The Sun.
London, England, 1837-04-08 00:00:00

THE COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

Lord G. SOMERSET was very sorry to interpose him-
self between the House and the important Bill which now
stood for discussion ; but he trusted that the House would
bear with him for a very short time, in consequence of the
strong—he might almost say, acrimonious—attack which
an Honourable and Gallant Member had made upon
persons for whom he felt much interested.—( Hear, hear,
hear.) He would read what the Honourable and Gal-
lant Member was reported to have said, and if the Hon.
and Gallant Member wished to retract any thing, he hoped
he would interrupt him, in order that he (Lord G. Somer-
set) might have an opportunity of setting the question upon
a proper basis. The Noble Lord then read an extract
from the speech of Captain Berkeley of last night, rela-
tive to the patronage of the army. The accusations
that had been made by the Honourable and Gallant
Member were of such a character as not to justify the
administration of the army remaining in the hands, either
of the present Commander-in-Chief or his Secretary, if
they were true. He (Lord G. Somerset) was not pre-
sent when the Hon. and Gallant Member made
the accusation, but he thought the statements made by
the paper which advocated his politics were to be relied
upon. The Noble Lord then read the statements made
by the Gallant Member the previous night.
Captain BERKELEY said the report which the Noble
Lord had just read to the House was nearly correct
in every particular, except as regarded Mr. Lovesay's father,
whom he had stated was dead, which was not the fact ;
but be did not consider that that bore on the ques-
tion at all.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to another fact,
it might be very well supposed that in a plain state-
ment, such as he made last night, the least variation
or alteration in words would give a totally different sense to
what was intended. He said that with regard to that part
of the report which made it appear that Mr. Lovesay
stated to the Beaufort family that he would turn
Tory if they got him the commission, that com-

munication was not to the Beaufort f imily, but was
made to Lord Sea'riwe, and in that, and that only,
was there any incorrect statement in the IllorningChro-
nicle. He was ready to repeat every word he said last
night—he was ready to prove that the whole was true.
Lord G. SOMERSET was very glad the Hon. and
Gallant Member had corrected one part of his statement.
—(No, no, and hear, hear.) He was extremely glad the
Hon. and Gallant Member had corrected part of his state-
ment.—(Cries of " the report was incorrect.") It wag
stated very much the same in all the morning piWers'
He was prepared to state to the House the whole
cumstances of the case, so far as it was in the
power of Lord Fitzroy Somerset to afford any information.
If he understood the gist of the accusation, it was that an
application had been made for a commission on the part of
Mr. Lovesay by the head of the Whig party in Gloucester,
meaning thereby, Lord Seagrave—that he was not able to
obtain the commission—(Hear)—but that the application
being made to Lord Edward Somerset, the commission
was immediately obtained. It had also been stated by
the Hon. and Gallant Member that the gentleman was
anxious to obtain a commission for the purpose 9f wear-
ing a smart coat abroad. He would make no comment
whatever on the statement of the Hon. and Gallant Me:11-
ber ; but he would just state to the House what the cit-
camstances were connected with that commission, as
far as Lord Fitzroy Somerset was concerned.—(Hear.)
It was impossible for him to have obtained access to Lord
Edward Somerset since last night, as that Nobleman was
in the country ; but that could not be of much importance,
as the House would see when it heard the facts. The
simple case was this—in June, 1830, Lord Fitzroy Sottiet.
set r:ceived a letter from Sir H. Campbell, stating he had
been requested to put a letter, which was inclosed, into hist
hands, and adding a request that Lord Hill would have
the goodness to put Mr. Lovesay's name down in the list.
There was not one word about the young gentleman's going
abroad in that letter ; and where the Hon. Member had
his information he (Lord G. Somerset) could not tell. The
answer t o that letter was dated June 4, 1830, and was to the
effect that Mr. Lovesay's name had been placed on the list
of candidates for Commissions ; but there were so many
upon the list that he feared it would be impossible to ap-
point him for a considerable time. That was in the time
of the Duke of Wellington and the Tories. The next
application was to Captain Marshall, the Master of the
Ceremonies at Cheltenham, and was dated the 4th April,
1832 ; but to that the reply was, that the number of can-
didates on the list was then so great that it was uselems
to urge his Lordship (Lord Hill) upon the subject at present.
