Star.
London, England, 1827-03-13 00:00:00

described ,
C•tir t Ma,. . ass from all that he
(Sir A. Hope) had seen . , he was in-
clined to consider them in the same light. Command-
ing Officers felt the responsibility in which they were
placed, and they were careful not to inflict unnecessary
punishment. Hon. Gentlemen bad spoken of a distinct
motiockon,thieslthject, and bethought to reserve any,
furthir remarks Opon the question until such a motion
shoulibe made. •
Colonel TRENCH maintained that the punishmentl,
was tar from being so degrading'*' it had been repre-
sented to be. He could see but little difference between
the boy who at the rive of 16 was gogrd at school, and"
the one who wasfloggsid in the army. It appeared to
him that the degradation of the punishment had really
been so much esagg,rated,that it had become t id,calous.
Mr. C•W.WYNN begged to know from the Speaker,
what was the eirtn Ms before the House ?
The SPEAKER—+M That this Bill be read a
third time."
Mr. C. W. WYNN suggested to the House that it
would be better to postpone any further remarks on the
subject, until the new clauses, of the proposal of which
notice bad been given, should be brought under its
consideration.
Os the question being pat from 'the Chair that the
Bill be read a third time •
Mr. LEYCESTER said, that be row to propose an
additional clause for the aJoption of the House. He
objected to any authority being attached to the opinion
of military men, as they were too much interested in the
question to be (anly considered as judges. After some
further remarks, the Honourable Member moved a
clause which was to this effect : is That for the space
of one year, from the present time, all corporal punish-
ment should be abolished from that part of the army
stationed in the United Kingdom, any provisions con-
tained in the Act, to the contrary notwithstanding."
Mr. WARBURTON, in seconding the Motion, re-
commended an appeal, not to the backs of men, but to
their reason.

Mr. HUME supported the proposed clause. The
Noble Lord (Palmerston) had admitted that there had
been instances of cues: of punishment, and that in it•
self was a reason why corporal punishment should be
abolished. The Melee Lord had even admitted that
there were some regiments in which no corporal punish-
mutt had been inflicted, and he (Mr. Hume) therefore
argued, that if 1,000 men could be kept in a state of
discipline without could the whole army..—He
hoped the Noose wow& adopt the clause, as it had re-
ference to the United Kingdom only, that even should
its effects be injurious, it would be most easy to guppies,
any instance of insubordination.
The clause was then brought up, and read from the
Chair a first time. On the second read ism
Colonel DA VIES said, that be wholly dissented from
the propriety of the proposed clause, and regretted that
it was his duty to do so. He was as desirous as any
one could be on the score of humanity to abolish cor-
porti punishment; but speaking professionally, he was
convinced, and be apprehended that every Honourable
and Gallant Member who beard him wouldtagree with
him in opinion, that the .present discipline of the army
sould not be supported without corporal punishment.
He was convinced that if it were put to soldiers they
would prefer corporal punishment to forced Jabot's.
sir R. WILSON said be could not believe it possible
that the mind of a British soldier was so much at va-
riance with, and so much beneath that of the s4,ldiers of
the Continent, as had been r, presented. Foreign soldiers
had hailed the abolition of corporal punishment with
delight, and he had no doubt British soldiers would do
the same. With respect to the argument of flogging
boys of 16 years of age, if it were worth any thing it
was as applicable to the officers as to the privates. He,
however, thought it worth nothing; for who, when he
took upon him the manly gown. would submit to the'
discipline adopted towards the boy ? He had con►ersed '
with a common soldier, but who had not a common
mind, who had justly remarked, instead of a system of
degradation give Us a system which shall excite emula-
tion. He (Sir K. W.) wished to take from foreigners the
power of taunting us. When he commanded the Lnsi-
tanian corps. nothing could exceed the admirable state of
discipline in which it was, yet no corporal punishment
had been had recourse to,and he was satisfied if so much
could be effected with foreign troops without it, at least
as much could be effected with his own countrymen.—
He also wished to deprive a class of persons who were'
called Englishmen, from taunting their country with
the practice of inflicting corporal punishment, by ap.
pealing to its pursuit as an extenuation of their own
crimes. He had that day read some Jamaica Papers,
in which the petty tyrants, the women !loggers of that
island, endeavoured to justify the lashes which they laid
upon the unhappy slave by a reference to our system of
military discipline. It had been allowed that an army
might be maintained in peace without corporal punish-
ment. but he would assert it might be maintained in war
also. What was done in an army before Rochelle? Some
insubordination was evinced, but instead of corporal
punishment being inflicted, an order was gives not to
permit any delinquent to have the honour of opposing
the enemy, and that course had the desired effect.—
The lower classesaproperly encouraged, would be found
u capable of generous sentiments and honourable actions
as were the higher ones. With respect to the clause
immediately before the House, it was a measure which
could not be adopted without casting an unmerited
stigma upon that part of our army which was serving
abroad. He. for one, could never consent to it, although
perhaps, its Honourable Proposer had been content
with attempting to gain a little now, in the hope of ul-
timately gaining all. But he would not support the
motion, or an amendment of it, though that amendment
were to "stead it, because a new Commander its Chief
and such a Commander in Chief too as the Duke of
Wellington had very recently been appointed, and he
thought the House would do well to see what were the
plans of that illustrious General.

