The Sun.
London, England, 1846-08-08 00:00:00

the commanding officer been absent the witnessing of the inflic-
tion of the punishment would have devolved on somebody else,
and would have proceeded precisely in the same nn,nner. With
reference to the said ease of punishment, the statement that a
man had been flogged for saving ':bello" to his'itergeant had
never been contradicted, and he would undertake to contradict
it. The man had previously been confined for misconduct, and
had been warned against a repetition. His answer to the der.
geant was in an insolent tone, and it was well known that a
man might be insubordinate and insolent without saying a
word. It was for this insubordination that the man was
punished, and that punishment was necessary to keep up the
discipline of the army.
Mr. WILLIAMS said, he heard the statements of the
Noble Lord with great regret, and be was sorry that he should
have taken shelter behind the back of the Coramar.4-#,lu-,
Chief. The Duke Of 111{:iiington had not the, tc, apply
the lash tn ,
tl.e back of a soldier sn, Mote, tha;i the merest
corporal in the army. 74a power was vested iu the Queen,
and ;;iven tn.Leti exilessly by 10..rliaroe.r.t., with the strict pro-
yt,,.o that it snouid not, affect life and limb. It was most unjust
throW the responsibility upon the Duke of Wellington. It
lay entirely with lie;. Majesty's Ministers and advisers. They
onght to 'nuye a definition of the eat-o'-nina- calls, for they had
it in evidence before them that f,fty lathes were equal to on'e
hundred , and whereferc, be the use of 1.111116" g f'.‘e num-
ber, when the mode of giving the puniahment `':Auld be varied
it Imo t ? There can-slit so be, a -res,clonsibility some-
where for the death of Ilia Ilan. The 1'17; did not allow that
life or itnh shn-ild be affected ;but.. .as that carried out? No;
and if there was a reisnO.:.sibility laid upon some person
it would go far to ',.cmove the dangers of the infliction of
this Punisbnient, if it was still to be continued._-( Hear,
hear, Napoleon was as good a soldier as the Duke of 'Wel-
lington, and he abolished the punishment of flogging,
AN HON. MEMBER—No, no. It was the Convention.
Mr. WILLIAMS—WeII, the Prussian army does not allow
this punishment ; it does not exist in the French army, and
where can yon find better armies in the world ?—(Hear,
hear.) There was a frightful power also vested in captains of
ships, who could give forty-eight lathes. a number which in
the navy fully equalled one hundred in the army, It was not
to be endured, that the punishment should be continued, and
he called upon her Majesty's Government to reconsider their
determination.

Captain LAYARD aaid that he was not disappointed in
the ccurse adopted by the Government, and ho rejoiced that
the princple had been so fully recognised that corporal punish-
ment might be wholly done away with. He formerly was an
advocate of corporal punishment in the army, but he had
changed his opinion even long before it was at all popular to
attempt to meddle with the discipline of the army. But he
now believed that public opinion had now set in so strongly
that it would be impossible to stem the time. He was con-
vileed that her Majesty's Ministers had used great exertions
to introduce this change among the heads of the army.
Mr. FOX MAULE— Oh no, no, by no means.
Captain L AYA RD—Well, it seemed that it was not so, but
he would say that it was a very late conversion. If he were a
private soldier he would much rather be shot than flogged.—
( Hear, hear.) (Mr. Fox Maille shook his head.) The Hon.
Member shakes his head. Good God 1 would it not be much
better ? who would not prefer to be shot through the head
than be floggee, acid die in a week? Th.. Hon. Member then
att ver o O ti,. ‘-‘4.,: that flogging had been abolished an IncLa
under Lord W. ilentinck.
An Hoig, ItIE.NIBER,—Oh, it has been restored.
Captain LAYARD was sorry to hear it, but it was an answer
to the objection that they could not restore the punishment if
they once al.olished it.—(Hear, hear.) He was cc.nvinced
that the army could not be held together if they continued the
system. Twenty lashes was the utmost that could be given in
the Russian army.
Lord J. RUSSELL—On what authority do you state that
is authentic?