He thought he Lad satisfied the House upon the matter.
He had shown that the transaction had occurred when the
Tories were in office, and that the commission had not
been given in reference to Lord Edward Somerset's applies
cation, but more likely in reference to that of Lord Sea-
grave.—( Hear, and a laugh.) The notion conveyed by the
Hon. and Gallant Member was, that the Commander-in-
Chief had given commissions without inquiring to whom ho
was giving them.--(Hear, hear, hear.) The fact was that
when this Gentleman got his commission on the 20th of
April, 1832, he joined his regiment in May Of that year,
and kept with it till he sold out in 183.5. He thought that
he had clearly proved that the application had been made
by the father of the young man, and that Lord Seagrave
was one of the latest in making the application.
The whole transaction he believed to be a regular one, not
influenced by party politics.—(Cheers.) Lord Fitzroy
Somerset, he believed, in all that he had done, had entirely
thrown out of view all consideration of polities, and he defied
any Hon. Member to bring forward a single instance in
which that Nob!e Lord had misconducted himself.

Captain BERKELEY thought that the Noble Lord
had no reason to complain that he (Capt. B.) had not given
him notice, that he meant to bring before the House the
conduct pursued by his Noble relative. He still mail*.
tamed that what he said was true in every word of it,
Lord Seagrave made many applicatio► a for the ecmmission,
but was met with every species of obstacle. The Noble
Lord regretted that he had not had an opportunity of corn,
municating with his relative in the country. So, also, did
he regret that he had not had time to communicate with
Lord Seagrave, for then he might have come down prepared
with paper against paper, and would have been able to have
stated how often Lord Seagrave renewed his applications,
He had not thrown any stigma upon any of the relatives td
the Noble Lord : his brother was at the head of one party
in Gloucestershire, and Lord Seagrave headed another ;
but he had thrown no stigma upon any one.—(Hear,
hear, hear.) He did not blame the Duke of Beaufort
or Lord G. gomerset for keeping their party together
by all the means in their power—it was what he would do
himself if placed in a similar situation—( Loud cheers and
laughter)—and if he had a brother at the Horse-Guards,
he would expect that more attention would be paid to his
applications than to those of a violent political opponent.—
(Loud Cheers.) It was the common talk of the whole
county of Gloucester, that it was of no use for a
Whig to make any application at the Horse Guards, so
long as Lord F. Somerset remained there.—(Cheers.) Ho
would never state anything in that House which he did not
believe—so in this case he fully and conscientiously be-
lieved that Mr. Lovesay received his commission because it
was applied for by the Beaufort family, and that it never
Would have been granted to the applications of Lord Seagrave.
There was a gentleman in the House who could better inform
them what took place when the commission came down—he
could tell them of the rejoicings which took place, and
that the house was then opened to persons of a very dif-
ferent political character than had ever assembled there
before.

Mr. C. BERKELEY was rather surprised when the
Noblc Lord came down, armed with all these letters, that
he had neither produced the letter of Lord Seagrave, nor
the successful letter of Lord E. Somerset.—(Hear, hear.)
It was notorious as the sun at noon-day, that the moment a
Tory applied for a commission it was given ; but the Whig
party might apply for ever and in vain.—(Loud cheers.)
Lord G. SOMERSET complained of the tone 111
which he had been replied to by the Hon. and Gallant
Member. When that Hon. Member's brother made ap-
plications to Lord Fitzroy Somerset they were in a diffo-
rent tone, and in all their" communications good humour
prevailed. It was a great misfortune that there was no let-
ter of Lord Seagrave's, because it would at once show that
the statement of the Hon. and Gallant Member for Glou-
cester could not be borne out by the facts ; but from the
circumstance of Lord Seagra‘e's name being in red ink, and
the others in blank, it appeared conclusive that he was the
successful applicant.
THE MILITARY PREMIER.

