British Military Discipline in the Napoleonic Period: Gleanings
from the Inquiry into the System of Military Punishments in the
Army, 1836
By DE Graves
In 1835, King William IV created a commission "for the purpose
of inquiring into the several modes of Punishment now authorized
and in use for the maintenance of discipline and the prevention of
crime" in the British army. The thrust of the commission's work
was to ascertain whether or not the punishment of flogging should
be retained or abandoned in favour of other means of discipline but
they also investigated other tangential subjects including the commissioning
of officers from the ranks, the establishment of a system of decorations
similar to the Legion d'Honneur and ways to ameliorate the
living conditions of the soldier. The commission was most energetic
in questioning witnesses, interviewing no fewer than 72 persons,
including ministers and medical professionals who had preached against
flogging. Most of the witnesses, however, were soldiers, ranging
in rank from field marshal to privates, from the both the British
and French armies. As well, the commission circulated a questionnaire
on the subject of flogging to several hundred serving and retired
officers. The transcripts of the interviews with witnesses and the
responses to the questionnaire will be found the Report from His
Majesty's Coimmisoners for Inquiring into the System of Military
Punishments in the Army; with Appendices, printed by W. Clowes,
London, 1836, which is available in digital form on the Internet.
Below are excerpts from the testimony of some of the witnesses who
were veterans of the Napoleonic Wars which shed light on disciplinary
matters, not only in the British army but also in the French, Portuguese
and Prussian armies.
General Sir Henry Fane
[Fane entered the army in 1793 and served as a senior cavalry commander
in the Peninsula during the latter years of the war]
"It chanced that I was ordered [in 1814] to conduct from Thoulouse
[sic], after the battle of Thoulouse [sic], to Boulogne and to Calais,
the whole of the cavalry, some artillery, and the matériel of
the Duke of Wellington's army. I marched them in two columns through
France, and embarked them at Boulogne and Calais. By the power of
maintaining discipline which I had in my hands, I was enabled so
to conduct them as to receive so much of the approbation of the French
government as to be offered as a distinction the order of the legion
of honour. I will ask any member of the Commission, how I could have
conducted those two columns, had the power of inflicting corporal
punishment, if necessary, been taken out of my hands, and the power
of solitary confinement only substituted in lieu of it."
"The Army [in 1814] was in that state of discipline, that it
does not occur to my memory that I had occasion to inflict one corporal
punishment upon that march. What might have been done regimentally
I cannot undertake to say, but I have no recollection of having given
an order to lead to that result. I gave out an order when I arrived
at Calais or Boulogne, thinking the troops for their good conduct,
and pointing out that there was only one offence committed during
that march, which the French authority thought necessary to bring
before me. There was only one robbery committed, which was the only
serious offence, with two very large columns of troops. ...... The
guilty individual was never discovered."
Lieutenant-Colonel De Lacy Evans, MP
[Evans joined the army in 1806 and served chiefly on the staff,
both in the Peninsular and during the Waterloo campaign]
Question: "When you were in the quarter-master-general's
department you served in Spain, did you not?"
Answer: "In Spain, France, Belgium, and America."
Q: "Had you any opportunities of comparing the discipline
maintained in the French Army, and the discipline maintained in
the English Army?"
A: "That is also connected with politics. We knew the French
commissariat was exceedingly inferior to ours; and also, in consequence
of the position in which they were hostilely place to the population
of Spain, the generals of the French Armies had greater difficulties
and fewer pecuniary means probably than we had. Those might have
been amongst the causes why their troops were far less disciplined
than ours, in regard to plundering and pillaging. But I do not think
that the French soldiers, from various causes, gave loose to the
same degree of licence which may have been witnessed in times of
disorganization in our Army. An English soldier commits greater and
more reckless excesses than a French soldier. The French soldier
plunders much more frequently, but also more systematically, and
perhaps less destructively; but they were infinitely more compelled
to live at free quarters on the inhabitants than our troops were.
It seems to have been the system of the French government to make
the country in which they made war support the war. This was the
Roman maxim. Besides they had not the same financial means to rely
on, nor adequate depots to resort to. The French soldier, therefore,
had a right to licence, and was frequently left for support to the
exercise of his own ingenuity.
Q: "When you advanced with the Army into France, how did
you find the discipline of the French Army in respect to the inhabitants
of that country?"
