MILITARY PUNISHMENTS

Mr. BENNETT rose, in pursuance of his notice, for leave to bring in a bill for the purpose of limiting the infliction of corporal punishments in the army. He began with adverting to the sentence which the court martial on Colonel Quentin had passed on Colonel Palmer and the officers of the 10th regiment of Hussars, and expressed his indignation at the extent of the punishment which those galiant [sic] officers had suffered. It was, however, from the punishments inflicted on the privates of that regiment, that a considerable part of his arguments on the present occasion would be founded. From a document which he then held in his hand, it appeared, that in the 10th regiment of hussars, between the 4th of January, 1813, and the 4th of January, 1814, no fewer than 62 persons had been flogged, and they had received no less than 14,100 lashes. Six months afterwards 35 were flogged. Now the severity and frequency of these punishments could not fail to excite a feeling of a moral species in the house, particularly when it was remembered, that the Horse Guards had ordered that regimental courts martial should not punish with more than 300 lashes. That was the maximum fixed by the Commander-in-Chief. In regard to the charges upon which these men had been punished, they were in general of a nature so loose, undefined, and vague, that it was impossible for the Commander-in-Chief, or indeed for any other person, to know what they were. One of them was for conduct unbecoming a soldier; and for this, the individual received 500 lashes : another, upon a charge equally indistinct, was punished with 600 lashes. There was one particular circumstance which had always operated most powerfully on his mind with respect to these punishments, namely, the utter and entire failure of their object : they appeared to have no effect whatever, and he was fully persuaded that crimes were rather increased than diminished by the severity of those punishments. He called on every military man to say, whether he had ever known a regiment or a man reformed by such severe inflictions? On the contrary, he was perfectly convinced, that every evil propensity was increased, since the miserable victim found himself degraded in his own eyes, and fallen in the estimation of his officers. The best and most intelligent men had repeatedly contended, that corporal punishments produced no reform whatever. These punishments, indeed, were the more odious and intolerable in the eyes of Englishmen, since every foreign nation had abandoned them ; they formed no portion of a system in any other nation than this. In the early period of the French revolution, the Count de St. Germain wished to introduce it into the army, but they would not submit to it. These punishments were not known in Austria, and scarcely ever inflicted in Russia, where they had been accustomed to the lash. Surely, then, no one would venture to say, that an English soldier did not feel the same degree of honour which other nations possessed. Last year he had made a very extensive tour in France and he could assure the house, that while the people spoke of the English soldiers as their benefactors, they expressed the utmost horror at the corporal punishments which they were doomed to suffer : " You have been kind to us," they said, " but your ferocity to your own countrymen is horrible." These were the sentiments of the inhabitants of Brussels, who complained that their ears were stunned with the cries and groans of brave warriors, smarting under the lash. What could be more disgusting and revolting to the souls of men? What could be more tyrannical and abominable ? One of the peculiar characters of this mode of punishment was - that it was inflicted, not in open places, and under the public eye, but in barrack rooms, and other obscure situations. What could the generous spirit of an Englishman think of this? There was no man at Charing-cross who would dare to treat an animal as we treated those unfortunate persons who had braved death in the field of battle (hear.) What, then, must the feelings of such men, when they advanced to the halberts to receive this punishment ? What must the effect produced upon their companions by such severe and terrible inflictions? He left it to the house to judge, whether some legislative provision ought not to be adopted in order to limit the extent of those punishments. He believed there were many regiments in which they were not committed, and, therefore, the legislature ought to interpose, and to make that universal which was now only partial. He proposed, that no man should receive more than 100 lashes, when on foreign service ; and no corporol punishment at all, during his residence in this country. He limited the number to 100, because he had been informed, that no man in the navy ever received more than six or seven dozen lashes. He concluded with requesting leave to bring in a bill " to limit the number of lashes to be inflicted by Courts Martial in the army."

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT, Sir M. RIDLEY, and Mr. MOORE, offered to second the motion.

