The Sun.
London, England, 1852-05-08 00:00:00

T E

repeatedly said :before about the puniehmant being in-
fernal, and not fitted for British subjects.
Lord JOCELYN said he did not rine to defend or to
discuss the punishment of flogging.—(Hear, hear.) Ho
had long deemed it one which ought only to be inflicted
for degrading offonces—(Hear, hear)—and he believed
it was now only applied to such offences by officers in
the army.—(Elear, hear.) He was persuaded that no
more painful duty could be performed by any officer
than sitting on a court•martial which might find it its
duty to sentence a soldier to this punishment.—(Hear,
hear.) This was not, however, the fitting time or oc-
casion to discuss that question.—(Hear, hoar.) When
that time and occ'esion arrived, he should be ready to
nh los hb me
gegnetdt otlbpe
oi
innflt t cotuetd t ihne t iimmep
rouf d pe aceee.
unite his voice with those who held flogging not a pu-
a—nd(Liine
jauraiceßuoft
exempting the militia from all liability to the punishment
to which the regulars were in some cases subject.—
(Hear.) Now, let it be recollected that the regulars and
the militia might be cantoned in the same quarters—and
would it be just that a soldier committing a certain
offence should be sentenced to the punishment of flog-
ging, and a militiaman who committed the same
offence, be exempted from it?—(Hear, hear.) Surely
such a course would excite the greatest jealousy be-
tween the two forces—(Hear, hear)—and prove de-
structive to the efficiency of both.—(Hear, hear.) It
was true that the Irish constabulary were not liable to
the punishment; but their pay was so far superior to
that of the army that fear of dismissal was in itself suffi-
cient to deter from crime. If this were so in the,
army, corporal punishment could be dispensed with; of
course, as it was, it must be retained, at least in time of
war, or for degrading offences.
Mr. WILLIAMS reminded the House that in 1809,
when a member of a local militia corps was sentenced to
be flogged, the whole regiment turned out to prevent
the sentence from being inflicted, and it had to be ex-
ecuted under the sabres of a battalion of German troops.
Mr. CLAY said his answer to the question " Would
you inflict the punishment on the regulars and not on
the militia?" was, " I would exempt both forces from it"
—(Hear, hear)—and one reason why he voted for the
exemption of :he militia was, that he believed after such
exemption from it, it would not be retained twelve
months in the army.--(Hear, hear.)
Colonel SALWEY rejoiced to raise his voice against
the retention of the punishment even in the army.—
(Hear, hear.) He thought the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber for Chippentiam (Captain Boldero) somewhat incon-
sistent in now proposing the infliction of corporal pu-
nishment, whereas be had formerly voted against it.
Corporal punishment was the di:grace of the army, and
ought on every ground to be discountenanced.

Colonel PENNANT, on the contrary, was of opinion
that corporal punishment was necessary for the main-
tenance of discipline. It was only bad soldiers who
feared the system.—(Hear, hear.)
Colonel KNOX was of opinion that corporal punish-
ment ought to be held in terrorem over the regular army
and the militia alike.—(Hear, hear.) If the Mutiny
Act were waived, he did not think any militia could be
got at all; and if, as gentlemen of the Manchester school
contended, only vagabonds would be got to join the force
it would be quite as well to have such a means of en-
forcing discipline at hand.—(Hear, and laughter).
Colonel CHATTERTON said that corporal punish-
ment was only resorted to in very extreme cases; but
thought it ought to be retained as a safeguard.
After a few words from Mr. HODGES,
Mr. WAK LEY said he could see no justice in in-
flicting corporal punishment on the private and letting
the officer go scot-free.—(oh, oh.) No one could
deny the debasing influence of this mode of punish-
ment. The best authorities concurred in testifying
that the character of the army had much improved
since the flogging code had been mitigated. The
cases in which the punishment was retained were
most trivial, but so diverse were the definitions,
that the punishment could be inflicted in num-
berless instancess. Leaving out the question of
danger to life, inseparable to such punishment,
he contended that the mind of the soldier must break
down under such a debasing system. As a medical
man he was prepared to assert that fifty lashes could
not be inflicted without jeopardising life, and that
alone ought to be a reason why the punishment should
be discontinued. He contended that what they called a
lash was a compound instrument of torture, each con-
taining eight or nine lashes, with knots on each. Who
were they going to lash? They were taunted on that side
with saying that they would only have the scum of so-
ciety to volunteer; but the Government had said that
they would have none but respectable men, and they
were going to blast the prospects of these men for life,
for no man could ever hold up his head if once subjected
to such degrading punishment. They might all recol-
lect the difficulty they had in inducing the military au-
thorities to deprive soldiers of their bayonets. It was
considered that the soldier was degraded if he went out
without his steel instrument, and many lives were lost
by the system; but in the end public feeling and public
opinion prevailed, and the soldier was deprived of his
weapon. If they attempted to pass the present measure
in opposition to the feelings and opinions of the people,
they would prepare for themselves a lash which would
inflict upon them continual torture.
_ _

Mr. EWART contended that great advantages had
been obtained by the diminution of severe and degrad,
ing punishments, and it might be inferred that further
improvement would result from a still further decrease
of those punishments. The Secretary at War had ex-
pressed himself averse to flogging altogether, and hoped
that he might yet be able to dispense with it. He un-
derstood that this degrading punishment would in future
be only inflicted for degrading offences. It was said that
50 lashes were the greatest punishment that could be in-
flicted; but then the punishment was very unequal as
well as degrading. The Hon. Gentleman then referred
to a case that had occurred some years previously, in
which a soldier stated that he bad been subjected to the
punishment of 500 lashes for a trifling offence, for which
the punishment was altogether inadequate and excessive.
He had been punished for merely asking the question
"What am I punished for?" Although the House would
not patiently listen to the arguments against the Bill,
they might depend on it the country would give its ver-
dict against the measure.

