The Sun.
London, England, 1836-04-14 00:00:00

to deter otter f!'cro' C9F:na)itting similar offences. Death
was not inflicted upciti flP.,:i!idi'lticfual;fot' the mere purpose of
its being painful to the individual t4f4.,'
there was a higher object—it was that of its b e 144 eiiitple to
others. This was the main object ; and the question noit' 'l4:
the power of inflicting corporal punishments as an example
Aotld be retained? He would venture to say, 'that notwith_
sialklitrg the evidence that had been read upon the subject, he
should be able to show that every officer of standing in the
serfree, and of great merits had said that it was impossible to
abofish the punishment of flogging without shaking to its very
tottridation the. "discipline of the army.—( Hear, hear.) He
had hotel, state' tiOt* what had been done to put an end, so
far as it was possible id the'punishment ; and to restrict it
within the narrowest bounds praeticable, According to a
return made, it will be found that from 10211 to 1827, during
those three years corporal punishments exceeded the number
of all other kinds or punishment whatever. This was the
case in the years 1825, 1826, and 1827. In 1827, that is,
eight years ago, the corporal punishments were 105 ; the sen-
tences of other kinds were 246. In the year that has just
elapsed (1835) such has been the effect of the authority exer-
cised by the Government in substituting other punishments,
such as solitary confinement and bard labour, that the corporal
punishments were 477.; other punishments 4,729. Now, from
1830 to 1835 the total number of corporal punishments was
1,440 ; other punishments 9,591 ;—the total number being
113031, •
Mr, HUME—That return is for Great Britain only.
CUTLAR FERGUSSON—The Hon. Gentleman
must know the facts better than they were known at the Ad-
jutant-Generai'i office,r . when he undertook to contradict him.
This was " A return oi
number of soldiers who, sinus the
year 1830, have suffered either corporal punishMent or impri-
sonment."

Mr. HUME—Read under it.
Mr. C. FE RGUS SON—This was a mare's 11621 of the
Hon. Member for Middlesex, and be never knew that i-;!on.
Member to discover any other.—( Hear, and laughter.) It
necessarily followed that the return for 1835 should be incom-
plete, as there c(:uld not be returns from the regiments in the
East Indies, and at the Cape of Good Hope ; but this remark
could not apply to the returns for the year 1834, and this was
all that the discovery of the Hon. MeMber for Middlesex
amounted to, It was due to the military, authorities to state
this fact, which wottld be found by the ettidtnee of Lord Hill,
that so early as 1812. they Winced the number of lashes which
it was in the power of a regimental court-martial to inflict.
Before that they were not limited as to the extent of corptai
punishments. Any number of lashes could be inflicted, and
it was only in 1812 that they were confined to 300. After-
wards a genei al regimental courtmartial had the power of in-
flicting 500 lashes ; but a garrison courtmartial was confined to
300 stripes, and a regimental courtmartial to 500. He had
now to mention to the House that it was intended to limit still
further those powers. He thought that this was a very wise
measure ; but upon former occasions, when the power existed
of inflicting five, six, seven, and eight hundred lashes,
this was an oppression as great as could be conceived. Such
on enormous power ought not to be left in the hands of any
persons ; but the question was not alien before the House
whether corporal punishments ought to be moderated—not
whether they ought to be reduced to a proper number as
they were now—the power being confined to one class of
courts-.nartial of inflicting 200 lashes, and to another of 100—
the question was not whether they had done all that they pos-
sible could do to alleviate the evil, but whether they were to
abolish the punishment altogether, and thus interfere with
military discipline. Ho believed, if they asked the British sol-
dier—would he exchange his situation to take service under
any other power in Europe ?—he was perfectly satisfied with
Sir George Murray, that the British soldier would, with all
its inconveniences, prefer serving in the English army, to that
of any power on earth. The Hon. Member who had seconded
the motion, had referred to the opinion of Sir Willoughby
Gordon respecting the French army, and as to its being per-
fectly well conducted. This had nothing to do with corporal
punishments. That gallant officer was asked as to that of
which he had official knowledge, the description of the French
army ; but not as to corporal punishments.—( Hear.) He
must, with the permission of the House, as the Hon. and
Gallant Member had referred to the evidence, take the liberty
of making a few remarks upon the question, as to whether
corporal punishments ought entirely to be done away with.
Now he found only two amongst seventy-one to declare them-
selves favourable to their entire abolition. There was the
evidence of sixty-four in writing who answered this question.
There were but two Honourable and Gallant Gentlemen op-
posed to them ; these were the :Members for Barnstaple and
Hull. Out of the entire number of officers, there were but
two, who stated that there ought to be the abolition of corpo-
ral punishments in all cases.—( Hear, hear.) And let the
House recollect, that if this motion went to the full extent
that no crime was to be visited with corporal punishment—no
crime, no matter how disgraceful, theft itself, if they passed
the resolution, could not be so punished. And yet they were
to find the discipline of the army maintained, though they
could not punish the most disgraceful offence 1 How could
they maintain that discipline in England, if they could not
punish theft by whipping, because the offender was in the
army, when, under the provisions of the Act of the Right
Hon. Member for Tamworth, the punishment of whipping
was still continued for not less than seventy or eighty dif-
ferent offences ?—( Hear, hear.) What was to be done,
then, with the soldier? A return was noticed by the Hon.
