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

subordinato.—(Hear, hear.) The teaching of morals,
with the sanction of religion, never indisposed any man to
the proper performance of his duty.—(Hear, hear.) Ile
as aware that many persons held the opinion
idiot ignorance was bliss, and that when instruction well
:necessary the lower orders had the advantage of the in-
formation of others ; but he would refer to the gaol
returns lately laid on the table of the House, which
',!ould afford him a strong argument in favour of instruc-
t on. The llon. Gentleman then referred to the Report
a the Chaplain of the Preston House of Correction,
which showed that the number of prisoners decreased
in proportion to the amount of instruction
they received. He believed that in France and
elsewhere upon the Continent, the discipline of the
army was. maintained without recourse to the sys-
tem of dogging. As an instance that flogging
was .not necessary, for the maintenance of good
disciplint, he would state the instance of the Irish Con-
stabulary. Sir Hussey Vivian stated that, out of
seven thousand men, the finest en the face
of the earth, he had never seen a drunken police-
elan ; and if discipline could be maintained among
•oich a body of men without the necessity of "!.
flogging, where wes the necessity of applying
that principle to the regular army. The Douse
would call to mind, that by an order dated •,,
the 24th of February, 1835, Lord William Bentincle.
abolished flogging among the native troops in India,
and lie begged of Gentlemen to hear in mind
that he did that in direct opposition to the Opi-
nion of a military committee on the subject. ".
lie was unwilling to intrude unnecessarily upon the time
of the House, but he could not avoid quoting, in
support
-
support of his argument, the minute of Lord William
Bentinck upon this subject. Lord William Bentinck had
said that. with regard to the opinion of military men, it
was the unanimous opinion of, all the members of
military committees, that the punishment of
flogging could not be abolished.—(Hear, hear.)
They did not stop to inct'aire whether any adequate sub-
stitute for flogging tould be adopted, but they
at once declared that if the punishment of flogging
were abolished the discipline of the army
could
not be maintained. Lord William Beatinck'denounced
that opinion of the members of the military committees
as a int:re prejudice which was entirely opposed --
to reas'Jn. At the same tine his Lordship said that --
ho was not at all surprised at the existence
of that prejudice, because he could not forget that he
had for many years entertained the same prejudice, and
it was only by many years of reflection and
calm reasoning, that he had been enabled to over-
I come it. No one, however, had hitherto lll-
tempted to • defend the practice of flogging On
its own merits. He knew that he should be told that ,
unless he could devise some efficient substitute, it would
be impossible to do away with the punishment of flogging,
while the army was composed of the description of Men
who at present, generally entered the sernce,; but be ,
would ask, did they find the present system to
recruiting so efficient that it was impossible it. 1-
could he revised with advantage to the service.
He (Captain Bernal) was anxious to justify his
opinion by authorities, and he would first
quota
the authority of Mr. Fox, who had given it as his
opinion that the existing practice of recruiting wee
not consistent with the British Constitution. fir'Wyndham, too, on introducing his I tecruiting Bibs
in 1806, had said that he hoped, by introduc-
ing a better sort of men into the service, they would
be enabled to do away with corps zal punishment'
Lord Lynedoeh and Mr. Wilberforne had expressed
similar opinions. • Major-General Sir Archibald
Campbell had been examined before the Military .
Committee on corporal punishmen,t, and had given
it as his opinion, that men enlisted for a
limited period always made the best soldiers, and that
he (Sir A. Campbell) had alwt ,ys endeavoured to
get such men under his comma nd, and to induce
to re-engage. It wig' at 'be said, that
the present system of enliste lent was perfectly
voluntary. It could hardly lie said to be en'
Men were entrapped under the excitement of liquor,
and deceived by the false pretences c -f a recruiting serjeent'
to enter the service. Cout I they wonder tba4
when a youth, entrapped in this manner'
and enlisted for an unlimited period, found the'
those representations were false, and that he was at one!
subjected to the strict discipline of a regiment, witbeni
hope beyond having a pension of 6d. a day at the encl!.