Mr. HOPE begged to call the attention of the House
to a statement made by the Hen. Member for Ipswich, as
iE appeared in the Times newspaper of that morning—
(Hear)—referring to the conduct of the Duke of Wal-
lington when the Catholic Relief Bill was brought in•
When Lord Berl sflrd was Master of the Ordnance, the
Noble Lord intimated to the Duke of Wellington his un..
willingness to vote for the Bill, and the Duke of Wellington
was stated to have replied that Lord Beresford might vote
as he pleased, but the Master of the Ordnance must vote
for the Bill.

Mr. WASON—These were the very words I i ittnlect
to use.

Mr. HOPE, then, would contend that it was a reflection
both upon the character of the Duke of Wellington and of
the Noble Lord, who under a threat was compelled to
vote for the Bill, 1 ecause he held an office under the Go-
vernment. The remark quoted by the Hon. Member Wat
not founded in fact, nor did any thing pass that could have
given any colour for such a report.—(Opposition cheers.)
Mr. WASON said, the Hon. Members who were ill
the House at th 3 time would do him the justice to
say, that the statement alluded to was precisely in
point with respect to the question then under discussion.
If the report were without foundation, he felt, as every gen-
tleman must feel, sorry for having made a statement that
was not perfectly correct.
FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.
On the Order of the Day being read for the House going
into Committee on the Mutiny Bill,
Major FANCOURT rose to move, that a Select Com-
mittee be appointed for the purpose of inquiring into an
reporting on the question of military punishments:
He thought that a Select Committee should be appointed
to inquire into the subject, in order that the various opi:
nions entertained upon the subject might be fully understood
The Commissioners had reported that a partial remission
had been attended with the best effects, and he thong"
be should be able to show the House, before a Select
Committee, that military punishment might be safely abn"
lished altogether. In support of these statements, the 11'..
Member referred to the opinions expressed by Mr. GLII.
rie in a lecture delivered by him on military punishment of
The Noble Lord opposite was entitled to the thank' .°0
the country for so limiting the power of general cif? litea
mai ti-1 as to the number of lashes to be n--c
as he had done—it was the first limit placed on %I.:,
and he could clearly prove, by the evidence
Guthrie, that the limit might be carried much forth
.ar;
Mr. Guthrie would state before a Committee, that ..e
fifty lashes all sensation was so far gone, that the reT".ll.
der of the punishment was a mere spectacle. The. 11°"_
and Gallant Gentleman then referred to the evnietinicch°
of eminent officers, both native and foreign•
was in favour of It's view of the case. He thought
time had now arrived when the British soldiery t°
be relieved from the stigma which now attached_tee of
them.—( Hear, hear.) He asked only for a Comrni
nt
question,enquiry, and
eo u those
id
no even
t object whotooppinociseudirehis
tion was not a party one—it was a national
upon which he had made up his mind.
.The.
Ile asked only for a Committee of lequiry, and
the Government would not refuse it to
h
any party views, nor with the intention of ernbarr
hear.) He did not bring the question forwatig
the
intov vies
"'le° fantehles.

Government. Every gentleman in the House was capable of
deciding upon the evidence which would be given in such
ease, and therefore he hoped he would not be
refused his Committee of Inquiry.—(Hear.) He had
only to thank the House for its kind attention to him while
discussing a subject svh..ich had been so often before them.—
(Hear.)
would not abuse that patience, but would
contealt himself with moving for a Committee to inquire into
thq practicability of abolishing flogging in the Army.
captain BOLDER() seconded the motion.
Mr. C. FERGUSON, in reply to the observations of
the Hon. and Gallant Member, said he had not adduced
any new grounds in favour of the opinion which only
Ile, and another Gallant Officer in that House,
entertained, that corporeal punishment in the army might
be abolished. The Hon. and Gallant Member had stated
that he had no confidence in the Report of the Commis-
or..—(Cries of " Hear.") The gentlemen composing
that Commission were men of great judgment and respec-
tability. Every man of that House who had taken a part
in favour of the abolition of flogging in the army was
in the first instance examined by the Commissioners—not
only that, but they were invited to bring before the Com-
mission every gentleman who was conversant with
the subject, and whose opinions were similar to
those of the Honourable and Gallant Gentleman.
