Star. — London, England, 1827-03-13 00:00:00

Lord on what authority General Fuller granted any such commission as that to which he had alluded? It ma r red to km (fek,Hunse) most extraordinary that a al Of f icer, on a foreign station, should take upon himself the power of superseiing the King's Se Mantel, %Ouch, _in fact, _General Fuller bad done, in placing Colonel Arthur over Colonel Bradley. Lord PALMERS TON said, that •neral Fuller had granted the Commission he did to Colonel Arthur, in accordance with a power always vested is General Offi cers, commanding on a foreign station. That Com- Mission did not supersede the King's Sign Manual- in, any r.spect—(Hear, hear.) It was granted for a parts cigar local purpo.e. It was but an acting Commission, and was iegularly forwarded to this country for con firmation or abrogation as might be seen 6t. As to the power wiercised by General Fuller, it must be evident to the House, that if General Officers, commanding on foreign stations, were deprived of inch an authority, it would be impossible for the Service to be carried on. Lend NUGENT wished to offer a few remarks on the voodoo properly before the House. He was quite melded that every Hon. Gentleman who heard bite wed be gratified at seeing the degrading and *boas& jai system of corporal unishment done away, if it could be shewn that the discipline of the Army could be ataintained without it. He was sure that the cors:. dmsance of the present quern was advocated Italy be cause Hon. Gentlemen proud that it would be 'impos sible to substitute any other effectual kind ofuotrectiott. Es remembered that some years since an experiment had been made in one of our foreign garrisons, and be believed that it had been attended with the most happy results. "As loisg siece 'be belieied, as eleven years, Alexandet Doe had issued en order at Gibraltar, by w'Nfh corporal punishment had been dOne away with hs that garrison, and solitary confineraint substi• toted in its place. If the information be bad received was correct, the experiment 'had been most successful. He thought it of impostastat that the cinch should be clearly ascertained, and he therefore sbduld like to 'mow if soy objection would be made tothe production of the order to which he hid alluded. and also of the corres pondence which had taken place on the subject. Lord PALMERSTON was really not aware that there was any such order as the Noble Lord mentioned in existence, nor did he know that any correspondence bad taken place upon the subject, and therefore he could not take upon himself to say whether or not there would be any objection to their being produced. Lord NUGENT said, that perhaps the Noble Lord would state the office at which they would have been reseSived? Lord PALMERSTON said, that if the order had been issued through the Governor. and any correspon dence had transpired between that Officer and the Lieutenant Governor upon the subject, it was not at all a matter of course that such order and correspon • deuce Should have been communicated to any of the Government Offices. Mr. HOBHOUSE said, that his Noble Pt lend (Lord Nugent) bad remarked that the difficulty was to sub. :finite some system which should prove as efficacious as the present. That, perhaps, might be true; but he (Mr. Hobhouse) was of opinion, that even the present sfstem might be made less objectionable than it was at present. Oa a previous occasion he had recommended that unsnimittshould be necessary in every Regimental Court Martial in the passing at sentence. When he bad urged that alteration in the present mite of things, a Noble Lord had found fault with the proposal, because hi said it would tillable •ny factious subordinate officer so curry favour with the soldiers of the regiment. H. Hobliouse) did not very well understand how them could be a factious tutwirdinate officer in his Majesty's arnry—(Laughter)--bet even if ►here were, he would beg to remind those who libje.ted to the site , ration he proposed, that the same r fficers did not always compose the regimental court martial, and also, that a factious subordinate officer had at present as good an opportunity of currying favour with the regiment as he could possibly hue after the alteration suggested. He urged the alteration to which he had alluded the more, because, by the ordinary laws of the land, the unanimous verdict of twelve persons was required be- . . fore may subject could be sentenced to the slightest tri o/nil punishment, sod smelt' it such was the cab. with . . reference to civil subjects, it was not too much to say, that a Regimental Court Martial should be unanimous in Its sentence, when it was coropo•ed only of five mem bers. He could not but remark that he had never heard any argument in favour of the present system, excepting that of its necessity ; and when it was asked • why it was necessary, the only reply that could be gained was,—it was necessary, because it was so. But be would remind those Honourable and Gallant Gen tlemen who gave that reply, that the same was said some years ago with respect to picketting.