came home, and would reach the places from which recruits came, by word of mouth, just the same as if it had been published in the newspapers; and the more so, because it was endeavoured to suppress it. He maintained that the class of soldiers must be raised; and one

stigma cast upon them by corporal punishment. And he believed that if the punishment of flogging was kept up, the enthusiasm of the men would be damped when the country entered upon any great war, and that it would be very difficult, indeed, to get men into the ranks. The hon. Member for Meath (Mr. Parnell) had said that a soldier should be most pleased when a time of war arrived; but, as matters now stood, he would say "This is the time for me to be flogged."

A

MAJOR NOLAN said, he was not going to imitate the example of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who had just sat down by endeavouring to obtain a cheer from hon. Members opposite. Notwithstanding that he had attempted to persuade the Committee that no flogging was inflicted in the Army ex-step in that direction was to remove the cept by sentence of court martial, he (Major Nolan) was in a position to state that from three-fourths to nine-tenths of the floggings took place without any court martial whatever. The reason of his remaining silent during the discussion was that he desired to reserve his observations until the Amendment which stood in his name was reached, and which Amendment was intended to afford a guarantee that a man should not be flogged except by order of court martial. The hon. and gallant Member, in his speech, had made a most extraordinary statement in saying that no good soldier was liable to the lash, or could, by any possibility, be flogged; but, on the contrary, he (Major Nolan) maintained that a good soldier was just as likely to be flogged as a bad one, inasmuch as twothirds of the floggings were for breaches of the most trivial camp rules. If hon. Members doubted his assertion, let them read the last Blue Book issued, and they would find that a number of Zulus gave it as a reason for leaving our Service that they were flogged for breaking camp rules which were not explained to them. Under such circumstances as these, if the hon. and gallant Baronet was in the position of a General commanding in the field, he would see very little flogging going on, and could, therefore, write home and say that there was no flogging in the Army, because it would go on without his knowledge. Without receiving specific orders to flog the soldiers, the provost marshal, in order to carry out the wishes of the General with regard to camp rules, caught the first man who broke them and flogged him; no returns were kept of the number of fleggings that took place; and, as he had said before, the best soldier under that system was just as likely to be flogged as a bad one, because he was just as likely to break the camp rules. He had no doubt that upon this principle in Afghanistan and Zululand between 300 and 400 men had been flogged during the wars in those countries. This would be known when the men

SIR ALEXANDER GORDON briefly pointed out that the discussion had been carried on as if corporal punishment was confined to the Army. It seemed to have been forgotten that it was practised in the Navy, and even to a greater extent than it was in the Army. captain of a man-of-war could order the punishment to be inflicted if the sentence was approved by two other officers. But this seemed to have been forgotten. ["No, no!"] Yes; it had not been alluded to to-day, nor yet a few days ago, when the hon. and learned Member for Louth (Mr. Sullivan) spoke on the subject. He could not see why the retention of the punishment should be held to be so degrading in the Army and not so in the Navy. The good men of the Army did not object-they knew they were exempt from the punishment; but they also knew it was necessary to retain the punishment as the only means of keeping in order a class of men with whom they had to associate. The hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan) talked of what happened in Abyssinia; but he (Sir Alexander Gordon) had seen larger Armies than were engaged in Abyssinia, and he knew the most important operations of war might be carried on without flogging, if the men knew there was the power to inflict the punishment. The question had been sufficiently discussed; and he only wished to say that the Navy was subject to the same punishment, and to this no objection had been raised in this debate,

MR. O'DONNELL said, in conse- | hon. and gallant Baronet (Sir Henry quence of the persistent and thorough Havelock) allude so positively to the manner in which military men insisted action his hon. and gallant Friend had on retaining the honour of flogging for taken; and what was the meaning of the private soldiers of the British Army, the wild shout from the opposite Benches he gave Notice that in all cases where when the observation was made? The the flogging was retained for the soldier, only interpretation he could put upon it he would move on the Report of the Bill was that it was an attempt to intimithat the honour should be extended to date the hon. and gallant Member in the officers of the Army. the discharge of his duty. It was not the first time that intimations had been made to hon. Gentlemen connected with the Service, who chose to adopt a peculiar line of policy, that they would be marked men. If that was what was intended in the present instance, the sooner it was known and understood in Ireland the better; and he was glad his hon. and gallant Friend had met it in the spirited way he had; and, if the hon. and gallant Baronet expected to limit opposition by his remarks, he had mistaken his man. With reference to this subject of flogging, he did not intend to go over the ground occupied by other hon. Members; but it was surprising to him that when Parliament said that there should be a regulation whip used in the Prisons and in the Navy, that the authorities at the Horse Guards had not adopted a similar regulation in the Army; it was a matter to which the Se