There was not one of the officers examined before that Com-
mission who had not stated that it was impossible to con-
duct the discipline of the army- without corporeal punish-
Ment. If it were abolished at home, it would inevitably
follow that the system must be abolished abroad. He
tlenied that any general officer of the army was favourable
to corporeal punishment ; they had done all they could
to reduce its frequency, and only resorted to it when
absolutely necessary.—(Hear.) If the government of
the army were not impeded by motions like the present,
he believed in his conscience that in a few years it would
Only be known by name. The returns which he held in his
hand showed that the number of cases of corporeal punish-
ment were rapidly diminishing, and the extent to which that
punishment was inflicted was diminished in an equal ratio.
He really did not know what evidence a Committee could
obtain, that had not already been laid before the House by
the Commission which hat already sat upon the subject.
They had had before them persons of every grade—from
the Duke of Wellington down to the private soldier. The
Commissioners issued circulars to each commander of a regi-
tient, directing them to send one non-commissioned officer
arid one or more private soldiers to be examined, without in-
forming them what was to be the nature of their examination,
and they gave their evidence freely, and without fear or bias.
Now, if after such inquiry, and the examination of so many
witnesses, and such anxious and patient investigations, the
Commissioners come to the conclusion that military punish-
Inents could not be safely abolished, what were a Select Com-
mittee of the House of Commons to inquire into ? He (Mr.
Pergusson) was perfectly unfettered. He had never voted
Ilion the question, but he felt the evidence given before the
Commissioners, and on which their report was founded, per-
fectly overwhelming. On the grounds on which he resisted
the appointment of this Committee he would be equally pre-
mPared to resist the appointment of a new Commission. He
ould not consent to:abolish corporeal punishments, at the same
the that he would do all in his power to limit its infliction,
,stOort of putting it down altogether. with respect to
_."3 subject, he did not think since the report of the Commis-
lotters was before the public and circulated, public feeling
jtts not so stroug as it had been. He did not believe the
:'Ohl• Member for Barnstaple would venture to say that he had
-nY new evidence to bring forward, and for his part he be-
-Ilieved the thing to be impossible. The British army was the
I)l"Avest and the best disciplined in the world, and they should
cautious how they interfered with that discipline. It should
be recollected that the infliction of corporal punishment had
recently been very much restricted. It was now limited to the
t?ilowing offences :—Mutiny, insubordination, striking a supe-
rior officer, drunkenness when on duty, and making away with
neat
-.eerie& The number of punishments was daily diminish-
as far as was consistent with the preservation of the dis-
Cipline of the army. In conclusion, he felt bound to give the
Motion his decided negative.
:1• Major FA NCO U fur thought the Report of the Commis-
,4ll"s would be more satisfactory, if there had been amongst
s members some individuals known to be favourable to the
abolition of corporal punishment.
th LENNA RD concurred in one opinion expressed by
for e Ron. Member below Wm, that there was no necessity
ft fresh inquiry, for they had sufficient evidence to en-
able them to have their minds made up on the subject. The
keallant Officer had stated that, according to the opinion
15f Mil Guthrie, after the infliction of the first fifty lashes
human suffering could not be increased ; but he (Mr. Len-
tard) did not think that even that amount of
punishment
ought to be inflicted, for they were not arrived at a time
when it became their"duty to determine whether or not the
British army could be governed without this horrible pu-
nis'enent. In foreign countries the discipline of their armies
was kept up without any infliction of this kind, and in every
British regiment where a prudent and judicious officer had at-
tampted to do away with the use of the cat he had been inva-
riah.y successful. He would refer to the police force, and also
to the preventive coast-guard, in both which corps the best dis-
eipline was preserved without recourse to corporal punish-
ment. There was danger in maintaining this system of punish-
ment, for a case might arise, as did some years ago in India,
where troops refused to permit the infliction of this punish-
141eht, on the ground that no such punishment was inflicted on
"e native troops of India. He would support the present
motion, but would much rather that the Hon. Member for
rnslaPle had alone moved for the total abolition of the pu-
aishrnent.
