Schedule postponed. SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH said, the question of exemption had better be dealt with under the Procedure Bill. Schedule agreed to. It being now ten minutes to Seven of the clock, Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday. SIR MICHAEL HICKS-BEACH said, he had hoped that they would have got through Committee that day. As it was important the Bill should become law in a very short period of time, he was authorized to state that it would be taken as the First Order on Thursday, CAPTAIN NOLAN: This Bill? The House suspended its sitting at Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present, MR. P. A. TAYLOR said: I was observing, Sir, that there was a widespread impression in the country and among Members of this House also that practically the punishment of flogging had been abolished both in the Army and the Navy, although in the Army the reservation was still maintained, but still that was only in time of war, and it was perfectly understood that it could never be had recourse to in the Army. In regard to the Navy we were told, if I recollect aright, that practically flogging was abolished also, and that the system which had obtained in the Army for some time before was now established in the Navy-that the whole force was divided into two classes, the upper and the lower, and that the upper could not be subjected to flogging at all; that in case of any serious crime being committed by a man he would first be punished by being degraded to the The House resumed its sitting at Nine lower, and if he offended after that he of the clock. NAVY-PUNISHMENT OF FLOGGING. RESOLUTION. MR. P. A. TAYLOR: I rise, Sir, to ask the House to affirm that our great naval service, our Navy, England's traditional pride, shall no longer be the only service which, under the guise of the maintenance of discipline, maintains the punishment of the cat,-that cruel and brutalizing punishment. There are, I am aware, many Members of the House-for they have said so to me during the last few days-and I am sure there must be a great many persons out of the House who are surprised at the Motion of which I have given Notice, because they were under the impression that flogging in our military and naval Services was altogether done away with. I confess I was almost entirely of that opinion myself. I was aware that in regard to the Army a certain nominal reserve had been made, that flogging might still be resorted to in time of war; but I was quite sure that that punishment was obsolete as regards the Army, for I was sure that no general would flog a soldier in presence of the enemy. I thought in regard to the Navy-- I, of would probably be dismissed the Ser- needs alteration. I cannot help thinking | affected the decision of court martials at that the right hon. Gentleman the First all, and whether it was the result, I do Lord of the Admiralty is really with me not know, but I observe that the numin the Motion I am making now, and if ber of court martials ever since that he does not feel at liberty to grant it, as time has been very much greater. The I hope he may, but thinks I can assist number of convictions by court martial him in that humane wish by making this in 1862 was 141; in 1863, 140; in 1864 an annual Motion in the House of Com- it was 97, and in 1875 there were 235 mons, I can promise him that I shall be convictions by court martial. But the happy to comply with his desire. It has real evil is not in this question, not in been said that there is a decided differ- the amount of lashes inflicted, or the ence in regard to the necessity of this number of persons who are subjected measure in the Navy as compared with to it. While flogging is permitted at the Army. I venture to differ from that all at sea there must always be irregualtogether, and to think that if there is larity, always causes of discontentment any distinction to be drawn flogging going on, which are beyond the limits should be less prominent in the Navy of the law. I need not give the right than in the Army. The sense of re- hon. Gentleman the First Lord chapter sponsibility in a commander of a ship and verse for these statements-he does at sea is incomparably less than that of not need it from me, because he knows a general commanding an Army. Many the facts himself. A man was illegally things may be done at sea, where there flogged on the Pacific Station for asis no public opinion to fear, and where saulting a Consul in a row on shore, there are no reports in the public news- another man was illegally flogged by papers. If, therefore, there should be a the lieutenant of a training brig for disdifference made between the two, flog- obedience, and I can even tell him of ging should certainly be abolished in cases in the West Indies where two boys the Navy before it was abolished in the were flogged with the cat. These two Army. The history of flogging in the lads were too young to enjoy the advanNavy may be thus briefly stated. Up tage of being flogged, the cat was too to about the year 1820 the sentences dignified a weapon, they should only were of the most frightfully cruel charac- have been birched, and so the comter; I find sentences from 300 to 400, and mander raised them to the rank of seaeven 500 lashes, repeatedly ordered. men, in order to entitle them to be From 1820 for about 20 or 25 years flogged with