SECOND READING. (Hansard, 6 April 1881)

THE EARL OF MORLEY
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, he regretted that the Bill having come up late from the Commons on the previous night was not in such a complete state as could have been desired. The Amendments on the Bill had not yet been printed, and accordingly the Bill had not been circulated among their Lordships.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, he understood that the Bill was not on the Table of their Lordships' House.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
said, that it had been laid on the Table, and was then lying upon it. According to the arrangement come to the previous night, he would propose to take the discussion to-morrow on the Motion to go into Committee, and before that time the Bill in its present shape would be in the hands of their Lordships.

THE EARL OF LONGFORD
said, he would not oppose the second reading of the measure; but he must repeat what he had said in former Sessions—that this Bill always came up to their Lordships with a rope round its neck, and they were called upon to dispose of it at once. He was aware Public Business this Session had been interrupted in a manner injurious to the interests of the country, both public and private, and that this Bill had accordingly been postponed. But the present was a very unsatisfactory mode of proposing the second reading of such a Bill, and means ought to be taken in future to afford their Lordships an opportunity for a fuller discussion.

LORD DENMAN
said, that, instead of speaking before the Motion for the Bill going into Committee, he would say a few words on the second reading, having just obtained a copy of the Bill. He believed that if the right hon. and gallant Member the late Secretary of State for War would have declared that he considered corporal punishment necessary for the discipline of the Army, the late Leader of the Opposition would have said in 1879 that he would support him. He (Lord Denman) had quoted from Horace, but ought to have quoted the words before— Nec vincet ratio hoc tantundem ut peccet idemque, Qui teneros caules alieni fregerit horti, Et qui nocturnus divum sacra legerit. Regula peccatis quæ pænas inroget æquas, Ne scutica degnum horribili sectere flagello—adsit. He was of opinion that the alternative punishment of flogging ought to be restored by the insertion of a provision to that effect in the Bill before their Lordships. That punishment had been well described by the noble and gallant Lord (Lord Abinger) the other night as exercised in the last Civil War in America as 799 a merciful substitute for death for crimes of lesser gravity than murder; and the proposed substitution of imprisonment for flogging was very unsatisfactory, inasmuch as where no prison existed, as was the case in the field, it took away the services of several men to attend upon the soldier arrested. This was, in fact, a punishment to the whole Army. If a man got drunk, he ought to be flogged, by which he would at once be made sober; and the unpopularity of the punishment was not a sufficient reason for its abolition. If flogging in the Army were given up, we might be expected to give it up in the case of garrotters also. Now, if a soldier was flogged for drunkenness, other soldiers would see that it was not worth their while to get drunk. There was an instance of a man who had become a good soldier, thanking the officers who had made him so by the punishment of flogging; for he had heard from Sir George Lawrence of a Native officer in India who, having risen from the ranks, laid his sword at Sir George's feet, and said he owed his commission to the good effects produced by a flogging inflicted on him when in the ranks. He (Lord Denman) knew an instance of two brothers, at a long interval of time, each thanking the same mother for having whipped them. He had seen a man in Windsor street flogged, who scarcely winced. He had also witnessed in Windsor Barracks part of the lashing of a private soldier of the Guards punished for theft by 300 lashes, and had seen the same man in the ranks with his coat turned. The power given to the Secretary of State for War in the Bill was of a most indefinite description; and in Committee he (Lord Denman) should move the re-insertion of the flogging clause.

§ LORD CHELMSFORD
said, he would not oppose the second reading of the Bill; but he must take exception to their Lordships being asked to pass it without having before them the Amendments made in the Bill by the House of Commons. Such a course was most inconvenient. As their Lordships' House contained so many officers who were specially qualified to deal with such a question, he was of opinion they ought to be afforded more time for discussing a Bill gravely affecting the maintenance of discipline in the Army and the 800 good conduct of our soldiers in the field.

LORD DENMAN
said, he would press his Amendment for the restoration of the alternative of flogging; and if it was carried, he trusted there would be a conference between the two Houses on the subject, even if it made the Vacation shorter.

LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMPBELL
said, that on the Paper for Thursday were subjects for discussion relating to South Africa, Eastern Correspondence and other matters. Considering the variety of matters for debate, and the amount of Business to be done, he hoped the Government would consent to the House meeting at 4 instead of 5 o'clock.

THE EARL OF MORLEY
said, that as none of the Leaders of the Opposition were present it would not be possible to adopt the suggestion of the noble Lord, the understanding being that the Mutiny Bill would not be taken before the usual hour for Public Business.