' 30 years if he conducted himself well—for such a person
only granted a reward for good conduct —could theyiwonder std;
youth thus situated beoming reel :less and demoralised ? t'os.
believed it was an undisputed fact, that the propertioo.,
suicides in the army was much greater than it was in civil
He would next draw the attention of the House to there
priety of limiting the service of these men and increasinttia
number of those who rose from the ranks. He felt justitie
a.
saying, with due deference to the opinion of the Right raelye
Gentleman, and the Secretary at War, but at r.
same time with all due firmness on his (Mr. De
o
nal's) part, that it wax his humble opinion that .
would, by limiting the service of the men and be;ie
ing out the hope of ultimate promotion to them, do away a:„
the necessity of flogging, and ele vete the character of the seL
vice. The clause which he sh ould have the honour of or,
witting to the House had for its tbject the abolition of punisiv.,
menb'by flogging, reserving it c.nly in two instances-110°4
offences committed on a brie of • march, or for theft. He "he
induced to retain it in those tvve instances in deference mate_
opinion of those officers who h: al given evidence on the'
ect. They were unanimous i n the opinion that it should D.:
retained in those two instances, and he was fortified in his
sent view of the matter on reforring to the speech of the Nelal..
Lord, the Member for Liverpool (Lord Sanders), who had bec".
one of the Commission that sat in 11535 on Military Punise,
silents, and had on that occasion said that he did not considers
practicable to carry on the discipline of the army on fu.ro
service, without inflicting corporal punishment. Witail,
exceptions that he bad mentioned he thought that flog
ought to be dispensed with ; he, there fore, certainly cone em ' •
that he would have the support of the Clerk of 14,
Ordnance(Captaln Boldero). He would conclude by melt;
the insertion of the following clause in the 13iu,',
" And be it enacted, that it shall not be lawful to inflict .00
poral punishment, by Pegging, during s the time of pelte_e', Se
any private soldier, corporal, or non- commissioned olir,f„el -
the army or militia of the United Kitigdorn, save for ors • .
committed on a line of march, or fort heft."
be
The SPEAKER then put the quest ion, that the Chaose
brought up and read a first time.—Agreed to.
On the question that the clause be t ead a second time, the
Captain BOLD ERO said that he we uld first advert 10.00,0
question put to him the other night by the Hen. Gest to
the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Berns .1), and he begtt;ttle'
remind the House what that question wt ..s. The Hon. t'bie
man had asked him (Captain Boldero), whether it witi,.oo of
tention to bring forward his annual inn tion for the sib°,'',:i.ol)
corporal punishment in the army? His (Captain B° odor
answer was, that he did not mean to .do so but if .. "-
it
to that effect were brought forwai d, he would glcti-too
his support. The Hon. and Gallant IV.lember comMitteisieb it
errors ; one, in saying that it was an a nnual motion, 7o"aibets
was not; and, in the next place, it was usual in Hos. 14 sofa
asking for information from one another , that courtesy re' Ito
they should give some private information of it: stir
te
Hon. and Gallant Officer had overloolted this, not vn bc for
intention of annoying or embarrassing him, but no Mod in
the good of the service. Now, with egard to its be i aced
annual motion, how did the matter stand In 1836, he
for the abolition of corporal punishment.
Captain / lER NAL —You seconded die motion. d 001
Captain 'tIOLDERO—He did second the motion, 8n 40t
on the occasion, and voted for the abolition ; but bad 'treaties
for a similtir motion from that time to th;s? That be P
and totally denied. (An Hon. Member said "In 1837.'1'0 eh,
had stated, that he had voted once, and mice only, hit
lition of corporal punishment, and if his word was tioe''•sbt
Mirror ( Parliament—the record of that House—lnto b
referred to. An lion. and Gallant Friend of hi!,
ot'oe
made an annual motion on this subject, at last sbr_rder d:tes
st
doing it, and moved for a Committee of Inquiry. in 'he tre ,0
evidence taken berme it might support his views; "dart
not trouble Hon. Members for their votes,
so often unsuccessfully without further evidence. 11-tbe 'bt
Beltbsro) voted for him. In 1836, Mr. Lennard, bo,'
fileniber for Malden, gave notice when the Report OP'seorpor
