amendment which provided that in every case in which more than 12 lashes were inflicted, the Secretary of State should have no option but to discharge a soldier with ignominy from the Army. The two Amendments were inconsistent; and it would be better, he thought, to withdraw that before the Committee, or, at all events, to postpone it until the Schedule, which had been referred to, had been laid on the Table.

MR. DALRYMPLE

expressed his entire concurrence in the observations which had been made by his hon. Friend who had just sat down. The Amendment was one which, in his opinion, was by no means of a reasonable character; and, therefore, he hoped it would be withdrawn. He had risen, however, chiefly for the purpose of protesting against some remarks which had fallen from the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan), who, from that lofty stand-point which he was so much in the habit of taking up, had not hesitated to insinuate that hon. Members who sat on the Ministerial side of the House did not invariably vote in accordance with their conscientious convictions. He, for one, begged to repel that insinuation in the strongest possible terms; and to say that when he recorded his vote in favour of any measure which was brought forward by the Government, he did so because he believed it to be deserving of support. He must also express his surprise that the hon. Gentleman who, he believed, was the accepted Leader of the Home Rule Party in that House (Mr. Shaw), should have made, in the early part of the evening, the singular suggestion that a soldier who happened to have committed a disgraceful offence should be branded on the forehead, and should thus carry the mark of his crime with him to the grave.

MR. SHAW

admitted that he had said something about branding; but wished to explain that what he meant was that a soldier who happened to have committed any of these disgraceful offences for which the punishment of flogging was to be inflicted should be morally branded on the forehead by being discharged from the Army with ignominy. He hoped, he might add, that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would be prepared to state that he would take the question of the abolition of the lash altogether into his serious consideration. If he would give the Committee that assurance, he would suggest to his hon. Friend the Member for Meath that he should withdraw his Amendment, at all events, for the present. But he looked upon the Amendment as a very important one, and one which, if carried, would be productive of the greatest advantage to the Army; because, as had been observed by his hon. Friend the Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), in the course of the discussion that evening, he believed it to be the very worst economy to keep bad men in the Service, and that the very best thing which could be done with these who were guilty of a disgraceful offence was to turn them adrift, or else to place them in such a position that they could do no harm for the future. He hoped the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would consider whether it would not be well to adopt more freely the practice of dismissing soldiers with ignominy after they had been subjected to a certain punishment. He wished to add that he thought it highly desirable that hon. Members who took part in the debates in that House should take care to refrain, as far as possible, from imputing motives to these from whom they happened to differ. He was quite sure that hon. Gentlemen opposite gave their votes with discrimination; and that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) never intended to charge the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for Wexford (Sir George Bowyer) with having voted dishonestly. There were, at the same time, he was afraid, a great many votes given in that House of which the constituents of these who gave them did not always approve. He trusted they would proceed with the discussion of the Bill in peace, and that there would be nothing like war between hon. Members on either side of the House. If war were inevitable, he hoped he and his hon. Friends around him would be prepared for it; but, for the present, he would advise his hon. Friend the Member for Meath to withdraw his Amendment, if he obtained from the Secretary of State for War the assurance to which he had referred.

MR. MACDONALD

regarded the Amendment as a proposal to which it was very proper to ask the Committee to assent. He thought it furnished a very proper answer to what had been more than once said, with regard to the action of his hon. Friends near him below the Gangway, by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House. He and his hon. Friends had been told that evening that their object was to patronize the blackguards of the Army, who were undeserving of any less disgraceful punishment than flogging. In supporting the Amendment before the Committee, however, they showed that they had no sympathy with men who were capable of committing offences for which they were liable to have their backs made red and raw. For his own part, he found himself exactly in the same position as the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan), for he was entirely ignorant of what the offences were which were to be included in the Schedule. It might include the most trivial offences; and, if so, the discussions on the Bill would have been carried on, to a large extent, in vain. But if the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath were agreed to, it would, he thought, be found to be a most salutary provision to have in an Act of Parliament. As matters now stood, when a soldier had disgraced himself so far as to have the punishment of flogging inflicted upon him, he was turned into an hospital and was supplied with medicine. At one moment we cut him, and the next tried to cure him. We all but destroyed him to-day, and sought to build him up to-morrow, in order to make him of the full value of the £10 per annum which he cost. He became a criminal, and he was nursed as if he were a darling child, worthy of the kindest attention. Now, in his opinion, if a man who committed offences of the kind which deserved flogging were turned adrift with his back red and raw, a great many scoundrels would be deterred from entering the Army. As to the hon. and learned Baronet the Member for "Wexford (Sir George Bowyer), he was very glad to hear his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) speak of him in the manner in which he had done. The hon. and learned Baronet set up for being a great military authority— so great, indeed, that it was doubtful whether the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War himself had anything like the same amount of knowledge on the subject. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend the Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell), so far from being deterred by the authority of the hon. and learned Baronet, would press his Amendment to a Division, even if he had only two supporters, in order that they might remove from themselves the stigma of desiring to shield the scoundrels of the Army.

MR. A. H. BROWN

opposed the Amendment. It would apply to the case of a soldier engaged on active service in the field; and he should like to point out to the hon. Member for Meath what might happen under its operation. Let him suppose, for instance, that during the late Afghan War a soldier, having been flogged, was turned out of the Army; he would have to make his way back to India through the midst of a whole body of hostile Natives, and the probability was that he would run the utmost risk of being killed. In fact, dismissal from the Army, under such circumstances, might mean nothing more nor less than death to the man. He was sure the hon. Member for Meath could scarcely have given sufficient consideration to the probability of such a state of things occurring if his Amendment were agreed to.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that, as he understood the Amendment, it simply raised the question whether a man who had rendered himself liable to so degrading a punishment as flogging was fit to continue a member of Her Majesty's Army? As to the apprehensions which seemed to be entertained by the hon. Gentleman who spoke last, it was only necessary to say that no commanding officer could be so inhuman as to turn a man out of the Service to certain death. Besides, there were always attached to every Army a number of camp-followers, among whom a soldier so placed might find shelter for a time. But the real question at issue was whether a soldier was, in such cases as these to which the Amendment applied, fit to remain in the Army? And he would put the matter to a test by pointing out that there was in civil life no offender, except a garotter, on whom the punishment of flogging was inflicted by the English law. That being so, all that it was sought by the Amendment to affirm was that when a man had fallen to a position so low and degraded as that of a garotter he should no longer be held to be worthy of a place in Her Majesty's Service. Could Her Majesty's Army, he would ask, be honoured by the presence of such a soldier? As a National Army, it was a crime against the nation to argue that it might be represented by men of the most degraded character. Viewed as a Parliamentary Army, surely he and these who supported the Amendment had a right to complain that the House of Commons was seeking unnecessarily to oblige that Army to keep in its ranks men who were only fit to be put on the same platform as the lowest garotter. Entertaining these views on the subject, he should cordially support the Amendment.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

said, he could not support the Amendment, being of opinion that it would not be for the interest of the Army that it should lose the services of a soldier in the field simply because he happened to have committed some offence for which more than 12 lashes had been inflicted on him.

