MILITARY FLOGGING—MR. ELLICE'S PROMISE. THE following circular has just been
issued from the Horse Guards.
" His Majesty's Government having signified to the General Commanding-in- Chief, the King's command, that until further orders, corporal punishment may be applied to the following offences only, I have the honour to express Lord Hill's desire that you guide yourself accordingly ; taking care that, except in the instances herein specified, the said punishment shall on no account be inflicted. " 1. For mutiny, insurbordination, and violence, or using or offering violence to superior officers. " 2. Drunkenness on duty.
"3. Sale of, or making away with arms, ammunition, accoutrements, or ne- cessaries, stealing from comrades, or other disgraceful conduct. " It will doubtless occur to you, that the object of these instructions is not to render the infliction of corporal punishment for the future more frequent or more certain than it is at present, even in the cases to which it is now to be re- stricted ; but, on the contrary, that the intention is to restrain it as much as may be possible to do so with safety to the discipline of the Army.
" By command, J. MACDONALD, Adjutant-General."
Is this the kind of order which Mr. ELLICE promised should be issued, in compliance with the opinion of what Ministers acknow- ledged to be a virtual majority of the House of Commons? We -think not. Mr. ELLICE declared, that an order was actually pre- pared, and would speedily be promulgated, by which corporal punishment in that part of the Army stationed within the Three Kingdoms would be restricted as nearly as possible to those offences which Mr. HUME had mentioned,—namely, mutiny, and drunken- ness oil duty. But this promise of the Secretary at War has been violated. In the first place, the order which was already prepared, instead of being speedily promulgated, fails to make its appearance until nearly three months after the date of the promise. It will be thought to have been kept back, because Ministers were aware that their breach of faith would bring down upon them the just indignation of the House. The. delay, however, would have been of little consequence, had the order been such an order as Mr. ELLICE represented it to be. It is in fact no restriction whatever of the practice of flogging ; for it permits its use whenever an -offence is committed which the officer may choose to deem disgraceful. Who can pretend to tell what the commander of a regiment—and his opinion generally bears sway among his subalterns—may con- sider disgraceful conduct in a soldier ? Major WYNDHAM thought SOMERVILLE'S conduct disgraceful, and had him flogged for it ; and the order now issued from the War Office, had it existed at that time, would have been pleaded by him as his authority for the sentence.
We confess that we had not expected this—shuffling, must we call it ?—on the part of Mr. ELLICE. What can there be in the touch of office which poisons the feelings and perverts the conduct the most upright men?
Previous page
