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

that oil
oreign service solitary confinement would be impos-
sible, Ind that he would therefore allow corporal punishments
other." s eimumstanee, by drum-head, court-martial And no
low', Vile Right Hon. Member then referred to the fol-
. laC'assage in the evidence tf Jos. Flume, Esq., M. P. e-e-
-„1,10t4
nit are understood to say, that upon service yele still
mere et do away with the use of the lash ?—ln emergencies,
vvhere men openly plunder or violate
dolete rules leid tloWne and
*any othordee must be maintained, I et tee 'that theft arc
teed, er immediate means of checking them. I do 'AA pre-
such, werefore, to say that I would do away wit 'the) power in
thoe,pc,ases ; but, like the offence of stealiiee,;•, 'the punishment,
theueern disgraceful, would, I think, Meet the approbation of
no
n,lftlY, if thus justly administered. It must be well keewn
ae„ce_,tarY men that the success of any enterprise h'. the field
or(r_us upon the following it up and if men will disobey
The_`;_rss, and have recourse to plunder, ttrecess may be by that
turned to defeat, and there must be, I apprehend. the
"Le.,_ of repressing it on the instant."
viutefeh would next refer to the evidence of Sir Jelttt Woodford,
he certainly must characterise as a meet extraordinary
fl'luen ent on the subject of military discipline. This Gallant litue r stated, that " under particular circumstances of erne re
Ileould(Yfberequiring an instant example, corporal punishments
fear at fittest, and, he presumed, most effectual in impressing
hethe moment. It would be more effectual for only being
L'es
oeid to on such occasions of necessity." In that opinion
should C.
Fergusson)
entirely agreed ; necessity alone
Gallant warrant the infliction of this punishment. But the
fermerl Officer stated also " that corporal punishments as
the Y exercised, had, in his opinion, a less good effect than
%-ee Present mode of confinement and hard labour, solitary ton-
ment taken into account, ;which lie considered the best kind
ire},
‘; he was of opinion further, "that supposing
phLrd.ns of applying the punishment of imprisonment with
i:heabour to be made more perfect and complete, corporal
COr,, ments might be dispensed with on home service, for
4t4ntnon military offences committed under ordinary eireum-
eqicc,es." Among the extraordinary circumstances under
", in the' opinion of this Gallant Officer, corporal punish-
°n
eut might be inflicted, was wilful disobedience of a soldier
peror Parade or under arms, to the lawful command of his stye-
, or for striking or offering violence to an officer, theft
fir.telecer disgraceful conduct, and for the second offence for
Fret: -enness on duty, sleeping on duty, striking or using vio-
eto a non-commissioned officer. These offences the Gallant
cn r proposed should be punished by a prevotal court-mar-
risoli who are to be invested with the authority of a distinct gar-
,„, court-martial, with the power to inflict—how many lashes
i4ritethe House suppose ?—no less than five hundred lashes,—
Gallant
Now certainly it was rather inconsistent in this
Officer, who expressed himself as opposed generally
,o the infliction of corporal punishment, to propose to give a
servicedtirordrtealascohuerst:martial the -Dower to inflict as many as five
whilst, by the rules at present in force in the
die , general courtenartial could only order three
has n lashes.-4 Hear, hear.) The next authority to which he
iti refer was that of Colonel G. Burrell, whose evidence
,ion as follows :--" Taking all circumstances into considera-
Cluti are
Yen 'of opinion that, as far as Great Britain and Ire-
are coecerned, it would be possible to do away entirely
viith c -
b tn:Pe.ral punishment?—l must say I should be sorry. to
1Z cline ed of the power ; but I think it would be practice-
The' ffe• we might apply for general courts martial, and these
“iight be transported; but we must have reference to a
it 7• er Power for such courts martial, and the delay would be
eater, • I will state why I should object to the power being
ef tmt us ; suppose, in time of peace, we can obtain men
coruat description that we can carry on the discipline of a
ettrT_Vil, inlhout corporal punishment, if we should unfortunately
,iievoiveda war, we must take any able-bodied men who
ue got to fill our ranks; and if the power were taken away
new the the courts martial, I am persuaded the legislature would
r restore it. The power had better therefore remain,
it e
enon
° a dead letter, with troops at home." The same Gal-
usin`nGPAcer being asked his opinion as to the possibility of dis-
th the practice to the same extent in the colonies, replied
his a" " he found it would not answer ;" and being asked for
e't''ason for this apprehension, replied that " the men drank
wie (in the colonies) to a great extent." Being asked also,
„e'ether be thought it would be possible to do away with
;rPoral punishment when the army was in actual service in
or field, he replied, Certainly not I" But lie (Mr. C.
w glus°n) would call upon the House to recollect that they
that called upon to provide for the time of war as well as
beet esr Peace, by their vote on this question to-night.-_( Hear,
eli-r*) He would entreat them, therefore, to pause before
thoughtally and in every case prohibited a practice which,
„, at present but sparingly required, was found, under
%.-•14•41 circumstances, to be indispensable.—( Hear.) He
,I,Zuid refer the House now to the evidence of Col. Townsend,
° stated before the Commissioners that he had been very
etlx•
kaaS to do away with corporal punishments in his regi-
a—nt, and bad endeavoured to make a fair experiment to
babstitute another system of punishment, the result of which,
xfiewever, was, that " he was almost convinced the punish-
heat of flogging could not be entirely done away with."
e stated his opinion, that the infliction of corporal punish-
keel.
had 'w more effect upon the men than any other." He
'we'd more
beg attention to the following passages of this
anent Officer's evidence :
fie,: Have you had many instances of renewal of offence after
tle°:.g in the same individual ?—Not since I commanded
regiment.