MR. PARNELL

contended that he was not open to the charge of inconsistency which had been brought against him by the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. C. S. Parker). He had no recollection of having brought forward, in the previous week, any Amendment, the terms of which were opposed to that which was now under the consideration of the Com- mittee. The only Division which he had taken last week had reference to Subsection 10, and, probably, the hon. Member confused one sub-section with another. But even supposing he had done last week what the hon. Gentleman stated, there was no good reason why he should not change his mind, following, in that respect, the very distinguished example of some of the Members of the Government. There was, in his opinion, undoubtedly, a class of crimes the commission of which ought to be regarded as rendering a soldier unfit to serve Her Majesty. It had been repeatedly pointed out by the supporters of the Bill that it was only for very serious offences that it was proposed to inflict the punishment of flogging; and the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Newdegate) had given the Committee a catalogue of them, embracing rape, and murder, and breaches of discipline, dangerous to the safety of the Army. Now, he would ask any hon. Member whether it was not most reasonable that a man, who had been convicted of committing rape, should be dismissed from the Army? He might receive two dozen lashes for the offence; but there were some men who would care no more about two, or even four, dozen lashes than a school-boy would care about having 12 strokes from his master's broom-handle administered to him. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire proposed to give such a man two dozen, and to turn him loose to commit a savage assault or a murder again. Now, were not all the crimes which were to be scheduled as involving the punishment of flogging bad enough to make it desirable to turn all such offenders out of the Army? He thought there could be only one answer to that. He and other hon. Members had been held up to the contempt of the House as championing the cause of men who committed these disgraceful offences. They had been told they wanted to save ruffians from the lash; and when they adopted that view and tried to follow it up to its natural sequence, they were told they were moving trifling Amendments. As a matter of detail, it had been said that, on active service, there must be a difficulty in carrying out a sentence of discharge with ignominy. He did not suppose that a man so sentenced would be turned loose in the middle of the bush, to be eaten by Zulus, or left to find his way alone through the dangerous Khyber Pass. He would leave the time to the discretion of the military authorities; it would be very easy to keep the man in custody meanwhile. There was no difficulty in the way at all, and the suggestion was a perfectly practical one. Such reasons against it were only worked up by hon. Members to soothe their own consciences, because they were ashamed of supporting these flogging clauses. It was odious to them to have to do so; and, in nine cases out of ten, they were searching round for some miserable little reason or excuse why they should support the Government in its obstinate course. He did not wish to put the Committee to the trouble of a Division, but would adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Shaw); and if the Government would undertake to consider the matter between now and the Report, he should be happy to withdraw the Amendment.

COLONEL STANLEY

could not undertake to make a promise on the subject, nor did he wish to impugn any hon. Member's consistency. The actual point was this— that, on active service, they had to deal with crimes which were very serious and disgraceful, in a military sense, but which were not civil offences; and they must be visited with severe punishment, in some form or other. Perhaps they had a lot of troops on the move, or going into action, or under many other special circumstances which easily suggested themselves; and, in that condition of affairs, they could not imprison a man, they did not want to shoot him, but they must punish him severely in some way. Thon, this flogging was the way which had been customary in the Army; and, so far as he knew, the Army were not discontented with it; for they found no difficulty in attracting large— he might say, increasing — numbers of recruits to the Colours. That was the simple matter of fact of the position in which they found themselves. Neglect of duty on sentry, for instance, might imperil a whole Army. Smoking a pipe was nothing very disgraceful; but if a soldier in charge of the ammunition were found with a lighted pipe in his possession, he would be naturally liable to very severe punishment. If a man endangered the lives of a whole Army, although his offence might not be disgraceful, yet he would have committed a serious military crime. Whore they could not punish by imprisonment they must punish summarily; and he ventured to say that this was the only course they could pursue. Of course, there was power to dismiss with ignominy; but that was a matter which should be left to the discretion of the court martial.

MR. OTWAY

thought that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not considered sufficiently the nature of the question. Did he mean that flogging was a deterrent punishment? because, if so, he (Mr. Otway) could easily prove, from the War Office's own figures, that it had utterly failed. Thon, the hon. and gallant Gentleman made an assertion to which he took exception— namely, that there was no difficulty in obtaining recruits. On that he would put a question to the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. Had he any difficulty in retaining soldiers in the Army, and was it not the fact that a soldier left the Army as soon as he could? A colonel of one of our smartest regiments told him the great difficulty was that they could not keep the non - commissioned officers. What was the use, thon, of saying there was no difficulty in obtaining recruits? Unquestionably, they had 30,000 or 40,000 boys of 17 or 18 years of age, if they called them soldiers; but he told them they could not keep their men in the Army, and this disciplinary punishment of flogging was a very great deterrent in that sense. [A laugh.] That was his belief, and merely to laugh at a statement was no argument at all. He had observed that sort of proceeding going on. The Secretary of State for War had had two questions addressed to him to-night, to neither of which had he been able, or seen fit, to afford any information in reply; and with every desire on the part of hon. Members to conduct the Business amicably and sensibly, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would not answer questions, it would be impossible for them to continue the discussion in that spirit. Above all, the hon. and gallant Gentleman ought to be clear on the point as to whether flogging was a deterrent, on which his mind at present seemed to be in a great state of confusion. It had entirely failed in South Africa, whore floggings were very frequent, and seemed to have no deter- rent effect whatever. He thought the proposition of the hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) was a very sensible one. Its object was to elevate the character of the soldier. The argument on behalf of flogging was that it was meant to degrade the man who received it. Well, when they had degraded him by that punishment for a disgraceful crime, was it their wish to continue that man in comradeship with the other soldiers of the Army? He thought it a very serious question, and one well worthy to be considered; but it was perfectly clear to him that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had not considered it at all; and, therefore, the hon. Member for Meath had a perfect right to make the proposition which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had answered so curtly, declining even to promise that he would re-consider the question before the Bill was passed. If that was the spirit in which the discussion was to be conducted by the Government, all he could say was that the Bill would not very easily pass.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

suggested that the discussion might close, if the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would say what offences were to be put in the Schedule. After the examples he had given of what was disgraceful in a soldier, he might easily state what would be in the Schedule, and place it on the Table to-morrow. Were they to understand that the offences to be scheduled were these in the 22nd section of the Mutiny Act? If the right hon. and gallant Gentleman would be good enough to state that, it would facilitate progress, and tend to the termination of this very long discussion.