A: "That certainly is a very fair question; and it was not
very materially improved, but that is also connected with politics.
The wars of Napoleon at that time [e.g. 1813-1814] had almost ceased
to be national wars. They were wars that still deeply engaged the
spirit and feeling of military ambition; but the great mass of the
population of France had become weary of the interminable contest,
and ceased to sympathize with the imperial soldiery. From this cause,
and from the severe conscriptions and other burdens, they were exposed
to, a species of hostile felling had even grown up between them and
their own troops. There is no doubt, however, but that their discipline
was inferior to ours, even in their own country."
Q: "Have you known instances in France, in which the inhabitants
of a village have rather looked forward to the arrival of the English
Army for protection?"
A: "Yes, it was occasionally so. But although the French Army
was in its own country, still some of the causes existed which had
existed in Spain, and some of these to a greater degree than in Spain.
The whole of their financial system was in disorder, and when we
entered France their regular Armies were so much reduced, that a
much larger proportion of the troops we had to contend with were
conscripts but recently embodied, and therefore less disciplined
than the old soldier we were engaged against in Spain. I believe
also that some of the inferior officers even had been withdrawn to
the north, which left the army before us in a still more disorganized
state than, under ordinary circumstances, would have been the case."
Q: "If the French army, from the want of pecuniary means,
were unable to supply their Army by means of their commissariat,
the consequence was a discipline which might otherwise have been
applied to prevent the soldiers pillaging or doing injury to the
inhabitants of the country, must necessarily have been removed
to enable them to obtain food?"
A: "Yes, these were amongst the causes of their lax discipline
and frequent pilferage."
Q: "Then, in point of fact, many offences that would have
been punished in our Army, must necessarily have been passed over
in the French Army?"
A: "Yes, certainly, even if their system of punishment had
been the same, as ours, which was not the case. And even at other
periods, when the means of the French Government were not in so ruined
a state, they went upon the principle of making the scene of operations
support, as far as possible, the war. In this respect they were far
less scrupulous than we, disregarding the eventual hostility of the
inhabitants exposed to these disorders, which must usually be the
result, of this system. But of the state of the French Army at that
time, and of the feelings of the inhabitants towards them, there
may, perhaps, be suggested this further explanation -- that they
had dwindled, in fact, from the condition of a national force into
that of followers of Napoleon, actuated by violent personal ambition,
rather than by any general or patriotic feeling, and hence, therefore,
the increased alienation between them and the inhabitants."
Lieutenant-Colonel James Fane
[Fane joined the army in 1805 and served mainly in the 11th and
52nd Foot in the Peninsular]
Q: "Have you seen cases in which the infliction of corporal
punishment has failed in reforming the individuals punished, but,
on the contrary, has rather hardened their feelings, and made them
more reckless?"
A: "I think, in the course of my military life, I have seen
one or two desperate characters that nothing would have reclaimed;
and that very severe punishment in their cases tended more to harden
than reclaim them."
Q: "Though such men are generally repeatedly punished in
that way?"
A: "They have been; but I have also seen men when on service,
who, knowing that the punishment of death would be awarded to them
for the crime, which was plunder, persevere in it, until they heard
or saw the provost-marshal was coming up in the rear of the division.
I mean to say, by that, that I think the fear of immediate corporal
punishment had more effect upon them than the chance of being tried
and hanged."
Q: "The provost-marshal has the power of inflicting corporal
punishment without trial, has he not?"
A: "Yes he has."
67
Q: "Have you ever had occasion to contrast the discipline
of the French army with the English army when they have been in
the field?"
A: "Yes, I have."
......
Q: "In the course of your service, have you ever followed
the French Army in taking up your quarters?"
A: "Yes, frequently."
Q: "What has been the feeling expressed by the country people
upon those occasions towards the French Army, in respect of their
treatment to them?"
A: "It has not been at all equal to the feeling towards ours.
The French discipline was not as good as ours. The men plunder more,
and committed more crimes which passed unnoticed. Crimes which we
took notice of, the French did not."
Q: "Have you ever seen occasions, when you arrived, of the
English troops being rather looked upon as a blessing in comparison
with the French?"
A: "Many times."
Q: "In France as well as in Spain?"
A: "No; not so much in France -- more in Spain and Portugal."