Colonel PALMER, in rising to offer his opinions to the house on this most important topic, would abstain from making any observations on that part of the hon. member’s speech in which he had alluded to the sentence pronounced by the court martial on Colonel Quentin. That officer was now on foreign service with his regiment, and he (Col. P.) did not wish to enter into any particulars that might appear to be injurious to his character or feelings. He was, however, under the actual necessity of giving an explanation of those facts which had been stated to have occurred in the 10th regiment of hussars. He did not pretend to understand this subject better than any other officer who had had the same opportunity of forming an opinion upon it, but he was convinced that it was one on which none but military men could give an opinion. Nothing, indeed, could be more injurious than the agitation of this subject ; since every one must feel, that although nothing but actual necessity could justify the infliction of corporal punishment, yet that punishment was absolutely necessary for preserving the discipline of the army. He could not help thinking, therefore, that the oppositions which were made to it went more to the indulgence of popular prejudices, than to any real benefit to be derived by the country. He should be glad to know why corporal punishments were less necessary now than they were twenty years ago ? It was a plain question, and as well understood twenty years ago ; but he thought the necessity infinitely greater now than then. The army was then very small, and none were admitted into it, who did not possess good characters ; but now, from the exigency of the times, the worst possible subjects were introduced into it. In regard to the punishments inflicted on the 10th regiment of hussars, he begged to state to the house, that when the regiment arrived at Lisbon, the men were in a very disorderly state. Had the regiment been in England, where he could have made any experiments, he should have been happy to try them; but he was held responsible for the effective state of the men, and was, therefore, obliged to adopt such measures as would secure discipline and sobriety. The first step he took was, to assemble the whole regiment, and point out to them the evil consequences of their conduct ; and the result was, that in less than a month, with the exception of four or five punishments, it was reduced to as good order as any regiment in his Majesty’s service. He could say, in fact, that the regiment was never in a higher state of discipline. He then bore testimony to the humanity of the officers, and stated the manner in which drunkenness had been prevented in the regiment. It was this: to pay the men their arrears as seldom as possible, and then to give them the opportunity of spending it as fast as they could : the consequence was, that they stood at the public house till it was all got rid of, and then the officers calculated on their sobriety for a considerable interval. (A laugh). While he had the command of the regiment, only one individual had been found drunk on the parade, and the regiment thought it a justice due to them, that he should be punished. in the course of two months, not more than 9 out of 500 men were punished for that species of offence. As to the conduct of the regiment under Major Robarts, the same discipline had been preserved as under himself, and had been attended with the same success. Immediately after the battle of Vittoria, many of the troops were drunk ; and Lord Wellington having noticed it, Major Robarts thought it necessary to make an example, and several were punished. This case, however, was one of extraordinary occurrence, arising from peculiar circumstances, and could not, therefore, be brought into general consideration. In four months, not more than fourteen or fifteen men had been punished. On the arrival of Colonel Quentin at the regimental quarters the first thing he did, was to alter the system; and the consequence was, the regiment became much more undisciplined. He mentioned several cases of insubordination which afterwards took place in the regiment, and particularly one, in which he sent forth a party to learn the state of affairs in a pretty large town near the army ; they remained so long without returning, that he dispatched another party under the command of a very strict officer, and on his arrival in the town he found them all beastly drunk, and their horses tied up in different parts of the town in the most disgraceful situation. The hon. Col. assured the house that it was not his intention to urge any thing derogatory to the character of Col. Quentin, but he felt it necessary to say so much in vindication of his own character. With respect to the number of lashes, it did not so much depend on the number as the manner in which they were administered, for there had been several instances in which men who had received 400 lashes had in two hours afterwards been found drunk in the streets. He concluded by saying, that in his opinion it was impossible, on foreign service, to keep up discipline without this punishment.

Col. WOOD said, that however different the system of discipline might be pursued by the hon. officer who spoke last and that of Col. Quentin, it was a fact at present well known, that the 10th hussars, now under Col. Quentin’s command, was, at the present moment allowed to be one of the best disciplined in our army. It was a fact known, that Lord Uxbridge, who commanded the whole of our cavalry, had very lately, on seeing the state of the 10th Hussars, declared that he had been long endeavouring to make his own regiment the best disciplined in the army, but he thought, on a comparison, the 10th surpassed the 7th, which was under his command. On the whole, he believed that commanding officers in general disliked corporal punishment as much as the hon. mover of the present question, but that they found it to be a painful fact, that it could not be avoided on actual service.

Colonel PAKENHAM said, that if a pledge were wanting to show that the honour of British officers would, on all occasions, induce them to abstain from corporal punishment whenever they could, it was most notorious to every man who was acquainted with military affairs, that their interest would impel them to it, for men always fought in the bravest manner under humane officers ; but, however desirous officers might be to soften punishment, it was not to be done of actual service. Our army had gained the most glorious character both in Spain and France for their extraordinary forbearance after every victory from that of Vimeira to the battles of Orthies and Thoulouse. This discipline had been effected under a system established by our forefathers. If that system be bad, let it be overturned and abolished: but as long as it is suffered to go on, let the officers be trusted as far as they have a right to be under an established system.