Captain
BOL DERO considered the appointment of a Corn-
Vtee of Inquiry nothing more than an act of justice to those
neto sought for the abolition of corporal punishment. Now,
;Itve the Commission of Inquiry had been appointed, extensive
erations had taken place in the discipline of the army, both as
te)B,l).!eted corporal punishments as well as punishments generally.
,;,...!_be effect of those alterations they were in complete. igno-
er"ee, and was not that a subject for inquiry ? The Commission-
it.s_ioas a boon to the army, had restricted the stripe to 100 lashes.
,vl. tiler alteration had taken place by which greater facilities were given to the soldier of good character in procurine his dis-
lea_rge. When a soldier applied to his commanding officer for
Yo to purchase his discharge, if his character was found to
gone he
bi„he, was enabled to purchase his discharge at a dimi-
in. price. There was another practice adopted of mulct-
ah'''t, tee soldiers' pay, and more attention was now paid as to
tidi!risons in which soldiers were sentenced to confinement,
netteetwele all these formed subject 3 for rn
inquiry before a Co•
illest • Now, he would ask, would anything more strikingly
teetirsto.the total inefficiency of flogging as a means of pro-
the ,".g discipline or improving the efficiency of troops than
taker graceful and ever-to-be-regretted event that had lately
of ek,' Vac° in Spain ?—( Hear, hear.) He had no knowledge
%toed' `sets, except from hearsay ; but it was generally under-
ef
eorthat in the army serving under General Evans the use
tortetral Punishment had been very freely liberally re-
tneo, t • In addition to the punishments inflicted by sen-
,°,l. Courts-Martial the provost system was in full force.
Peeish"leo, what was the result of all this system of corporal
ea recut? The moment these men came in face of the
Wehr°Y, they retreated.—(" No," from some Hon. Member.)
we Id
4se, u any one attempt to say that it was not the
slt 'en the fact was admitted, and notoriously, that
to Yof five hundred British marines was fully able
th,teTer
In the retreat of these troops, and he believed
ca,„ that marine corps one stripe was not inflicted to
l'eati* 411 inflicted on the troops that retreated. Now, here
tleeiotin instance where less stripes had the effect of pro-
Oubei4 better discipline. Another reason why this Committee
° panted was this : —The Noble Loi d the SC'.
A rir •
N4:ilee the Home Department had obtained leave to intro-
-1 for the mitigation of the criminal code. He pro-
tend to trdotaway
with the
punishment of death in many cases,
thy 0, 11 t tene effect of secondary punishments, and hereby
aatht et to allow the army to remain behind in the dis-
P4oislta,e,°,l improvements and the mitigation of systemso f
Lonti sp"eLe• He would refer to a passage in the Noble.
Peaking oef." tin moving for leave to bring in that 8.111.
entlntries Ine punishment of the galley, as used in foreign
ue minaulend,escribed it as " corrupting and degrading to
fhe Gan and shocking and brutalizing to the spectators."
obje-er Officer proceeded to contend that no valid ground
,0111,1
,:.to
the total abolition of corporal punishment
.the soil:rived from any difference in the circumstances. of
that if th_ whilst on foreign service. He was quite su e
eoasiderz Secretary at War would take the matter into his
Mr, G (1).,e; he would be looked upon as a friend to humanity.