The JUDGE ADVOCATE expressed his astonish-
, menet the clause having been brought forward at that
particular period. But a very short time since Ad-
I dresses of Condolence had been presented to the Throne
from every part of the kingdom, on the' death of his
late Royal Highness the Duke of York. And those
Addresses spoke not only of condolence, but they spoke
also of the high state of discipline to which the
Army had arrived. That this being the case, he wosid
ask, was that a fit time to icy experiments? One
Honourable Gentleman (Sir R. Wilson), in eulogising
the character of the late Commander is Chief, bad
said that the improvntsent is the discipline of the•

is
.he Second, the government of the army _
vested in the Crown, and the House should act
with caution in attempting to interfere with the Royal
Prerogative. If, then, the government of the army
were vested in the Crown, what punishments had the
Crown been permitted to inflict? Why, among others
was flogging, and from usage and custom it might be
considered as the common law punishment of the army.
Bat to look further, if the Crown was responsible for
the government of the army, what might not he the
consequer.ce of its being deprived of the necessary au-
thority to enforce obedience? The Right Win. and
Learned Gentleman then cited a part of the Acts of the
13th and 14th of Charles the Second, .and maintained,
that upon those Acts corporal punishment must be
considered as the common law punishment of the army.
Dr. LUSHINGTON utterly denied that the doc-
trine promulgated by the Right Hon. and Learned
Gentleman who had just addres ed the House, was in
accordance with the constitution of the land. He had
been greatly. astonished that imperious necessity had
not been onkF. more had recourse to, to induce the
House to. pint/se Bill, but he was still more astonished
that the Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman had dared
to charge their ancestors with having handed down to
them an army under the Government of the Crown,
with a common law punishment affixed to it of flog-
ging. Why, what was meant by common law, and the
InstitOtions a. the country? Why, those laws and cus-
toms which had been Is sncled down to us from time
immemsrial, Did the Right Hon. and Leone. Gen-
tleman mean to rely upon the Statute of Charles the
Second? If he did, he (Dr. Lushington) would reply,
that that contained nothing of common law ; and even
that if it bad done go, it had been abrogated long since.
He (Dr. Lushington) had been roused at hearing a high
Judicial Officer of the Crown advance the doctrine,
that the Crown had the power of inflicting punish-
meats, and tha: the common las. of the land—