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK said, the discussion would soon extinguish itself; but he desired one word to give the Committee the opportunity of judging of the value of the statements of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). His remarks implied that under the power given by this Act the provost marshal in the field was enabled, almost whenever he liked, to inflict the punishment, and, practically, without supervision. But if he believed that, he could not have read the Bill. If he referred to the Bill he would find among its provisions one that had been in existence almost as long as the British Army, by which this power to inflict corporal punishment was strictly limited to those cases of gross and violent offences in the field of which the provost marshal had been a personal eye-witness. The provost marshal was restricted to this by his com-cretary of State for War would do well mission, which could only be varied by the General commanding. He could only exercise his power in those cases where he had himself witnessed violent or disgraceful offences; in other cases, he had to refer to the decision of the commanding General. Clause 72, on page 40, would show this; and, under the circumstances, he did not think this power of the provost marshal was in excess of the requirements of warfare.

MR. O'CONNOR POWER said, two statements had been made, not very well reconcilable. The hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) had been charged with engaging in a debate upon a subject on which he had no knowledge; and, later on, his hon. and gallant Friend (Major Nolan) had been alluded to as the instigator of certain proceedings in connection with this subject. Whatever want of knowledge there might be on the part of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport was fully made up by the practical experience of the hon. and gallant Member for Galway (Major Nolan). Why did the

to direct his attention. In the case of the prison rules and regulations, it was required that a copy should be laid on the Table of the House. A similar course might be adopted with the Army whip, so that Members might test the weight of the instrument; and, even if so disposed, subject themselves to the discipline, and so get practical knowledge of what the poor fellows suffered whose backs were lacerated. On whom should rest the stigma of calling the Army a collection of scoundrels and blackguards? Certainly not on those who endeavoured to get the punishment of flogging abolished in the Army. This was a most serious subject: and, as they had failed to induce the Government to make the slightest attempt to meet the Amendment, he hoped no division would be taken to-day. He trusted the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Secretary of State for War would not press this matter any further; but that he should be allowed to adjourn the question until he had more time to give it consideration,

MAJOR NOLAN said, the hon. and| Baronet to say that the men were not gallant Baronet (Sir Henry Havelock) there flogged in large numbers for the had impugned his statements, and had most trifling offences. True, they were referred to Clause 72, which autho- Zulus, and not European soldiers; but rized the appointment of provost mar- he had himself seen Europeans flogged shals. But the law with regard to pro- for very nearly the same things, and vost marshals was extremely strained, they now found that those things were or the facts which he (Major Nolan) had going on at the present moment. He referred to would not have happened. did not see what better evidence they He had been speaking of the law as could have than this book, which was it actually existed, and not of this published on the authority of the GoBill. He (Major Nolan) had carefully vernment. The provost marshal, it read the clause in this Bill, and he failed seemed, did not keep the returns; but to find what had been stated by the hon. there were statements in this Book and gallant Baronet. He thought pro- which were supposed to be correct. He vost marshals might flog men for almost should like either the hon. and gallant anything under the clause. He wished Baronet, or the hon. and gallant General hon. Members to see this clause, and to (General Shute)-who had been out examine the powers given under it. with large Armies, and both of whom Certainly, as to the class of evidence, the had had larger Forces under their comclause was terribly stringent; because it mand, and more experience than himsaid that the provost marshal himself self-to say whether five men, or even might see the offence committed, or one 10 men, had not been flogged every day of his assistants might see it; while the amongst those Forces? Could they say provost marshal could have any number they knew that was not the case? Had of corporals, or lance corporals, or even they made inquiry to satisfy themselves private soldiers as his assistants. Ths that in a Force, say, of 20,000 men, provost marshal had it in his power to that was not the common average? They flog men for the most trivial offences; would not know, perhaps, unless they so that where they found the clause took the trouble to ascertain the fact. simply protecting the soldier for an But he believed that in every British offence he did not commit, then, on the Army in the field a very fair amount of other hand, it allowed the provost mar- flogging usually went on-it was such a shal, pratically, to flog for almost any- very convenient punishment. They had thing. For instance, the clause said nothing to do but to catch a man and to tie him up to the nearest post, and give him 20 lashes, and say nothing more about it. It need not be reported He dared say the man would not commit to anybody, and there the matter ended. the same offence again. He dared say the punishment was tolerably effectual; but its great merit was that it was so extremely convenient, and because it

"And the powers of such provost marshals shall be regulated according to the established

usages of war."