''ON preferred the motion for a Committee of
Poiata,• He thought, however, that such a Committee, if ap-
tio„ "it ought to
°' the army go into the whole nature of the Constitu-
!Red
eh my where there prevailed a system of a most
erecter.
the THOMP
re' Punishment of {1 SON said that the motion of limiting
e4lled to -ogging, in certain instances, to 100 lashes,
e his recollection that some one-and-thirty years ago
Pri,,ste eroposed
at a Court AI rti 1 that the punishment of a
tired lastioleas.par,t.icular instance should be confined to one bun-
,;t:er had. been asked gruffly by his commanding
tole ? 1[414_ he wished to make a joke of his Majesty's ser-
eVerfed hriemenbered, too, that another subaltern officer had
Ontab, ,vbl .11_"---ne being a Westminster boy and himself a
that aeeo them.e e bee
was the occasion of the sympathy
he_
8. next day was issued a regimental order
Should neither of them fur the future sit at
;lave do Mal- His friend came to him, and exclaimed, "We
411 t that
•" _ He had been behindhand with him, then;
leleettarutodoadwoilling to be beforehand with him now ; for he
ne of the finest regiments in the service ;
to thorn fore denounced floggingand
has Y officer who wished as a bane and nuisance_
on air.rfeetly convinced that .to do his duty ; and he
wits n cipline without corporal ilitnisTlßS vastly easier to carry
P ment than with it. There
ittlie•emegidreoaffit Power in imprisonment, and he had gone round as
, the garrison in Dublin, and seen the pale
Leor.as.tot
she
oew men thrust. out through the holes of their dun-
thatlife was still in them. This alone, as a
tQ piecesu.e thought would be sufficient without cutting the
theefreethie, who LI-
e remembered a queer story of the late Mr.
has atter b had said of a gentleman that the less he ate
Its e grove. so he •
there • gged the , said of the soldier—the less lie
thequir herd,
ne oetter. he would be.—( A laugh.) He thought
y be nin particular why the Committee of In-
fal/he4_,le, PrObgabrlnted. He was in the habit of going among
Conlon, growin y.m9re.than some others in that House, and
thtre"ttees beion-:
was tot se irritation among them at their perceiving
As,
ea
ifs,poi.nted and Commissions issued, in which
ijoani • NV, Ewulursi nt impartiality.
41 mere ,attT objected to the argument that profes-
vvere best qualified to decide upon this question,

and be considered that no professional man should legislate
upon it. It was an increasing opinion among the soldiery and
among the people that the punishment should be done away
with. It was by enlightening the soldier's mind and raising
him by a better education to aspire to military honours that
discipline would be best maintained.
Mr. HUME said they had been told to be quiet and they
should go on better. They had been told so for these twenty
years. Nothing had done more good than the order issued by
the Horse Guards, that there should be no corporal punish-
ment inflicted but for mutiny and drunkenness, and that good
had been effected by a resolution which two days before had
passed the House to the same effect, when 140 voted for it and
151 against it. Of the 151 there were thirty-five paid ser-
vants of the Crown, so that the real majority was on the po-
pular side of the question. This, he thought, was a convincing
proof of the use of interference. It had been said that the
number of punishments had been very much reduced, but he
believed that the number stated was three times the amount.
There was no act of the Noble Lord the Governor General of
India (Lord W. Bentinck), whom he was glad to see in his
place, which redounded more to his credit than the abolition
of corporal punishment in the native Indian army. It had
been dreaded that a want of discipline might have been the
result, and he himself had entertained his fears. It had, how-
ever, turned out successful, and he should vote for a Com-
mittee, hoping to hear the evidence of the Govenor-General
as to the practical operation of this successful experiment.
He regretted to see the motion opposed by his Majesty's Go-
vernment.
Lord SANDON did not intend to go into the question
which had been already so well treated. He thought it was
scarcely possible to do more than what had been done already,
namely, to take the opinion of every commander of a regiment
in the army, and be guided by it. He agreed that in the
Prussian army there was a different system of corporal punish-
ments. They divided their punishments into two classes.
The first was that of degradation, and the second was that of
corporal punishment. It was not clear but that such a plan
might be good here, and he believed his Right Hon. and Gal-
lant Friend (Sir H. Hardinge) had expressed a similar opi-
nion, and that in the merchant navy it was adopted. Let that
be as it might, be was sure the best guarantee for the disci-
pline of an army was their being imbued with the same feelings
of civil life as their fellow-subjects. The Noble Lord then
read the recommendation of the Military Commission, con-
tained in the report on the subject of corporal punishment in
the army, and wished to know what the Government had done
towards carrying them into effect. He concluded by ex-
pressing a hope that some means would be adopted by which,
without prejudice to the service, flogging would be altogether
abolished.