Captain LAYARD—He could assure the Noble Lord that
he would not bring anything before the House which was not
so. He held in his hand the testimony of Dr. Marshall, as to
the truth of his assertion, and the fact was very well known.—
( Hear, hear.) And they were in England engaged at that
moment discussing the clemency which reduced the punish-
ment from 150 lashes to 50—( Hear, hear, and cheering)—
when in Russia there could only be twenty lashes inflicted,
and that as a maximum of punishment. The Honourable
Member then read an anecdote of a soldier, viho, being con-
demned to death for a mutiny, obtained leave of his command-
ing-ofileer to go to Glasgow to transact some private business,
and gave himself up at the end of the time to meet his fate.
The man was not executed, the lot of death having fallen on
one of his comrades. The Hon. Member then read several ex-
tracts to prove that it was impossible for the medical
man to be certain in his opinion, or answerable for the
life of a man who should only receive fifty lashes. The Hon.
Member also read an opinion from Sir John Cam Hobhouse,
in .1-127, in which he said that flogging ought to be abolished,
and that the custom rendered our army, instead of being
before, second to the French. The principle of enlistment
ought to be changed, and if it was so they would have no ne-
cessity to continue corporal punishment.
Mr. NEVILLE had listened to the speech of the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government upon this subject, and if
he might be allowed to make a remark upon it, he would say
that he was sorry it had not gone further in the right direction.
When he heard so much said upon the condition of the soldier
he could not refrain calling the attention of the House to the
case of the military knights of Windsor, whom he thought
were not sufficiently cared for by the Government of this
country.

Colonel REID said that he could not shrink from the per-
formance of a public duty on the present occasion ; he had
served in her Majesty's army for thirty years, and that
nothing but an imperative sense of duty had induced him to
come to the c mclusion that at the present moment corporal
punishment could not be done away with in the army. He
thought that different degrees of crime deserved different de-
grees of punishment, and the soldier who could rob from the
box of his comrade, who slept near him, deserved greater
punishment than the man who had been guilty of nothing more
than a mere neglect of duty. Punishment by flogging in the
army had the effect also of preventing the commission of crime
among the other soldiers of the regiment. Imprisonment was
no punishment at all; it was looked upon by the men as a sort of
relief from their duties; it had not the same effect upon the
individual as upon that of the civilian ; corporal punishment fearedon
the contrary had a moral effect, and the bad soldier it
on account of the physical infliction. He thought it very easy
to inflame the public mind upon this subject, and lead them
away by false statements of the abhorence and disgust with
which soldiers viewed the infliction of corporal punishment.
It was a well-known fact that in the army a system was pursued
some years since, by which the soldiers themselves held a
court-martial on any man who might have committed any
action that was considered disreputable to the regiment, and
had power to inflict a corporal punishment on the offender.
In the regiment to which he belonged (one of the regiments
of the Household troops), but two cases of flogging had taken
place for a number of years ; one of them was for theft, and if
the offender had been handed over to the civil
power he would have been transported for life.
That sentence was not, however, carried into effect
by his consent ; he had tried to prevent the infliction, but
the Commander-in-Chief refused to interfere with the
sentence. It was accordingly carried into effect,
and since that time not a single crime of that nature
had taken place. (Hear, hear.) He thought the best
course which could be adopted with reference to the army
would be to try to raise their moral position, and give them
the means of recreation, amusement, and education. Such a
course had been productive of most beneficial results in the
regiment to which he had the honour to belong. He had
established libraries for the use of the soldiers, some ground
lead been obtained at Windsor for their use, and he had
endeavoured to establish savings' banks in the regiment, but
they had failed, because the soldiers were afraid that the
knowledge of their savings would get to the Government,
and they might then make an attempt to reduce their pay,
With regard to the personal comfort of the soldier, he would
state that he had not the common means of washing himself, and
he felt that he ought not to be punished if he was found defi-
cient in cleanliness on parade. There were no less than
twenty or thirty nen crowded together in ,the same
sleeping-room ; and, in addition to the want of clean-
liness which this produced, it was destructive to
health.—(Hear, hear.) The atmosphere of such rooms was
posi'ively deleterious, and day after day his heart was made sick
at the scenes which he witnessed. 'With regard to discharges,
he thought that soldiers should obtain them before they were
worn out, and made unfit for all civil employment. It was too
bad, that at the end of their service they were sent away with
only a pension of 6d. par day. There was the case of a man
who had served 21 years, and an opportunity having offered for
his obtaining a good situation, he ( Col. Reid) advised him to
apply for his discharge, and after a correspondence on the sub-
ject, it was refused by the Secretary at War, on tile ground
that there was no special reasons to justify it. The situation
was afterwards filled up, and the man becoming invalided about
a year afterwards, he was discharged with a full pension,
which would have been avoided if his application had been
granted. _ _ _