,01)",1-lave you had many renewals of offence after solitary
unement ?—Yes, we have.
wyr " Prom that observation, the impression upon your mind
le?, t 1,41 he, that the one punishment had less effect upon the
„t 1 of the individual than the other P—l think the solitary
cot-,„,..."unentent had less effect upon the mind of the man than
eertar_at,e punishment in improving him ; and also by way of
'1
•
ke,tria" you any idea that the infliction of corporal punish-
ee,-;z In sight of the men has an injurious effect, in rather
thOeg sympathy on the part of the soldiers?—No, I•do not
verys extreme.esal punishment is not resorted to except in
eas"
G'llae text testimony he would refer to was that of Major-
saw oral Sir Thomas Pearson, who stated that " he never
16, any good effects, but on the contrary, bad effects from
(c Punishment of solitary confinement ;" and being asked,
k
Are You of opinion that the system of solitary confinement,
tiro 4 of corporal punishment, such punishment being en-
disc forbiddene would have the effect of maintaining proper
eoe,Pline in the army?" He replied, "I consider that, if
ten",°rai punishment were abolished in the British army, the
I -„"l'atid of the British army would be virtually given up.
diesellll:der that it would be totally impossible to maintain such
end.Pline as would be necessary to uphold the character
kentrePutation of the British army, without corporal punish-
remainine• to be resorted to in case of necessity."
eortng. asked also,-.," Is it your opinion that the infliction of
it •„Peral Punishment, attended by all the solemnities with which
4;1- accompanied, has a considerable effect on the other sol-
41s of the regiment who witness it?" He replied, ".deci-
aft Y see, Another very Gallant Officer, Colonel Mackinnon,
core: recommending the removal of the incorrigible to some
kieas Ott a foreign station, said that "until some plan of that
ginc, was adopted, no abandonment of the punishment of flog-
eetA could be thought of. Whether with the aid of some
sec Plan as that it might be found possible, even on home-
that.,e,e' he was not able to say ;-but there could be no doubt
liti' '4% sudden promulgation of a law for the immediate abo-
Thc% would be equivalent to a proclamation in favour of mutiny.
sleZe,Pnenishment of flogging, if ever it were to be abolished,
°e made gradually to disappear in practice by the silent
alei'!ntion of other methods, before its express and formal
him tit,'°ll-" The Gallant Officer, in reply to questions put to
denej the Commissioners, gave the following remarkable evi-
also
eini,2,uPposing that an order was to issue from head-quarters
siet`ea'Y to abolish the practice of flogging, could you be an-
is Ible for the discipline of the Coldstream Regiment, which
to4e°tv under your command ?—I think not,decidedly ; I
no not be answerable for it. I thilik there would be muti-
e elienduct, and that would increase very much.. .
eorpo Arc we then to understand that your opinion, is, that
site ra,' Punishment should be resorted to in cases of neces-
tec4l,l•, but that the power of inflicting it should be re-
to re, .---Alost decidedly. I conceive that if you were not,
might in the power of punishing men by flogging, the officers
them as well pull off their bats to the regiment, and wish
-le
Cofond -by,,,
Are W. Augustus Keate gave the following evidence;
effeeCje you of opinion that corporal punishment has more
cry tin deterring an individual from the re-commission of
" than imprisoment, with hard labour ?—Yes, certainly.
vrho \filet your opinion of it as an example to other soldiers
the of eels it ?—I have no doubt it is an example, and that
r none.
ter what you have stated, it is scarcely necessary to ask
disci ,:liethter you conceive it would be possible to keep up the
ltifliePt'ne of the 3d regiment of Guards, without the power of
eicdit'g corporal punishment in certain cases?—lt is my de-
e F?pinion that it would not.
would tern your experience when on service, do you think it
on th, (113. e Possible, under any regulations whatever, to carry
1.1 shoold
'seipline of the army without corporal punishment?
he done „saY, certainly not; I cannot conceive how it could
lNia• •
%we:ler-General Sir J. M‘Lean's evidence contained the fol-
Passage:_.
tae Ati•e
htaTeLreye,riPsoirtal punishments have been less frequent in
your opinion that the discipline of the rep.:
ti °pil. Peen more or less easily maintained?-1 am
service;
that oon that it has not been of advautage to the
the fit former times you tied up a man and flogged him, and
eep.etixample was immediate and ood ; now a man knows
keep„Y how far he may go • he knows he will not be tried
ep art_ial unless he goes' to a certain extent ; be wwill
confiti in the extent, knowing he will have only a few days'
ein st-met for that." This Gallant Officer's experience
ahou;°,
hsandot:t that the punishment of confinement, with hard.
eee been of no use whatever in reforming the culprit.
`Ths'ervecatd.' hear.) In conclusion the Right Hon. Member
et, ? that if Hon. Gentlemen in that House had read
eeJ Portion f •
riajoi 0 the Report of the Commissioners, they had
Lord ti');iiread the evidence of the Duke of Wellington and
eoeno'-, ; he need not therefore attempt to recapitulate or
‘‘,hoso lt.°Pon the statements of those two noble individuals,
xngle,ligh personal reputation wes such, that not the
the • L doubt could existof the perfect sincerity with which
ther 4i"ye. their evidene He would now ask the House whe-
Hoe; zael,l'e face of that evidence, and upon the authority of the
Member Gallant Gallant Member for Barnstaple and of the Hon.
1.0. no one °r Hull, they were prepared to say that henceforth,
41,sfarice case of crime, however disgraceful—whether, for
should of theft, cheating, or embezzlement-e-the lash
gracefel ; used by way of punishment appropriately dis-
ttt hotrl'e' If the House were prepared to say that neither
ever nor abroa, in peece nor in war, for any offence what-
adrinie..._`;`)trilPe°nral punishme-ntt should be used in the British
oc eery much feared the whole system of military
eltoneteC was that an end. He maintained that if they parted
(Ler •
wlt the right of inflicting corporal punishment,