Mr. E. L. BUL WE R said that the question had been set-
tled by the decision of the Noble Lord the Member for Glas-
gow, when he was Governor-General of India; so that it was
not now a question as between the British soldier and the
French or Prussian soldier, but as between him and the Hits-
doo or Mussulman. The Noble Lord had abolished flogging
in the native troops, while it was still continued. in the Eng-
lish regiments of the line in India. It had been said by the
Noble Lord opposite that the distribution of military rank and
command was not too much in the hands of the aristocracy ;
that he ( Mr. Bulwer) did not agree to. If the exclusive sys-
tem at present acted on were put an end to there would be a
change for the better effected in the troops. Now it was al-
most impossible to rise from the ranks, and the soldiery had no
other honourable ambition for that reason, then it would be
otherwise, and a far better class of men would be created. It
was the objeet of those who advocated the abolition of corporal
punishment to create that class of men and thus improve the
army at large. As long as the disgusting and degrading sys-
tem of flogging was continued no such change could be hoped
for. He (Mr. Bulwer) thought a Committee of the House
would be far better than a commission to inquire into all the
bearings on the subject. The question was, lie admitted, be-
set with difficulties, but that in itself was an additional reason
why a Committee should be granted. He admitted, however,
that if corporal punishment were abolished in the army the pu-
nishment of death should be inflicted oftener than it was under
the present system.
Lord HO WICK wished that the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber had been more explicit in his motion, and that he had
stated distinctly what his object was—whether by a side wind
to abolish the punishment altogether, or to obtain more in-
formation—rather than leave it in the uncertainty and obscu-
rity it was then involved in. If his object was to obtain more
information lie ( Lord Howick) felt much surprise that no
complaint of its paucity had been made in the last session's
debate on the subject. If it was to abolish the punishment al-
together, it would have been a more straightforward course to
avow it at once. The report of the Commission appointed to
investigate the subject was adverted to by the Hon. and Gal-
lant Member, and it was objected to by bins that it could
not be a fair report, inasmuch as the seven Members who com-
posed it were known to be all averse to the abolition of flog-
ging as a punishment in the army; but why did not the lion.
and Gallant Member take that objection on the formation of
the Commission? His own friends were then in office, and
any suggestion from him would no doubt be attended to. The
Commission received the evidence of the Hon. and Gallant
Member himself, of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, and of
every other Hon. Member in the House opposed to the present
system. It also invited them to suggest others who is ere like-
wise acquainted with the subject for examination. Did the
Hon. and Gallant Member, or did he not, in that examination,
state the whole grounds of his opposition ? Dd the Commis
sioners, or did they not, act upon the information received b)
them in the framing of that report ? No man could say that
all the facts of the case were not collected by the Commission,
or elicited by the discussion of the subject in the public press.
The real object of the Hon. and Gallant Member's motion was,
not whether there was to be a new inquiry into the subject or
not; but whether cr not the present system of corporal punish-
ment in the army was to be abolished. The motion for a Com-
mittee was a piece of Parliamentary tactique to reconcile the
clashing opinions of Hon. Members who supported various
views leading to the same result. There was no form in which
the question could be m Joted that was more objectionable than
the one before the House, as the Hon. arid Gallant Officer had
put it. He could not help feeling greatly astonished that an
Hon. Member opposite had quoted the evidence of Sir Oc' a-
vins Carey as a proof that a regiment could be kept in a high
state of disci'. line without flogging. What was the fact ?
During four months that officer held the command of the
regiment, there was inflicted corporal punishment to the
extent of 3,725 lashes. If Sir Octavius Carey could be
quoted for anything, it was for a contrary practice to that ad-
vocated by the Hon. Gentleman. That, at least, was the fault
he (Lord Howick) would he inclined to find with him. In
the whole course of the debate no one had said that the disci-
pline of the army could be kept up with a less amount of pain
and degradation. All punishments had pain and degradation
for their essence. What, then, would Hon. Members sub-
stitute in the place of that inflicted at present ? The Hon.