up that courts-martial should not be allowed toinfliclnght,el►
punishment in time of peace. The Report was brenbolitwif;
and he (Captain 13.) spoke in favour of the
htsiaeclA
and said he considered a great triumph had been %of dro
restricting courts-martial in the number of lashes 'll,OlO
inflict, but in consequence of the improvement tiTtpulea4;o;
place from the system of rewards and solitasy ceosi;did bT
urged his Hon. Friend not to press his motion. eadjuitles
it forward, and he (Captain Boldero) left the House.% nit of
give him his support. In 1838, during the discussio
otios
question, he had been much impressed with the obs4orecretario
the Hon. Member for Sunderland, who was then tad o
War, that, as to abolishing corporal punishrocaststist net sit
better disband the army at once. Observations or .o, his eget
was enough to make the boldest n an flinch from Pub; breead
opinions in opposition to them. In 1838, alte' Acts ittbe
forward a motion relative to the Mutiny into in
moved for a Select Committee to inquire ,o forcelt
state of military punishments and rewards then 410 Gee,etrb,
the British army. On that occasion, he alludetrh`o
Evans, who had just returned from Spain, and I°ll4 to clte
standing his votes in that House, had been eons sole' ors
flogging to a great extent in the British Legion i%angeel `.ll
had not retracted his opinions merely when he hadsc„utioy 131 sle
for ever since the year 1838 he had allowed the P,
notion. but
plies unnoticed without his bringing forward any
oitered; one
confessed that his opinions upon the subject were,lo it'd oge
he would give his vote with perlect confidence :r ht to ed it
which no one could disapprove of. He had aHA
churl that
his opinion whenever he might. please, and he
~o 0,0
sn
while sitting upon the other side of the House. al fans' spa
be had ever expressed a determination to brilisbascatt,
annual motion fur the abolition of corporal 1,a4i,c00..,..-ettss
be would confidently leave the House to judge °I int/TY irdiog
Mr. J. HO WAI-ID said that in his (Tiniest ler us 551. less
martial ought to be entrusted with the Pal no Is's° oltea
corporal punishment. For his part. he knew l? 1 he wits be
abused, or inure satisfactorily exercised ; and to betr t"
by 'what tribunal he should wish above alt oche rsi.,_onsiinrios
should certainly choose a court-martial. Notsv tr:tes °! the the
able speech of the Hon. Member for Cbippenharaoteersa_r
of the officers high in the service, and amongst core bad
first soldier of his age, the Duke of weitjagtono
st tiles ~eal
sttlfr:liyigitnhefnaevrhrimof i
nrethtaeinviinegw
whichthe p upnei shhamd
nst the Intrusted
on this subject, awl he must, therefore, vote sega'being en
_6OO
Sir HOWARD DOUGLAS said, havi soreign 1:11„ct
with the command of her Majesty's forces to
on theiirs..o,
for many years, he could not give a silent r..e,0.
experience led him
to the sincere and solte.
_sod with r_nt
not be ain't.", I,„ did P,„
brought forward by the Hon. Gentleman
solemn
_rUite
this mode of punishment could
althougo
safety to the British service ;
and wishes on this subject, it was very
svgs by deb eras
say this without doing great anvdiolenTeee_ Wcs;oslat?ri_reets°
him to know that this obnoxious purstro7lloe)...-that the
einiitt,htrntan
ohtitertootro.
falling into disuse—(Cheers from the PP?;
that proportiohnabaats
becoming less and less frequent, and e _ tit
ablitY tn
providence and sobriety encouraged, w
future period.
would fall entirely into disuse at soma
and renaembe.l.g
moral character of the soldier should
absethraeips
iy
hear.) Looking back to his own career,
was ineictebetoloenJel
robs
frightful extent to which this punishment v
t'll doing, t 1;i
d wss hich u
not reflect upon what had been done,n
dale abatement yi
.0 foe
prove the condition of the soldier,
of lashes, without ind oo
easly daya—a recollection which made him' shudder— .0
eventually, art ob,/
a hope that these converging lines would
.) By seantnrae
distant day, be found to meet.—( Hear, r
I that c rap
etaskomen, paslabldinimtliineisphuinngishtimieennat,rnabsesrvell by restrieting to
prove
punishment was restricted to the . , negleolog
the army regulations, page 2-52,
insubordination, the use of threatening tang
was the P-tiken
away with arms and accoutrements. IN
° tost care 1"11
duty, theft, disgraceful conduct, stealing,
anent restricted to these crimes, but the gre!
to present the partishment from being low
i t wfneuunldw
ibnegsecrirneo....s.o.t:
taonndlyselling or ttpist,