Now, that simply meant that if anyone in the camp said he had known a man to have been flogged for such and such an offence-it might be 20 years before -then that might be construed into a warranty for flogging. In another place

it said

"The General or other officer commanding the Forces on active service shall cause the

provost marshals to exercise the powers intrusted to them in such manner and under such circumstances as he may consider to be best calculated to prevent and instantly to repress offences injurious to the discipline of the Forces under his command and to the Public Service."

On the whole, he should say there never was a clause drawn up more expressly to cover every possible case than this clause. But he would turn to the latest and best evidence that could be got namely, the last Blue Book from Zululand, and he defied the hon. and gallant

VOL. CCXLVI. [THIRD SERIES.]

was convenient it was used, and that was the reason of its retention. He should like to see it abolished altogether, if possible. He acknowledged he did not hope to get it abolished; but he intended to propose such Amendments as would limit it down to what had been stated in that House should be the limit that was to say, to limit it to cases in which foreign nations used it. That, he thought, would diminish it by 9-10ths.

MR. JACOB BRIGHT said, a great many references had been made in the course of the debate to the hon. and gallant Baronet the Member for Sunder

3 F

different items of expenditure, which | between rates and taxes. The hon. and pressed heavily on the ratepayers, the learned Member for Oxford (Sir William only matter with which it was necessary Harcourt) also saw that it was absolutely for him to deal was as to the channels necessary to limit the rate; and he (Mr. into which the expenditure of the coun- Yorke) looked forward to the hon. and try flowed. The taxpayer had many learned Gentleman's support that evenfriends, who sought a cheap popularity ing. It would be well for hon. Gentleby pecking at small economies. The men to bear in mind that a rate of 1d. ratepayer had fewer friends, who were in the pound produced £100,000 a-year. stauncher, and had made stubborn fights In 1871 the first School Board for Lonin his behalf. It was always assumed don provided schools for 104,000 chilthat education was a pearl of great dren, at a cost of £11 per head, which price, and the particular branch of ex- was defrayed by the imposition of a rate penditure that affected education had of 2d. in the pound. He contended that, not any attractions for the popular although the Education Department was speaker; but the time had come when powerless to remedy the existing state all real economists should scrutinize of things, there was yet a means of apvery carefully the cost of education in plying legislative agency to cure what this country. He proposed to confine was generally admitted to be a crying his remarks to the area of the Metropolis, evil. In 1875 the state of things had and, as far as that area was concerned, alarmed the Vestries of the Metropolis. he should be able to show that the ex- They met together, and determined to penditure for educational purposes had wait upon the noble Lord (Viscount been so excessive as to be dangerous, Sandon), who was at that time Vice not only to the cause of economy, but to President of the Education Department. the cause of education itself. He thought They stated, in the first place, that the a review of the Metropolis in its efforts neglected classes only should be provided on behalf of education in late years for, whereas at that time many other would show that education had not been classes were provided for. The Duke of advanced by the action of the London Richmond, the President, in answer to School Board, notwithstanding its ex- that, said that the neglected classes were travagant expenditure, and there was those to whom the Act was in the first evidence that a strong necessity existed instance intended to apply, but that they for the Government to impose some would hardly get the right hon. Gentlecheck upon this action. He proposed man the Member for Bradford and his to call attention to the financial position Colleagues to agree that it was not inof the School Board in 1871, 1875, and tended for other classes of the population. 1879, and then to inquire into the causes They said that sites too near to voluntary of the absolute and relative cost of the schools had been selected by the School system; how far it was due to defective Board. To that the noble Lord (Viscount machinery; or the unsound policy of Sandon) replied, that in many instances the Act; or to extravagant administra- the Education Department had restrained tion; and to specify the different heads the School Board from building too near under which it showed itself, and to to voluntary schools to interfere with point out one or two ways in which it their action. They also complained that might be remedied; for it was supposed, the standard of education was too high. when the Education Act was passed, The answer was that that was a question that in London the School Board rate for the ratepayers, and that the Educawould not amount to more than from tion Department could not go into all 2d. to 3d. in the pound; but this esti- those matters; that it had no right to remate had been very much exceeded. At strain the action of the School Board that time, the right hon. Gentleman the unless it acted improperly; and that if Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Fors- the ratepayers thought the standard of ter) said the rate would not exceed 3d. education was too high the remedy was in the pound; the right hon. Gentleman in their own hands. In that year the the Member for Greenwich stated the rate rose to 4 d. in the pound, and the same thing; and the now Leader of the average net cost for the education of the House (Sir Stafford Northcote) moved children, estimated for the year ending an Amendment, that any sum beyond March, 1880, was £1 13s. 6d. per head that amount should be divided equally on the rates; whereas in 1875, the