Contents:
The number of floggings in English local prisons remained fairly constant approximately per annum until a significant reduction was noted in This was partly as a result of concerns about the number of corporal punishments and it was becoming increasingly clear to British military observers that the days of flogging in the army were also numbered. But concerns about how to control unruly soldiers closely mirrored the fears aroused by the end of transportation — pundits believed, after all, that most troops were drawn from that same criminal class.
The need to find a suitable alternative became the focus of the subsequent report. This process coincided not only with the changing attitude towards crime and punishment, but also with a growing realisation amongst military pundits that the changing nature of warfare would necessitate an enlargement of the army, control of which became a real concern.
Under The Lash - A History Of Corporal Punishment In The British Armed Forces [ Scott Claver] on www.farmersmarketmusic.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. A history. Under The Lash - A History Of Corporal Punishment In The British Armed Forces - Kindle edition by Scott Claver. Download it once and read it on your Kindle.
Although the report provides a unique insight into perceptions about army recruits, discipline and punishment in Victorian Britain it has received little attention from historians. Before arriving at its conclusions the Committee examined military law in other countries, including France and Prussia, and whilst this evidence tells us more about how the British army viewed its continental neighbours, it remains a useful starting point for a comparison of military codes across Europe. Nowhere was the final arbiter of military justice a judicial or legal appointee.
In some countries Britain, Austria-Hungary, Italy the Commander-in-Chief of the army performed this function during wartime. In others, France for example, the head of state theoretically held this position. Of course in some cases Russia, Prussia the head of state was also the Commander-in-Chief of the army making such distinctions superfluous. This had important implications in Britain where the role of the Judge Advocate General JAG , who oversaw the process of military justice, had come under considerable scrutiny in the mid-nineteenth-century.
Army commanders had become increasingly concerned at the growing influence of the JAG and saw a threat to their authority if judicial considerations were given priority over disciplinary ones This too was common in other European armies. In Russia, for example, a Judge Advocate procureur militaire attended courts-martial to prosecute only and did not act in a judicial capacity The role of non-military persons or departments was invariably restricted to purely administrative duties.
Nowhere did these civil servants wrest a modicum of judicial authority from the military no matter how well qualified they were Officers were normally only tried by the highest form of military court. However, in Italy there was no permanent court with jurisdiction to try officers, reflecting the rarity of such trials.
Otherwise, death was inflicted by beheading. These varied more widely than is often thought by historians. A strong navy was seen as crucial to this goal. Analysis of punishments handed out by British courts-martial during the three years prior to the abolition of flogging for most military offences in shows a shifting of emphasis towards imprisonment at the expense of flogging see figure l Barbosa used the navy official's rhetoric against them in arguing for a diplomatic solution, noting that if the new dreadnoughts were as unsinkable as they claimed, the remaining warships in government hands would certainly not be able to force a military victory. We are sending this message in order that his honor the president can grant Brazilian sailors the sacred rights guaranteed us by the laws of the Republic, end the disorder, and grant us some favors to better our Brazilian Navy:
It was also universally accepted that judicial procedure gave way to military expediency during wartime when it was usual for courts, often known as drum-head courts, to be convened in the field Control of the army in such circumstances was understandably considered crucial, and the military code allowed for the swift removal of soldiers who fell into this category. Extensive use was made of this provision and executions were certainly not unheard of during the revolutionary decades in the middle of the nineteenth-century: Significantly, most of these occurred in units in North Africa.
On the other hand about a third of French courts-martial resulted in acquittals — a rare finding in the British army Undoubtedly there was a genuine regard for Prussian-style discipline, but it is also likely that Prussian military prowess during the s had boosted the army's reputation. This admiration increased after the Franco-Prussian War when the draconian Prussian code was contrasted with the lenient French code seemingly confirming the view that linked military efficiency to strict discipline. He was equally impressed with the power granted to commanders summarily to inflict corporal punishments and the life-long disgrace that went with dismissal from the army Indeed, notions of honour pervaded the Prussian code and only executions for military offences were performed by the honourable method of a firing squad.
Otherwise, death was inflicted by beheading. In Prussia, soldiering was considered a noble and worthy profession — hence the disgrace resulting from dismissal from the army. The French army inherited much of its identity from its revolutionary and Napoleonic predecessors: In Britain the difference could not be more marked. Far from being an honourable profession soldiering was considered worthless by most classes, but most especially among the working class who regarded the army as a refuge for drunkards and criminals rather than a respectable trade.
Hunger was the most effective of recruiting sergeants and it was no coincidence that the Irish disproportionately filled the ranks even of nominally English regiments The result was a form of discipline that was particularly harsh as this was believed to be the only effective means of ordering men drawn from the very bottom strata of society. However, the challenge to traditional ideas on punishments such as flogging was forcing the army to explore alternatives.
There were three forms of serious punishment available to courts-martial: Analysis of punishments handed out by British courts-martial during the three years prior to the abolition of flogging for most military offences in shows a shifting of emphasis towards imprisonment at the expense of flogging see figure l However, it is apparent that the army was still making wide use of flogging despite its imminent abolition.
Punishments inflicted by British courts-martial Possibly some men who would otherwise have been flogged found themselves marked instead, but the most likely explanation of the dramatic rise in marking soldiers is that this represented an attempt by the army to ensure that unwanted recruits did not re-enlist after flogging had been partially abolished in More striking, though, is the comparatively little use made of the power to discharge offenders: The British army's reluctance to give up corporal punishments contrasts with the French army where corporal punishment had long been interdicted, and the Austro-Hungarian army where the flogging of recruits was abolished in This might suggest a general move away from violent disciplinary punishment during this liberal era in the Dual-Monarchy.