the cat. Now, I know the there was some moderation in this exces- right hon. Gentleman is not inexorable sive brutality, and the lashes diminished in his decisions when reason is brought to about 100. About the year 1844, to bear upon him. When I asked him when that distinguished commander, Sir last year to resume the Returns which George Cockburn, was the First Lord, used to be made some years ago of the first great blow was struck at this crimes and punishments in the Navy, infinity of brutality. He first limited he was inexorable at the time. He said the number of lashes to be given to 48, they were useless and expensive; but I and then decided that they could only be am glad to see this year that to some exenforced by court martial, or be given tent he has granted these Returns, which upon summary order only by warrant of used to be issued under the presidency the captain, and it required that 12 of the Duke of Somerset and Lord hours should elapse after the signing of Clarence Paget. If the right hon. Genthe warrant before the punishment tleman will not be persuaded to get should be inflicted. Sir George Cock- more full Returns issued, we shall have burn was known to be a great discipli- to trouble him with a Motion asking narian; but I need not say that the up- him to do so. If flogging is to be mainholders of that discipline looked upon tained, it is doubly and trebly essential his conduct as destructive of the Service, that there should be responsible Returns and as altogether ruinous. In the year from those who have power to inflict 1860, I think it was, the change of such punishment. Now, in the Returns which I have already spoken-the he has given us there is no sub-division dividing the Service into two classes- at all; it is divided into the squadrons was passed. I have already shown that at home and the squadrons abroad, and this was a mere farce, that it had not without mentioning the name of any in lashes-that at that time his back is so smashed and his nerves so destroyed, that he feels nothing more then. Every lash after that deducts something from the vitality and constitutional vigour of that man. I will say nothing about the boys who are flogged; they are numbered by the hundred. I venture to say that there is no excuse whatever for the retention of this punishment in the Navy. In the year 1860, when naval discipline was re-modelled and re-formed, Lord Clarence Paget, than whom it will be admitted on both sides of the House I could not name a higher authority, said in this House "If any should think how Draconic they still appear, I pray them to bear in mind that we have to deal with a great body of men of all classes, often drawn from the very dregs of society, who too frequently enter the Navy withmorals, and who are rarely improved by being out religious or moral principles, and with tainted boxed up together, as it were, in a ship."[3 Hansard, clx. 1651.] But the noble Lord distinctly looked forward to the time, and not a distant one, when flogging in the Navy should be altogether abolished, and said dividual ship. There is in fact, therefore, no means of testing the value of these Returns, and of ascertaining if mistakes take place-and they do take place sometimes, for it has been known that punishments have been given and not been returned. Under these Returns there is no test, no means of ascertaining if they are correct. If they were given in full there would be plenty of witnesses from every vessel to say there are no Returns from such a vessel, or there are no particulars of a punishment which we remember was given at such a place. I entreat the right hon. Gentleman not to think the noblest symbol of our civilization is the cat. We have all heard the story of the man who was wrecked on a desolate and apparently uninhabited island, casting his eyes up to a height and seeing a gallows there, exclaimed-Thank God, I am in a civilized land!" I venture to think that the cat is not the noblest emblem of civilization the great British people should cherish. There is a chaplet of laurel yet to be given to the man who will do away with this wretched punishment: will the right hon. Gentleman permit me to place it on his brow? If he will assure the House that he will bring in the long-promised amendment of the Naval Discipline Act, and say that it will exclude this cruel and brutalizing punishment, I need not say how gladly I will withdraw this Motion to-night. Of course I shall be told that the lash is very infrequently inflicted, that the number who suffer from it is less than it was; but I maintain that this is altogether an argument on my side of the question. I find the floggings last year under court martial were 7; they were all from 36 to 48 lashes; and they were all accompanied with severe sentences besides 18 months or two years' hard labour. Now, Sir, if I were not convinced that no modification of this system were of any use, and the only thing to look to were its entire abolition, I would stop to point out the needless cruelty of this amount of lash. It is well recognized that the punishment by flogging in the Navy is very much more severe than that practised in the Army. It has been held that 50 lashes on ship-board are equivalent to 200 in the barrack-yard, and it is, I believe, a well-recognized fact that the sufferer himself ceases almost entirely to feel after the first two dozen Mr. P. A. Taylor "I cannot resist the pleasure of reading to the House certain statistics with regard to cortrouble to procure, as they show that year by poral punishment which I have been at some year this degrading punishment is decreasing in a steady ratio, and is gradually dying out of the Service. I am positive that the necessity nish if the House will continue, as it has hitherto for its continuance will even more rapidly dimidone, to support the Government in its efforts for the maintenance of discipline, and for the improvement of the Service by the training of a large number of boys, who, having entered at an early age, become attached to the Service, and in the great majority of instances turn out skilful and valuable seamen."