they parted with the right arm as far as regarded the proper
discipline of the army.—( Hear, hear.) For his own iart4,lm
felt that he had but done his duty to his li!int part
t s 'fili73
country by ab_e•reein_g• to the report wAliel Itql 'ficen ltil Wore
the House. The yorilst'iooy'rt hitoi entered upon their task
of imkakry With nebikagsV Minds, and with every desire, if it
were ficisSibte4 4.8 Assist in promoting a milder code of punish-
ment; b1..11 l'rem a careful examination of the evidence, both
t.S it was being delivered, and since it was privet!) 11;04.
11‘, fell VOW io say that
hreeaddidit
any material change
notov rseaen dt
the
overpo sss
iebiv eiirtayl
(t)icineeffse,,,..t2:a g
at present, ~.
.. ;,' %;1/41, 4
W.-. ?OUTER thought .such an, inratovemeut f:_`...:o oe
effected in the discipline of thn b.',:io; it to render abolition
of flogging not only prkedeable but desirable. He could
never tarn* ennut to the soldier being the victim of cor-
poral pklnlshment so long as nothing was atterarttd r. 1% his
tXitclioration. Had they heard of an.!,,tiltlie; oeing attempted
for the improvement of theft* 'Coral or religious education,
and if anything hsd been attempted to any extent? No
rewards had been offered for good behaviour, either of a
mflits.ty or civil character. They had trot placed before the
Soldier the prospect of prfatt'Stion, or indulged the hope of
a situation in the r..t.diZe or other capacity. Nothing had
been done eithe to eradicate the prevailing viv6 of drink-
ing, wikkh, bn sides had been held t,3 be the bottom of all
InititAry excesses. So math'; indeed, had it been encou-
raged by the Legielit'are, that they had almost made it an
institution.--(A laugh.) The establishments in the Metro-
polis chtily arising around them gave maple evidence that
thig besetting sin was allowed to proceed unchecked. He
would wish that on this anti similrr subjects Hon. Gentlemen
opposite would tie less limited and contracted views, and
that they would look in a more broad and comprehensive
Mattis into questions. When the metion was the other
evening brought forward relative to the reduction of the
Guards, he was sorry to perceive that it was made a matter
of pecuniary ealctilation, and the distinction was drawn be-
tween five shillings and three and eightpence. The Mem-
bers an that side of the House (the Ministerial side) viewed
the question in a different manner; they viewed them among
the first in the rank of bur defenders—they would do
nothing to degrade the Guards, who were the best and prin-
cipal representatives of our military achievements. He knew
thedelic-aey that very properly existed when speaking on these
topics) but when he saw before him the Hon. and Gallant
General (Sir H. Hardinge) he entered upon these matters
with great fear And nervousness.--( Laughter.) That Hon.
and Gallant General had performed his duty nobly iu all the
functions of peace and war.—(Hear, hear.) But when at
first, without experience, he set foot on the Continent, what
would he have done? How could he have met the captains
of fifty battles. with an enemy that brought twenty thousand
men against ten thousand into the field, but by the high spirit
of an Englishman, superadded to a fine education? Reform
rarely first began among the members of the profession to be
reformed. In the profession of the law, of which he once had
the honour to be a member, the reform of the laws did not
commence with the profession. Nor did ecclesiastical reform
originate with the clergy, but with the laity ; and military im-
provements could not be expected to begin with the army. A
great deal had been said about the military conscription of the
French army. Now he thought that, from the evidence be-
fore them upon that subject, there was not only a well-founded
hope, but almost a demonstrative assurance, that the punish-
ment of flogging might be dispensed with. France could not
have arrived at the height of military glory she had but from
a well-regulated system. " They will not flog," said the
Honourable Member, " but they will. shoot." The Hon.
Member then proceeded that he had lately had an oppor-
tunity of obtaining from the War Office at Paris, through
the medium of a cavalry officer of high rank and character, a
return containing an account of all those offences which were
punished with death, and they were three—namely, desertion
to the enemy, treason, and striking a superior officer. This
information he received from a friend, a gentleman of distin-
guished character, and he had no objection in saying that it
was (so we understood) Count Guillet. If, then, it appeared
that the French army could do without flogging, and only
visited the punishment of death on these three offences, why
were the men who were the conquerors of those soldiers at
Waterloo to be worse treated? He knew that the present
motion would be got rid of, but that ultimately it would. be
carried ; and he was desirous that it should not be left to an-
other House of Commons to achieve this desirable object.
In another election many of them might lose their seats—
(4aueiter)--and he wanted to share the glory of effecting the
abolition.

