The Sun.
London, England, 1832-06-20 00:00:00

entitled to read ettracts from printed book. as part of hly
speech. This, however, he would say, that never, since
Le had enjoyed the honour of filling that chair, had he
heard so long an extract as that which the lion. Member

for Preston bad just read to the House.
Mr. Hu yr would forbear, as far as was practicable,
from reading the arguments of Mr. Shipp to the House,
and would confine himself entirely to his fads. He re-
colleeted, however, that on one occasion, when he was a
mere listener in the gallery, he had hoard the late Sir J. C.
Hippisley reading a pamphlet—and a pamphlet of his own
too—for two hours and a half, against Catholic eman-
cipation.
Hn Hon. MEatfaxa—" In favour, you mean."
Mr. HUNT—No matter for that : it was on the sub-
ject of Catholic emancipation. The Hon. Member, after
reading further extracts, for which we have not room,
from Mr. Shipp's pamphlet, proceeded to notice another
abuse, which deserved the attention, not only of the Se-
cretary of War, but of all his colleagues in the Administra-
tion ; for he believed that the practice, to which he was
alluding, was as illegal, as it was in a moral sense tyranni-
cal. He understood that it was not macustomary for com-
manding officers to give an offending private the choice of
receiving a certain number of lashes, say 50, in secret, or
of abiding the sentence of a court-martial. Now, there
could be no doubt as to the illegality of this practice, and
therefore he trusted that orders would be issued immedi-
ately for its discontinuance. The Hon. Member then
proceeded to read Mr. Shipp's descriptio❑ of the military
punishments inflicted in 1808, in Jersey. At that time
the ordinary punishment was 1,000 lashes. As a stated
interval elapsed between each lash, the punishment gene-
rally lasted three hours and 20 minutes. As there were
three knot. in each tail, and as there were nine tails to the
cat, 27,000 knots were struck into a man's back during
that geriod of protracted agony. Many of the soldiers
fainted away during its infliction from the intensity of
their bodily sufferings ; but not a drop of water were they
allowed to cool their parched and burning palates. Gen-
tlemen who recollected a certain book, would recollect
what an individual there offered for a drop of water to cool
his palate.
Colonel DAVIES—Ay, but that was the rich man.
Mr. HUNT—" And I am speaking here of the poor,
and wretched, and tortured private soldier." The Hon.
Member, after reading other extracts, said, that the infe-
rence which Mr. Shipp drew from all the facts which
had fallen under his notice, was this—that no good was
ever derived from flogging ; or that, if any good was de-
rived from it, it was only the despair which induced some
few soldiers, who had suffered under the lash, to ruch madly
upon the enemy's bayonets in the field, in the hope of
ridding themselves of a life which the ignominy of this
torture had rendered intolerable. He, therefore, protested
against the inutility as well as against the inhumanity of
this practice. He had long been anxious to get rid of it.
He knew that flogging was inflicted now much less fre-
quently than it was formerly. He recollected that at the
period when their excellent Speaker was Judge Advocate,
the amount of flogging was reduced to a standard much
lower than that at which it stood when first he came into
office. It then became the fashion with several officers