— Experience, however, had amply proved that that de testable punishment was not necessary, and he had no • doubt Bogging would share the same fate es &chatting, if a fair trial was madate maintained that the results of applying corporal punishment sheered that it ought tie longer to be persevered in. The House bad been in formed by Hon. and Gallant Gentlemen, that so har dened bad some men become to logging, that they were called 4. !lagging blocks." That fact in itself proved that no good malted from corporal punish-' sneat.which hardened aad depaded, but did not reform, and should be done away with. In the French Army corporal punishment was unkn we. and that army might at least be termed the in Europe He 4re joiced in every opportunity *hi enabled him to Oa test against the continuance of so vile a system ; be was almost pleased that any modification had been rejected, for the odious punishment should be swept away alto- gether, and he trusted that every occasion would be eagerly take* hold of to abolish it. Sir JOHN REBBIGHT said, that • notwithstanding . .. 'll', a full enasciousness of the unpopularity which w ou ld b e attendant oa giving any support to the system of cops i ; I' F poral punisl ment, he felt it hi s d ut y to up h o ld i t , an d from that duty be should not flinch. Dating the tatter part of his life he had served in the army, and hr would maintain that it was to the present system the Bi itiAi soldier owed many of his comforts and much of Ins bappinsss. He was perfectly satisfied that no soldier could enjoy the comforts which a British soldier did unless his regiment *as in a high state of di,cipliae, and he nes also satisfied that the present state of disci- !, one in which the B r iti s h arm y was , cou ld not b e sus- i mined were it not for the influence of corporal punish- ' Mat. It was vet) , easy for Hon. Gentlemen to talk 1 )1 WRIT of an experiment; but when so much was at age, he thought all experiments should be vi ewe d w i t h 1 1 an eye of jealousy ; their consequences might be - most dasgerowy and he therefose hoped the House would 1 not entertain them. lihh hhimini Sir ALSKANDER HOPE was of opinion, flat the, described , C•tir t Ma,. . ass from all that he (Sir A. Hope) had seen . , he was in clined to consider them in the same light. Command ing Officers felt the responsibility in which they were placed, and they were careful not to inflict unnecessary punishment. Hon. Gentlemen bad spoken of a distinct motiockon,thieslthject, and bethought to reserve any , furthir remarks Opon the question until such a motion shoulibe made. • Colonel TRENCH maintained that the punishment l, was tar from being so degrading'*' it had been repre sented to be. He could see but little difference between the boy who at the rive of 16 was go g rd at school, and" the one who wasfloggsid in the army. It appeared to him that the degradation of the punishment had really been so much esagg,rated,that it had become t id , calous. Mr. C•W.WYNN begged to know from the Speaker, what was the eirtn Ms before the House ? The SPEAKER—+M That this Bill be read a third time." Mr. C. W. WYNN suggested to the House that it would be better to postpone any further remarks on the subject, until the new clauses, of the proposal of which notice bad been given, should be brought under its consideration. Os the question being pat from 'the Chair that the Bill be read a third time • Mr. LEYCESTER sa id, that be row to propose an additional clause for the aJoption of the House. He objected to any authority being attached to the opinion of military men, as they were too much interested in the question to be (anly considered as judges. After some further remarks, the Honourable Member moved a clause which was to this effect : is That for the space of one year, from the present time, all corporal punish ment should be abolished from that part of the army stationed in the United Kingdom, any provisions con tained in the Act, to the contrary notwithstanding." Mr. WARBURTON, in seconding the Motion, re commended an appeal, not to the backs of men, but to their reason. Mr. HUME supported the proposed clause. The Noble Lord (Palmerston) had admitted that there had been instances of cues: of punishment, and that in it• self was a reason why corporal punishment should be abolished. The Melee Lord had even admitted that there were some regiments in which no corporal punish mutt had been inflicted, and he (Mr. Hume) therefore argued, that if 1,000 men could be kept in a state of discipline without could the whole army..