The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-15 00:00:00

Mr. PEMBE RTON said that the system of military dis-
cipline should not be interfered with by debates in popular as-
Mr. T. DUN COMBE rose, not for the purpose of pro-
tracting the debate, but of calling the attention of the Noble
Lord the Secretary at War to one point. The number of
lashes was fixed by a general order from the Horse Guards,
but perhaps the Noble Lord did not know that the quantity
did not in all cases constitute the torture of the punishment,
and that it was compounded not alone of the number of lashes,
but of the mode and of the time in which they were inflicted.
He (Mr. Duncombe) had been informed that there were com-
manding officers in the service who, considering on sonic oc-
casions the sentence of general Courts-martial too lenient, had
evaded them by ordering the fifty lashes (he would suppose
that number to be the punishment awarded) to be inflicted in
minute or half-minute time—(Cries of " Name," and " No,
no")—thus making a punishment which should last no longer
than five minutes occupy at least an hour, in some cases con-
siderably more. However Hon. Members might differ with
him on the subject of the motion before the House, he (Mr.
Duncombe) was sure that there would be no disagreement be..
tween him and them as to the opinion that such a disgraceful
and degrading practice should be discontinued. That could
not be done unless the discretion of administering punishment
was taken out of the hands of commanding officers. He, there-
fore, begged to call the attention of the Noble Lord to the
circumstance, to the end that, as the butchering system of flog-
ging was to be persevered in, the punishment awarded under
its provisions should be inflicted in the shortest possible period.
Sir R. FERGUSON was grived to hear the statement
made by the Hon. Member for Finsbury, as he presumed it
was made on competent authority. If such an officer as the
Hon. Member had described existed in the British army, he
(Sir R. Ferguson) would say—" In God's name get rid of
him at once !" He was satisfied that if the name of the indi-
vidual so charged was ever known, his Majesty would exer-
cise at once his Royal prerogative, and dismiss him the ser-
vice, without the intervention of a Court-Martial. As far,
however, as he (Sir R. Ferguson) knew anything of the
army, it was not the practice among Commanding Officers to
do so ; and he was quite certain it was not that of the regi-
ment which he had the honour to command. It was incum-
bent on the Hon. Member to proceed, as he had begun with
the subject.

Sir H. HARDING E said that after the statement of the
Hon. Member for Finsbury, the matter could not rest as it
was. The
_Hon. Member, he conceived, was bound to dis-
close the name of the offending party—(Cheers)—not in the
House, but to the proper quarter where he could be brought
to justice.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member would confer
a benefit on the country—render a service to the soldier—do
the character of the army an essential good—if he proceeded
to the Commander-in-Chief, and took the proper steps to de-
nounce the officer, whoever he was, that had so acted.—
(Hear, hear, hear.) If the information of the Honourable
Member was correct, he (Sir H. Hardinge) was quite sure the
indignation of the army would fall on the offender ; and he
was perfectly satisfied that no greater good could be done to
the cause which he espoused by the Hon. Member than by his
bringing the subject under the notice of the War Office. He
(Sir H. Hardinge) declared upon his honour that in his know-
ledge of the army he had never even heard of such a case, still
less knew of it.—( Hear.) It was incumbent on the Hon.
Member to substantiate his statement, and it was the duty of
the Noble Lord the Secretary at War to attend to it, and take
all necessary steps to bring the delinquent to punishment.
Lord H 0 WIC K believed, from all he knew of the army,
that the existence of such a case as that alluded to by the
Hon. Member for Finsbury was quite impossible. If the
Hon. Member did not speak from undoubted authority, he was
not justified in making the statement he had. If he did, it
w as his duty to the country, to the House, and to the army, to
proceed with the matter, and, by bringing the individual under
the notice of the Commander-in-Chief, not alone obviate the
evil for the present, but also prevent its recurrence for the
future.—( Hear, hear.) With respect to the wish of the Hon.
Member, that the punishment should be inflicted in the shortest
possible time, he (Lord II.) could not agree with him in that
view of the subject. He believed that it was more merciful to
distribute the punishment over a comparatively long space of
time than to give it altogether. The high degree of discipline
of the navy, as well as the constant health of the men, was
kept up in great part by such a system. A portion only of a
flogging was inflicted at one time, and another portion at ano-
ther. In consequence of this arrangement it was expected
that a man should be at his duty the next morning after he
had been punished on board ship ; whereas in the army, where
the quantity awarded was inflicted altogether, it never was so,
and no such expectations were ever entertained.
Mr. T. DUNCOMBE said that, notwithstanding all which
had been urged on the subject, he should not give up the
name of the officer to whom he alluded, or the authority on
which he stated the fact. He had the fullest reliance on his
authority, and placed the most implicit credit in the circum-
stance. In mentioning the matter to the House, and calling
the attention of the Noble Lord to it, he had only done his
duty ;he would do no more. He trusted that no Command-
ing Officer would, in future, be allowed to exercise his
own discretion in the mode or time of administering punish-
ment to the soldier.

Lord HO WICK said that no commanding officer in the
service was authorised to inflict punishment in any other than
the usual manner.—( Hear.) Only one case of a deviation from
that rule had occurred for several years. That was in Ireland,
when the commanding officer had ordered the " cat" to be
steeped in brine previous to the infliction of the punishment.
For that he was, however, immediately brought to a Court-
martial, and dismissed the service at once.—( Hear.) Any
officer guilty of such or similar conduct now would be at once
served in the same manner; he would be immediately brought
to a court-martial by Lord Hill, and the inevitable result would
be cashiering.—( Hear.)
Mr. C. FERGUSSON had no right to dictate to the
Hon. Member for Finsbury the course he ought to pursue—.
but he would venture to suggest that he could not let the sub-
ject he had introduced to the attention of the House rest where
it was.—(Hear.) Having gone so far as to make a grave
accusation against the service, he was bound, in strict justice
to disclose the name of the offender. He had cast a stain on
the character of the army, which would only be removed by
such a course of conduct. The Hon. Member should either
state the name of the party in the proper quarter, and substan-
tiate the charge against him, or he should express his sorrow
and regret at having made such a statement without sufficient
foundation.—( Hear.)
Sir C. DALBIAC said that no officer in the British army
had the power of acting as the Hon. Member for Finsbury
had stated, except at the peril of losing his commission. The
Hon. Member was bound in honour to go on with the charge
he had made. As the matter stood, a stigma rested upon every
commanding officer in the service.—( Hear.) The Hon. and
Gallant Member, who was quite inaudible in the gallery from
the noise which prevailed in the House, was understood to op-
pose the motion under discussion.
The House was then cleared for a division, when the num-
bers were :

Ayes
Noes

62
135

Majority against the motion

On our return we found that Mr. Bernal had brought up
the Report of the Committee, which was ordered to be re-
ceived to-morrow (this day).
The Alien Registration Bill passed through Committee and
was reported.
Colonel SIBTHORP deferred the presentation of his peti-
tion from the county of Lincoln on the subject of agricultural
distress.

The Attorney-General's Bill for the amendment of the law
relative to copyholds was read a second time.
Lord DARLINGTON presented a petition from Norwich
against the Stamp Duties.
The Reports on the Mutiny Bill and on the Marine Mutiny
Bill were brought up, and the House adjourned at Elivcn
o'clock.