not come down and give the Committee that opinion to influence them in their decision on a question which they, as the representatives of the people, had a right to discuss on its merits, and on which they were not to be guided in their decision by the opinions entertained by Field-Marshal the Commander-in-Chief. More than that, great and important as was the position of the Commander-in-Chief, the only authority recognised in that House was the authority of the Secretary of State for War, who ought not to shelter himself behind the authority of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief.

Two arguments had been used, in reply to which he desired to say a few words. The right hon. and gallant General (General Peel) had complained the other day of his proposal to make a distinction between a time of peace and a time of war. The answer was, that throughout the whole of the Mutiny Bill, and at the commencement of the clause, that distinction was recognised. Then other hon. Gentlemen had objected that if imprisonment were substituted for corporal punishment extra duty would fall

accept that Amendment, and would bring up a Resolution for the purpose of regulating the punishments to be awarded to soldiers when engaged in active operations, and while being conveyed on the sea in merchant vessels, he would meet with no unreasonable opposition on the part of Members of the House. He wished to say a few words on the subject of corporal punishment, though before doing so he wished to dismiss a question of a more personal character. He had noticed with some surprise, and with great regret, that on each occasion on which the subject of corporal punishment had been discussed the name of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief had been most unduly and unnecessarily introduced. When he brought forward the question he had refrained from mentioning the name of the Field-Marshal Commanding-in-Chief, not only because he felt convinced that his Royal Highness would be as much disposed as any man in that House to abolish flogging if he thought the discipline of the army could be maintained without it, but also because he was of opinion that the introduction of the name of the Field-upon the good soldiers, in consequence of Marshal Commanding-in-Chief into a dis- the misconduct of the bad. That objeccussion in that House on a question of tion, however, was wholly inconsistent military policy was a most injudicious and with the argument that corporal punisha most unfair proceeding. When the right ment was of extremely rare occurrence. hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State (Sir But there was an argument against the John Pakington), and the right hon. and system beyond all this-one which went gallant General the Member for Hunting- to the very root of the difficulty of recruitdon (General Peel), paraded the name of ing our army. Recruiting would never be the Commander-in-Chief as being entirely successful until the profession was raised opposed to the abolition of flogging, could instead of being degraded in the eyes of it be for one moment supposed that would the people. Flogging had been abolished not have an effect upon officers command- in every great army in Europe and Ameing regiments, and those in active service? rica, and why should it be retained in our There was not one who looked for promo- own? In the division list the other evention or favour at the Horse Guards who ing he was astonished to find among the would not be influenced by it. [" No, no!"] minority the name of the right hon. GenWell, if not, military men must be very tleman (Mr. Walpole), who not long predifferent from what he believed them to viously had entertained so high an opinion be, if, when informed that the man who of the soldiers that he proposed to confer was at the head of their profession enter- upon them the right of citizenship and a tained most decided opinions on a subject, vote. In spite of this, however, the right they immediately set themselves in opposi- hon. Gentleman was in favour of putting tion to those opinions. Their ideas of dis- upon them a stigma which could not be cipline would of itself lead them to give way, inflicted upon any citizen. ["No!"] when informed that his Royal Highness Well, it might be in the case of convicts, was against this or that, and therefore the but he hoped no hon. Gentleman regarded introduction of his name into a discussion soldiers as convicts. He implored the right of this kind was unfair to the officers of hon. Gentleman (Sir John Pakington) to the army. The opinion of his Royal High-re-consider even now his position in referness might probably be made known to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for War; but the right hon. Baronet should

ence to this question. The right hon. Gentleman had considered it with an unprejudiced mind, and in a fair spirit; and

He had already explained his reasons for introducing the clause, and would not therefore again trouble the Committee.

New Clause, instead of Clause 22 (No Soldier of the First Class to be sentenced to corporal punishment,)-(Sir John Pakington,)-brought up, and read the

first time.

fifty lashes, for the following offences-namely, discipline we ought to follow the example mutiny, insubordination accompanied by personal of foreign countries. Well, on one occaviolence, or disgraceful conduct of an indecent sion when he was at Paris he met a numkind; every soldier, when serving with a military force in the field or on board ship shall be liable ber of troops returning towards the city, to a like punishment by court martial for any of which led him to ask whether there had the offences before enumerated, or for desertion, been a review. 66 Oh, no," was the andrunkenness on duty or on the line of march, swer; "we have been to shoot one of our misbehaviour, or neglect of duty." men. For what crime? "For knocking down a non-commissioned officer." Were we to relinquish the system of flogging in the British army and adopt the Continental-of shooting every man who knocked down a non-commissioned officer? Periods of punishment again were punishments not so much of the offender as of the other men who had to perform the extra duty. The example of the Prussian army COLONEL NORTH said, he wished to had been cited; but of what materials was ask whether it was really intended that no that army composed? Was it likely that soldier should be liable to corporal punish- in this country regulations would ever be ment as long as he was in the first class? adopted compelling every gentleman to There were many cases of the worst pos- serve whether he liked it or not. A syssible kind of insubordination that might be tem of voluntary service gave us, of course, committed on a line of march, such as very different materials; but it was gratiinstigating a regiment to mutiny or knock-fying to reflect that the non-commissioned ing down a commanding officer. He wished to know whether a man who had been guilty of one of those offences was not to be made a signal example of merely because he occupied a place in the first class. He thought there must be some mistake in that.

officers who issued from the ranks were second to those of no other country for gallantry and conduct. He understood the Secretary of State for War to have said that out of 100 men there were ninety-one of the first class, and nine only of the second. Was it intended that those ninety

MR. OSBORNE: Read the end of the one men should, under no circumstances, clause.

be liable to corporal punishment?

