It seems to be now generally admitted, by all who have attended to the subject, that ever since the period when it became the duty of captains to make periodical reports to the Admiralty of the corporal punishments inflicted, those punishments have gradually decreased. Meanwhile the discipline has gone on improving; and therefore it becomes a matter of much practical importance to investigate the true bearings of a measure by which such invaluable results have been brought about. It should never be forgotten, that there is an absolute necessity for maintaining the present strictness of our discipline, which is one of the most essential sources of naval success; and, next to the spirit of honour and patriotism which pervades the profession, it may be considered the very life-blood of that branch of our national strength. But there are two very different methods by which this vital object of exact discipline may be accomplished: one is the prevention, the other the punishment, of offences. Some officers have endeavoured to do away with corporal punishment altogether; and some, on the other hand, have had recourse to hardly anything else. The just union of the two systems will, I believe, in the end, perform the greatest public service, at the least cost of human suffering.[7]
Antecedent to June 1811, the date of the order by which officers in command of ships were required to send quarterly returns of punishments to the Admiralty, there was little or no restraint upon the despotic authority of the captain, as far as corporal punishments were concerned. And it must be in the recollection of every one who served in those days, that captains, not really cruel by nature, nor more intemperate than the ordinary run of men, were sometimes led, by the mere indulgence of unlimited and unscrutinised authority, to use a degree of severity not only out of proper measure with the crime, but, by reason of its questionable justice, hurtful to the discipline of the ships, and to the general character of the service. Such things may also possibly have happened even of late years; but certainly, they have been much less frequent; for although no Admiralty regulations can convert a hot-headed captain into a cool, experienced, or reflecting person, nevertheless, it does seem to be quite within the legitimate range of official power, to compel all intemperate officers, whether young or old, to behave, as far as their nature will allow, in the same manner as men of sense, feeling, and thorough knowledge of the service would act in like circumstances.
It is a rule, now very generally observed by the best authorities in the Navy, never to punish a man on the day the offence has been committed. And experience having shown the wisdom of this delay, there seems no reason why so simple a rule should not be established imperatively upon every captain without exception.
It is important, in discussing the subject of naval discipline, to recollect under what peculiar and trying circumstances the captain of a man-of-war is placed, and how much he stands in need not only of every assistance that can possibly be afforded to guide his judgment, but of every artificial check that can be devised to control his temper. As he is charged with the sole executive government of the community over which he presides, he is called upon to exercise many of the legislative, as well as the judicial functions of his little kingdom. Having made laws in the first instance, he has to act the part of a judge in the interpretation of those laws; while, in the very next instant, he may stand in the place of a jury to determine the facts of the case, and of a counsel to cross-question the witnesses. To this strange jumble of offices is finally added the fearful task of allotting the punishment, and seeing it carried into effect! If ever there was a situation in the world, therefore, requiring all the aids of deliberation, and especially of that sobriety of thought which a night's rest can alone bestow, it is surely in the case of a captain of a man-of-war. And if this rule has been found a good one, even by prudent and experienced officers, who, it appears, never trust themselves to punish a man without twenty-four hours' delay at least, how much more important might not such a regulation prove, if less discreet persons were compelled to adopt invariably a similar course of deliberation? Nor does it appear probable that, in the whole complicated range of the service, cases will often occur when its true interests may not be better answered by punishments inflicted after such delay, than if the reality or the semblance of passion, or even the slightest suspicion of anger, were allowed to interfere with the purity of naval justice. It is so difficult, indeed, to detach the appearance of vindictive warmth from punishments which are made to follow quickly after the offence, that in all such cases there is great danger incurred of inflicting much pain to little or no purpose.
In the first place, therefore, I consider it might be very advantageously established, by a positive order from the Admiralty, that one whole day, or twenty-four hours complete, should, in every instance, be allowed to elapse between the investigation of an offence, and the infliction of the punishment which it may be thought to deserve. The interval in question, to be of use, should take its date from the time the circumstances of the case have been inquired into by the captain himself. The reason of this limitation will be apparent, if it be recollected that the moment at which the officer's anger is likely to be the greatest, is when he first becomes acquainted with the details of the offender's misconduct.
In order still further to circumscribe the chances of passion interfering with the judgment, not only of the captain, but of the officer who makes the complaint, as well as the witnesses and other parties concerned, I think it should be directed, that all offences whatsoever are to be inquired into between nine o'clock in the morning and noon. This is perhaps the only period in the whole day perfectly free from suspicion as to the influence of those exciting causes which tend materially to warp the judgment, even of the wisest and best men. The ship's company take their dinner and grog at mid-day, and the officers dine soon after. To those who have witnessed in old times the investigation and punishment of offences immediately after the cabin dinner, the importance of this regulation will require no further argument. At any other period of the day, except that above specified, the irritation caused by fatigue, hunger, or repletion, is so apt to interfere with the temper, and consequently with the judgment, that it should never be chosen for so delicate an affair as an inquiry into details which may be followed by so dreadful a consequence as corporal punishment.
It is undoubtedly true, that the essential characteristics of naval discipline are, and ought to be, promptitude of action, and that vigorous kind of decision which leads to certainty of purpose at all times, and under all circumstances. But these very qualities are valueless, unless they are regulated by justice. Without this, a man-of-war would very soon become worse than useless to the country, besides being what a "slack ship" has been emphatically termed, "a perfect hell afloat!"
Independently of every other consideration, it is assuredly most desirable to establish throughout the fleet the conviction, that, although the punishment of flogging, which has prevailed for so long a time, cannot possibly be discontinued, it shall be exercised with a due regard to the offence, and without any added severity on personal grounds. It is difficult to estimate how essentially this conviction, if once fixed in the minds of the seamen, and guaranteed, as I think it might be, in a great measure, by a very simple Admiralty regulation, would contribute to extend the popularity of the naval service throughout the country.
There are some minor details, in addition to the above suggestions, which it may be useful to consider in connection with them. All punishments should take place between the hours of nine in the morning and noon, for the reasons hinted at above. If possible, also, not more than one day should be allowed to elapse after the inquiry; for, although there is always something like passion in a punishment which is too prompt, there may, on the other hand, frequently appear something akin to vindictiveness in one which has been delayed until the details of the offence are well-nigh forgotten. The captain should avoid pronouncing, either during or immediately after the investigation of an offence, any opinion on the case; much of its influence would be destroyed if the captain were to commit himself by threats made in the moment of greatest irritation; he might be apt to follow up, when cool, a threat made in anger, to show his consistency.
I could relate many instances of injustice arising from precipitancy in awarding punishment; but the following anecdotes, for the accuracy of which I can vouch, seem sufficient to arrest the attention to good purpose.