in the command of regiments to report that few corpora
punishments occurred in their regiments. He hoped tbs
this fasision still continued , but when he heard of such a
flogging as had recently occurred at Birmingham, and
when he heard of the floggings which occurred so fre-
quently in the Bird-cage-walk, he was afraid that it did
not, and therefore he must appeal for support in his mo-
tion to the Right Hon. Baronet opposite (Sir J. C. Hob-
house), who had formerly been so strenuous an advocate
fur the abolition of this mode of punishment.
Sir J. C. HOITIOUSE and Mr. HuME rose together.
Sir J. C. Hostronsr, however, gave way.
Mr. HUME proceeded to state his determination to
support this motion. He had himself read with no less
pain than pleasure, the able pamphlet of Mr. Shipp. He
had conversed with Mr. Shipp upon it, and it appeared to
him that Mr. Shipp's statement was worthy of serious
attention. Mr. Shipp was not unknown. He was one
of the most gallant soldiers in the East India army.—
(Hear.) He had led no less than five forlorn hopes, and
was now in the receipt of a pension from the East India
Company. He believed Mr. Shipp's statement to be per-
fectly correct, and he believed that no man could rise up,
from its melancholy details, without feeling that many
brave men had been destroyed,—he had almost said,—
murdered by the flogging system. Mr. Shipp had ad-
mitted to him, that when he (Mr. Shipp) left the army—
Mr. R. GRANT—When was that?
Mr. HUME—About eight or nine years ago;—but
Mr. Shipp admitted to him that when he left the army,
severity of punishment was beginning to disappear. The
The Hon. Member observed, with reference to the case of
Somerville, with whose petition he had been intrusted,
that there were very recent instances of severe punish-
ments by courts-martial.
Sir J. HOBHOUSE did not think he he had any rea-
son to complain of the manner in which the Hen. Member
had brought forward his motion. At the same time be
must confess that the details which he had read front the
pamphlet were made up of facts connected with the previous
practice of the army, and could not be connected with the
present practice. There bad been a very great change in
the discipline of the army ; and it was no doubt the general
feeling, not only of the country, but the service, that it
would be advantageous to abolish, or at least to suspend,
corporeal punishments there. With reference to the op-
tion of receiving corporal punishment without a court-
martial, instead of a chance of a greater punishment with
a court-martial, he could assure the House that that did
not take place at all. As to secret courts, there were va-
rious courts in the country whose proceedings were secret,
so far as the public were concerned ; but reports of courts
martial were always transmitted to the Horse Guards, and
of course the proceedings might, on a proper occasion, be
forthcoming, and be laid before the House. The Hon.
Member for Preston knew his (Sir J. C. Ilobhouse's) sen-
timents on the subject ; for when he alluded to the matter
i❑ the debate on the army estimates, he had told him what
they were. It was a mistake to suppose that he (Sir J.
C. Hobhouse) had changed his opinions; he had not
changed them. With regard to Somerville's case, be
had inquired at the Horse Guards the moment
he had received information of it. With respect
to the possibility of inflicting corporal punish-
ments by instalments, it could not be done, and the peti-
tioner was mistaken if he thought this was the practice of
courts martial. As to the proposed address to the Crown,
he was not sure that the King was able to carry into effect
the abolition or suspension of corporal punishments. It
was a novel thing. He begged to say that he (Sir J. Hob-
house) in conjunction with his Right Hon. Friend (Mr.
R. Grant) and with the sanction of the Commander-in-
Chief, bad, in framing the Articles of War, been able to
reduce the number of lashes from 300 to 200 inflicted by
regimental courts-martial, and by garrison courts-martial
from 500 to 300.—(Hear.) This was an attempt at re-
gulation, and he could assure the House that there was
the greatest disposition in the army to discourage corporal
punishments.
Mr. ROBINSON was ready to support the motion of
the Hon. Member for Preston. Flogging was a most bru-
talizing and degrading punishment, and unless a better case
could be made out for the necessity of continuing it than
had been stated by the Right Hon. Baronet, he (Mr. Ro-
binson,) should be ready to support any measure short of
abolition.
Col. EVANS supported the motion. The severity of
corporal punishments was one of the reasons which deterred
persons from entering the army. In the time of war he,
as a professional man, would not have recommended the
suspension ; but in time of peace he thought the experiment
might be made.
Mr. KEMMIS suggested that the power of inflicting
lashes might be taken from regimental courts-martial, and
the power of punishment by hard labour or solitary con-
finement substituted.
, Mr. R. GRANT doubted whether the motion could
be entertained, and whether the crown had the option of
varying the Articles of War. The Right Hon. Gentle-
man repeated the statement of the Secretary at 'War, that
the practice of the army in respect to corporal punish-
ments had altered since the time referred to by the Hun.
Member for Preston.
Colon! DAVIES also remarked that the present system
of discipline in the army was entirely different from that
described in the pamphlet. The last instance mentioned
there was in 1808. He was disposed to concur i❑ the
' suggestion of the Hon. Member (Mr. Kemmis), to take
' away from minor courts-martial the power of inflicting
corporal punishments, which might be safely instrusted to
district courts.
Mr. CALCRAFT during. the short time he had been
in the army, had observed that corps in which corporal
punishment prevailed were generally inferior, and that a
flogged man was a lost man.
Sir J. BURKE hoped the House would feel that the
present motion ought not to be pressed.
Mr. HUNT, in reply, urged the expediency of present,
ing the address, were it only to show the disposition of
the House o❑ the subject.
The House then divided, when there appeared--
For the motion l5
Against it
Majority 22
PARTY PROCESSIONS' SUPPRESSION (IRE-
LAND) BILL.
Mr. STANLEY moved the second reading of this Bill,