Q: "But in France have you found the inhabitants of the
country satisfied with the discipline of their own Army?"
A: "I think they preferred ours, though from their national
feeling they are not very fond of acknowledging it."
Q: "Did you advance with the Army from Waterloo to Paris?"
A: No; I was left behind wounded; but, coming up after, I observed
that, in the country on the line of march where the Prussians had
gone, the houses were destroyed, and the people dispersed; whereas,
on the line of march of the English, you found every body in their
houses, and you could purchase any articles you wanted, and get quarters.
Indeed, having first adopted the Prussian line of march, I found
it so bad that I was obliged to leave it."
Lieutenant Thomas Blood
[Blood served throughout the Peninsular campaigns as a private soldier
in the 43rd before being commissioned in 1813. On being questioned
about the use of summary punishment, he recalled an example that
took place near Ciudad Rodrigo on 26 September 1811 when the Light
Division was serving as the rear guard when a soldier refused to
obey orders.]
"Shortly after this, in retreating, a soldier, as well as I
recollect, who was in the company with me, became most insubordinate
and insolent to his officers, setting all authority at defiance.
In consequence, the regiment got in front of the division on the
retreat, owing, I suppose, to the circumstances being communicated
to the general commanding, and the rear regiments formed line, the
enemy having halted; on which there was a drum-head court martial,
the man tried and instantly punished. He received, as well as I recollect,
50 or 100 lashes. This had the desired effect; it at once checked
his mutinous conduct, and we had no more of it."
Q: "What was the act of mutiny?"
A: "Most improper and disrespectful language to his officers
and non-commissioned officers, setting them and all authority at
perfect defiance."
Q: "What did it appear to you was the effect of the immediate
infliction of the punishment on the rest of the men?"
A: "It appeared to have had a very desirable effect; in fact,
it instantly checked this turbulent fellow's insolent behaviour,
and was of course an example of terror which prevented others, if
so inclined, from being guilty of or led into a like breech of military
order, and the men felt sensible that he fully deserved the punishment
he received."
Major-General Henry Hardinge
[First commissioned in 1801, Hardinge occupied a senior position
on the staff of the Portuguese army before commanding a Portuguese
brigade in the latter stages of the Peninsula campaign]
"... the discipline of the Army thirty years ago [e.g. 1806
or thereabouts] was very much carried on by regimental courts martial
under one article of war, commonly called by the soldiers the "Devil's
Article" by which, "all crimes not capital were to be
tried and punished according to the nature and degree of the offence;" more
than half the offences were tried under that single article."
Q: "Are you at all aware by what means they are enabled
[the French] to avoid the necessity [flogging] which you consider
so strong as it respects the English Army?"
A: "... I am bound to add, that having served with the Prussian
Army during the campaign of 1815, when I had an opportunity of witnessing
what the Prussian system was, that that system in the field was very
inferior to the British system, inasmuch as they had not the means
we have of putting down a great deal of insubordination and irregularity.
In our service this would instantly be done by corporal punishment,
or rather by the fear of it, and I consider that of all the Armies
which I have seen in the field, there is none which can compete for
strictness of discipline with the British Army, through that Army,
in the composition of its men, is infinitely inferior as to the respectability
of its classes to any other Army in Europe; consequently I am irresistibly
led to this conclusion, that if the effect of British discipline
be such that our army, not only for the important object of destroying
its enemies, but also for the object of going through all the severities
of a campaign, can be maintained in a higher state of discipline
than any other, we ought not to relinquish that system. It was evinced
in the south of France where our Army followed the French Army through
their own country, and when it was admitted by our enemy that the
discipline, forbearance, and good conduct of the British troops to
the inhabitants of the country were infinitely superior to that of
the French Army towards their own countrymen."
Q: "Are you at all acquainted with the discipline of any
of the other Armies of Europe from having served with them?"
A: "No, except for the Portuguese Army, which I was the deputy
quartermaster-general, from 1809 to 1813."
Q: "In the Portuguese Army there are very severe punishments
by strokes of the sword?"
A: "Having commanded five battalions of Portuguese in the Pyrenees,
the result of my observation is, that the soldier, from his nature
and character, is not so difficult to manage as the British soldier,
from his nature and character, and principally as he is much more
sober than the British soldier; he has less personal resolution to
resist authority; more submission from his previous habits as a peasant.