Member for Lincoln had said that the punishment of death
should be substituted in a greater number of cases than it was
inflicted now ; but, on the ground of economy—(Laughter)—
he begged pardon—on the ground of humanity he meant, he
did not sac how the substitution could be made, as he was
fully convinced a great increase of deaths would be the conse-
quence. It was not anticipation but experience which led him
to that conclusion ; for it had been proved that soldiers com-
mitted capital offences with a view to having the punishment
commuted from death to transportation. In one case which
occurred not long since in the West Indies a soldier had
struck his officer and behaved most outrageously also be-
fore the Court-martial by which he was tried. He was
convicted and sentenced to execution. The commanding
officer of the station felt that en example was necessary ;
he determined to make it of the man. He was exe-
cuted accordingly ; but in the time between his sentence
end his last moments he told the chaplain that he had com-
mitted the crime for which he was to suffer in conse-
quence of several cases having occurred in which transportation
had been substituted for corporal punishment—a commutation
of his sentence which he also calculated on. Dismissal from
the service was no punishment to a soldier, although it was to
a coast guardman or a policeman. The pay of a policeman
was 3s. a day, and he had no doubt in the world that if a sol-
dier had the same inducement of pay, he would be sorry to
be dismissed too, and flogging might then be done without.—
( Cheers.) He was convinced, however that upon active ser-
vice flogging could not be done away with under any circum-
stances, as otherwise it would be impossible to prevent plun-
der. With respect to the argument raised as to the promotion
of soldiers, lie could state that the system of promotion was
followed at present in the army as far as in a state of peace it
could be. The system of military rewards which the House
bad sanctioned in the last session had worked well, as it ap-
peared from the returns that since August last year warrants
had been issued for rewards to 9,134 soldiers. The establish-
ment of libraries also in many regiments had been attended
with the best effects. There was for instance an admirable
library established in the Scotch Fusileer Guards, which pro-
dcced the greatest advantage, and of which the men anxiously
availed themselves. The establishment of penal corps on the
western coast of Africa he looked upon as a bad system, because
it appeared by the reports of those corps that the mortality
was frightful among the white soldiers. In the year
1835, out of 571 white men four hundred and forty-one died in
that year on that coast, and in the following year there were
342 deaths out of 473 men. He did not believe that in any
case undue severity had been exercised or sanctioned by
British officers in flogging men. The Hon. Member for
Finsbury (Mr. T. Duncombe) alluded, in the last Session,
during the debate on this subject, to a case, which he stated,
of a gunner, named Samuel Ingram, of the Royal Artillery,
who it was alleged had been flogged at Honduras by order of
Colonel George Arthur, not according to the ordinary mode,
but by tap of drum, or quarter-minute time. Colonel Arthur
had recently arrived in this country from Van Diemen's Land,
and he distinctly states that he never in his life saw punish-
ment inflicted in such a manner on any soldier, but always
according to the usual mode. But, in addition to this denial
—and all who knew Colonel Arthur would believe the truth
of his assertion—he (Lord Howick) had letters from persons
who were present at the punishment of Ingram at Honduras,
and all of them denied that any such mode of punishment had
been practised as had been charged against Colonel Arthur.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE—Read, read.
Lord HOWICK—Yes, be would read. The Noble Lord
then read a letter addressed to Sir A. Dickson, from Captain
Willis, of the Royal Artillery, at Woolwich, which stated
that he commanded the Royal Artillery at Honduras from
1818 to 1824, and that during the whole of that time no
soldier had ever been flogged by tap of drum ; that he per-
fectly recollected the punishments of Gunner Ingram, at
which ho was present on many occasions, the man having
been frequently tried and found guilty by court-martial, and
on no occasion had he ever been flogged except in the ordi-
nary way. He also read two statements, made and signed by
other Artillery gunners, who served with Ingram at the time,
and who fully confirmed the letter of Captain Willis. With
respect to Colonel Arther, he (Lord Howick) had not bad
the least communication with him, but he thought it only