The Sun.
London, England, 1853-02-22 00:00:00

SUPPLY

The house then went into a committee of supply upon
Le navy estimates.

On the vote of 137,2451. for the Admiralty-office,
Mr. STAPLETON said that he wished to call the at-
tention of the house to the subject of the infliction of
corporal punishment in the navy. When on Friday
last, the hon. member for Lambeth (Mr. Williams) ex-
pressed a hope that the present Government would be
able to take such steps for the preservation of such
discipline in the navy as would enable them to dis-
pense with the infliction of corporal punishment, the
right honourable gentleman the First Lord of the
Admiralty stated, as a reason for believing that this
could not be done, that it appeared from the report
of the Secretary to the Admiralty of the United States,
that the substitution of other punishments in the Ame-
rican navy had not been attended with good effects.
Now, as he believed that those substituted punishments
consisted of attaching a rope to a sailor and dipping him
in the water, tying his knees up against his chin, and
making him drag about a cannon ball attached to his
leg, he did not wonder that the United States sailors
objected to their infliction, and that they were not suc-
cessful in promoting good discipline. He thought that
when the abolition of corporal punishment had been ac-
companied by the substitution of others so objectionable,
the experience thus gained could not be considered con-
clusive against the abolition of corporal punishment.
It was of the greatest importance that the attention of
the Government should be earnestly directed to this
question, for until the initiative was taken by the navy
no amelioration could be introduced into the discipline
of the merchant service. And he believed that there
never was a moment when it was more important
that the Government should take into consideration
the possibility of finding some mode of enforcing
discipline which should be less obnoxious to the feelings
of the working class of the country ; for the mer-
chant service had now great difficulty in obtaining
seamen, even at increased wages. When this pun-
ishment was introduced, it was used extensively else-
where than in the army and navy, but it was now only
retained in the two services ; and the opinion of many
eminent authorities was, that their discipline might be
preserved without it. The Government dared not en-

force the infliction of flogging upon a member of the
great middle *lass of this country, who, having been
taken bf conscription for the militia, had—in a moment
of excitement, perhaps of intoxication--committed an
act of insubordination. Were we then to have one law
for the poor man entrapped into the army, in the man-
ner described by the hon. member for Manchester (Mr.
Bright), and another for the respectable man upon
whom the ballot for the militia fell ? This was not a

purely military, but a highly social question ; for this
punishment not only degraded those on whom it was in-
flicted, but all those who were liable to it. It was most

important than we gave the labouring classes a large
share of political power, we should not have to deal
with a brutalised population. He did not see why dis-
cipline could not he preserved on board ship by the
punishment of solitary confinement, with bread and
water diet. He hoped that the attention of the Govern-
ment would be earnestly directed to this subject.
Sir J. GRAHAM would merely call the attention of
the committee to the vote they were then discussing.
He could assure the hon. member that .he was in
favour of „any mitigation in the punishments inflicted in
the navy that was possible, consistently with a due re-
gard to the discipline of the service. He earnestly de-
sired that every check that experience showed to be
useful should be imposed on the use of corporal punish-
ment. Persons far more competent than himself, from
their professional knowledge, had given their most ear-
nest attention to this subject, and every check to the
infliction of this punishment which they could suggest
and advice had been introduced, and most rigidly acted
upon. Except in cases of mutiny, it could not be in-
flicted in hot blood, but only after an interval of twenty.
four hours. Only forty-eight lashes could be inflicted on
one day. A minute setting forth the circumstances un-
der which it was imposed must be sent by the command-
ing officer of the ship to the admiral or senior officer of
the station, who transmitted it, with any remarks he
might think fit to make, to the Board of Admiralty. It
was then revised by one of the officers of the board ;
every case which, in the opinion of the commanding
officer, or of the officer of the board, demanded their
attention, was brought specially before them. The re-
turn of the punishments inflicted was also brought perio-
dically before the Admiralty. In considering the merits
of any officer, the Admiralty had been for many years
very much guided by the amount of the corporal punish-
ment which he appeared to have found it necessary to use
in order to preserve discipline in his ship. And no ap-
pearance of good order in the ship was thought to com-
pensate for an excessive quantity of it. He must say
that the experience of America, where corporal punish-
ment had been entirely abolished, and other punishments
—minor in name, but more severe in their effects, had
been introduced—was not favourable to the measures
recommended by the bon. member. The punishment of
death was more frequently inflicted for mutinous con-
duct in the French than in our navy ; and with respect
to the punishment of solitary confinement, it must be
recollected that where the crew was not larger than was
necessary for the work to be done, the confinement of
men for misconduct would involve an increase of work
to those who had not misconducted themselves. The
infliction of corporal punishments was guarded by the
restrictions he had already described ; and if it was pos-
sible to impose additional restrictions, without injuring.
the discipline of the service, no one would be more glad
than he should be ; but he must entreat the house to
weigh well the dangers—he believed the fatal effect—of
wholly abolishing the punishment. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. WILLIAMS did not urge the right hon. baronet
to abolish this punishment immediately, but he wished
that it should only be inflicted in the navy, as was the
case in the army, upon the sentence of a court-martial.
The right hon. baronet said that successive boards of
Admiralty had laboured to reduce this punishment to a
minimum ; but had they ever taken an officer's command
from him before the expiration of the usual period for
which a ship remained in commission, on account of his
having made an excessive use of it ? He hoped that the
right hon. baronet would afford to the men serving in
the Royal Navy every possible protection against the
improper infliction of the lash.
Sir G. PECHELL said that it was quite impossible
that courts-martial, as suggested by the hon. member
for Lambeth (Mr. Williams), could be held in small
vessels, where the number of officers was necessa-
rily
limited. The Right Honourable First Lord of
the Admiralty might, if he thought, safely be trusted
to do all that was possible on this subject, when they
recollected the steps he took, during his former admi-
nistration of the naval affairs of the country, to abolish