MR. C. S. PARKER

thought the suggestion might get them out of the difficulty, and when the Schedule was before the House, the hon. Member for Meath might raise his question, which was admittedly an important one. Whether the hon. Member for Meath had or had not been consistent was. a matter of very small importance; but the Record of the House showed that he (Mr. C. S. Parker) was right, and the hon. Member for Meath was wrong, as to what would have been the effect of a previous Amendment on which the hon. Gentleman divided. By that Amendment, he would have taken away the power to discharge, and, by his present Amend- ment, he would take away the power to retain a man who had been flogged. The way out of the difficulty now was to wait for the Schedule, and thon they could discuss this important principle— that for all disgraceful offences a man should be dismissed with ignominy.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

read the list of offences for which soldiers on active service in the field were now liable to be flogged under the 22nd clause of the Mutiny Act— Provided that any court martial may sentence any soldier to corporal punishment while on active service, or on beard any ship in commission, for mutiny, insubordination, desertion, drunkenness on duty or on the line of march, or any breach of the Articles of War. Striking out the words '' or any breach of the Articles of War," which he disapproved, there was a Schedule ready to hand, which he thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman might be disposed to adopt, if he would consider the matter between this time and to-morrow.

COLONEL STANLEY

replied, that he had already said he could not decide offhand, for this was a matter of some gravity. In substance, perhaps, that Schedule might be accepted; but it went too far, in his opinion, with respect to offences on beard ship. It would be better to schedule the offences, as far as possible, in harmony with the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th clauses of the Bill now before the Committee; and he should not like to give an undertaking to produce the Schedule-morrow, but he would do so as soon as possible.

MR. PARNELL

admitted that the hon. Member (Mr. C. S. Parker) was right, and he was wrong, as to the effect of his previous Amendment; but as to his present Amendment, the more he looked at it the more he was convinced of its value and importance. He believed it would do more than anything else to diminish the flogging of any but these disgraceful characters who ought not be in the Army. Under momentary irritation, a commanding officer might now flog a good soldier, either on beard ship or by the assistance of a drumhead court martial, which was a very summary business; but if this Amendment were passed, necessitating the discharge of a flogged man from the Service, a very strong inducement would be afforded to commanding officers to refrain from flogging good soldiers whom they did not desire to lose. Therefore, it would protect the good soldier in a very unexampled way from hasty sentences and quick-tempered officers; because, if they flogged him, they must dismiss him. He must trouble the Committee by dividing, especially as the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had refused to give the matter any consideration.

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he listened with great attention to what the Secretary of State for War had said; but he fancied there was a very large number of offences that ought and could be punished on the line of inarch by other means than either flogging or shooting. For instance, an offender might be condemned to very inconvenient labour or fatigue duty, or he could be marched in a position that would expose him to the unfavourable criticism of his comrades. If an officer got drunk on the line of march, they could not imprison him and they could not shoot him, and nobody thought of flogging him; and he wanted to know if it was not necessary to flog an officer for drunkenness, why a soldier should be flogged for drunkenness, unless there were some specially aggravating circumstances, which gave the offence an infamous tinge? He thought, considering the large inducements for getting drunk which the Army system offered to the soldier, the punishment of flogging for drunkenness was very much out of place. At present, in South Africa, soldiers could get drunk very easily, and were getting drunk very readily; and it would be much better if some pressure were put upon the military authorities to superintend their supply of drinks, and to guard their men from the temptations to drink, rather than to put into their hands the power of recklessly flogging the unfortunate fellows who fell under the temptation of drink.

MR. WADDY

regretted the somewhat heated manner in which both sides of the House had carried on this discussion. He heard one Member from his side of the House allege that hon. Gentlemen on the Government Benches were of opinion that soldiers liked flogging; and he could not help thinking that it would be as well to keep clear of such absurd assertions. He was going to vote against the Amendment; but the view he took of the matter now was very different from that which he took when this debate began. The difficulty he then felt was that there were hon. Members on both sides of the House belonging to the Military Profession, and almost all, if not all, of them appeared to be on one side of the question. Now, if one attempted to give a conscientious vote with regard to a matter on which, professionally, one knew little or nothing, all that one could do, in the first instance, at all events, was to listen to the opinions of men who had professional experience, and who were perfectly humane, and to be guided very much by their opinions; and it was because he felt that was the only resource he had, that in one or two Divisions on the subject he felt it his duty to vote on behalf of that system of principles which appeared to him to be opposed to death, and in behalf of a minor punishment. But this debate had now lasted for some length of time, and probably would last longer still; and some of them felt it to be their duty, under the circumstances, to get all the information they could on this difficult subject from other men in the Army than these who were in the House. The result of that information, in his case, was that he felt it his duty to give his vote on the side of these hon. Members who opposed the principle of flogging as far as they could oppose it. He knew very well that did not affect this particular Amendment; and the reason he opposed the Amendment was that he could not help thinking that it was one that would destroy itself. In the present state of the composition of the Army, they could not carry out an Amendment of this sort practically. He was sorry to say it; but there were scores and hundreds of men in the Army at this moment, who, he was afraid, would be very willing indeed to go through the punishment of flogging if, in the result, they might be dismissed, even with ignominy. The answer to that, of course, was that they ought not to be in the Army at all. He entirely agreed with that; but they were there, and he thought that was one of the strongest arguments that could be used against the general principle of flogging. He feared that many such men were in the Army, while men of a higher stamp refused to enlist, because there was this punishment of flogging for them; but, then, being where they were for the present, he thought the Amendment of the hon. Member for Meath would not bear consideration. He did not propose to go into the general question; but he thought they would have, sooner or later, to abolish this punishment, in order that they might bring into their Army a worthier and a higher class of men, who would not join as long as there was this punishment in store for them. There were in this country at this moment thousands of men, well brought up, but not in circumstances of wealth, who would be very happy to join the Army and to fight their way through, now that Purchase was abolished, taking the Army as a legitimate and honourable Profession, but who would be very likely to be hindered from joining as long as flogging was maintained. Therefore, with regard to the broad general question, he had been convinced by what he had heard in and out of this House; but with regard to the Amendment, he should vote against it.

GENERAL SHUTE

thought it was only the greatest possible blackguards who should have corporal punishment, and he would have it abolished altogether if it could be; but he should oppose the Amendment for this reason —that although only great blackguards should be punished, yet they must remember that these men whom they discharged with ignominy would be able in a month to enlist in another regiment.

MR. O'DONNELL

suggested that such a man would have his mark on his back.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 48; Noes 157: Majority 109.—(Div. List, No. 125.)

MR. O'DONNELL

said, he begged leave to propose an Amendment; but he would not persist in it if the general sense of the Committee were against it— That in every case in which a soldier should he so punished, he should not he allowed to serve with men who have never undergone this punishment. The object of the Amendment was to meet the argument of some hon. Members who had defended flogging. The hon. and learned Member for Barnstaple (Mr. Waddy) said just now, if they followed up the punishment of flogging with expulsion from the Army, there were, perhaps, several hundreds of scoundrels in the Army who would gladly undergo a flogging in order to be rid of their military obligations. He supposed the Committee accepted that explanation, for they rejected the Amendment of his hon. Friend the Member for Meath. But they had to consider the position in which the Army was thus left. Soldiers might be flogged, and might continue to serve in the Army, and thus, when the red-coats passed through the streets, the civilians did not know but any particular soldier who was passing by might be a flogged man; and there could be no doubt whatever that that stigma of being possibly a flogged man must lower the character of any individual soldier in the eyes of the civil community. Well, why not— if they -were to have flogged men— take a leaf from the regulations of other nations, and provide that such flogged men should continue to serve their country, but in battalions by themselves? Why not have disciplinary battalions, in which men of that character could serve? They had plenty of disagreeable work to do; they had Colonies and posts on which it must often seem a pity to squander the valuable lives of upright soldiers. Why not make use of an inferior class of men for these stations? If they were to keep in the Service men who had suffered the infamous punishment of flogging, let them be brigaded in battalions by themselves, and in that way let the Army be weeded of the hundreds of scoundrels for whose benefit the lash was maintained; but let not that disgraceful class of soldier continue to be shoulder to shoulder with honourable men. He begged, therefore, to propose that men who had been flogged should serve for the future in penal battalions; and he moved that, in page 19, line 28, these words be inserted— And in every case where a soldier has been so punished, he shall not he allowed to serve with men who have not undergone this punishment.

SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA

hoped the hon. Member would not press the Amendment, which he supposed had been merely put forward as a rhetorical device with which to bring to bear some reasonable observations on other matters.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he was bound to give a reason why he could not accept the Amendment, and he was bound to suppose that it was moved with the object of establishing disciplinary corps. All he could say was, that that had never been in accordance with the traditions of the Service, nor did he think it would ever be popular or effective. So far as he was aware, when a man had received corporal punishment, the whole matter was done away with and forgotten. He did not think either the man or his comrades thought anything further of the matter; and, whatever might be said in the House, nothing would induce him to held any other opinion than that the process which the hon. Gentleman proposed would be vindictively following up a man who had been punished.

MR. O'DONNELL

replied, that if it were provided that no man was to be flogged except for an infamous offence, he thought the comrades of such a man would not be likely to think lightly of his offence. He did not think officers would think nothing of an officer who had been flogged; and he did not see why this broad distinction should be perpetually drawn between soldiers and officers on the subject. He should not press the Amendment; but he considered the establishment of disciplinary battalions would be a most useful transitionary step, in order to get rid of the scoundrels from the Army, and to convert it into an Army of citizens.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

COLONEL STANLEY

moved, in page 19, lines 30 and 31, to leave out "for an offence punishable under this Act, with imprisonment or greater punishment."

Amendment agreed to.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, he had an Amendment on the Paper, proposing to inflict flogging only for such offences as were at present liable to be punished by death; but as the Secretary of State for War had agreed to bring up a Schedule of offences, he would not move the Amendment.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

moved to insert, in line 22, after " active service," the words " except in the Island of Cyprus in time of peace." He said, no doubt, it seemed a very strange Amendment to hon. Gentlemen opposite, and at first it looked equally strange to himself; but he offered it in perfect good faith, because he could not, for the life of him, understand why the troops in the Island of Cyprus should be left liable to flogging in time of peace, as they appeared to be under the Bill as it stood; while by the law of England, Her Majesty's troops, as a whole, were not liable to flogging in time of peace. If hon. Gentlemen would take the trouble to look at Clause 6, they would find that offences were punishable more severely on active service than at any other time; and, by reference to the Definition Clause, they would find that active service meant, amongst other things, the active occupation of a foreign country. Now, Cyprus did not answer to the description of a Colony, but to that of a foreign country; and, therefore, the troops stationed there might be held to be on active service. Another reason for that view might be found in the terms of the Anglo-Turkish Convention, by which the occupation of Cyprus was throughout recognized as a military temporary occupation of a foreign country. The Sultan was the liege lord of Cyprus, and Her Majesty merely rented the Island from him for certain purposes. They were told, also, that it was taken as a place of war. He should like to know whether the Secretary of State for War could assure the Committee that, as a matter of law, as well as a matter of intention, Her Majesty's troops now serving in Cyprus, although they were engaged in the occupation of a foreign country, were not subject to the pains and penalties in the shape of flogging to which offenders were liable when on active service? It appeared to him that as the Bill was at present drawn, it would enable a commanding officer who construed the Bill literally, even if it did not absolutely compel him, to inflict a great injustice upon soldiers serving in Cyprus; but he was sure the Government would not wish to make an exception of that Island, but to put service in it on the same footing as service in Malta, Gibraltar, or the other English Colonies. He submitted the Amendment in all seriousness, helping the Government would be able to show a clear way out of the difficulty.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HOLKER)

thought the Amendment was unnecessary. In the Interpretation Clause the term "active service" was applied to a person subject to military law whenever— He is attached to or forms part of a force which is engaged in operations against the enemy, or is engaged in military operations in a country or place wholly or partly occupied by an enemy, or is in military occupation of any foreign country. Undoubtedly, our soldiers were not engaged at present in Cyprus in military operations against the enemy; nor were they engaged in a place wholly or partly occupied by an enemy; nor were they engaged in the military occupation of a foreign country. He did not think that Cyprus was in the same position as any of the Colonies or of any of the Dominions of Her Majesty; and no lawyer would be able to say that the soldiers in Cyprus were in military occupation of a foreign country, or that the troops of this country were without the consent or against the will of the Rulers of any foreign country in military occupation of it. Cyprus was occupied through an amicable arrangement between this country and the Porte, and it was never intended that it should be treated as a military occupation.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

failed to follow the argument of the hon. and learned Attorney General. He admitted — though he did not say so— that Cyprus was a foreign country, or, at any rate, if he did not, the Lord Chancellor had used that very phrase in the House of Lords, and it was frequently used also by persons who were responsible. Therefore, the whole of the question turned upon the words " military occupation." The hon. and learned Attorney General had put in the words " without the consent of " or "against the will of a foreign Power," for there was nothing about that in the Interpretation Clause; and, certainly, they ought to limit military occupation by the insertion of that phrase. If they did not intend to put these words in, then clearly his hon. Friend was right in his contention; because the words of the Convention itself made this position quite clear. In that Convention, as had been pointed out, the ordinary terms of civil occupation were not used, and the terms were military throughout. The word " evacuation " was especially used and not the word " cession," as would have been the case otherwise Further, we had occupied the Island with a garrison of 10,000 or 11,000 men; we had declared it to be a place of arms; and we had begun by constructing military roads. Undoubtedly, the troops were, therefore, in military occupation of it; they were on active service, and this clause as to flogging would certainly apply.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

would not dispute the law of the case of the Attorney General; but if there was any difficulty about the question it should be made clear, otherwise, this question would effect not only Cyprus, but also larger places situated in the same position as that Island. For instance, there were very considerable territories belonging to the Ameer of Cabul which hitherto had owned allegiance to him, and which were now to be placed in military occupation of our troops. In that case, also, this same point would arise; and, therefore, it was very necessary that there should be no obscurity.

MR. HOPWOOD

pointed out that active service had been defined, and included a military occupation of a foreign country. A foreign country was defined as a place not situated in the United Kingdom, a Colony, or India. Cyprus was not in the United Kingdom, it was not in India, and it certainly was not a Colony. Thon, was it not a foreign country— and, if so, the soldier could be clearly subjected to the punishment of the lash? Would it not, therefore, be better to put in some words especially dealing with the case of Cyprus?