21, iEsoi,

Nintiher N Umber Number
kit :With- Number Sentenced to sentenced on i horn
Tears. meta of tried by Tarlous to Corporal
British Courts PunishMents , COrporal Punishment
Army. Martial; other than Plinisli.-. was
CoFpdral. trlent. inflicted.
---.;:—",,,,—,..-, ....-----....._:=.:. ... -...--..,—___.
teA ' 93,946 4,704 2,2'0 ,',1511 1,737
1821 111,058 5,514 ‘2.iyi 2,7.2 2,‘:42
1827 111, 'O7 5,310 2,511 2,632 2,291
1828 110,912 5,:114 2,779 2,071 2,143
1829 103,747 4,732 2,70:3 ,940 1,118
1830 103014 :),747 3,743 1,814 1012
Izi3l 103,413 7,370 5,4.17 1,611 1,477
--
Total 28,553 17,270 I 10,070 i pi.,,, i

Year. Number Flogged.
1830 • 655
1831
1832
1833

Colonel P. THOMPSON read some extracts from the
evidence he had given before the Committee of Inquiry upon
military punishments, and contended that an improper in-
ference had been drawn from the statements he had made.
With reference to other points, the Hon. and Gallant Colo-
nel continued—he admitted that he had stated that he con-
sidered there would be great difficulty in doing away with
corporal punishment partially, and that the only effectual plan
was not to permit it at all. He thought if any individual
colonel of a regiment attempted it, the odds were that he
failed. If, however, the experiment were tried in one or
two regiments newly raised, and it was understood that
they would be disbanded if it did not succeed, he thought
the officers would find ways and means to maintain disci-
pline without it. It had been stated by officers of the high-
est character in that House, that the soldier was insensible
to the degradation of corporal punishment. He thought the
contrary. Would they wait for a mutiny? The press was
daily speaking on the subject, and he could easily suppose
some spirit more fiery than another in the army—he could
easily suppose some officer of greater nerves and more bile
during one of these disgusting exhibitions, with a manly sense
of the indecent, filthy, unmanly, degrading, and abominable
punishment, putting himself at the head of the soldiers, and
spreading a flame that would not be easily quenched. " Shall
Igo further," said the Hon. and Gallant Colonel. " You see
one before you cold and phlegmatic. I was once as near to
telling my men as pulling a trigger is to not doing it, Men,
if you are such fools as to submit to such an abomination, I
am not.' " The Hon. and Gallant Colonel concluded by ap-
pealing to those Hon. Members who had constituents of opi-
nions more in unison with the march of the public mind than
their own, to be warned of the danger in opposing the abolition
of flogging.
Lord SANDON read an extract from the evidence of Co-
lonel Woodford, and contended that, according to that evi-
dence, although the punishment ought not to be abolished, on
no occasion was five hundred lashes requisite, and in no case
ought more than two hundred to be inflicted. It was noto-
rious that those who had ever been most opposed to the sys-
tem of corporal punishment were always the first to abandon
their own principle in practice. It was said that another
system was effectual in France and Prussia, and that it had the
best results. The materiel of both armies was widely different
from that of the British army, being of a far better nature.
Yet what was the fact? With all these advantages the French
and Prussian armies were not in point of discipline in anywise
equal to the British army. He had the opinion of a Prussian
officer of rank that that army would not be able to dispense
with corporal punishment in any war less national than that
which existed between them and the French, and several
French officers had expressed their belief that it was only in
conseqUence of the mode of raising the French army by con-
scription that it was possible to abolish corporal punishment
in

Mr. HLTME said in 1833 he (Mr. Hume )had submitted a
motion to the House for the abolition of corporal punishment in
his Majesty's service; and, notwithstanding that the Ministry
were against it, he lost it, or rather he carried the principle by
a minority of eleven. That almost unanimous expression of
the opinion of the House was the cause of the general order
alluded to by the Noble Lord, which be (Mr. Hume) should
shortly proceed to examine. After the speech of the Right
Hon. Judge-Advocate, contrasted with the sentiments which
he had uttered on former occasions, no one could for a moment
doubt of his being influenced in his conduct by the position in
which lie was placed. That Hon. Gentleman had brought for-
ward a one-sided case in his defence of the system of corporal
punishment, and in so far had not acted with perfect candour

towards the House. The general order of the. Commander-i-
n signed John Macdonnell, Adjutant- General, stated that
corporal punishments were from thenceforward to be limited too
three classes of offences. He (Mr. Hume) should proceed to
show that almost every offence of whatever nature might be in-
cluded under the least strained construction of one or other of
these three classes. The first class; included " mutiny, insu-
bordination, violence, or using or offering violence to a superior
officer." What was meant by insubordination ? Tha,t was for
the interpretation of any inferior officer, and a court martial
could be at once called upon his construction of it. The se-
cond class was drunkenness on duty. That at least had the
merit of being explicit. The third was the vaguest of all,

" away. with arms, accoutrements, or necessaries,
stealing from a comrade or fellow-soldier, or other disgraceful
conduct." Now, who was there that did not see the illimi-
table extent to which the words " or other disgraceful con-
duct" led ? The Right Eon. Member for Kirkcudbright had
corrected him (Mr. Hume) when he made an observation re-
lative to the accuracy of the returns quoted by him ; but he
(Mr. Hume) would correct him in turn. The returns quoted
by the Right Hon. and Learned Member were not accurate.
He (Mr. Hume) held the true and accurate returns in his
hand. The Hon. Member then proceeded to read the follow-
ing statements :
" ( Circular.—Confidential. )
" Horse Guards, August 24, 1833.
" Sir,—His Majesty's Government having signified to the
General Commanding-in-Chief the King's command that

