TO BE ABOLISHED

Timaru Herald, Volume XCVIII, Issue 18084, 5 June 1923, Page 9

TO BE ABOLISHED

No. 1 FIELD PUNISHMENT; Lieutenant-Colonel Walter Guinness | announced in the House of Commons | mat the Army Council had decided to | abolisli Field Punishment No. 1. | Corporal punishment in the Army' was aooiishea in peace time in iWOb, not, us is too olien contended, in the 'lace of strenuous opposition by the commissioned ranks oi the Army, but | very largely ior the reason mat some | commanding officers were discovered to ' f be introducing many ingenious hut j | wholly illegal puuishmeiua in order to | j, avoid having to resort to the lush, p 'J'lien, in ldsi, hogging was finally done I away with, and two forms of held j punishment, known respectively as No. p l and-No. 2, were introduced, it having * been found necessary to employ soino | form of punishment in the held which ■ should cause the offender no injury and which should not prevent the performance of his active military duties, as would bo the case had the man to be sent to the rear or to the base to undergo imprisonment. ‘ _ Unuer Field Punishment No. 1 the offender could be kept in irons— fetters, or handcuffs, or both —and attached joi certain clearly laid down periods of time to a fixed object; and could be subjected to any labour, employment, or restraint as though lie luid been sentenced to imprisonment. Field Punishment No. _< . was precisely similar, except that the offender could not be attached to a fixed object. 0 During the war, with so largo foices as were subject to military law r , m . 10 most part for the first time, and with many commanding officers coiiipaia n illy inexperienced in its iitlministi a ,i<> , it was occasionally found that V? d;"." j lations in regard to held P'"' 1 * * ‘A • were over-liarshly luLerpretec, * ; especially was this the case ' - t 11 overseas forces among wind hi | punishment was not vecognisei. - ,j was a certain outcry about pari icularly in regard to die I’ M with which the 'vm• *> | often carried out.; there was , k o]j_ | reiterated demand ior the \ ' 4 I tion of these field punishments , bm. tl veplv of the military autho. d. es vurn always tlie same—that they had nothing J that could take their place. Field Punishment No. 1 iS , T, ' . f f rO . finally done away with. jn - -jN 9 mains only Field Pumshmeiit N<>—. which certainly makes it " U 1 V 1 t{ Hie method of carrying out 01 . Jar punishment can lm'« w [ llcll WRB appearance of “crucifixion, ? nu , the main complaint made ag« tenlion during thc^wa^^,^