SIR HENRY JAMES

remarked, that there was a good deal to be said of both views; and, therefore, as doubts might arise, he thought they had better make some Amendment. They all admitted that the soldiers in Cyprus were not to be flogged; and surely, therefore, they could come to some arrangement as to the preparing of the clause. The matter clearly ought to have been put right; for it would not be the least consolation to a soldier if, after a mistake had been made, he were told that the Attorney General had said he could not be flogged. The matter might easily be dealt with in the definition of the clause.

COLONEL STANLEY

, with great respect for the opinions of hon. Members opposite, could not entertain a doubt that the military occupation meant was military occupation in a hostile country. He would suggest, however, that the matter might be dealt with as pointed out in the Definition Clause.

MR. H. SAMUELSON

was glad to find that the Government now admitted his Amendment was not so absurd as they seemed at first to consider it; and as his only wish was to prevent the legalization of an anomaly, and the Government had promised to make it quite clear that soldiers serving in Cyprus should not be liable to flogging in time of peace, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SULLIVAN

moved, in page 19, line 31, after the word "on," to insert the words "officers or," so that the clause would read— Corporal punishment in pursuance of this Act may be inflicted for an offence punishable under this Act with imprisonment or a greater punishment on officers or soldiers while on active service," &c His Amendment, of course, raised the whole question of whether the punishment of flogging should be treated in one way for one class, and in another for another class. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for "War had frequently told them that flogging was necessary on the line of march, because they could not imprison a soldier; it was inconvenient to send him to the rear, and they did not want to shoot him; but if an officer committed any of these offences, they could not shoot him, and they did not flog him. What, therefore, were they to do with him? If the soldiers were flogged, why not the officers also? That was the exact point he wished to raise. Such a difference would make a great impression on the country, and it would have much to do, certainly, with recruiting in the future. The real objection to his Amendment was that if it were once introduced a man would never be flogged again, or an officer either. He wished to be candid, and the Committee clearly would see that the object of his Amendment was that there should be no flogging in the Army. He could not understand why a beastly offence should be punished in one case with flogging, and not in the other. Many young men of excellent family had entered the Army as privates; but did they suppose that any young man of education would do so, now that they knew they might be liable to be subjected to the ignominy of the lash; while, if they had entered as officers, they might have committed a much more serious and more disgraceful offence, and yet the lash would not have touched their backs? Why was this class distinction made? It belonged to a time when the private was believed to be of a very different clay to the porcelain of which his officers were made. This was a very serious distinction that they proposed. They said that murder, rape, or robbery was worthy of the lash if committed by Private Tom Smith; but that if Lieutenant Jones, the officer, committed the same offence, he ought not to be punished, and was not worthy of the lash at all. The argument had been used that they ought to flog soldiers because they flogged garotters in the goals. It was not a very complimentary argument; but he would ask whether, if a garotter belonged to an educated class, that would save his back from the lash? He looked forward to the day when the Army should be drawn from a superior class of men to that which they now had in it. The Beard schools would shortly have done their work in turning out more highly-educated children; and did they think that a generation in which the intelligence was quickened, and its powers developed, would ever allow itself to be subjected to the ignominy of the lash? He knew of no Amendment which had yet been proposed which so closely touched the question of the self-respect of the working classes; and, therefore, he hoped that it would be accepted by the Government.

Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 31, after the word "on," to insert the words " officers or."—(Mr. Sullivan.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'officers or' be there inserted."

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he could not accept the Amendment. If the Committee were to accept it, they would undo their own work. They had already made an alteration in the clause which exempted non-commissioned officers from the punishment of flogging for any offence committed by them as non-commissioned officers; and the Objection which was raised to their punishment applied to the case of officers also. It was not necessary, for the purpose of discipline, to deal with offences by officers in any other manner than that proposed by the Bill. Upon these grounds, he felt that he was justified in opposing the Amendment.

MR. RYLANDS

thought this was a very serious and important Amendment. It was very possible that gentlemen who had themselves been officers in the Army would shrink, and naturally so, from an Amendment of this kind, the effect of which would be, of course, to cast, by implication, some stigma on officers in the Army. It would be supposed that officers could be guilty of the infamous conduct involving such punishment. He wished to point out to the Committee that in our Common Law proceedings any such distinction in classes of offenders would be scouted. Rank would not be allowed to interfere to save a noble Duke from the punishment which would be given to an humble individual for breaches of the law. In Common Law no distinction was ever made, and he could not see why the same principle should not be applied to the Army. He hoped and believed that no officer would ever be guilty of the only class of offences scheduled in the Bill; but if an officer was guilty of any such crime, he ought to be punished the same as the common soldier. He regarded the Amendment as one of the most important yet placed on the Paper, and the Committee would commit a great mistake if it did not vote for it.

MR. BURT

said, he felt very strongly, indeed, on the general question of flogging. He thought the time had come when it might, with very great advantage, be entirely abolished. He had no doubt it deterred many good men from entering the Army. At the same time, it was possible there might be offences sufficiently bad to make flogging necessary or justifiable; but he thought the punishment should be attached to the crime or offence, irrespective of the rank or position of the guilty party. He thought that that was the general principle that the House ought to assent to. He did not see on what principle flogging should be administered to a common soldier for an offence which was not punished by flogging when committed by an officer, unless on the old principle mentioned by our great Dramatist— That in the captain's but a choleric word, Which in the soldier is flat blasphemy. If they retained flogging for certain offences for soldiers, and did not impose it on officers who committed similar offences, then a most odious distinction was established between one man and another.

COLONEL KING-HARMAN

said, he entirely differed from the hon. Gentleman opposite, who thought no distinction should exist between officers and soldiers in this matter on the ground of rank. He thought there should be the greatest distinction; and, therefore, he opposed the Amendment entirely. He would reverse the quotation, and he would say— That in the private's hut a choleric word, Which in the officer is flat blasphemy. And that these offences which were punished in privates by some minor punishment should be, and must be, visited in the case of the officers by the most severe punishment. If an officer committed any of these crimes he deserved death, and he would get it.

SIR HENRY JAMES

was sorry to detain the Committee; but he should like to explain the vote he was about to give. He had consistently voted against flogging, and he could not now accept the invitation of his hon. and learned Friend and vote in favour of his Amendment, which would extend flogging, and declare that flogging should be administered. He wished to see no officer flogged, and he wished to see no private soldier flogged. The Committee had already agreed that no non-commissioned officer should be flogged; and if his hon. and learned Friend was consistent, he ought to have opposed that. It did not make it right to flog one class of men to propose to flog another; and, therefore, while he could understand this Amendment as intended to show How wrong it was to flog private soldiers, when it was put seriously, he must vote against it. He wished to see flogging abolished; and, therefore, he should vote against any proposition that any man, officer or soldier, should be flogged.