Lord JOCELYN said a few words in explanation.
Colonel PEEL begged to state that that was not the
crime for which the man was punished and the Hon.
Member knew that as well as he did.—(Cheors.)
Sir W. VERNER made a few remarks, which did not
reach the gallery.
Mr. EWART rose to complain of the remark just
made by the Hon. and Gallant Colonel opposite—namely,
that what he bad stated was untrue.
Colonel PEEL—No, no.
Mr. EWART was not saying anything hastily or
unadvisedly. He understood the Lion. and Gallant
Member to say that what he had said was untrue, and
that he knew it to be untrue. He was sure the Hon.
and Gallant Colonel would, upon consideration, re-
tract it, and if he did not, he should be obliged to tell
him the truth on the subject.—(Great laughter from
both sides of the House.) He should tell him what he

had said was not true.--(Cries of " Order.")
The CH AIRMAN (Mr. Bernal) said, be was sure
the Committee would join with him in thinking—
Mr. E WART again rose, somewhat excited, but was
met by cries of " Chair," " Order," etc., and the Hon.
Gentleman resumed his seat.

Colonel PEEL said that the extract read by the Hon.
Gentleman was perfectly true. The evidence was fully gone
into before the coroner, and the case was fully discussed in
that House, as the Hon.i Gentleman must be aware if he
read the debate. The ground referred to by the Honourable
Member was not that upon which the sentence went. He
would recommend the Hon. Gentleman, if he had not already
done so, to read the debate that took place in that House at
the time.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON, amid considerable noise and opposition,
attempted to speak. He said that there was evidently a con-
fusion between the two cases. The Hon. and Gallant Gen-
tleman appeared to be under the impression that his Hon.
Friend was speaking of White's case.
Colonel PEEL.—Not a bit —(Hear, hear.)
Mr. M. GIBSON—Then he did not understand —(Loud
laughter.) His Hon. Friend said that a person on oath
before a jury stated that for such and such things he un-
derwent the punishment of 100 lashes. Now, it the Hon.
and Gallant Gentleman could show that that statement was
untrue he was of course at liberty to do so.—(Laughter.)
Mr. BRIGHT rose to speak, but was unable to obtain a
hearing for several moments. The confusion that pre-
vailed was considerably increased by the circumstance of
Mr. HUME also rising and attempting to speak at the' same
time.

Mr. BRIGHT at length was understood to say that his
Hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Ewart), not
having heard distinctly the observations that had been made
by the Hon. and Gallant Colonel, laboured under a wrong
impression as to what had been said in reference to him.
The Hon. and Gallant Member had made no charge whatever
against him.
maCnoclohnesetleSrasleßv:HOßP said that there was no more honour-
able court than a court-martial ; and if the Hon. Member for
be treated
that Cotl Colonel 1
a seatSiOn
BoeerAdame:de.d_t(oLbaedbgrhotuegr.h)t before one he would
Tractice odf
the honour of
ytoretshteed the
i 8
c(79t, i saidaietr
n:i 0
punishmenti thati h ee v
had
d since
alwaysw as a hger
consideredeha had dbha l de
fact?—they
P injury_ thelre of the army. What was the
which altogether failed Before
of the army upon a ground
discipline
wallas
or the enemy, when the ob-
opfutthis fact before thes°RTuch importance. Ile
Hon. Gentleman op-
Isveir:h, aendc et 0
posite—nainely, that three-fourths Ofht popular objections
to his passing this Bill arose from thetwhfeecedling that the men
who were forced by theehboapleldovtt.„tnoaast es:oh:ne°
soufbjseoctmedantyo.
emenerndidibtibeoernof the Cabi
corporal
i‘ir
i,punishment.ui‘i E
said
h
question invol ;
ntheot4 suapnednmaen, would express an opinion.
Mr. WALPOLE said that he did not observe a silence
upon the subject from a disinclination to speak upon it, but
he thought it was a matter that lay more in the depart-
ment Secretary
of the at War than of his. He was of
determined at that time:
it was advisable to do
opinion that this should be viewed as a general question
which Ont punishment, he was in-
qhueesstaitoinsf,acwtohreiltyher
with corporal ,
away altogether
h ec could
abstractnot
an
disposed to
give
Mutiny Act, under which soldiers were
opinion. the House having, how-
ever, passed the
ques-
tion they had to determine was this, shall those who
militia be placed upon a better footing
liable to corporal punishment, he thought the only
were enlisted in the
than those soldiers who served
could assent to this
He did not think that the Committee ?—(llear.)
proviso with the knowledge of
were placed in Suppose that some of the militia force .
if they agreed
army, ,
gar-
rison with the soldiers of the regular
ll be, that the
in
thatthe faacrtmybefore them.
to the proviso the consequence would naturally
militiamen
liable to corporal punishment from which the .
soldiers of the army would feel themselves degraded3' in being
were freed.—(Hear.) He believed that he was putting th
argument fairly. It they wished to determine this ques-
tion in reference to the militia, they must determine it also
in reference to all their forces, whatever they might be. And
supposing hereafter they entered into the general question
upon which he declined then to give an opinion, and that
they decided corporal punishment was not to be inflicted
upon the army, he then said that it certainly ought not to
be inflicted upon the militia. But as long as they kept it
in the army, so long were they bound to apply it also to the
militia.—(Hear.)
Mr, 'WAIL reminded the Right Hon. Gentleman that