—He hoped the Noose wow& adopt the clause, as it had re ference to the United Kingdom only, that even should its effects be injurious, it would be most easy to guppies, any instance of insubordination. The clause was then brought up, and read from the Chair a first time. On the second read ism Colonel DA VIES said, that be wholly dissented from the propriety of the proposed clause, and regretted that it was his duty to do so. He was as desirous as any one could be on the score of humanity to abolish cor porti punishment; but speaking professionally, he was convinced, and be apprehended that every Honourable and Gallant Member who beard him would t agree with him in opinion, that t h e .present discipline of the army sould not be supported without corporal punishment. He was convinced that if it were put to soldiers they would prefer corporal punishment to forced Jabot's. sir R. WILSON said be could not believe it possible that the mind of a British soldier was so much at va riance with, and so much beneath that of the s4,ldiers of the Continent, as had been r , presented. Foreign soldiers had hailed the abolition of corporal punishment with delight, and he had no doubt British soldiers would do the same. With respect to the argument of flogging boys of 16 years of age, if it were worth any thing it was as applicable to the officers as to the privates. He, however, thought it worth nothing; for who, when he took upon him the manly gown. would submit to the' discipline adopted towards the boy ? He had con►ersed ' with a common soldier, but who had not a common mind, who had justly remarked, instead of a system of degradation give Us a system which shall excite emula tion. He (Sir K. W.) wished to take from foreigners the power of taunting us. When he commanded the Lnsi tanian corps. nothing could exceed the admirable state of discipline in which it was, yet no corporal punishment had been had recourse to,and he was satisfied if so much could be effected with foreign troops without it, at least as much could be effected with his own countrymen.— He also wished to deprive a class of persons who were' called Englishmen, from taunting their country with the practice of inflicting corporal punishment, by ap. pealing to its pursuit as an extenuation of their own crimes. He had that day read some Jamaica Papers, in which the petty tyrants, the women !loggers of that island, endeavoured to justify the lashes which they laid upon the unhappy slave by a reference to our system of military discipline. It had been allowed that an army might be maintained in peace without corporal punish ment. but he would assert it might be maintained in war also. What was done in an army before Rochelle? Some insubordination was evinced, but instead of corporal punishment being inflicted, an order was gives not to permit any delinquent to have the honour of opposing the enemy, and that course had the desired effect.— The lower classesaproperly encouraged, would be found u capable of generous sentiments and honourable actions as were the higher ones. With respect to the clause immediately before the House, it was a measure which could not be adopted without casting an unmerited stigma upon that part of our army which was serving abroad. He. for one, could never consent to it, although perhaps, its Honourable Proposer had been content with attempting to gain a little now, in the hope of ul timately gaining all. But he would not support the motion, or an amendment of it, though that amendment were to "stead it, because a new Commander its Chief and such a Commander in Chief too as the Duke of Wellington had very recently been appointed, and he thought the House would do well to see what were the plans of that illustrious General. The JUDGE ADVOCATE expressed his astonish , menet the clause having been brought forward at that particular period. But a very short time since Ad- I dresses of Condolence had been p resen t e d t o t h e Th rone from every part of the kingdom, on the' death of his late Royal Highness the Duke of York. And those Addresses spoke not only of condolence, but they spoke also of the high state of discipline to which the Army had arrived. That this being the case, he wosid ask, was that a fit time to icy experiments? One Honourable Gentleman (Sir R. Wilson), in eulogising the character of the late Commander is Chief, bad said that the improvntsent is the discipline of the • is .he Second, the government of the army _ vested in the Crown, and the House should act with caution in attempting to interfere with the Royal Prerogative. If, then, the government of the army were vested in the Crown, what punishments had the Crown been permitted to inflict? Why, among others was flogging, and from usage and custom it might be considered as the common law punishment of the army. Bat to look further, if the Crown was responsible for the government of the army, what might not he the consequer.ce of its being deprived of the necessary au thority to enforce obedience? The Right Win. and Learned Gentleman then cited a part of the Acts of the 13th and 14th of Charles the Second, .and maintained, that upon those Acts corporal punishment must be considered as the common law punishment of the army. Dr. LUSHINGTON utterly denied that the doc trine promulgated by the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman who had just addres ed the House, was in accordance with the constitution of the land. He had been greatly. astonished that imperious necessity had not been onk F. more had recourse to, to induce the House to . pint/se Bill, but he was still more astonished that the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had dared to charge their ancestors with having handed down to them an army under the Government of the Crown, with a common law punishment affixed to it of flog ging. Why, what was meant by common law, and the InstitOtions a. the country? Why, those laws and cus toms which had been Is sncled down to us from time immemsrial, Did the Right Hon. and Leone. Gen tleman mean to rely upon the Statute of Charles the Second? If he did, he (Dr. Lushington) would reply, that that contained nothing of common law ; and even that if it bad done go, it had been abrogated long since. He (Dr. Lushington) had been roused at hearing a high Judicial Officer of the Crown advance the doctrine, that the Crown had the power of inflicting punish meats, and tha: the common las. of the land— The ADVOCATE-GENERAL begged to explain.. He did not mean the comm m law of the land ; but that the usage of the army had made it so with reference to the army. Dr. LUSHINGTON denied that custom had or could confer such power as to put one part of the peo-; ple under one common law and another part ender ano:her. No such power existed in the Crown with re spect to the government of the army. When orders had been given to fire upon the people, Lord Mantfi Id de-' mended who had given the orders, and being informed that they were given on the authority of the Com m ander in-Chiet, he declared that if death were occasioned he would commit him for murder. It was from Parlia ment that all authority was derived; and to prove that such was the fact, he would remind the Right Hen. and Learned Gentleman, that in cases of mistake the Court of King's Bench had afforded redress, and would do to, again. He had thought it right to say this much,, because he could never submit to hear the Constitution attacked in the manner which it had been; nor could I hp help expressing his astonishment 'at hearing a Right Honourable and L"arned Gentleman maintain a doctrine so completely at variance with the Con. 'citation of the country. But the Right' Honourable Gentleman had alluded to the death of the Duke of York. He (Dr. Lusbingtoo) maintained that the death of his' late Royal' Highness had nothing what ever to do with the question. It was one of those questions which ought not to be postponed ; but it ought to be perpe.ually and continually agitated till we had arrived at the minimum of punishment. And who would venture to say that we had arrived at that minimum ?—( Hear, bear). Ten years ago they bad been told that the army could not be maintained. with out the quantity of corporal puOishment which was' then inflicted; brit now it was asserted, and justly so, that the late Duke of York was entitled to the gratitude of the country for having materially reduced the ' quency and the severity of that odious and degrading system of discipline.—[The Hon. and Learned Gent. here alluded to a case which bad occurred in Canada, where the corporal punishment ordered was so revere, that an Officer, disgusted at the system, had returned home, stated the facts to the late Duke of York, and from him received•a promise -Of protection, which'pro mise had been fulfilled.]-41e strongly maintained that the system was of a m .st atrocious character, and that it ought to be abolishes. When they resorted to the cat-of-nine-to& with reference to the soldier, they punished bins is the- mace way that they would their dog; and little astonishMent mild therefore bi ex pressed, if, in the time off danger and necessity, each made a similar return. • Lord PALMERSTON slid, that really the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had irrissted a good deal of very good Constitutional informatibn to very little purpose. (Laughter.)—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had' so completely misrepresented Whatliad fallen from his Right lion. Friend, that any one would live imagined he had asserted corporal punishmtiollo big part of the common law o f the laird. But 114 RiglifTlon. Friend had been guilty of no such abinidity. He 'had stated, and very truly, that the government of the army was by custom immemorial vested in the Crown, and that that custom had been confirmed by Parliament. He had farther stated, that corporal punishment had so invariably been adopted in the army, that'it might be considered as the ordinary; or common punishment; and he (Lord Palmeiston) must confess, that he saw nothing whatever incorrect in the statement. The Hose would remember, that by prerogative the Crown had the government of the army, but then came the Bill of Rights, which gave every subject a freedom trem corporal punishment, except by 'sen tence of Court Martial. Well, then, the King