MR. PARNELL

said, at first sight, there was something inconsistent in the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Louth; but the inconsistency was more apparent than real. How did the matter stand? They had affirmed the principle of flogging. They now came to consider the further question, as to whether flogging should be limited to soldiers only and should not be extended to officers? In considering this question, they might fairly take into account the reasons given by the Secretary of State for War for the position he had taken up on the question of flogging. What had he told them repeatedly? He told them, over and over again, that it was necessary to retain flogging because the officers of the Army wished to have it retained. If the officers wished to have it retained, let it be retained for the officers as well as the soldiers of the Army. They were told, also, that because they had agreed to exempt noncommissioned officers they ought to exempt officers; but non-commissioned officers stood on a different footing as regarded flogging. It was the officers who passed the sentence; it was the others who were sentenced. There was no inconsistency in exempting non-commissioned officers from a punishment which they had no power to inflict. The reason he and others contended for this Amendment was that if it was agreed to by the Committee, flogging in the Army would necessarily end. If officers were made liable to flogging, there would soon arise a feeling among the Army officers in that House which would lead at once to the abolition of flogging.

MR. HERSCHELL

said, the argument of the hon. Member was not sound. It did not follow that officers would be flogged, though they were included in the Bill; and it would not follow either that flogging would be done away with altogether.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he was as opposed to flogging as anyone; but he saw the importance of the Amendment, and he should vote for it. It was not that they wished flogging; but that the same law should apply to the rich and poor alike.

SIR GEORGE CAMPBELL

was sure the hon. and learned Member for Louth did not wish to flog the officers of the Army; and, therefore, he put it to him whether he had not better withdraw the Amendment? The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Rylands) said that all men were equal in the sight of the law, and that what was good for the private was good for the officer. In civil life they were all equal; but, on entering the Army, a man gave up his civil rights. There must be a distinction in rank.

MR. HOPWOOD

acknowledged there was an apparent inconsistency here in seeking to extend a punishment which they tried to limit or abolish. But the inconsistency was, after all, merely apparent. It was conceded that the officer might be guilty of crime such as in the case of an English soldier would be punished with flogging. Thon, why deny the officer that privilege? They had instituted flogging for " soldiers." If the officers could prove that they were not soldiers, let them go without flogging. If the officers wished to be exempt, let them not be guilty. An hon. Gentleman opposite said—"You have a number of blackguards in the Army, and they must be flogged," among the men. Well, he was only asking the Committee now to flog these who were blackguards among the officers. No Profession was without its blackguards; his own Profession did not escape, neither did the officers in the Army. He should vote for the Amendment.

SIR JULIAN GOLDSMID

said, he had not interfered in this debate before, and he rose now only to appeal to his hon. and learned Friend to withdraw the Amendment. If he pressed it to a Division, he would place these who were in favour of abolishing flogging in the Army in a difficulty. He could not suppose that it was desired to extend the area; consequently, he could not agree to do what he thought wrong in order that good might come of it. He thought his hon. and learned Friend desired to reduce the whole matter to an absurdity, and in that he had been eminently successful.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

also hoped the matter would not be pressed to a Division, because the hon. and learned Gentleman's object had been gained in the discussion which had taken place. It was said the Amendment was inconsistent with others on the same side; but if the matter were looked into carefully, it would be found that all the Amendments, though some of them were inconsistent one with another, had been consistently directed to the abolition of flogging altogether; and, failing that, to limit as much as possible the crimes for which flogging should be inflicted. He hoped the effect of this discussion would be understood out-of-doors. He, at all events, was not in the slightest degree afraid of being held up to ridicule or indignation for having taken part in opposition to the flogging clause. But what he wished would be clearly seen was this— in reference to this particular Amendment, the Government had not, up to the present time, given any reason for the invidious distinction which the Bill made. He was struck by the remark made by the noble Lord the Member for Haddingtonshire(Lord Elcho) the other night, that they were all liable to be flogged if they committed serious offences. If anyone brutally assaulted a woman or garotted an old man, said the noble Lord, he would be flogged. That, at all events, took away the invidiousness of the punishment for civil offences. He did not understand that anything had been advanced to justify the invidious distinction in favour of officers of the Army. If they were all liable to be flogged, he did not see why officers in the Army should be exempt.

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON

thought it desirable the Committee should be consistent; and, therefore, he reminded it of what had been legislated in regard to corporal punishment in the Navy. By Sub-section 11, Clause 53, of the Naval Discipline Act, passed 10 years ago, it was provided that no officer should be subject to corporal punishment, and no petty or non-commissioned officer should be subject to it, except in case of mutiny. He thought the officers of the Army and the Navy should be on a similar footing.

MR. SULLIVAN

, in consideration of the appeals made by several hon. Friends who were opposed to flogging, offered to withdraw the Amendment. He should raise the question, however, next Session. He and others were opposed to all flogging, and they had begun an attack on the lash, and they intended to persevere with it Session after Session.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 22; Noes 213: Majority 191.—(Div. List, No. 126.)

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he considered the Amendment of which he had given Notice was a very important one. He proposed to leave out from the clause the words " or on beard any ship not commissioned by Her Majesty." These words, of course, did not affect what were ordinarily known as Queen's ships. He did not know whether they excluded also transports; but he believed that they did. On beard Queen's ships the Naval Discipline Act, of course, applied with such extraordinary severity that under one clause it would, it was said, be possible, for some infraction of military discipline, even to flog a Colonial Bishop who might be a passenger on his way to his See. He wished they would attempt to flog one once, for that would be quite enough to show the absurdity of the present system, and to do away with it. Why was this extraordinary power to flog on beard a ship not commissioned by Her Majesty maintained? Soldiers could not be flogged upon land unless they came within the definition of active service; but the moment troops got on beard a vessel, although there were still better means of securing discipline, they had this extraordinary power of flogging given. Suppose, for instance, troops were at Southend, and they were put on beard a river steamer to go up or down to some place; and suppose even that they were Volunteers, they would yet be amenable to this flogging clause. How could that be necessary? The defence, he supposed, would be the defence of necessity; but if this power were necessary on beard ship, why should it not be given also to commanders on land in regard to troops in time of peace? Corporal punishment was said to be necessary on active service, because when on march a man could not be sent to the rear, and could not be imprisoned; but on beard ship that was by no means the case. They could put an offender into irons in the held; they could imprison him until the voyage was ended; and, therefore, whore was the necessity for this extraordinary exception? A party of Artillery Volunteers going down the river to practice might be subject to this law; and if there were any infraction of military discipline, their commander might call a court martial and have one of them flogged, although on land he would have no such power. That did seem to him a most extraordinary inconsistency. Again, the other day, the 1st Dragoons started from this country. On land they were not liable to flogging; but when they got on beard the transports the commanding officer had power to flog, and it was a power he used on three men whilst on the voyage to the Cape.