Mr. B. OSBORNE had listened vv:th some attention

to the statements which had been made on this subject,
but he could not agree in the opinion that the time had come
when flogging should be abolished. It was not necessary that
the raw-bone style of oratory should be employed to depict the
cruelties of this system. He held that the question should be
regarded not only as to its effect on the army, but also on so-
ciety. He was afraid that he would not please the admirers
of William 111., when he stated that the pugishment originated
with that great commander. It had always been the custom to
select the lowest grade of seciety for the army, and that being
so, it required them to be cautious in taking away this
punishment before they got the army recruited from a better
class. He objected to the introduction of solitary confinement
into the army, as he had known several instances in which it
had been of the greatest injury. Lord Bexley had
prayed the Legislature to abolish the solitary
system in the Milbank Penitentiary, and to introduce
corporal punishment in its stead, it had been found so in-
jurious. He would next refer to the abolition of flogging in
the French army. It was abolished in 1794 ; but what had
been the punishments awarded in its stead? Why, in that
army there were forty-five offence3 for which the punishment
was death.—(Hear, liear.) He thought flogging was much
better than such a state of things.—( Hear, hear.) There
must be some kind of instantaneous punishment, and flogging
was the best punishment of this kind that could be adopted.
In the French army the punishment of death was awarded
for striking an officer, while there was in common use what
was called the punishment of the " pulley," which was, at-
taching a cannon-ball to the leg of the party, with which he
had to move about for twelve years.—(Hear, :hear.) Such
was his answer to the Hon. Member for Coventry regarding
the French service. Toere was another point on which he
(Mr. Osborne) joined issue with the Honourable Mem-
ber for Coventry. He did not think with that
Honourable Member that the soldier was overpaid.
d.
Far from it. Considering the privations he had to
of comparative
virtue crp undergo,tiveara
great exertions, and his having to leave a
for that of military strife, he thought the common
soldier was most inadequately rewarded. He was paid worse
than any husbandman, and it would be impossible to get a
gaod body of soldiers until a reform was made in this respect.
There ought to be every encouragement for a higher class of
c
uits, and for that purpose they should give higher re-
ward.rer With regard to flogging, he agreed to some extent with
the Hon. Member for Bolton, but not to the whole extent.
He was not for the entire abolition of flogging like that Hon.
Gentleman. He (Mr. Osborne) con,idered that some
punishment should be retained, and a limited application of
fogging was he thought best for this purpose, and such was the
opinion of Sir Samuel Homily, who had been quoted as an
authority on the other side of the question. Both Sir Samuel
Romily and Mr. Wilberforce took that view of the ques-
tion. It was their opinion that there was
another party to be consulted as well as the soldier,
and that was the civilian.—( Hear, hear.) What would they
think, if in the line of march the soldiers were to commit any
flagrant breach of discipline, and there was no instantaneous
punishment of this kind to appeal to? He would, under
existing circumstances, vote with the Hon. Member for
Bolton, though he thought the power of flogging should still
be retained on a line-of.battle march. In the event of that
motion failing, then he would propose the motion as to
limitation of flogging, according to the principles he had laid
down, and of which he had given notice.—( Hear.)
Captain LAYARD offered a few words of explanation re-
specting an alleged discrepancy between certain returns he
had quoted from, and which had also been referred to by the
Hen. Member who last addressed the House.
Mr. FOX MAULE said the lion. Member who had just
sat down had made a most conclusive speech in favour of the
retention of the power of inflicting corporal punishment in
the hands of the military authorities, yet he concluded by de-
claring that he would vote with the Hon, Member for Bolton,