came down to Parliament, and applied for the Mutiny Bill. No soldier could be endangered in life or limb unless for crimes specified in*the Act, within the United King dom, but out of the United Kingdom, tle poiver of the Crown was left unimpaired. The only question was— was this 'poser necessary or not? and the Hon. and Gallant Member for Southwaik had placed it upon its proper footing, was it expedient to have one law for troops at home, and another for troops - abroad ? Then, as to the small number of instances, the knowledge that the power existed, prevented in a great degree the necessity for its nerds*. It was difficult to know how to deal with Gentlemen who argued that the power was unnecessary on tallaltle of the small number of in stiances in avlieh it was' exerted. The number being small, they contended tbat - lhe power was unnecessary. Mad the number beta large, they would Oleo, no doubt. have insisted that the power was it ab i tt;: w . e: whether the instances were few or teeny it equally furnish those Honourable Genti enl ' en . an argument against the power. They excused if they did not take great Pains to fi n d to satisfy Gentlemen who argued the Ru es , -..sser. It had been said that corpor a l was not employed in the French 'army.; but, unless he was greatly misinformed, the Fr enc h Commanders exercised an arbitrary and discretionate power of ordering the soldiers to be beaten by their corn. lsades with the fiat of the sword. The distinction betwe en bodily pain inflicted by a piece of iron is one case, and by a piece of leather in the other, appeared to hint to be utterly childish. Men must be governed by ton . tives, and the temp ations to irregularity by which n o, diers were beset must be counteracted by the dread some kind of pan or inconvenience. When the .Member spoke of the French troy ps and of their hiri 'sense of honour, to the disparagement of British troop,, he must remind him that the relaxation of their d i ,. cipline had on several occasims gone so far • riously to impede their operations. Toe qnestioit did not relate merely to the soldiery, it was intimately connected with the intei e is of the civil population—. If Members were to come down to that Howe with complaints of ex-esses having been committed by the military, and should be told that Government ho' not sufficient power to repress them, and that I must take its course, what a burst of lrolignat:, would be heard? Then, what were the substitutes pto , posed in the place of corporal punishment ? They h a d heard of imprisonment; but the fact was, they h a d oct the means of resorting to imprisonment as a soma/ mode of punishment. Was it fit- to send soluics the county jails for several months to no: with vilest of characters? or were they to build a great, number of prisons exclusively for soldiers? What would be the exclamations of the Honourable Member for Aberdeen if he were to sec in the estimates a chat , of several hundred thousand pounds for building p si sons for the benefit of the military ? The Honourable Members had appealed to experience, hat expe;ienc e was entirely against them. They seemed to think that men who were unconnected with the army, who nem had any thing to du with the details of a regiment, and knew nothing of the difficulties of mar aging them, were of all authorities the wit entitled o attention too this subject. Upon this principle, which some Hon.tieto tleanen found it so convenient to adopt, they ought when. ever a qoestion connected with sugar or slaves was , cussed, to silence any Gentleman) who knew any thing the West Indies; when the question before the House related to our East India p. ssessions, every man al sad beep at Bengal or Bombay ou t ht to be held t qualified; when the subject was Corn, the Country Gee tlemen ought not to be loud; and, when the matter in debate involved any of the great pi inciples et Tt or Finance, the Political Economist, one and all, oui to be requested to walk out of the House—(Hear,. laughter). .He was no advocate for corporal punish• meat, and should be glad to see them abolished if were practicable to do so. But the truth was, that ' had only a choice of evils berme them ; and if they prived the Crown of the power, he apprehended the misthievous consequences. Mr. SYKES maintained that the preamble of Mininy Act proved that there was no. common . right tor corporal punishment, which deadened every mural and physical sensibility of feeling in the *oldie. In his neighbourhood a soldier had died from the fliCtiOn of 500 lashes; arid to this dry no inquiry been made into the case, though a Coroner's Jury returned a verdict of " Murder against persons known."—(Hear, hear I) He believed these hates vs frequent.—(No, no !)—else, why was there such hesita tion on the part of mil tiny Commanders to make turns of the number of persons flogged?