until further orders, corporal punishments may be applied to
the following offences only, I have the honour to express Lord
Hill's desire that you guide yourself accordingly, taking care
that, except in the instances herein specified, the said punish.
meat shall on no account be inflicted, viz..:—
" 1. For mutiny, insubordination and violence, or using or
offering violence to superior officers.
" 2. Drunkenness on duty.
3. Sale of, or making away with, arms, ammunition, ac-
stealing from comrades, or other
dcoisugtrraecmeefunitsconduct.
essaries,
" It will doubtless occur to you that the object of the new
instructions is not to render the infliction of corporal punish-
ment for the future more frequent or more certain than it is at
present, even in the cases to which it is now to be restricted;
but, on the contrary, that the intention is to restrain it as much
as it may be possible to do so with safety to the discipline of
of the army.—l have the honour to be, Sir, your very obedient
humble servant,
c,
.1011 N MACDONALD, Adjutant-General,
Officer Commanding."
But this corporal punishment was, it was true, limited to
three descriptions of offence ; but was it possible for any
man to deny that in that class every offence which a soldier
could commit was not included ?—( Hear, hear.) He had
now a word or two to say in reference to what had fallen from
the Right Hon. and Learned Judge-Advocate. He (Mr. C.
Fergusson) had told him in consequence of his having dis-
sented from a statement of his during his speech that he (Mr.

THE SUN, LONDON, THURSDAY, APRIL 14, 1836.

Hume) kncW nothlrl; r,C.t;Ariisfr:On Elie flnise Collards
v,\l4.ea 'Of there V;dt-3,..-4liiini.,lll-nents. Now, his in-
f!ctmqien. dhoti the subject of those returns was even better
than that of the Hon. and Learned Member ; and it so hap-
pened that he held in his hand at that moment three returns
connected with the subject, all subscribed by the Adjutant-
General, which would at real
lit!lre !if tliC kupprcssed by thb Learned judge
_
nvocatc
Returii sbowina t .c.stablisbmcn !o
.1 11.1 s in
tit 't;11
6 • " 184 both the
N!i9cl irqm ,t?
nirrobel• 61' tiled ny courts-martial in each of the
said years ; thq number sentenced to various punishments
other than corporal punishment ; the number sentenced to
corporal punishmeAtts ; and the number on whom corporal
indiadt
" Adjutant-General's. Ciftec, Feb.

" N.B.—The above numbers do not include courts-martial
held in the undermentioned regiments, the annual returns not
having yet been received from those corps abroad, viz.: In
1830—the 13th, 29th, 49th, and 98th Regiments; in 1831—
the 16th Lancers, and 13th and 49th Regiments.
(Signed) "JOHN MACDONALD,
From this it appeared, that in the five years beginning in
1827, and ending in 1831, 28,553 soldiers had been tried by
courts-martial, and that of this number 17,270 had been sen-
tenced to various punishments. other than corporal ; that
10,370 had been sentenced to corporal punishment, and that
such punishment had been inflicted on 9,321 of this number.
It further appeared from this document, that in 1825 the pro-
portion of those on whom corporal punishment was inflicted
to the entire establishment of the British army was 1 to 57 ;
in 1826, 1 to 40 ; in 1827, 1 to 48 ; in 1828, 1 to 51 ; in 1829,
1t059 ; in 1830, 1t062 ; and in 1831, Ito 70. The next
return to which he would direct attention was one dated the
26th of February, 1834. From this it appeared that the num-
ber of corporal punishments inflicted in the army in each year,
from 1830 to 1833, both inclusive, was as follows

Total 2,154
This was confined to the United Kingdom alone. Now, this
was a point on which the Right Hon. and Learned Judge Ad-
vocate had made an error—one in which it was but fitting he
should be set right. But, to come to tho question really be-
fore the House, he (Mr. Hume) considered it of much more
importance than either the Noble Lord or the Right Hon.
Gentleman seemed to think it. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had said that the system of corporal punishment could not be
got rid of in the army while it existed in the criminal code of
the country. To advance such an argument was an unfair
way of dealing with the question. He (Mr. Hume) wished
it abolished in the criminal code as well as in the army.
It was said that the British army was of a class different
and beneath that which formed the army of other nations ;
but what was the fact? At least one-half of it was com-
posed of agricultural labourers—men who, from the nature
of their occupations, were supposed to be much tnore inno-
cent of vice than almost any other in the community.—
(Cries of " Oh.") Yet it was urged that it would be im-
possible to deal with them unless recourse were to be had to
the degrading practice of flogging. Was the inference borne
out by the facts ? He (Mr. Hume) had had a large and ex-
tensive experience of corporal punishments in the army : he
knew its influence with the men, and the feeling of the offi-
cers respecting it; yet he could safely say, that he believed it
entirely inoperative with the former, while he was sure the
latter were disgusted with it. The Right Hon. and Learned
Judge Advocate had said that he wished to retain the system
of corporal punishment, because he wished to retain the power
of governing—well, he added. It was to obviate the discre-
tion with which that power was exercised that he (Mr. Hume)
wished. Every body knew that it was no uncommon thing to
see youths of seventeen placed on Courts-Martial, and called
on to give their opinions first; every one who was in the least
acquainted with the army was aware how much the opinions of
superior officers influenced their juniors in age or in standing.
He was decidedly opposed, therefore, to the exercise of a
discretionary power by Courts-Martial. It was a disgrace to
the country to keep up an army, and to maintain order
among those composing it by means which would not be re-
sorted to in the instance of the meanest citizen. The soldiers
composing the British army were dealt with as if they were
men who had not the common feelings of human nature.
They were denied the opportunity of earning rewards, and
they were punished in the most cruel manner for any fault.
The army of England was not kept up with the sole view of
defending the country, but also with the view of supporting
the sons of a certain aristocratic party in the nation.—( An in-
dignant shout of " No," from the Opposition► benches.) In
France every Marshal of Bonaparte's army and Court was
drawn from the ranks raised by the conscriptions. In Eng-
land, out of the 290 Generals, and Colonels without number,

