Several years after the period alluded to, I happened to be sailing about Spithead in a gentleman’s yacht, when a man-of-war’s cutter came alongside.  As no officer had been sent in the boat, the message was delivered by the coxswain, whom I did not recognize as an old shipmate till he came to me aft, took off his hat, and held out his hand.  I then recollected the face of the seaman I had unjustly punished!  To all appearance he had entirely forgotten the circumstance:  but the commodore’s words, “You ought to have let that man off,” rang in my ears, and my heart smote me as I felt the honest fellow’s grasp.  “I shall never rest,” I afterwards vowed to myself, “till I have succeeded in suggesting some regulations which, as far as possible, shall prevent other officers from falling into the same error.”

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.