The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-13 00:00:00

MUTINY BILL.

Bill M
beingt . Y L
movedEC Eb y SLrfo
rEdRp-
acmoel:s
ttohne: third
to
erxepardesisnghisof this
regret,rose
that the reflections of three nights upon his pillow did not induce
the Noble Lord to alter the sentiments he entertained respecting
corporal punishment, in the army, when this subject (on Friday)
was last under their consideration. The continuance of corporal
punishment was a proof how men, by habit, became reconciled
to things the most loathsome, and how powerful was the influence
of custom in sanctioning the greatest abuses. If it were proposed
to institute corporal punishments in the Army, now, for the
first time, the proposition would be received, he was satisfied,
by indignation by the House and the country; and he was at a
loss to know why that practice, the commencement of which
they would not now sanction, should any longer be continued.—
(Hear, hear.). It could not now be defended on the ground of
necessity ; that there was no necessity for such a practice was
shown by its not being introduced into the armies on the Conti-
nent ; it was further shown by its diminished use in our own
army, and by its not being at all prevalent in our Volunteer
Corps, which were by no means composed of very manageable
stuff.—(Hear, hear.) Neither was this practice to be defended
on the ground of expediency, either legal or moral. That it was
not required by legal expediency, he would appeal to the Secre-
tary of State for the Home Department ; and he would appeal to
tie good sense and good feeling of the House that moral expe-
diency did not require it. If any Gentleman entertained a doubt
as to the propriety of continuing this odious practice, he hoped he
would throw that doubt in favour of humanity, of justice, and
christianity. Aiding in relaxing the cruel and unnecessary seve-
rity of corporal punishment in the army, the continuance of which
was a stain upon the English character. It was his intention to
move a clause restricting and limiting the power of inflicting cor-
poral punishment in the army.

Mr. J. SMITH said, that having, in the course of
the last summer, resided for three weeks in a large commer-
cial town in France lie had availed himself of the opportunity to
ascertain, by minute investigation, the means by which order and
discipline were maintained among a body of five thousand French
troops who were quartered them It was well known that the
French soldiers were not punished by blows; and that to inflict or
to receive a blow in the French army was considered equally disgrace-
ful. The punishments which were substituted for corporal punish-
ment, he found to be confinement, hard labour, and privation.
A remarkable fact had come to his knowledge, which he would
take leave to state to the House. In a conversation which he
had with an individual who was the Governor of an extensive
gaol in this country, with respect to the effect of corporal
punishment inflicted upon culprits convicted at the Quarter
Sessions, he understood that the greater part of those on whom
this disgraceful punishment was inflicted came into the gaol
again before' the expiration of a twelvemonth ! It was thus
proved that this punishment did not diminish crime, and
in his opinion it rather promoted it, as those who had been
once disgraced by its infliction were ever afterwards unable to
obtain honest employment. They who contended that the dis-
cipline of the British army could not be maintained without an
occasional resort to this punishment, were not entitled to treat
the opinions of those who differed from them with contempt until
they had tried the experiment. lie was well acquainted with a