how many had served as privates? He believed the account
was easily calculated.—( Cries of "Oh I") The Hon. Mem-
ber concluded by protesting against the conclusion come to in
the Report of the Commission on the subject of corporal pu-
nishment, and expressing a hope that, as the diminution of
capital punishment had had the effect of diminishing capital
crime in civil society, the same results would be found to ob-
tain, if the cruelty of corporal punishment were abolished in
the army.
Mr. CUTLAR FERGUSSON and Mr. HUME ex-
changed a few words in explanation.
Lord 110 WICK expected the Hon. Member who had in-
troduced this motion would have gone into the real difficulties
of the case, and suggested some consistent plan for removing
them. He, however, through the whole course of his speech,
had not heard a word of rational argument on the practical
bearings of the subject. When the Hon. Member declared
that a soldier, previous to enlisting, entered into such an es-
timate as this, " I can stand the travaux forces, the boulet,
and the galleys, but I cannot endure the thought of two hun-
dred lashes," he thought the Hon. Member must draw largely,
on his imagination. No man enters the army with the expec-
tation of enduring punishment. The discretion necessarily
vested in commanders for preserving subordination appeared
to be particularly objected to ; but it should be considered that
the same act of insubordination in different circumstances pro-
duced very different results on the service, and deserved a cor-
responding difference of punishment. Eight years ago the
corporal punishments inflicted in the army exceeded every
other species, but the order of Lord Hill had since then had
the good effect of reducing them one-half, and they were now
only applied in cases where they really ought to be. The
Hon. Member had said that the absence of reward, combined
with the system of corporal punishment in our army, ex-
cluded good and desirable persons from enlisting in it. Now
on this point the Hon. Member was not singular in his views.
Before the Report was printed, he ( Lord Howiek) wrote to
the Commander-in-Chief, to state his impression that it would
be very desirable that the systems of rewards should be tried
to as.great an extent as it consistently could, and the result of
the correspondence that ensued was such, that he felt en-
abled to assure the house that whatever could be done in the
way of rewards for the benefit of the soldiery certainly would.
_(Heat.) He did not, however, think that a proper system
of rewards was necessarily connected with that of promotion.
What way had the soldier of distinguishing himself in time of
peace Suppose that he behaved as well as possible during
ten years of peace, what good would it do to the service to
make the man an ensign ?__( hear.) But it was impossible,
is time of peace to promote men for good conduct.. A man
might grow advanced in age in the ranks before he could at-
tain promotion, and it would be only mocking bins to promise
it. For instance, the list of commissions given away last
year was 75. Suppose that number distributed among
100,000 MCI, He would appeal to the Hon. Member dis-
tinguished for his arithmetical knowledge—( A laugh)—to
determine whether the chance of one being attained by a
private would be much greater than of his getting the
20,0001. prize in the lottery ?—( Laughter.) To argue, there-
fore, that such distribution of promotions could have any effect
in the shape of rewards in time of peace was very fallacious.
It was said that the French soldiers were promoted from the
ranks, but at what time ? At the age of 26, 27, or 28, per-
Imps, after 16, 17, or 18 years service. But the Hon. Mem-
ber had admitted that it was necessary also to provide a supe-
rior grade of officers ; the chances, therefore, of promotion
would, under hiS proposed system, be still smaller than in
France. In the time of war, indeed—as in the wars of Napo-
leon,_when ranks were thinned with such rapidity—promotion
afforded the niost effectual stimulus to good conduct ; but even
then be contended the necessity for punishment was not done
away with. What was the real question befoite them ? The
providing a properly effective punishment for repressing the
irregularities of individuals of this troublesome class who get
into thb army.—( hear, hear.) Suffering and shame were the
essentials of all punishments that could be adopted, and he
would ask if the Gallant Member had attempted to estimate
the amount of pain and shame inflicted under the opposite sys-
tems of England and France ? He deprecated the amount of
pain inflicted by flogging ; but he ( Lord Howick) had never
heard it said that it was not efficacious. The Hon. Member for
Barnstable had lately moved for a return of the state of
punishments in the English army, and as it had only been
furnished to-day lie would quote a few facts therefrom, in il-
lustration. During the last five years 1,227 persons had suf-
fered corporal punishment a first time ; 172 of these had been
punished a second time, and only thirty-two a s third time.
During the same period 6,571 men had been sent to prisbn a
first time, 1,790 a second time, and 673 a third time. On
the whole there were rather less than onC-seventh flogged a
second time, and rather less than two-sevenths sent to gaol a
second time. The men flogged a third time only bore the
proportion to those flogged a first time as 1 to 40, while those
sent to gaol a third time were as 1 to 10.—(Hear.) Even in
America, where the most improved system of prison disci-
pline was in force, they were not able to do without corpora
punishment in the army. If it were dispensed with how wouh'*
subordination be established? Discharge would not do in
cases, for it was not felt as a punishment by all, and at best, it
only enabled a Commander to dispense with any other. In
the metropolitan police force it was felt as a very severe. pu-
nishment, and had been attended with effects proporti'incd to
its application, which was . pretty extensive ; for, out of a
force of 3,400 men, the dismissals had excessded 400.
, Several Honourable Members had suggested tl,!