The ADVOCATE-GENERAL begged to explain..
He did not mean the comm m law of the land ; but that
the usage of the army had made it so with reference to
the army.
Dr. LUSHINGTON denied that custom had or
could confer such power as to put one part of the peo-;
ple under one common law and another part ender
ano:her. No such power existed in the Crown with re-
spect to the government of the army. When orders had
been given to fire upon the people, Lord Mantfi Id de-'
mended who had given the orders, and being informed
that they were given on the authority of the Com m ander-
in-Chiet, he declared that if death were occasioned he
would commit him for murder. It was from Parlia-
ment that all authority was derived; and to prove that
such was the fact, he would remind the Right Hen. and
Learned Gentleman, that in cases of mistake the Court
of King's Bench had afforded redress, and would do to,
again. He had thought it right to say this much,,
because he could never submit to hear the Constitution
attacked in the manner which it had been; nor could I
hp help expressing his astonishment 'at hearing a
Right Honourable and L"arned Gentleman maintain
a doctrine so completely at variance with the Con.
'citation of the country. But the Right' Honourable
Gentleman had alluded to the death of the Duke
of York. He (Dr. Lusbingtoo) maintained that the
death of his' late Royal' Highness had nothing what-
ever to do with the question. It was one of those
questions which ought not to be postponed ; but it
ought to be perpe.ually and continually agitated till
we had arrived at the minimum of punishment. And
who would venture to say that we had arrived at that
minimum ?—( Hear, bear). Ten years ago they bad
been told that the army could not be maintained. with-
out
the quantity of corporal puOishment which was'
then inflicted; brit now it was asserted, and justly so,
that the late Duke of York was entitled to the gratitude
of the country for having materially reduced the '
quency and the severity of that odious and degrading
system of discipline.—[The Hon. and Learned Gent.
here alluded to a case which bad occurred in Canada,
where the corporal punishment ordered was so revere,
that an Officer, disgusted at the system, had returned
home, stated the facts to the late Duke of York, and
from him received•a promise-Of protection, which'pro-
mise had been fulfilled.]-41e strongly maintained that
the system was of a m .st atrocious character, and that
it ought to be abolishes. When they resorted to the
cat-of-nine-to& with reference to the soldier, they
punished bins is the- mace way that they would their
dog; and little astonishMent mild therefore bi ex-
pressed, if, in the time off danger and necessity, each
made a similar return. •
Lord PALMERSTON slid, that really the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman had irrissted a good deal of very
good Constitutional informatibn to very little purpose.
(Laughter.)—The Hon. and Learned Gentleman had'
so completely misrepresented Whatliad fallen from his
Right lion. Friend, that any one would live imagined
he had asserted corporal punishmtiollo big part of the
common law of the laird. But 114 RiglifTlon. Friend
had been guilty of no such abinidity. He 'had stated,
and very truly, that the government of the army was
by custom immemorial vested in the Crown, and that
that custom had been confirmed by Parliament. He
had farther stated, that corporal punishment had so
invariably been adopted in the army, that'it might be
considered as the ordinary; or common punishment;
and he (Lord Palmeiston) must confess, that he saw
nothing whatever incorrect in the statement. The
Hose would remember, that by prerogative the
Crown had the government of the army, but then
came the Bill of Rights, which gave every subject a
freedom trem corporal punishment, except by 'sen-
tence of Court Martial. Well, then, the King came
down to Parliament, and applied for the Mutiny Bill.
No soldier could be endangered in life or limb unless
for crimes specified in*the Act, within the United King-
dom, but out of the United Kingdom, tle poiver of the
Crown was left unimpaired. The only question was—
was this 'poser necessary or not? and the Hon. and
Gallant Member for Southwaik had placed it upon its
proper footing, was it expedient to have one law for
troops at home, and another for troops-abroad ? Then,
as to the small number of instances, the knowledge
that the power existed, prevented in a great degree the
necessity for its nerds*. It was difficult to know how
to deal with Gentlemen who argued that the power
was unnecessary on tallaltle of the small number of in-
stiances in avlieh it was' exerted. The number being
small, they contended tbat-lhe power was unnecessary.
Mad the number beta large, they would Oleo, no

