The Sun.
London, England, 1842-04-16 00:00:00

COLONIAL CUSTOMS.

Mr. M. GIBSON asked if the Right Honourable
gentleman opposite meant to bring on his resolutions on
the Colonial Customs Bill that evening.
Mr. GLADSTONE said he should be governed by the
convenience of the House. If there was time he should
probably bring it on after the Mutiny Bill was disposed of.
Mr. LABOUCHERE thought the Mutiny Bill might
occupy much time in the discussion, and if the Ordnance
Estimates were to be brought on afterwards, it would be
hardly possible to enter on the Colonial Customs' Bill.
Sir R. PEEL said it would entirely depend on the du-
ration of the debate on the Mutiny Bill.
THE MUTINY BILL—FLOGGING IN THE ARMY.

The Order of the Day having been moved for the third
reading of the Mutiny Bill,
Capt. BERNAL said, that, in rising to bring forward
the motion of which he bad given notice, relative to
flogging in the army, he could not help expressing his re-
gret that a subject which had, on former occasions, been
submitted to the House by gentlemen of considerable ex-
perience, should on the present occasion be introduced
by a Member possessing only his slight claims on the at-
tention of the House. He trusted, however, that he
should still have the support of Hon. Gentlemen who had
formerly voted in favour of similar motions, and especially
of the Hon. Member for Chippenham, who had identified
himself so much with the subject. He had certainly un-
derstood from what had fidlentfrom the Hon. Member on a
former evening, that he would himself have undertaken
the introduction of the motion. But he trusted that
the Honourable Gentleman, when he reflected on
the additional weight which his opinions would
have from his position in the Government, would
give expression to his sentiments in the course of
the present discussion, and that he would not be satis-
fied with giving merely a silent vote for the furtherance
of a cause of which he had always been so energetic and
eloquent a supporter. He hoped he might be allowed to
state, for the information of Hon. Members who were
not practically acquainted with the subject, the state of
their legislation on the matter. Prior to the year 1812,
there bad been limitation to the number of lashes which
might be awarded by Courts-martial. In the year 1812,
by circular from the Horse Guards, Regimental Courts-
martial were limited to the infliction of 300 lashes. In
the year 1830, District Courts-martial were limited
to the infliction of 500 lashes ; in 1832 they were limited
to 300 lashes, and Regimental Courts-martial to 200
lashes. In the year 1833, after the House had decided by
a majority of only 11 in favour of retaining corporal pu-
nishment, flogging was limited to cases of mutiny, insu-
bordination, and violence, to cases of drunkenness while on
duty, and to cases of making away with arms and ammu-
nition, or to stealing, or other disgraceful conduct. In the
year 1836, General Courts-martial were limited to two
hundred lashes, District Courts.martial to one hundred
and fifty, and Regimental Courts-martial to one hundred.
NoW, whilst no one would attempt to undervalue the
great improvements which had taken place both in
limiting the number of crimes and the lashes for which
they were inflicted, he confessed that his objectiona were
directed not only against the quantum, but the nature
of the punishment, because' in his opinion it
was not only inefficient to reform the man,
but likewise to deter others from committing the
same crimes. He quite agreed with the words which
Lord Hill was reported to have used before the Com-
mission, which sat in 1834, to inquire into military
punishments, with reference to the punishment which
was. formerly applied to a military offender, of fastening
a weight to his leg. The words of that Noble Lord were
that, " he objected to that punishment because he looked
upon it as a -punishment which was more fit
for a beast than a man." But he left it to the
House to determine whether this objection was not more
directly applicable to the punishment of the lash than to
that of fastening a weight to the leg of a soldier.—
(Hear, hear.) He knew it would be urged, with regard
to the Commission which sat in 1835, that the Report of
that Commission was conclusive against the abo-
lition of flogging in the army. He had studied
the Report with the greatest attention, and he
fully concurred in the views of the Honourable
and Gallant Member far Chippenham, who, in seconding
a motion which was brought forward in the year 1836,
declared that the evidence, contained in the Report of the
Commissioners, clearly proved the possibility of abolish-
ing that mode of punishment in the army, without injury
or disadvantage to the service.—(Cheers.) At the same
time, he was aware that it would be said that none but
military men were competent to give a judgment on this
point. Against that doctrine, however, he must
humbly but decidedly enter his protest. Every page of
that Report showed that the witnesses; had rather endea-
voured to justify the existence of the practice than to
assist a dispassionate inquiry into what the practice
ought to be. Having had the honour to hold a commis-
sion in her Majesty's army, he was sensible that
military men were in , general as humane and
considerate as the Members of any other
pro
fessbn. But the house would call to mind
that alterations in received forms of discipline were
rarely popular with the followers of any profession._
(Hear, hear.) It was a matter of history that the Judges
had shown themselves as averse to the relaxation of the
criminal code as the officers of the army to the aboli-
tion of corporal punishment. It was a curious fact that
in 1834, when the question was put to the officers—
" Are you enabled to suggest any means
of restraining or eradicating the propensity to drunken-
ness so prevalent among the soldiery, and confessedly
the parent of the majority of military crimes?"—out of
214 field-officers, to whom that question was put,
only two or three suggested moral, intellectual,
and religious instruction, as a preventative to crime!
Sir George Arthur and Colonel Oglander proposed
schoolmasters' drills, and considering all that had been
written and said on the subject, it was an extraordinary
circumstance that while much had been done, to drill the
soldier, and while his clothes and knapsack were im-
proved, and a more efficient weapon put into his band,
they had not done much for his morals—while much had
been done for the machinery, little was done for the
man.—(Hear, hear.) It was a libel on htirnan nature
to say that instruction tended to render the soldier in-