fqent of petal corpt,l but these he could assure the
house had been found in practice dtte't4 etatory.--
( Hear, hear.) Since the opinion of the Freneil
had been given in evidence, the Committee had the opportu-
nity of receiving a report made by Marshal Soult to the
King of France in 1832 and 1 833 on the state of the penal
cerepeniee iii that amyl and his conclusive opinion was that
they were a decided faitere. On the subject of solitary im-
prisdnmeet, he IT dirq admit that up to a eettain point it wns
an tidritirpbl ars4ngeitient = but he had looked with great in-
tercet into jilt: teititheny of the Rev. Mr. Steuart of Aber-
deen, respecting Its titteratititt in Psccifirind, grid be Found that,
although it was calculated to succeed in mativ histeeees, it
was by no means the universal panacea it had been described,
and that what was meant in mercy had frequently a different
result. The French service employed three different species
of punishment instead of flogging these were the travaux
foreess, the boast.; and the galleys; all very severe and dis-
graceful; where each of the erireirtals was condemned to suffer
in the sight of all. The punishment of the boulet ought, per-
haps; to be classed with that of flogginss, far it was actual cor-
poral punieliment of a very serious kind. Men were kept
for fist or ten yems at hard work together, wholly shut up
from the World, dragging ti cannon ball affixed to the body by
a chill, the French array was very, different from ours,
made up as it Wag of foilitli-flftlis conscripts and one-fifth sub-
stitutes. The crimes of' did latter mast an the nature of things
be far more easily restrained by the agency and example or a
superior class in their ranks than in ours, which were all corn-
posed of substitutes. The Hon. Member for Middlesex laid
great grog on the good effect of the principle of rewards on
those who voluntarily entered the French ranks, but he (Lord
Howick) believed they were not a whit better than those who
voluntarily entered our own. But the Hon. Member, assu-
ming the contrary, had jumped to an erroneous conclusion.
The fact was, that in the Ptenell army more severe punish.
melte note actually in use, than those which were now pro-
posed to be bite away with in ours, without at the same time
providitig or stibstitiititig any others of a better class. But in
the Yreeeii they eorpbral punishment was very far from being
done away with, eetteithstanding ail that was said, for the pri-
vates punished those wiscifti 'they thinly deserve it at their hands,
as on active service the whole cottipetty suffered military re-
straint to the default of their comrades. Under such circum-
stances they Infilet the punishment of the sabot with go much
seventy that the ()Wendell flit frequently sent to the hospital in
consequent e, l§ottiething of the same kind is found prevail-
ing in our service, tettfied 011'1011y Courts-Martial, though
the commanders do their best to elifiek it, The condemned are
beaten with the slings of the muskets, and with a degree of
severity that far exceeds that of the lash. If corporal punish-
ments were abolished by the House the men would be driven,
in their own defence, to adopt this course systematically. The
good soldier is as entious for ties punishment of the bad as his
Commander can be.--(dheers:) lilt would beg to call the
attention of the House to the iiiigetetS given by the Member
for Middlesex (Mr. Hume) to one or Laid questions put to him
when examined before the Commissional. [The answers
were read. The substance of them was, that for the preven-
tion of plunder by the men on service, and to presant violation
of orders, he saw no means but corporal punishment:, and
would not do away with it in time of war. If men turned to
plunder they must be repressed. ] If such were the opinions
of the Hon. Member for Middlesex, how could he vote for
this motion, which went to do away with military punishment
altogether, whether at home or on service ? He would also
ask the Hon. Member for Surrey (Major Beauclerk) how he
could vote for it ? Were those Hon. Gentlemen prepared to
give a vote in opposition to their own recorded opinion? If
they admitted that corporal punishment was necessary on ac-
tual service they admitted all he required, because in this
way the power of corporal punishment would remain the law.—
( Hear, hear, hear.) He drew a great distinction be-
tween the exercise of the power and the existence of it. , Let
it be once abolished at home, and it would be impossible to
retain it on service. The Member for Middlesex was asked
before the Commission why he would subject the British sol-
dier to the degradation of corporal punishment before the
enemy, where the danger, and possible inconvenience, of such
a course, must be greater than at home ? The Hon. Gentle-
man evaded the question; When pressed upon the point the
Hon. Member said nothing to the purpose. He would not
answer upon compulsion. The Hon. Member does not deny
that if the punishment be once abolished at home it must be
abolished on service. How could he reconcile this with what
he had before stated, that it would be impossible to do away
with the punishment altogether? Sir John Woodford's evi-
dence did not coincide with the opinion of those who would
entirely abolish the punishment. What he said was, that
it ought not to be inflicted at home, for the common and
ordinary military offences. Now in this he (Lord Howick)
did not differ from him. In fact Sir John Woodford
formed a plan, not for doing away with corporal punish-
ment, but for the more speey infliction of it. He road
the evidence of the second officer to whom he alluded,
Sir Octavius Carey, with great attention, and so far
as he could understand it he appeared to be quite undecided
on the question, to have come to no fixed decision, to be quite
a sceptic. In his answers before the Commissioners he said
that when in command of the 57th Regiment he endeavoured
to obviate the necessity of corporal punishment, and succeeded
in a great measure, but not completely. The men were aware
that he had determined not to inflict corporal punishment, but
they were aware at the same time that he had the power to do
so. Now he held in his hand returns from this regiment for
four months, showing the number of corporal punishments in-