MR. HEADLAM said, the first observation he had to make was that although the powers conferred by the Mutiny Act were very large with respect to corporal punishment, and the discretion very wide, yet, from his experience while holding the office of Judge Advocate General, he believed that those powers were practically exercised with very great discretion, and that the cases in which flogging was inflicted-assuming such a punishment to be right-were exactly those in which it ought to be administered. The fact was that the powers given by the Mutiny Act had been much limited by the

COLONEL NORTH, in continuation, read the concluding portion of the clause, and observed that they ought to be told what was the meaning of the words "misbehaviour or neglect of duty at the end of the clause. Every soldier knew what was meant by an army in the field; but he wished to know what was to be done in the case of such troops as those at present engaged against the Fenians in Canada or in Ireland; and whether one of those men, if he should have knocked down his commanding officer, was not to be liable to corporal punishment? His hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster (Cap-regulations issued under the authority of tain Grosvenor) had, on a former occasion, admitted that there were very grave cases of insubordination in the army; but he said that the remedy must be found in something else than the lash. He had been excessively sorry to hear his hon. Friend the Member for Chatham (Mr. Otway) allude specially to one side of the House, for the question was one, not of party, but of what was best for the benefit of the country. It was said that in the matter of

the Crown, and also by the good sense and discretion of the commanding officers of the different regiments. Those regulations never had the force of law; and he was desirous of mentioning that, because it was asserted that there had been many instances in which men in the first class had been subjected to corporal punishment contrary to the regulations. It was true there had been a few cases of that kind. But they occurred very shortly after the regu

lations were issued, before they had become known, and the cases were very few in number. Wherever he had met with such cases he had of course commented upon them. For all practical purposes, those regulations were strictly enforced in the army. He had not himself officially had the means of ascertaining whether soldiers who were flogged afterwards behaved the better for it, or what was its effect upon the rest of their corps. But he had had the opportunity of conversing on the subject with military men of great experience, and he found them to be nearly unanimous in the opinion that corporal punishment, under some circumstances, was absolutely necessary for the maintenance of the discipline of the army. The cases for which it was inflicted were those in which it appeared, on the face of the transaction, that the men to whom it was administered had no habits of selfcontrol, were exceedingly violent and insubordinate, and very difficult to deal with. Another class of cases in which it was administered was where soldiers had stolen from their own comrades. There was also a third category of such cases to which it was not necessary further to allude. Looking at the matter in the light of the human suffering involved, it was rather difficult to say whether corporal punishment, or sentences of imprisonment perhaps for long periods, and often including solitary confinement, were the worse; and he could not say that he was able to give the House a strong opinion on the subject. But there was this great objection to corporal punishment, that it went against the sensibilities and the tendencies of the public mind in this country. If it ceased to exist, the army might possibly become more popular, while a stronger sense of professional honour might be introduced into its lowest ranks. He had no doubt that it had considerable effect in deterring men from entering the army. There was hardly a village in England from which young men had not enlisted; but there were few village families that took pride in the fact that one of their members had enlisted for a common soldier. How far that feeling was produced by the flogging it was not for him to say. What he should have preferred on that matter was that his hon. Friend (Mr. Otway) should not have moved the actual omission of that clause, but that the Secretary of State for War (Sir John Pakington) should have come down and stated, on the part of the authorities of

the army, that they recognised fully the feeling of the House on that subject; and that, though they did not think it would be prudent altogether to give up the power of flogging, it was their intention to exercise it only in cases of extreme urgency. The proposed new clause was very vague and uncertain. It spoke of offences "to be specified from time to time in the Articles of War." This was not clear. It ought to be made as clear as noon-day, so that every recruit might easily know, without being obliged to consult any other document, what circumstances would bring him within the limits of that particular punishment. The clause, in its present form, proposed to retain corporal punishment for mutiny and aggravated insubordination attended with personal violence, but to abolish it in all other cases. Assuming it to be true that it was still necessary to retain it with the view of suddenly putting down a mutiny, then the punishment should be equally applicable to all engaged in the mutiny. He could not, however, understand on what principle it was that ninetenths of the army-for that was the proportion, according to the right hon. Gentleman, in the first-class-might commit acts of mutiny, and yet that it should not be deemed necessary to flog them while flogging was maintained to be indispensable under similar circumstances in the case of the remaining one-tenth. If it was not necessary to flog any of the larger class it would appear not to be necessary to flog at all. He also found some difficulty in understanding the last part of the clause, in which it was set forth that

"Every soldier, when serving with a military force in the field or on board ship, shall be liable to a like punishment by court martial for any of the offences before enumerated."

Did the words "every soldier," he should like to know, mean every soldier in the first and second class? [Sir JOHN PAKINGTON: Yes, in time of war.] But the words "on board ship" had no immediate connection with a time of war, so that every soldier in the first and second classes in time of peace on board ship would "be liable to a like punishment;" and how that proposal was to be reconciled with the first part of the clause, in which it was laid down that no soldier in the first class should in time of peace be sentenced to be flogged, he was at a loss to understand. The clause, in fact, was not sufficiently distinct or precise; yet if ever there was a matter in which the language should be free from ambiguity,