Amendment proposed, in page 19, line 32, to leave out the words " or on beard any ship not commissioned by Her Majesty."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, " That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

COLONEL STANLEY

said, it was asked why troops on beard transports, and, therefore, not under the pennant, should not be treated exactly the same as if they were on shore? There were two reasons. First of all, the offences became much more analogous to these committed on active service; and, consequently, some offences might have very serious effects. A sentry, for instance, in charge of a lamp who went to sleep might, by his neglect of duty, endanger the safety of everybody; and that was not a light offence when a ship was 1,000 miles at sea. Again, in some of these ships going out to the Cape the heat was very great; and, on the score of humanity, he would ask which was the more severe punishment— to administer flogging, or to keep a man in irons, perhaps for 28 or 30 days, in a temperature of over 100 degrees? Anything thing was, the troops on beard ship did a large portion of the pulling and hauling work; while if a man stood still and refused to work they could not argue with him whether he was to pull a rope or not, and discipline was obliged to be very sharp on beard ship.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

asked, if it was not the case that troops going out to the Cape in a man-of-war were liable to a maximum of 48 lashes; whereas in another ship, not under the pennant, 25 would be the maximum?

COLONEL STANLEY

replied, that it was hardly a matter he could answer himself, not being in possession of the Naval Discipline Act; but his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. H. Smith) would never allow 48 to be inflicted after the decision of the Committee.

COLONEL ALEXANDER

said, that when he had gone out with troops men had often been flogged merely by the order of the captain commanding. The officer in charge of the troops complained to him of a soldier, and he said—" You will be flogged to-morrow; " he was flogged accordingly.

MR. A. F. EGERTON

said, of course, he was speaking in the absence of the First Lord of the Admiralty; but he had no doubt that he expressed his sentiments, when he said that after the decision come to by the Committee the other day, as to the limitation of 25, that that really would be followed in the Naval Discipline Act.

MR. OTWAY

said, this rule might have some justification when troops were on beard ships for two, three, or four months together. But, now, he would defy the right hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Stanley) to name any place which was a distance of 28 days from an English port— the greatest distance that he knew of was 21 days. The contention was that it was better to treat soldiers in this barbarous manner than to inflict on them a lengthened term of imprisonment; but that contention fell to the ground, when they knew that the longest term of imprisonment could be but 21 days. In these changed circumstances, he thought they might find an efficient argument for abolishing corporal punishment on these ships. The most valuable officers in the Navy were of opinion that they might get rid of it; and on this point he might quote the opinion of a man whose opinion they would all respect, the more readily that he was no longer alive— he meant Captain Goodenough. Often and often he had come to him and urged him to bring that particular point to the notice of the House. The whole conditions of service had now so altered that it seemed to him almost impossible to continue this punishment.

COLONEL STANLEY

said, he would not quarrel with the hon. Gentleman on the point of time; but the voyage to the Cape had taken 28 days.

MR. HOPWOOD

, in reply, said, it was not at all a necessary alternative to flogging a man that he should be stifled. Some hon. Member had maintained that this was necessary in order to make the soldiers work on beard ship; but he must remind him that the sailors could not be flogged— it was only a soldier in Her Majesty's Service who enjoyed that odious privilege and distinction. He thought his position was unanswerable, or, at all events, his arguments had not been answered.

MR. SULLIVAN

asked, whether troops going from Dublin to Holyhead would be liable to be punished under this clause?

MR. PARNELL

wished to know whether the clause would apply to the conveyance of Volunteers along the coast in time of peace from one port to another?

COLONEL STANLEY

could not at that moment say whether, if Volunteers were brigaded with the Regular troops, they would be liable to corporal punishment. As reasonable men, they would know perfectly well that no such thing would occur. The infliction of such a punishment as this would only be after a trial by court martial.

MR. PARNELL

did not think it was at all an unimportant question as to whether the Volunteers would be liable to this punishment. As they were going to have Irish Volunteers, perhaps the Government might be disposed to apply to the Irish Volunteers what was not applied to the English. They had lately seen exceptional things done to Irishmen; and he should not be surprised if this clause were brought into play in their case. He rose for the purpose of saying that he thought the part of the clause which they were discussing was a relic of bygone days. It was introduced to meet the case of the old slow passages on beard the sailing troopships. It was not in accordance with the modern conveying of troops on beard steam transport ships. The voyage was now of such short duration, and the powers in the hands of commanding officers were so ample, that it was not right to give exceptional powers during the passage. There was nothing on board ship, as anyone who had been on board ship would know, which could be at all endangered by the soldiers not doing their duty. It was really a power which took its rise in pasttimes, when the captains of ships had power to flog their sailors. It was not likely that the captain of a ship would intrust any of the duties of navigation to the soldiers; he would be solely dependent on his own crew. He was sure, therefore, that the power would not be required for the purpose of preventing danger to the ship; and he did not see that its abolition would do any harm whatever.

MR. T. E. SMITH

said, that it appeared to him that there was an impression that this punishment was to he inflicted on beard of ships carrying troops, when such ships were not commissioned by Her Majesty. Her Majesty's troops were now sent to various parts of the world, and very often assistance had been given by the troops on beard the vessels to the crew; but he had a distinct conviction that the power to inflict corporal punishment had nothing whatever to do with the services the troops rendered. The services were generally cheerfully and willingly given, and tended to promote a good feeling between the officers of the ship and the officers of the troops. There was no question of flogging in the matter; and it was unnecessary in respect of these services. So far as he had seen, the troops were always willing to lend their hand on beard ship when required, and no advantage was gained by making them subject to flogging under these circumstances. The right. hon. and gallant Gentleman had alluded to what he considered might be a great offence, by reason of its endangering the vessel and these on beard—namely, by the neglect of lamps. He had no hesitation in saying that no captain of a ship would ever trust that, on which the safety of the ship and these on beard so much depended, to any but his own people. As to any lamps which might be upon the troop-deck, that was rather a question of troop discipline, and could be treated in the ordinary way.

MAJOR O'BEIRNE

did not think that it was absolutely necessary to flog on beard ship; the watches on beard ship were not kept by soldiers, but by sailors; and if soldiers kept them, they would probably be washed over beard. There was ample power to maintain discipline on beard ship without flogging, by imprisoning or by putting in irons in the held, and there were other punishments which might be inflicted. He did not see any necessity for flogging on beard ships; and, therefore, he should vote for the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Stockport.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 164; Noes 68: Majority 96. — (Div. List, No. 127.)

THE CHAIRMAN

pointed out to the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) that the Amendment he proposed in page 19, line 34, to insert the words— And shall never be inflicted on any soldier save by the sentence of a court martial, was not germane to this clause.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

asked, whether the Amendment would not be germane to the 72nd clause?

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that it appeared to him that the Amendment might be properly raised on the 72nd clause.

MAJOR NOLAN

observed, that the Chairman's decision seemed to him to be very curious. The clause began— Punishments may be inflicted in respect of offences committed by persons subject to military law, and convicted by court martial; and it certainly seemed to him that his Amendment was perfectly germane to this clause, and that he ought to be allowed to move that the punishment should be restricted to persons convicted by court martial. Of course, if he were ruled out of Order, he would submit; but he did not see How it could be so.