and Gallant Member for Launceston—that was a return
moved for by Mr. Hunt in 1832—and by that return it ap-
peared that upwards of two thousand persons had been flogged
by the order of the magistrates. This was done by the ordi-
nary tribunals of the land, and there was not one word of their
case ; but no one could well come forward and do so. It was
not a topic so likely to be popular as that of corporal punish-
ments in the army. He had a list of the different offences for
which the punishment of whipping could be inflicted, and with
which he should not trouble the House, but they included fe-
lonies as well as misdemeanours. They did not say that
flogging was to be struck out of the criminal code, it was
every day exercised, but they heard nothing of it, and he had
stated his opinion why they did not.—( Hear, hear.) One par-
ticular point had been relied upon by the Hon. Member who
seconded the motion, and that was as to there being no cor-
poral punishments in the French army. Why was that ? By
a decree of the National Assembly corporal punishments were
abolished. It was not so in England ; corporal punishments
were inflicted by their criminal code. Were they, then, to
render courts-martial incompetent to punish by whipping
offences that were deemed disgraceful at least ? If they passed
the resolution thus proposed, it would be incompetent for a
court-martial to do that, but they still might take the soldier
out of the barrack, where he could not be flogged, and send
him to gaol, where he might be flogged. Let them send the
soldier to the house of correctien—let there send him to the
gaol at Maidstone, and then the soldier, exempt from the lash,
must, if in the house of correction and under the law of the
land, undergo what was the discipline of a house of correction.
—( Hear, hear.) They had been told by Mr. Thomas Eager,
the Governor of the gaol of Maidstone, that upon occasion
the soldiers were very riotous, and he sent for the visit-
ing magistrates—" the ringleaders were discovered and
flogged, two of them severely, by order of the magistrates.'
They were, he said, much more severely flogged than the
punishment amongst soldiers. He was asked what was the
effect of it, and his reply was—" It had a very great effect.
Those soldiers have been extremely well-behaved ever since.
They acknowledged that they deserved it, and that they were
extremely sorry for it."—(Hear, and laughter.) They had
the testimony of about 120 or 130 officers of long experience,
all stating to the same effect;, none of those officers said that
they could do without having the power of the lash. But he
must remark upon what had been stated by the lion. and Gal-
lant Member for Hull, for he thought that Hon. and Gallant
Member had given a most unfortunate instance of the possi-
bility of dispensing with it. The lion. and Gallant Member
for Hull had certainly very great merit, and for which lie did
not seem to claim any praise, for he had the merit of giving the
most valuable testimony in support of the necessity of corporal
punishments.
Colonel THOMPSON read the evidence.
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON He had the evidence as
it had been taken down, but since the Hon. and Gallant Mem-
ber wished him to read it he would do so. In page 234 the
Hon. and Gallant Member told that of himself of which they
had heard more than once or twice, that he had a great objec-
tion to corporal punishments. The second instance which the
Hon. and Gallant Officer gave to show that corporal punish-
ments could not be inflicted on service was this—
" I recollect, in the 14th Dragoons, having occasion to make
a complaint against soldiers who had committed what I con-
sider a military crime. I was ordered, in the Peninsular war,
with I think about eight dragoons and sixteen Spanish infantry,
believe it was in the neighbourhood of St. Severs, to ascer-
tain whethera division of French cavalry was at a certain point
six or seven miles 'off. I contrived to arrive there near night-
fall, and ascertained that they had been gone about four hours.
As I returned, the Spaniards got very frightened, and begged
the dragoons would not leave them. I ordered different indi-
viduals of the dragoons to move in advance of the detachment,
my fear being that we might fall in with a body of the enemy ;
and if we had timely notice of it we might retire by some cross
road, or in case of extremity disperse. As fast as I sent a
dragoon out of sight, he trotted off and made the best of his way
to camp. Not one man staid with me but the corporal. The
Spaniards, the corporal, and I arrived safely in the English
out-posts. I immediately complained to the colonel, who did
not punish the men, and all he did was to apply a strong expres-
sion to them, but the men were never punished. That struck
me as a proof of the inapplicability of corporal punishment be-
fore the enemy ; for I feel certain that if those men had com-
mitted anything like a similar irregularity in a barrack-yard in
England, they would have been very severely punished."
In that case the commanding officer differed in opinion from
the Hon. and Gallant Member. But they now came to the
other case, and he should read the very words of it :
" I can give two instances bearing upon the fact. I will
first give one which occurred in the 95th, or Rifle regiment,
where corporal punishment was not carried to its usual extent
in consequence of that feeling. The day before we landed on
the unfortunate expedition to Buenos Ayres, being the officer
on watch, I heard a private say, ' The officers had better take
care of themselves, for we shall have them in our front to-
morrow.' I knew what that meant ; that if an officer did any-
thing in the way of discipline which the men did not like, lie
should be shot. I brought the man up for punishment, and
the man was tried. At that time corporal punishment was
almost the only punishment in vogue except for very slight
crimes. The court martial found him guilty, and inflicted
upon him, if I recollect right, 150 lashes; which, although it
may be a severe punishment in itself, was a very slight punish-
ment in reference to the scale of punishment then existing in
the army. For a man would have received 150 lashes on any
complaint of a captain ; for instance, of his being once or
twice drunk, or being habitually dirty. I had been told in
quarters in England, when trying to bring dcooviu•rnt.amanritainais
pun ,
emrveinctea.l' Therefore it
yoisuhmincunstt
nt oo t
nsoa k
elasah
jeoskentofa
threegsi