HL Deb 11 August 1846 vol 88 cc598-602
EARL FORTESCUE

presented a petition from Budleigh Salterton, praying for the abolition of the practice of flogging in the army. The noble Earl said, he had seen with the greatest satisfaction a statement made by a noble Friend of his, in another place, with respect to an order given by the noble Duke on the cross benches (the Duke of Wellington) to limit the punishment of flogging in the army. He hoped that the effect of an alteration in the law respecting military flogging, coupled with other improvements in the condition of the soldier, would tend at no distant period to the discontinuance of this punishment altogether, without any interference with that high state of discipline which the British army had so long maintained. With regard to the unfortunate transaction which had particularly directed public attention to this subject, he could only speak from common report; but as he was acquainted with the gallant officer whose name had been brought prominently before the public in connexion with it, he trusted that he should be permitted to say a few words with respect to that gallant officer's character. Of his character as an officer, he could only speak from common report; but being from the same part of the country as that officer, whose family were near neighbours of his, he knew him to be one of a large family of small means; and that he did not owe his promotion in the service to the influence of his family or to his fortune, or any other cause than the manner in which he discharged his duties as a soldier. With limited means (in fact, with very little beyond his regimental pay), and in a regiment the officers of which were generally men of independent fortune, he had always maintained his character as a gentleman, and obtained the respect of those who served with him. From what he (Earl Fortescue) had seen of him in society, he should say that there was no likelihood of his being guilty of an act of unnecessary severity, much less of wanton and heartless cruelty.

The EARL of RADNOR

also presented a petition, from a meeting held at Hounslow, against military flogging, and expressed his satisfaction that the abominable and detestable practice had been diminished of late years, and he hoped that the changes which had recently taken place would lead by degrees to its entire abolition.

LORD BROUGHAM

said, that in 1836 the subject was brought before the House of Commons, and gave rise to a great deal of discussion. An inquiry then took place, in which they had the advantage of the opinion of his noble Friend on the cross bench (the Duke of Wellington), and the result had been of great benefit to the House and the public in forming a just view of the question. He (Lord Brougham) was induced by that opinion to reconsider the subject, with the light afforded by the noble Duke; and that led him to adopt the opinion which had been expressed, approving of the recent diminution of punishment. He wished, with respect to Colonel Whyte, not to add the testimony of his personal knowledge, but to state that, having had some communication with a member of his family, who was a member of the profession, to which he (Lord Brougham) belonged, he had inquired into the subject; and he was informed that there never was anything more groundless than the charge of cruelty against that officer. His manners in society were most amiable, and as an officer he was never rigorous, though properly just and strict in discipline. It often happened that a single expression was taken an advantage of; and in this case he (Lord Brougham) believed that an expression which Colonel Whyte used—a light and flippant word—was the origin of this charge against him: it was an unfortunate expression, but it vanished into nothing compared with the punishment.

The DUKE of WELLINGTON

My Lords, it is my duty, in considering the conduct of the gallant officer whose name has been mentioned; and in referring to the subject brought forward by the noble Earl who first addressed you, and the noble Lord who followed him, as well as by my noble and learned Friend, to assure your Lordships I have no doubt whatever in stating that the slightest blame does not attach to that officer in connexion with the late unfortunate transaction. With respect to the subject generally, it has long been the wish of all those connected with the command of the army, and particularly of the illustrious individual who was my predecessor in that command, that the punishment should be diminished in the greatest possible degree. It has been my invariable practice, since I first had the honour of a command in the army, to make every endeavour to diminish the punishment, so as, if possible, to lead by degrees to its entire discontinuance. My Lords, this has been the object of all my arrangements throughout the service, ever since I first commanded a regiment, now not less than fifty years ago. But really, my Lords, the fact is, that it is impossible to carry on the discipline of the British army without some punishment of that description which the individual shall feel. This has been found to be invariably the case; and so much has it been the case, that even when it was thought possible to discontinue it altogether, as had been recently tried in the East Indies, where, under an order of the late Governor General the punishment was entirely discontinued, it was found necessary to re-establish it, owing to the impossibility of carrying on the duties of the service without it, the troops amongst whom it had been abolished having mutinied in the most remarkable and disgraceful manner—in a manner, in fact, calculated to disgrace their country and the nation in the service of whose Government they were acting. It was therefore found necessary to re-establish the punishment in that army in which it had been discontinued. My Lords, in consequence of the feeling of the Government, of the Parliament, and of the public on this subject, I have taken upon myself to issue an order greatly to diminish the severity of the punishment; and I hope, with the arrangements made in future, and with an alteration in the law, it may still further be diminished, so as to lead to its final discontinuance. I must, however, beg your Lordships to observe, that if we are to have an army we must have it in a state of discipline—a state of subordination to command, and of obedience to the State. This country does not like an army under any circumstances; but in no case would it bear any but the best troops that can be had. We must have the very best troops in this country, and in every part of the world where we employ them. We require the best conduct and the most perfect subordination and order; for I assure your Lordships that our troops are now at this moment engaged, and are constantly engaged, in the daily performance of services which you could not require—nay, I will go further, and say, which you could not have from any other troops in the world. They are constantly in the course of embarkation in vessels carrying convicts from this country to Australia; guarding these convicts in small detachments of infantry, commanded by a subaltern, the number of convicts being frequently from 300 to 400. My Lords, it is most surprising, under these circumstances, that it should be so, and yet I do not recollect any misfortune occurring during those long voyages under the command of a subaltern officer, assisted by noncommissioned officers, taking charge of a ship conveying so many convicts. This is going on every day without any misfortune, and in some few cases where shipwrecks have occurred, our troops have conducted themselves in the most remarkable manner, in a way which gained the confidence of all those around them. On these occasions the officers of Her Majesty conducted themselves in a manner which tended to save the life of every individual on board. It is necessary for me now to remark—and I entreat your Lordships to remark—that you cannot have an army if, unfortunately, it should lose its discipline and habits of subordination and good order; but your Lordships may rely upon it that I will continue to do what I have always endeavoured to do, that is, to diminish the punishment as much as possible, and I hope I may live to see it abolished altogether.

The DUKE of GRAFTON

wished to know whether the officers of our army who had so distinguished themselves in the cases alluded to by the noble Duke, had been promoted or rewarded for their conduct?

The DUKE of WELLINGTON

Yes.

Back to