MR. PARNELL

said, that the clause stated that punishment might be inflicted on all persons subject to military law. What his hon. and gallant Friend wished to do by his Amendment was to add that the punishment of flogging, one of the punishments which might be inflicted by the sentence of a court martial, should not be inflicted except by a sentence of a court martial. The clause, at present, was only permissive; but his hon. and gallant Friend wished to secure that the punishment of flogging should never be inflicted under certain circumstances.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. and gallant Member proposed by his Amendment that the punishment in question should not be inflicted by any other tribunal than a court martial. The clause now before the Committee had relation only to punishments inflicted by courts martial. It seemed to him that an Amendment of that character would be properly moved upon a clause which proposed to inflict the punishment in another way.

MAJOR NOLAN

wished to shut out not only the flogging by the provost marshal, but by captains on beard ship, and the present seemed to him to be the only place to insert the restriction that flogging was only to take place by order of a court martial; he did not see How he could raise the Amendment elsewhere. There would be great difficulty in moving a new clause; and it would be much easier to raise it upon one of the penal clauses. He thought it would turn out that it was a very inconsistent decision to rule that he could not move his Amendment upon that clause.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir JOHN HELKER)

agreed with the Chairman's view, that the effect of the Amendment upon this clause would be to make it most absurd. The clause would read that punishments might be inflicted upon persons subject to military law, and convicted by court martial, and afterwards would come the restriction that this particular punishment should not be inflicted upon any soldier, save by the sentence of a court martial. The words were out of place in a clause dealing with the punishments to be inflicted by a court martial; he thought the Amendment might properly be moved upon the 72nd clause, as had been suggested by the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea. The symmetry of the clause would be destroyed if the Amendment were inserted here.

MAJOR NOLAN

did not think that the symmetry of the clause would be injured by the adoption of his Amendment. The clause dealt with a number of punishments, and that simply put a restriction upon the infliction of corporal punishment.

MR. J. R. YORKE

said, that as the Chairman had ruled that the Amendment was out of Order, the only course open was to move to report Progress.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. and gallant Member had, he supposed, been endeavouring to alter his decision upon the admissibility of the Amendment. He was, therefore, not absolutely out of Order in what he said.

MR. HOPWOOD

rose to Order. He said that, in Clause 44, punishments might be inflicted upon persons subject to military law and convicted by court martial. Would it be possible to introduce after the words "military laws," "and shall not be inflicted otherwise than by court martial? " He did not think that there was anything wrong in inserting, in a later part of the clause, " should be inflicted upon a soldier only by the sentence of a court martial." The whole clause was descriptive of punishment; and there was no harm in making some punishments only to be inflicted under particular circumstances. On the other hand, Clause 72, in which it was proposed to insert the Amendment, had nothing to do with punishments. It was only in that clause that punishments which were to be inflicted were enumerated; and there could be nothing inconsistent in saying that a particular punishment could only be inflicted by a court martial.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. and learned Member for Stockport was expressing his opinion that an Amendment of this sort should have been placed in the earlier part of the clause. But it had not been moved in that place, and the words at the beginning of the clause had been passed, and were the governing words of the clause. It was not competent to move these words now.

MR. CALLAN

asked whether he could move to insert after the words "other circumstances," "save by sentence of a court martial? "

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Member would be out of Order.

MR. CALLAN

begged to move to report Progress, as he thought the decision of the Chairman was of such importance that time should be afforded to hon. Members to consult authorities, and to decide what course of procedure should be adopted.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Callan.)

COLONEL STANLEY

hoped that hon. Members would not report Progress for a short time, for he proposed to move to leave out the last three lines upon that page, and the first three lines of the next. After that there were only three other Amendments which he proposed to accept, and there was nothing more upon this sub-section of the clause. They had already spent a long time upon the discussion of that clause, and he trusted that the discussion had been productive of good. It was not thon so late but what they might well do good work, as they were accustomed to do at a much later hour. He would accept the ruling of the Chair, giving hon. Members the assurance that the discussion could very properly be brought on, as the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea had said, upon the 72nd clause. As they had cleared away much of what was debatable, he trusted that the Committee would that evening finish the few sub-sections which remained of the clause.

MR. HERSCHELL

agreed with the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that this matter could be properly raised upon the 72nd clause. There were provisions upon that clause which would have to be dealt with upon the 72nd, and the limitation of flogging was one of these matters which would be properly considered upon the provost marshal clause. The 72nd clause was one of the vaguest possible character; and it would be necessary to make considerable alterations in it, and to decide whether or not there should be any flogging by the provost marshal.

MR. SULLIVAN

said, that considering the numerous Amendments to the Bill, and the dangerous ground over which they had been going, he thought the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had met them in a very fair and conciliatory spirit. For his own part, having taken part in this discussion, he did hope that his hon. and gallant Friend would take his advice, and would adopt the suggestion of the right hon. and gallant Gen-man, and allow the Committee to go on for another half-hour.

MR. PARNELL

thought that the hon. and gallant Member for Galway would do best to postpone his Amendment—in fact, he did not see How he could help it, as the Chairman had ruled him out of Order. He thought, moreover, that at that late hour, and considering How long they had been discussing this question, that it might very well be postponed until Clause 72 was reached; any matters which had been omitted would come later upon the discussion of the 72nd clause.

MAJOR NOLAN

said, that he would not move Amendment thon, but would raise it upon the 72nd clause. He saw a considerable difficulty in doing so; and it seemed to him that there would be much more difficulty and responsibility in changing that clause than in altering the present clause, and declaring that a soldier should only be punished in respect of flogging by a court martial. He thought it very hard that he should have been ruled out of Order upon this clause, and he was afraid the Bill would suffer for it.

MR. CALLAN

begged leave to withdraw his Motion to report Progress. At the same time, he begged to give Notice that he intended to raise a question as to the decision of the Chairman upon this point.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed, " That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

MR. OTWAY

did not wish to prolong this discussion; but he must express his extreme regret that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman had chosen to protract this debate by the course he had pursued. It would always be remembered that it was the right hon. and gallant Gentleman's Government, and it was during the reign of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman, that the British soldier was subjected to a punishment which lowered the gallant fellows upon whom it was inflicted. It would always be remembered that it was the present Secretary of State for War, and the Home Secretary, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who distinguished themselves by continuing the use of the lash. One remark he wished to make before he left this subject. Statements had been made by Ministers of that House that the military autherities— and he had it upon the authority of the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War— that the military authorities were in favour of this punishment. He challenged the right hon. and gallant Gentleman to produce his military authorities. Why did he not? On the other hand, he had some military authority against this punishment. He had the authority of a gentleman whose name would pass down for ever as a brave and gallant soldier— namely, the late General Napier, and he was most decidedly opposed to flogging, as well in time of war as in time of peace. Thon, again, was there any authority among military gentlemen having seats in that House higher than the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Colonel Anson) who seconded a Motion that he (Mr. Otway) had made in that House? Neither of those distinguished officers thought it necessary to retain the lash; but the Government said that they had the highest military authority; and he challenged them to name any officer of recognized position who was prepared to come forward and say that the discipline of a British Army could not be maintained unless the use of the lash were retained. He should divide against this clause; and he hoped that all who wished to relieve the Army from this disgrace would vote with him.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 137; Noes 45: Majority 92.—(Div. List, No. 128.)

House resumed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.