doubt. have insisted that the power was
itabitt;:w.e:
whether the instances were few or teeny it
equally furnish those Honourable Gentienl'en
. an argument against the power. They
excused if they did not take great Pains to find
to satisfy Gentlemen who argued the Rues,
-..sser. It had been said that corporal
was not employed in the French 'army.;
but, unless he was greatly misinformed, the French
Commanders exercised an arbitrary and discretionate
power of ordering the soldiers to be beaten by their corn.
lsades with the fiat of the sword. The distinction between
bodily pain inflicted by a piece of iron is one case, and
by a piece of leather in the other, appeared to hint
to be utterly childish. Men must be governed by ton.
tives, and the temp ations to irregularity by which no,
diers were beset must be counteracted by the dread
some kind of pan or inconvenience. When the
.Member spoke of the French troy ps and of their hiri
'sense of honour, to the disparagement of British troop,,
he must remind him that the relaxation of their di,.
cipline had on several occasims gone so far •
riously to impede their operations. Toe qnestioit did
not relate merely to the soldiery, it was intimately
connected with the intei e is of the civil population—.
If Members were to come down to that Howe with
complaints of ex-esses having been committed by the
military, and should be told that Government ho'
not sufficient power to repress them, and that I
must take its course, what a burst of lrolignat:,
would be heard? Then, what were the substitutes pto,
posed in the place of corporal punishment ? They had
heard of imprisonment; but the fact was, they had oct
the means of resorting to imprisonment as a soma/
mode of punishment. Was it fit- to send soluics
the county jails for several months to no: with
vilest of characters? or were they to build a great,
number of prisons exclusively for soldiers? What
would be the exclamations of the Honourable Member
for Aberdeen if he were to sec in the estimates a chat,
of several hundred thousand pounds for building psi
sons for the benefit of the military ? The Honourable
Members had appealed to experience, hat expe;ience
was entirely against them. They seemed to think that
men who were unconnected with the army, who nem
had any thing to du with the details of a regiment, and
knew nothing of the difficulties of mar aging them,
were of all authorities the wit entitled o attention too
this subject. Upon this principle, which some Hon.tieto
tleanen found it so convenient to adopt, they ought when.
ever a qoestion connected with sugar or slaves was,
cussed, to silence any Gentleman) who knew any thing
the West Indies; when the question before the House
related to our East India p. ssessions, every man al-
sad beep at Bengal or Bombay out ht to be held t
qualified; when the subject was Corn, the Country Gee-
tlemen ought not to be loud; and, when the matter
in debate involved any of the great pi inciples et Tt
or Finance, the Political Economist, one and all, oui
to be requested to walk out of the House—(Hear,.
laughter). .He was no advocate for corporal punish•
meat, and should be glad to see them abolished if
were practicable to do so. But the truth was, that '
had only a choice of evils berme them ; and if they
prived the Crown of the power, he apprehended the
misthievous consequences.
Mr. SYKES maintained that the preamble of
Mininy Act proved that there was no. common .
right tor corporal punishment, which deadened every
mural and physical sensibility of feeling in the *oldie.
In his neighbourhood a soldier had died from the
fliCtiOn of 500 lashes; arid to this dry no inquiry
been made into the case, though a Coroner's Jury
returned a verdict of " Murder against persons
known."—(Hear, hear I) He believed these hates vs
frequent.—(No, no !)—else, why was there such hesita
tion on the part of mil tiny Commanders to make
turns of the number of persons flogged?-(Hear, hear
The subject loudly called for investigation, and iav
ligation would lead to its abolition.
Sir H. HA RDINGE read an extract from the Repots
of the Commissioners of the General Penitentiary, dated
the 7th of February, 1827, and signed by Lord Bello
to the effect that the Commissioners had tried solitary
Confinement with young and old, without success, and
considered the framers of the Act to have tendered iu
operation ineffective by omitting corporal punish-
, went—(Hear). The system of punishment with the
sword was tried 70 years ago in the British Army, bat
was abolished, from the severity of the wounds fre-
quently occasioning death. It was foolish in Hon. Mem-
bers to quote the French Army as a proof of the non•
necessity of corporal punishment to its discipline. An
Honorable and Gallant Friend of his lately saw a drum
boy shot, at Lisle, for insolence to the Drum Major;
and the superiority of British discipline over French
and Prussian was apparent, from the admission d
French Officers themselves, and from the grateful and
contrasted recollection of the conduct of the British
troops, held by the Portuguese, the Spaniards, and the
inhabitance of all commies through which the.Btitish
army marched. He marched with the Prussian and
British armies to Paris, after the battle of Waterloo;
and though flogging and bodily punishment
.were
totally abolished in the Prussian army, the inhabitants
vacated their !wean on their (the Prussian) line el
march; while they never even Shut their doors of the
fine of match of the British army. lo the regiesent
which he commanded, there were but fifteen Bogged
in the year 1828; and out of 800 delincteents during
the war, there were but fifteen or sixteen shot.—
Now in France or Prussia, from the non-existence of
bodily punishment, at least one ball of these 800 coital-
nals must have been shot—(Hear hear). The British
Officers felt flogging to be a most painful duty, 2941
would as willingly as any man in that House, des-
Ipease with it, were it possible, by any other mode, 10
maintain the high discipline of the array—(Hear, hear).
Sr A. HOPE said, that he had served both in the
ri Austrian and Russian army. He knew bet one dis-
tinction between the %hash and foreign armies, and
that was altogether in favour of the British s)ld er,
who was not subject to arbitrary punishment. The
first Mutiny Act, after the Bill of Righto gave him it
privilege of being tried by his Peers. His Judges were
upon oath ; the evidence also was upon oath ; and to
case of his being found guilty, the source of mercy was
at hand. The Mutiny Act, at the time of Charles the
Second, contained 43 cases of death, one of tortures,
and one of mutilation ; and for all these the punish-
ment of Bogging had been substituted.
Sir H.-VIVIAN declared that the British Officers
were most anxious to do away with the Sytilell2 of
Bogging, if any system, which could answer an equally
good purpose, could be substituted in its stead. He as-
sated the House that the speeches of some Nondurable
Members had h..sf the effect cleansing that punishment
which they sought to abolish ; for his own part he could
state, that when he commanded 1000 moo, he found, all

. .
desultory cOnversatioos chat bed from time tb..time Are bedlam" prodacad by a. dimiaotlas or eon potal doubt. have insisted
taket phials the-Soule uStAhlb mbleet-tad ' mid that+MugtMciwiwas kam usivaral so that whether the
letioto megthi4. T7k Prdoeitihflteetitol.discipline was toinfft• tjwltrunlyke diffork bad flypast. thi would equally furnil
muds hitt* then antothde thaVetuthkillt substituted its *ratan of Poch as poaelblvo that so mudti only et tor- pith an argument ag
iteetearh Art Hone Member he& justly described porel pitelshineut bad ken tetaided as was coward t-$ be excused if they
CoUI t Martial as a family inquiry, and from all that he the pod' order of the troops? But in considering thii arguments to satisfy
(Sir A. Hope) had seen of Courts. Martial, he was in- question, it thould be vauseasberei that by the 14th of ,tioss is this manna.
dined to consider them in the same hest. Command- Charles the Second, the government of the army had punishment was nol
~esOiNeere felt the responsibility in which they were been vested in the Crown, and the House should act but, unless he was