Mr. W. SMITH said that it appeared to him, the present system exposed men to degree of degradation which would shame boys, and, therefore ought not to be persisted in, unless it could be supported by the most urgent necessity. To say it did not tend to degrade them because they were obliged to submit to it, appeared to him to be monstrous. Was it possible to suppose there could be no cure for drunkenness but flogging ? He should suppose example would be much more effectual; and he was afraid that while the circulation of the bottle after dinner continued to be so much the fashion of the officers in the mess rooms, the common soldiers might feel some kind of natural desire to imitate their commanders in paying a similar kind of attention to the beverage which came within the scope of their means, and which they drank with as much pleasure as their officers did wine. Much good might be done by the abolition of this punishment at home.

A member spoke briefly against the cruelty of flogging.

Lord PALMERSTON said the abolition was not resisted from any predilection for some corporal punishments : but severe punishments were necessary for great offences. If that were admitted, then this mode of punishment seemed as little liable to objection as any that was likely to be substituted for it. As to the frequency of its infliction, he need only refer to the orders of the Commander in Chief, and to other documents to prove the disposition to limit it. The feelings of Commanders of regiments, animated by what had passed in that house, were also favourable to its mitigation. It seemed altogether better to leave the limitation as it at present stood, than to abrogate the practice, and substitute a capital punishment, which was the tendency of the present proposition. The question really was, between the present mode, and capital punishment. As to soldiers at home, they might, in cases of rebellion or invasion, be on the same footing as when abroad. Nothing was contended for but what appeared necessary for the service. There might be something in the character of English soldiers that required a greater discipline than those of other nations, from the freedom of our constitution, and their higher degree of feeling of personal independence. The love of ardent spirits was more common to the northern than to the southern nations of Europe, and occasioned great excesses. Hence punishments for this offence were rare among the Portuguese in our pay. The argument drawn from the case of the 40th regiment was wrong ; since that regiment had been restored to discipline after the infliction of punishments. The oath was originally administered only to General Courts Martial : its extension to Regimental Courts was a great improvement, and gave an additional security. The abolition of the established practice must lead to capital punishments.

Sir S. ROMILLY said the question was, whether they would set a limit to this corporal punishment or leave it as it was, unlimited, at the power of the Court Martial, which might inflict 1000 or 1500 lashes. He had before proposed to limit the power to 100 lashes, and he was a little mortified after what then passed to find the present measure opposed. A limit was necessary, because the punishment might go beyond the capacity God had given to the frame and constitution of man to endure. It was quite wrong to make use of the power in an indirect way. He understood that the mode of inflictions by instalments was left off : but it might be yet recurred to. Whatever proper dispositions the present Commander in Chief might have, his successor might be very different. Those who voted against the measure must make up their minds to say that the power ought to remain unlimited. Discussion on this subject had already produced much benefit. He could not conceive why the English soldier’s character should require such a severe discipline. He should have thought the very reverse, as their feelings were higher. He professed himself a warm friend to the motion.

Mr. MANNERS SUTTON explained at to what passed on Sir S. Romilly’s former proposition. The real object of the bill was to abolish the punishment at home, and to limit it abroad. The change proposed was great and important, and it deserved consideration, whether it was really an improvement, whether circumstances called for it, and whether the means would answer the end. During the last 3 years the practice had been gradually and greatly declining. Courts martial had been anxious to adopt different punishments where they could, and availed themselves of the alternative of imprisonment ; but that could not always be done abroad. The hon. member then stated the gradual decrease of the sentences for some time past, which evinced the disposition to use corporal punishment as little as possible. This inclination of Courts-martial, at present, to substitute imprisonment as a military punishment, was fully seconded by the disposition in other quarters. It had been submitted to the Secretary of State, to determine how far jails were competent to the reception of military offenders. A clause, too, had been lately introduced by his noble friend into the Mutiny Bill providing also for the punishment of soldiers by mulcting them of their pay. The abolition of corporal punishment was thus silently by gradually going on, and required not the aid of legislative interference. No emergency existed at present for so radical an alteration of the law. By limiting the number of lashes to 100, all that was odious would be retained, and all that was efficient would be lost. The punishment would then be inflicted either with greater frequency or with increased severity. With respect to what had been said of the practice of bringing out men even a second or third time to undergo different portions of the sentence, he could only say that in his opinion such a practice was already illegal. Every such repetition was an increase of punishment, and he could mention the case of a commanding officer, who, having so incressed a soldier’s punishment on the march, and when it was even impossible to assemble a court martial, and although himself an officer of high rank and character, yet was brought to a court martial for this offence and cashiered. The hon. and learned gent. had dwelt much on the cruelty of corporal punishment, and seemed to consider the presence of a surgeon as a sufficient indication of its nature : but a surgeon was always present at the infliction of punishment, however trivial, and he believed its ceremony an the machinery attending it to coustitute a large part of its terror. Upon the whole consideration of the question, he objected to a fixed limit, because he thought it unwise to cut down the discretion of the courts, and to the plan of partially abolishing it by confining it to the foreign service, because he apprehended such a distinction must necessarily produce invidious feelings between the two services.