Punishment was inflicted by a corporal seizing the culprit, and striking
him with the flat of the sword upon the back. It was necessary to
be done with the utmost caution, for it shook the chest so severely
that sometimes consumption and lingering complaints were the consequence."
Q: "It did not leave any mark?"
A: "No, it bruised the body, and frequently led to spitting
of blood, and very serious complaints; and it was not calculated
to have the same effect of deterring from crime that our system has,
because being given with the clothes on, and the man not appearing
to suffer much from it, if he had the resolution, to conceal his
suffering, which many firm men have, it had not the effect which
our punishment has of deterring by the appearance of a more severe
punishment."
General Rowland Hill
[Hill joined the army in 1790, served as a divisional commander
in the Peninsular campaigns where he often functioned as Wellington's
deputy commander. At the time of the inquiry in 1836, he was the
commander-in-chief of the British army]
Q: "Were there at that time any orders give out from head-quarters
recommending greater caution in passing sentence of corporal punishment?"
A: "Yes, the confidential circular letter, of which I beg to
hand in a copy, was issued by order of His Royal Highness the Duke
of York, then commander-in-chief."
[The
letter is reproduced in the inquiry evidence. Signed by Henry Calvert,
Adjutant-General, and dated 25 March 1812, it commands that "on
no pretence whatever, shall the award of a regimental court martial
hereafter exceed three hundred lashes."]
Field-Marshal, the Duke of Wellington
Q: "Supposing the power of corporal punishment had not been
in your hands at that time [e.g, the Peninsula], could you by any
other means have established that discipline in the Army?"
A: "No, it is out of the question."
Q: "You are now speaking of circumstances upon actual service?"
A: "Yes."
Q: "Must not a certain time elapse before corporal punishment
can be inflicted, on account of the proceedings of the court martial?"
A: "There was a very summary proceeding, which is now discontinued,
which is called a drum-head court martial; but the man is brought
to a court martial as soon as possible. A court martial is ordered;
the forms take a certain time, but the man is sure of being tried,
and, if convicted, of being punished. But, besides this punishment
by court martial, there is in all [British] Armies the provost. I
do not mean to say that the provost could be used for the purpose
of enforcing an order of that description, but the provost is always
liable to be used to prevent any irregularity: for instance, if there
is a system of plunder going on, the provost is ordered to prevent
it, and he punishes those taken in fact on the spot." ......
Q: "Upon service, do you conceive that the discipline of
the Army which you had under your command in the Peninsula, was
superior to the discipline of the French troops opposed to you?
A: "I have not the slightest doubt of it, infinitely superior."
Q: "Superior in respect to the treatment of the country
in which they were serving?"
A: "Not to be compared with it, even their [the French] own
country; and enemy's country to us, and to them their own country."
Q: "And even there the discipline of the English Army was
superior to that of the French?"
A: "Infinitely."
Q: "In what respect was the discipline of the French Army
so inferior to us?
A: "A general system of plunder, great looseness in the performance
of the duty, great irregularity; in short, irregularity of which
we could not venture to risk the instance even."
Q: "Towards the latter time of your service in the Peninsula,
was corporal punishment very frequent in the Army, or more frequent
than it had been in the beginning?"
A: "I cannot say that I know exactly how it was in the regiments.
I rather believe it was not so frequent. I am positively certain
that crime had most enormously diminished; that there was not one
crime for one hundred that there were in the beginning of the time.
I think my orders shew it. There was a man convicted of robbery;
and I pardoned him, because the crime had become so rare. There are
things of that sort that shew clearly, that by discipline, and by
care and attention, the Army was brought into such a state of discipline,
that every description of punishment was almost discontinued altogether.
Q: "Do you conceive that the Army, when it left [for] France
from the Pyrenees, was in as efficient state for service as an
Army can well be brought to?"
A: "I always thought that I could have gone anywhere and done
anything with that Army. It was impossible to have a machine more
highly mounted and in better order, and in a better state of discipline
than that Army was. When I quitted that Army upon the Garonne, I
do not think it was possible to see anything at a higher state of
discipline; and I believe there was total discontinuance of all punishment."
Placed on the Napoleon Series: January 2009
[ Organization
Index ]