impressment and to induce a superior class amen to vo-
lunteer in the service. He believed that although offi-
cers had not been deprived of their command for an
excessive infliction of capital punishment, instances were
not wanting during the last ten or twelve years in which
this had been considered by the Admiralty a bar to re-
oofftethneexbporaersar
appointment. He congratulated the house in having the
right hon. gentleman once again at the Admiralty, where
he had before conducted the business in so popular a
e
manner - and he (Sir George Pechell) should be ready
atowsuisphptoOrtsloolima inna all his reforms.hoisffioeratthe
He had
had
at
Charing-cross, but he found that he had
mistake in thinking that such an arrangement made
a great
would be
desirable. He complained of the mode in which the
patronage of the Admiralty had been ex •
felt quite satisfied that it would appear, frercised, and
evi-
dence given before the Chatham election from
the
the late Secretary of the Admiralty 1 committee, that
never been attributed before to any had done what had
that high and responsible office. erson who had held
that there was a sum of 4341. (Hear.) He perceived
Admiral, and 342/, for the Re put down for the Vice-
tain. The officers who now holdar-Adrairal of Great Bri-
also the admirals of the fleet, f these situations are
and he did not think it was fairT. which the pay is 1,1491.,
monopolise the salaries of those that those officers should
the gallant officers . two civil offices: One of
ere was
which he received
1 000/
major-general of Marines, for
the other lArnents ' * a year, which together with
2,1491. a year, I made to him raised his income to
It might be said that one of the salaries
payable to those
gallant officers was not received
find g to the return of sums repaid he did not
had that any sum of 4391. from the judicial department
been received into the Exchequer. He had received
an assurance from the secretary of the late board that
the blockade for the prevention of the slave trade on the
coasts of 4frica, Cuba, and Brazil would be carried on
with efficient vessels and he was sure his right honour-
able friend below did not require any suggestion from
him to induce him to employ proper steamers and vessels
in that service.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM would request of the honour-
able gentleman opposite (the late Secretary of the Ad-
miralty) not to follow up the subject which had been
referred to in a portion of the speech of his hon. and
gallant friend behind him, because, if he were not mis-
taken, the matter to which his gallant friend referred
was connected with a judicial investigation not yet
concluded.
The evidence was not yet closed or re-
ferred to the house ; an inquiry was still pending affect-
ing
all concerned ; and it would be most inexpedient
to have any discussion at present. It was natural
that the honourable gentleman should take the earliest
opportunity to repel a charge of that kind ; but
he hoped he would postpone it to a future occasion.
With respect to one of the appointments to which his
honourable and gallant friend had referred, the
)honour-
able member for Montrose would remember
that the
committee of the house which sat on the naval and
military services reported, that whenever the
major-general of Marines should become vacant— and he
(Sir James Graham) hoped the
day would be distant--
no other officer should be appointpd to it. When
they
recollected the great services of the gallant
officer (Sir
G. Cockburn) who now fills the office—that he was
almost the only surviving officer of Nelson and had the
good fortune to fight under his obse ' '
rvation, and receive
his commendations for his conduct—he trusted they