Mr: FORBES supported the motion, although adverse to an entire abolition of corporal punishment. He had seen very gross cases of cruelty in India, and attributed much of it to the license in which the troops were indulged, with respect to canteens or grog shops, in the profits of which he was sorry to say the commanding officers often participated.

General HART said a few words, which we could not distinctly hear.

Mr. ABERCROMBY ROBINSON was not aware that such a practice existed on the Bengal establishment as that mentioned by the honourable member (Mr. Forbes) since the regulations of Marquis Cornwallis in 1785.

Mr. FORBES explained.

Sir FRANCIS BURDETT wished, from the deep interest he took in the ultimate fate of this question, to say a very few words, however obvious the probable result of that night’s discussion might appear. He trusted, however, that his hon. friend would not be discouraged, but would again bring it forward at an early opportunity next session, and when a fuller house might be obtained. He was happy, however, to witness the deep attention evinced by the members present on this occasion, and to observe but one impression prevailing, which in his opinion must prevail in every humane an enlightened mind. The hon. and learned Judge Advocate had told then, as he had formerly done, that there had been a great decrease in this mode of punishment ; but he had forgotten to give any information as to what had taken place in this respect in regimental courts martial. The document produced by the hon. mover was the only paper ever exhibited to the house belonging to that black and melancholy catalogue of human sufferings. With regard to the account given by the hon. Colonel (Palmer) of his own system of discipline as opposed to that of Colonel Quentin, he must confess that he could not at all accord with the high idea which the hon. Colonel seemed to entertain of his own judgement. In his opinion nothing could be more shocking or more repugnant to common sense than the system of giving the men when they were paid, so much time to enable them to get rid of it without delay. This sort of indulgence or saturnalia, appeared to him the most mischievous scheme ever devised, and the result was, that no reform was effected in the discipline of the regiment. He understood that the regiment was now in the best order; and if it was so without the practice of military flogging, he thought it would reflect the highest honour on the gallant officer (Col. Quentin) who commanded it. It was impossible for him to agree that such a punishment as flogging ought at all to exist in the army. He was told of it’s necessity; but the necessity was not attempted to be proved. If he was asked to prove the contrary, he should only say, look at the military system and discipline of all the other European nations. They had their prompt measures of coercion and punishment, but they did not present the sad and humiliating spectacle of a human being, tied up and treated worse than his judges would treat their beasts. He could call the punishment by no other name than flogging : corporal punishment did not convey the idea; mere imprisonment was corporal punishment. What, then, was the nature of this flogging? As a mere question of bodily pain, it was too intense to be exceeded. The surgeon was called in, and that divine medical art which was intended as a solace to the necessary sufferings of humanity, was here employed in the prolongation of torture, and science directed to watch the possibility of adding another pang to expiring nature. He had talked to foreign officers, who had all expressed astonishment at the existence of such a system in this country. He should be inclined, indeed, to resist the present measure, if he thought its adoption, as had been stated, would only render flogging more frequent or more severe. This very remark shewed the true nature of the punishment, how much it depended on caprice, how incapable it was of measurement. Much had been said on former occasions of the danger arising from the discussions of this nature : but they had now the best effect on public opinion, on courts-martial themselves, and in the general mitigation and improvement of military discipline. Officers who acted without this detestable practice, certainly had peculiar merit, because they laboured under a peculiar difficulty, from its existence in other regiments. He was happy that the Duke of York’s opinion was entirely with him, and that there was some prospect of its going into disuse. He recollected hearing a French person complain under the old regime of the abolition of the punishments of breaking alive on the wheel, and he justified his lamentation by considerations very similar to these urged in defence of military torture. He said there was something in the nature of Frenchmen which required it (a laugh). The hon. baronet, after a variety of further observations, concluded by remarking, that hope and fear were the grand instruments of human actions. If we were to treat our soldiers and seamen better, we should give them a motive very superior to the instigation of fear. He congratulated himself, however, on the progress the question had already made, and he trusted that in the next session it would be again introduced, and that the fullest information connected with it would be no longer withheld.

Mr. BABINGTON opposed the motion as unneccessary at present.

Lord PALMERSTON and Mr. M. SUTTON explained.

Mr. BENNETT then replied, after which the question was negatived without a division.