—[Ibid. 1655.] And now what have we done in that respect? I will venture to quote a few lines from a naval article in Fraser's Magazine, on Training Schools and Training Ships," describing the present system— "We will take a boy at the earliest age that he can join, 15. He can only be accepted by certain officers, in certain places named in the regulations; he must bring with him a certifi cate of birth, and a declaration made by his parents, or nearest relation if an orphan, giving consent to his joining Her Majesty's Navy and serving for 10 years, from the age of 18. No apprentices are accepted, or boys from prisons able to read and write, and is then subject to a or reformatories. The boy must be very exact medical examination. One fancies that no boy could ever be so sound as seems ne That is the raw material of which our Navy is now composed, the sons of small farmers, shopkeepers, and artizans, and does the right hon. Gentleman think that these are the classes which will long submit to be kept under the discipline of the lash. Since that time I am informed-and so far as my own small information goes it confirms it-that the character of our seamen has changed and undergone a perfect revolution. The old characteristic Jack Tar, rollicking, reckless, and as soon as liberated on shore rough and dissipated, has passed away. Our men now in the Navy were boys brought up in these training schools as I have described. They are a well-regulated, orderly, and I believe as a class of men superior on the whole to the class from which they are taken on shore. At the time when Lord Clarence Paget was looking forward to flogging being abolished, not one man in 100 could read and write. Now it is a very small proportion that cannot do both, and are these the men do you think that will now submit to the rough discipline thought necessary in the old times? These men have improved in information, in intelligence, and in thought, and consider that they are no longer to be governed as mere brutes or machines. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman, if he does not know it, that these men and their petty officers in various parts now meet, combine, discuss their grievances, and communicate with Members of Parliament with regard to them. This system of flogging, I will venture to assert, is as really absolutely doomed as if the right hon. Gentleman decreed its dissolution to-day. The only question is this, shall it be done by the Government and the House of their own free will and graciously, or shall it be wrested from them by the power of public opinion, a thing neither the House nor the Government can withstand. We have seen the trades unions of this country combine altogether to assist my hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Plimsoll) in his patriotic attempts to ameliorate and render more safe the lives of merchant seamen. Does the right hon. Gentleman want to see the trades unions joining the seamen of the Navy, and declaring, in tones that cannot be misunderstood, that the lash shall be no longer employed as a punishment? I do not speak entirely without book, for I have various communications from different parts of the country on this matter. One especially I will read from the town which is honoured by the representation of the right hon. Gentleman whom I now see sitting on the front bench (Mr. John Bright). The Birmingham Trades' Council, representing some 10,000 unionists, has asked its borough Members to support my Motion, and has based that request upon the very soundest and broadest grounds, for they moved― "That this council desires the borough Members to support Mr. P. A. Taylor's Motion for the abolition of flogging in the Navy, believing and calculated to lower the service in the estithat its continuance is degrading to the nation, mation of the people." 