Russian courts-martial could order corporal punishments to be administered summarily in the presence of a soldier's company or battalion Elsewhere corporal punishments were less apparent: The procedure adopted in the Dual Monarchy after was to fix prisoners to an object such as a post or a tree by way of rings attached to the ankles and wrists For example, the version outlined a number of military offences for which the death penalty could be applied.
These included mutiny, sedition, desertion, cowardice, sleeping at or leaving a post, striking or using violence towards a superior officer and disobedience It also established rules for the constitution of courts-martial and laid down procedures for the execution of sentences.
The power of any court-martial to inflict corporal punishments was retained 43 , but only during times of war and with an upper limit of fifty lashes Such a sentence could be commuted to not more than forty-two days imprisonment or twenty days and twenty-five lashes Clearly corporal punishment continued to be considered an essential element in the maintenance of military discipline.
Only the highest form of court — the General Court-Martial — was granted the power to impose a sentence of death. This type of court was constituted of no fewer than nine commissioned officers no upper limit , at least two-thirds of whom had to concur for a sentence of death to be lawful Provision was made for these powers to be transferred to a Detachment General Court-Martial during wartime with a reduced constitution of at least three commissioned officers.
To avoid any political involvement sentences had to be confirmed by the Monarch or, during active service, the Commander-in-Chief. There remained no right of appeal and, therefore, no appeal court. Little had altered in the decade separating the two reports, but one significant change had occurred in Germany. The Prussian code, so admired by British generals, had been replaced with an altogether more progressive German one in The death penalty was retained, but soldiers received greater protection from the new code. The administration of law was the responsibility of the Kriegsgerichtsrat Judge-Advocate , under the jurisdiction of the Oberquartiermeister Administrative Staff , attached to the General Staff Furthermore, German soldiers were granted legal rights, Rechsstaatlichkeit , as protection from abuses of authority.
However, for some reason this information was not considered worthy of inclusion in the report. Ellice identified twelve capital crimes in the German code including repeated desertion. A sole act of desertion, however, even if committed in the field, was punishable by a maximum of ten years imprisonment Curiously, he omitted the offence of leaving a watch, contained in the German code a similar offence, abandoning a post was a capital crime in the French army only if it was committed in the presence of the enemy.
Like its French equivalent the German code allowed for the removal of individual offenders to penal battalions, but unlike the British in neither the French or the German armies was the offence of sleeping on post considered sufficiently serious to merit the death penalty.
Although corporal punishment was finally abolished in the American army in , Ellice drew attention to the Judge-Advocate-General's remarks which allowed for other physical punishments:. Thus, the accused may be adjudged to carry a loaded knapsack for a certain time, stand on a barrel, or suffer any other ignominy which would naturally result in a degree of bodily pain or fatigue, provided the same were not excessive and physically injurious As such it was not as tightly constructed as the German code. Wide-ranging powers were bestowed on the Commander-in-Chief in times of war.
For example, capital punishment was permissible, but the restrictions imposed by Article 47 could easily be bypassed:. Unlike the British code, the American Articles did at least envisage a role for a political person such as the President. This represented the start of a movement away from British influence and towards a military code with a distinctly American identity — a process not completed until when a new military code was approved in time for America's entry into the First World War.
As well as an allowance for adjournments there was an increased role for the Judge-Advocate-General who could be appointed to any court-martial. This direct role for a judicial rather than a military figure was a sure sign that the emphasis was beginning to shift from the disciplinary function of the court-martial to one of a dispenser of justice. The exigencies of the war did force the British army to belatedly introduce similar provisions, but even then it was not by Act of Parliament.
However, the creation of thirty-four Court-Martial-Officers 52 CMO — legally trained personnel who could attend trials to ensure their legality — in had little impact: Far from having diminished, military flogging had actually increased. In there had been cases; but in men had received a total of 25, lashes; in men had suffered 22, lashes. Parliament again proved unsympathetic, as the establishment, intent on protecting their vested interests, maintained the right to control soldiers and sailors through severe punishments.
It was not until fourteen years later, and then only under strong pressure from reformers, that the Army Discipline Act of abolished the flogging of soldiers — but it was to continue in military prisons till In the navy flogging was also suspended in , although it continued in naval prisons. And flogging was not formally removed from the statute book until In the army other punishments were then substituted, like the dreaded Field Punishment Number 1, where the defaulter was lashed in an X formation to the wheel of a gun carriage. He was left like that for many hours a day, doing fatigues and pack-drill during periods of release and fed only bread and water.
Archie Baxter, a New Zealander who underwent this punishment as a conscientious objector in the First World War, described his ordeal:. Even when nowadays often being ordered to take part in military actions that are in the direct interests of multinational corporations, the rank and file still must do or die — and never question the reason why. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Notify me of follow-up comments by email.
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. Later, he described his ordeal: In one of the verses the colonel tells his men: A sailor would be brought into port, and flogged on every Royal Navy ship present. Finally outlawed in , flogging as a general practice, though, was not suspended in peacetime until The final and obviously most severe punishment was death by hanging at the yard-arm.
This was the ultimate punishment for desertion or mutiny against the fleet. Naval ships could not suffer the possibility of rebellion going unchallenged.
The likelihood of death by slow hanging was a real deterrent. Being a capital punishment, sailors could not be sentenced to hanging without an official Court Martial. If found guilty, their punishment was gruesome.
Their hands and feet would be bound, to prevent any possibility of escape. Then a noose would be placed around their neck. That line would run through a tackle, or pulley, hanging from the yard-arm a large pole going across the mast. This was done as a powerful deterrent, and the entire crew was made to watch, and understand what was happening. The end of the 18th and beginning of the 19th century saw some of the most severe punishments from the Royal Navy. The Navy was larger than it had ever been. The sailors were mostly pressed into service.