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

COLONIAL CUSTOMS.

Mr. M. G18,`4,0N asked if the tight 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 brine- it on after the Mutiny Bill was disposed of.
Mr. LABOICUERE thought the Mutiny Bill might
occupy much time in the discussion, audit' the Ordnance
Estimates were to be brought on afterwards, it would be
hardly possible to cuter 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 Lay having been moved for the third
reading of the Mutiny bill,
Capt. BENNAL said, that, in rising to bring forward
the motion of which he had 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 note 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
4,f the Hon. Member for Chippenham, who had identified
himself a 0 much with the subject. He had certainly un-
derstood from what had fallen from 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 he 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 be might be allowed to
state, for the information of lion. Members who were
not practically acquainted with the subject, the state of
their legislation on the matter. Prier to the year 1812,
there had 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 ware limited
to the infliction of 300 lashes ; in 1832 they were limited
to 300 lashes, and Regimental Courts-martial to 200
lashes. In the year 183:3, after the House had decided by
a majority of only II in favour of retaining corporal pu-
nishment, flogging was limited to cases of mutiny, insu-
bordination, ai violence, to cases ofdrunkenness while on
duty, and to cases of masking 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 onehundred.
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 objections 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 ageeed 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 applicd to a military offender, of fastening
a weight tultisieg. The words of that Noble Lord were
that, he objected to that punishment because he loukad
upiitt •it as a punishment which was more fit
for a beast 'than a man." But he left it to the
_Houle to determine whether this objection was not more
directly applicable to the punishment of the lash titan to
that of fastening a weight to the leg of a soldier.—
(Hear, heat%) He knew it would be urged, is ith 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 tke greatest attention, and he
fully concurred- in the views of the Honourable
and Gallant Mather fir 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 then were competent to give a judgment on this
point. Against that doctrine, however, he must
humbly but decidedly enter his protest. Every pae-e of
that Report showed that the witness had rather endea-
voured to justify the existence of the practice than to
assist a dispassionate itionirY into hatw 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
neral as humane anti
censiderate as the Members of any other pro
feast . But tho.o House would
call to mind
at
that .alter:tala. in received forms
of discipline were
rarely popular with the folloWors of any profession.—
(pear, hem%) It airs is matter of history- that the Judges
h;d shoa;l t !yea ats averse to the relaxation of the
criminal code.as the nilicers of the army- to the
aholi-
„,„Toral punishment. It was a curious tact thrtt
in 1814, when the quedion was put to the othe,,_
Are you enabled to smuggest any rn,ans
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 ermine!
it Ge0r;....0 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
so ldier, and while his clothes and knapsack were im-
p oved, and a more efficient weapon put into his hand,
they had not dpne much for his luorals,—whih2.nmucit had
been done .fur the machinery, little was done for the
a au.—(Hcar, .hcaa2.) It Was a libel ou hiinan nature
to say that instruction tended to render the soldier in-