flicted in that time. These four months did not elapse at the
time he first joined the regiment, in 1820, and when he might
be supposed nut to have yet entered upon the experiment of
doing away with corporal punishments. Tile first month em-
braced by this Return was November, 1822. Now, on the 2d
of this month a man was sentenced to 300 lashes, and received
the whole ; on the Bth of November, 300 lashes, the whole in-
flicted; on the 28th of November, 300 lashes, 225 inflicted;
on the 30th of November, 300, the whole inflicted ; on the 2d
of December, 300, the whole inflicted • on the 20th of De-
cember, 300 lashes, all inflicted ; on die 2d of .January, there
were two punishments, the one of 600, the other of 800 lashes
_in the case of the 600 there was a pardon, but the whole
of the 800 were inflicted; on the 3d of February, 300, the
whole inflicted ; and on the Ist, another sentence of 300
lashes, all inflicted. Now here, in a regiment where an en-
deavour was making to do away with corporal punishments,
there were no less than ten inflicted in the short space
of four months. In each of the ten cases the punishment ex-
ceeded the maximum now proposed by the Government.
Whatever therefore might have been the theory of Sir Octa-
vius Carey his practice did not seem to have coincided with it.
He could not conclude without referring to the evidence of the
Duke of Wellington, given from his experience in the Penin-
sular war. He said that in the beginning of the war they were
obliged to inflict a great deal of punishment, but towards the
close of it the army was brought into such a state of discipline
that the exercise of the power became almost entirely unneces-
sary. It had been said the power was not now exercised, and
therefore that there could be no use in retaining it. The argu-
ment was not conclusive. The Member for Middlesex made
some allusion to motives, as if the Government could be influ-
enced by party motives in such a question as this. Why, if
they looked only at selfish objects, they would have the
strongest inducements to concur in the motion.
Mr. ROBINSON thought the House ought to affirm the
proposition now before them.. A better system of rewards and
encouragements would render it unnecessary, at least at home.
Major BE AUCL ERK said there was one assertion of the
Noble Duke (the Duke of Wellington) at which he could not
help expressing his surprise, though no person held his high
military talents in greater admiration. The Noble Duke
said that flogging was no longer considered a disgrace
in the army. It was held as a disgrace by every honest well-
conducted man in the army. They had been told that men
were so fond of flogging as even to flog each other when com-
pany Courts-Martial decided. In cases of company Courts-
Martial he never knew more than eight or ten lashes given.
A Noble Lord (Lord W. Bentinek) who honoured that
House by his presence, not because he was a Lord, but be-
cause of his high character, had done away with this punish-
ment among the native troops of India. If it were abolished
among those who were, comparatively, barbarians, was it to be
supposed that it could be much longer continued among Bri-
tish troops? '['hey must alter their system, and hold out en-
couragements to enter the army. Ile often witnessed in coun-
try towns and villages the horrors in which flogging was held.
lie was himself once assailed by a mob, who cried out that
flogging was the motto of the regiment.
Sir H. HARDINGE rose, and said that when he looked
at the evidence of the Hon. and Gallant Member he found
the most distinct admission that words could convey, that the
Hors. and Gallant Member never had, and never would main-
tain, that it was possible to do away with corporal punish-
ment.—( Hear.)
Major BE AU CLE RK said that his words were, that cor-
poral punishment might be necessary in actual warfare.
Sir H. H RD IN G E resumed—ln answer to the question,
No. 782, the Hon. and Gallant Member said, " I have never
maintained that on actual service corporal punishment could
be done away with.—( Hear, hear.) I think it stands to rea-
son that the officers should have some additional power."—
(Hear.) Now he (Sir 11. Hardinge) would appeal to the
House whether it was possible for any man to come to an un-
derstanding of this passage opposed to that which lie had
stated ? Now, when the Hon. and Gallant Officer, who had
not had not an opportunity of. seeing much service, and who
ventured to criticise the evidence of the Duke of Wellington,
and to refer to that Noble Lord who had held the highest
situation in India, and who had taken upon himself a step the
most responsible man ever took--( Hear, hear)—wheit the
lion. and Gallant Member appealed to that Noble Lord, he
( Sir 11. Hardinge) felt convinced, from his knowledge of that
Noble Lord's sentiments, he would agree with him ( Sir li.
Hardinge), and the Hon. and Gallant Member himself, that
corporal punishment could not be done away with in actual
service. Nothing could be more important than the testimony
of the Hon. Member for Middlesex on this subject. That
lion. Member stated that nothing could be more clear than
that every officer in the field ought to have the power of in-
flicting punishment, and that it was absolutely impossible to
conduct an army with any success unless the officer possessed
this Power. What, he would ask, was the opinion expressed
the lion. and Gallant Member for Westminster? That
Ho's. and Gallant Member stated that it was impossible to do
away with this punishment. The evidence given to the Com-
esission by that Gallant Officer was marked by great modesty
and ability, but he took the narrowest 'ground that it was pos-
sible for any man to take on such a subject. The Honourable
and Gallant Officei• said that he was in favour of the abolition
of corporal punishment, not because it was cruel but because
he thought that it had failed in its object—because lie thought
that such a species of punishment irritated the public mind,
said that Government was bound to submit itself to the public
op inion. But what did this Gallant Officer do when he went
abroad ? - He declared that it was necessary to retain coporal
punishment abroad, and that he thought the Commander-in-
-ChM of an army in the field ought to be a dictator. The
' 110416 would probably recollect a motion nice by this same