-(Hear, hear The subject loudly called for investigation, and iav ligation would lead to its abolition. Sir H. HA RDINGE read an extract from the Repots of the Commissioners of the General Penitentiary, dated the 7th of February, 1827, and signed by Lord Bello to the effect that the Commissioners had tried solitary Confinement with young and old, without success, and considered the framers of the Act to have tendered iu operation ineffective by omitting corporal punish , went—(Hear). The system of punishment with the sword was tried 70 years ago in the British Army, bat was abolished, from the severity of the wounds fre quently occasioning death. It was foolish in Hon. Mem bers to quote the French Army as a proof of the non• necessity of corporal punishment to its discipline. An Honorable and Gallant Friend of his lately saw a drum boy shot, at Lisle, for insolence to the Drum Major; and the superiority of British discipline over French and Prussian was apparent, from the admission d French Officers themselves, and from the grateful and contrasted recollection of the conduct of the British troops, held by the Portuguese, the Spaniards, and the inhabitance of all commies through which the.Btitish army marched. He marched with the Prussian and British armies to Paris, after the battle of Waterloo; and though flogging and bodily punishment . were totally abolished in the Prussian army, the inhab itants vacated their !wean on their (the Prussian) line el march; while they never even Shut their doors of the fine of match of the British army. lo the regiesent which he commanded, there were but fifteen Bogged in the year 1828; and out of 800 delincteents during the war, there were but fifteen or sixteen shot.— Now in France or Prussia, from the non-existence of bodily punishment, at least one ball of these 800 coital nals must have been shot—(Hear hear). The British Officers felt flogging to be a most painful duty, 29 41 would as willingly as any man in that House, des- Ipease with it, were it possible, by any other mode, 10 maintain the high discipline of the array—(Hear, hear). Sr A. HOPE said, that he had served both in the r i Austrian and Russian army. He knew bet one dis tinction between the %hash and foreign armies, and that was altogether in favour of the British s ) ld er, who was not subject to arbitrary punishment. The first Mutiny Act, after the Bill of Righto gave him it privilege of being tried by his Peers. His Judges were upon oath ; the evidence also was upon oath ; and to case of his being found guilty, the source of mercy was at hand. The Mutiny Act, at the time of Charles the Second, contained 43 cases of death, one of tortures, and one of mutilation ; and for all these the punish ment of Bogging had been substituted. Sir H. - VIVIAN declared that the British Officers were most anxious to do away with the Sytilell2 of Bogging, if any system, which could answer an equally good purpose, could be substituted in its stead. He as sated the House that the speeches of some Nondurable Members had h..sf the effect cleansing that punishment which they sought to abolish ; for his own part he could state, that when he commanded 1000 moo, he found, all . . desultory cOnversatioos chat bed from time tb..time Are bedlam" prodacad by a. dimiaotlas or eon potal doubt. have insisted taket phials the - Soule uStAhlb mbleet-tad ' mid that+MugtM ciwiwas kam usivaral so that whether the letioto megthi4. T7k Prdoeitihflteetitol.discipline was toinfft• tjwltrunlyke diffork bad flypast. thi would equally furnil muds hitt* then antothde thaVetuthkillt substituted its *ratan of Poch as poaelblv o that so mudti only et tor- pith an argument ag iteetearh Art Hone Member he& justly described porel pitelshineut bad ken tetaided as was coward t-$ be excused if they CoUI t Martial as a family inquiry, and from all that he the pod' order of the troops? But in considering thii arguments to satisfy (Sir A. Hope) had seen of Courts . Martial, he was in- question, it thould be vauseasberei that by the 14th of ,tioss is this manna. dined to consider them in the same hest. Command- Charles the Second, the government of the army had punishment was nol ~esOiNeere felt the responsibility in which they were been vested in the Crown, and the House should act but, unless he was it MI en ell ad op rt • t s • I 4 I .4 11 id en l ' 14 1 71 I tr ' Ira • ma i l h . 414 did ely w It , vi r the tit! 10 to to a ) had sir Oct et al Ito i b the of it/ r to h fiber ae e t °I. G P t "UI A race " that de eve r and to , it; jot Ipsla on :ten- wi hen. net tits. ab I( of gilt Louse who oo I dis. Gee. an latter ['la& • night . and se roish. I if it they N 7 de. most ha 1 the w slaw hi every oldie:. Pc be tb y bat y bad an s on. de tie at efitl• Ix ta- int !) 1] laves. epoet sated uley, co to and Tb :d iu Mob al - the bat fie- lem. td non. An hum ajor ; tl rich a and and ritish debt :kith and 3 rloo; Weft teats a et a the anent 4 Irg ed 1 hing at.— 4 to of a Tirol. flash ,and air 1 fie, to tear). the di a- .11 and Id er, The ti *eta Id its r WN s the cures, . wish- ' 1 Bears of pally lc as- rable • mend • could d $ all