would still be in the hands of the commanding officer other discipline-such as confinement, the withholding the privilege on shore, certain extra orders, &c.. all of which are conferred 1

VOL. XXV.-NO. CXXXIV.

1

THE careful observer of the signs of the times cannot have failed to notice the strong and general feeling of opposition in the public mind to the practice of flogging in the navy. Presumed expediency is likely to yield to humanity, or, in the view of some, to sentimentality, in the call for the abolition of the lash. The question may, therefore, soon become, not whether the power to inflict corporal punishment shall be taken from the commanders of our ships of war, but, what disciplinary means shall be substituted for that authority. All admit that such commanders, acting singly, should be, on their peopled deck, superior to everybody and to everything-except the laws of God and of their country. Can such a supremacy be maintained without the means of checking the lazy and the skulking-the vicious and the unruly-by a system of terror? For this purpose, can any policy short of the bloody code of Draco be substituted for a mode of punishment as ancient as the collection of mankind in families?

The reply to these doubts has been dogmatically proclaimed: "The American citizen shall not be scourged." This sentiment, issued from a high place, is believed to have met a response in the hearts of the people. If so, it is idle to advocate the abstract question of the propriety of flogging sailors. It is the part of wisdom to meet the difficulty without reserve, and procure for the ancient system, under which the navy has been governed hitherto, one suited to the national taste, yet calculated to preserve that good order and obedience to lawful authority absolutely necessary for military efficiency.

It is true, that if punishment by stripes was prohibited by law, there would still be in the hands of the commanding officer other means of discipline-such as confinement, the withholding the privilege of going on shore, certain extra orders, &c.. all of which are conferred by the

articles of war, directing punishments according to the usage of the seaservice. But are such means sufficient for the ends in view? Officers of experience and judgment declare, that with the description of force employed in the navy at present, it would be impracticable to maintain due efficiency with them alone. We are told, that the necessity of punishing offences would require the confinement of so many as to convert the ship into a floating jail. Without admitting this to its full extent, the claimants for peremptory abolition are willing to allow, that it would not be unattended with inconveniences, unless substitutes for the lash were first provided.

In searching for a proper course to pursue under these circumstances, it cannot fail to strike any one who will take the trouble to investigate the subject, that it will be necessary to re-model entirely the articles of war, or, in other words, to repeal the "Act for the better government of the navy of the United States," approved April 23d, 1800, and replace it with another. If the authority it confers on the commanding officers of ships, to flog sailors for any and all offences, without imposing any restraint upon the abuse of such an extraordinary power, were in accordance with the interests of the service and the genius of our institutions, the act in other respects is objectionable, and inefficient as a naval code. We e propose to review this law in brief terms-in the first place to notice its history and operation, and then to indicate some of its defects. We will then be better prepared to show to the satisfaction of men of republican principles, who, entertaining a proper respect for the laborer, fear the consequences of interfering with an ancient practice-that flogging in the navy should be abolished; or, that if it be retained under any circumstances, it be confined to criminals-that is, to those who stand disgraced by their own conduct; provided such criminality can be established before a legal tribunal,

PART I.-NAVAL ARTICLES OF WAR.

THE parentage and history of the act for the better government of the navy of the United States, which, for the sake of brevity, will bereafter be termed the act of 1800, are worthy of attention. It justly claims a venerable antiquity. A large portion is copied from the first British Naval Articles of War, 13th Car. 11., c. 9, entitled, "An Act for Estab lishing Articles and Orders for the Regulating and Better Government of his Majesty's Navies, Ships of War, and Forces by Sea." This was enacted shortly after the Restoration, when the Duke of York, afterwards. James II., held the office of Lord High Admiral. On this prince entering upon the duties of commander-in-chief for the navy of his brother, Clarendon informs us that "the first work was to make alterations, and to christen those ships which preserved the memory of the Republic." His next object was to find suitable commanders for them, as we are informed that "the navy was (1660) full of sectaries, and under the government of those who, of all men, were declared the most republican." The selections made on the occasion were well calculated to effect the desired object-to blot from the memory of Englishmen the recollection of the unsurpassed, if not still unequalled glories of the English navy, under the renowned Blake. when the British standard was supported by