66 Of course, I shall be told that discipline cannot be maintained without this punishment. That has been the cry every time any alleviation of this punishment has been attempted. When the lashes were 500, "discipline required it ;" when they were 100, discipline required it;" and "discipline" requires it now, when the experience of every Navy in the world negatives it, for England is the only country which still maintains the cat. The experience of our great Merchant Service negatives the necessity for it. The great vessels of the Peninsular and Oriental Company, with their vast wealth and the large numbers of passengers they carry, are they nothing? They have no prestige of naval discipline to fall back upon, but not a lash is ever given upon one of those vessels. Sir, I maintain that not one, but all the best authorities on the Navy, are against the continuance of this punishment. I will quote one or two illustrations. Before venturing to bring on this Motion, I wrote to a naval officer of long standing and high authority on all matters connected with the discipline of the Navy, and I believe his name is at the service of the First Lord. I will venture to read two or three pas sages from his very interesting letter. | reading the life of Lord Collingwood, a He says "It raises a barrier between officers and men destructive of all good feeling and sympathy, and far from assisting to maintain, it is really destructive of all good discipline, converting the criminal into a martyr. I tell you that you cannot rely on your reserves so long as the men are subject to the torture prescribed in this Act. Try it. Embark your naval rcserves in London and Liverpool this summer, take them for a month's cruise, and flog one of them from each port; call them out again in 1877 and see how many will respond to your call." There are two papers which I am told represent between the two the best characteristics of both Services. They are certainly not Radical in their politics, but they have felt compelled within the last year or two to consider Motions which I have made, and they have generally thought it necessary to commence by saying "unusual as it is for us to agree with the hon. Member for Leicester." Listen to what The Army and Navy Gazette says, on June 3, 1876 man whom I believe professional historians reckon one of the very greatest commanders this country ever saw, as he was certainly one of her truest-hearted men, and noblest gentlemen. He was a man of whom Thackeray said-"Since heaven made gentlemen there is, I think, no record of a better one than that.' Lord Collingwood, when flogging by the hundred lashes at a time was the fashion, loathed it, and never had recourse to it when he could avoid it. In the record of his punishments for the year 1793, from May to September, he had 12 men flogged from 6 to 12 lashes each, and that was at the time when from 400 to 500 was a common thing. He would say to midshipmen, who came to him with complaints-"You don't want to see an older man than yourself flogged, I am sure. Come and ask me to let him off, and I will do so." I would recommend this to the consideration of the House and especially to the hon. Member for the Montgomery districts (Mr. Hanbury Tracy). Lord Collingwood was told that there was a mutiny on board his ship, whereupon he said "Mutiny, sir, mutiny on my ship; if it can have arrived at that it must be my fault and the fault of every one of my officers." And this character of his, this ability to subdue by mingled firmness and gentleness the rough spirits he had to deal with was recognized by very different men. Lord St. Vincent, himself a most severe disciplinarian, used to say if he had any refractory men -"Oh, send them to Collingwood; he will bring them to order." But we have an entirely different system now to the one which obtained in those days. We flog only seven or eight men in the "If we did not believe that the flogging of men is a doomed thing in the Navy, to take its place with the long defunct barbarous practices of keel-hauling, running the gauntlet, tarring and feathering and so forth, we should urge its reduction to 24 lashes in any case, and that Commanders-in-Chief abroad should, like the Admiralty at home, have full powers (which they have not now) of remitting it when awarded by courts martial. But, in truth, we recognize the fact that our seamen have altogether grown beyond the lash. It is a punishment inconsistent with their superior education, habits and training, entirely opposed to the spirit of the age, and not even practised in foreign navies, where its retention was more excusable, if possible, than in ours. We cannot see what good can arise from subjecting the sailor to a degrading punishment from which we shelter the soldiers; it is enabling the soldier to point the finger of scorn and derision at his comrade the sailor. We will not pursue the subject further. We leave it with confidence in the hands of the authori-year, and what does that mean? It ties, feeling assured that a right conclusion will means that we flourish the cat in terbe arrived at. rorem over the whole Navy for the sake The United Service Gazette, for last Satur- rather of a very few bad or inefficient of a few insubordinates, or for the sake day, thus writes "It has been said that the good men in the Navy do not object to flogging, and that they would rather it should not be abolished. We have had the strongest and most conclusive proof offered us to the contrary. Surely, then, there can be no two opinions that the time, however long it has been deferred, has now fully come when such a demoralizing, degrading, and infamous punishment as flogging shall be abolished in the Royal Navy." officers. Upon that point let me read two or three words to show how much is due to the conduct of an officer as regards the discipline of a ship, from a speech by Lord Hardwicke in the same debate of 1860. He said "He was of opinion that the discipline of the Navy was equally, if not more, dependent on the character and conduct of the officers in command than upon the code of laws under which I was much struck the other day by they acted."[3 Hansard, clix. 1614.] Mr. P. A. Taylor |