The Express.
London, England, 1853-04-07 00:00:00

pat under reoegniaances. The next course would he to 1 should take away, in this case, the constitutional power
submit these ewes to Out ; bat ft Was evident that that , of appeal to the Quarter Sessions which was allowed ia an
pion eosld not be adopted. The .prereiitori of a jiary was ordinary cases. He should be sorry to aee the power of
Inertly to decide open questirios of feet . • and as in these imprisonment in any case given to the megistrates, unless it
eases there-was seldom any dispute as to the facts, it was I was accompanied oath • power of appeal. He would not
sneer that there watts room fog the lovestigations of a refuse this constitutional right because in some solitary case
'Jury. The plan, then, that he proposedsras, that the cog,- a wife might not appear against her husband at the Quarter
petal punishment should not be inflicted'aantil after eight Session. He would therefore propose that there be a right
MaprP.eFallTtoZtahOe In-esaltid4tubaarttetrliSeeostijornciion of the hon. gen-
sherleyssi:nbed
transmittedthat•
theacett naceoweebilstntrehoze drsoititohnast of
the person convicted might have the power of appeal. He amen would affect the principle of the bill, which was
was afraid that this was assomewhat cleimsy expedient, and that punishment should be indicted as soon us possible.
erlor ttte
he should be happy adopt any other that might be (Hear, hear.)
and appealed to
suggested better calculated to meet the object he had in Mr. HENLEY said he knew of no single reason why
view. this case should be made an exception to the general rule
Mr. FITZROY should be very sorry to see the amend- of law, which allowed the right of appeal.
nientsproposed by the hon.and learned gentleman introduced Mr. PACKE said lie saw considerable difficulty in car-
into the bill ; because he considered that corporal punish- eying out the proposition of his hon. friend, because when
went was quite inconsistent with the public feeling, and a man was convicted before the magistrates
with the character and tone of our modern legislation. He the quarter session, what was to he done with him in the
had no sympathy with criminals of this class ; but he meantime ? Was ho to be allowed to go back to the wife
thought the proposal likely to defeat the hon. gentleman's or child who had brought him into court ? (Hear, hear.)
object of raising the public opinion to the level of that of lie should, therefore, oppose the proposition of his hon.
foreign natians. If he understood the clauses aright, friend.
the ordering of corporal punishment was to he made impera- The addition of Mr. Fitzroy was then agreed to.
tire upon the justices, and:he.thought:thatit would tend very The clime as amended was then agreed to.
greatly to shake the magistrate's intention to convict ; and Clause 2 was postponed till the bringing up the report.
it would certainly prevent many complaints from being The other clauses were pestpoued, and the Chairman re-
made ; for there were few women who would subject their ported progress.
husbands or paramours to the chance of undergoing such a BURGIIS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
degrading punishment. Moreover, no man could suffer On the motion of Mr. Durtur, this bill passed through
corporal punishment in public without attracting towards
committee.
him • certain degree of sympathy. Besides, when a man
-dt
reerd to with b the
printedm inu minutes proceedings
iht
printed which
ELECTION COMMITTEE REPORTS.
e
is
had to undergo the infliction of pain in public, he would Mr. SOTHE
RONinured that the
sh reports
oof all electionc
naturally summoa up all his energies to bear it with for-
titude, and would so exalt himself into a sort of hero.
mhamdmnoitttege'llat°lsoog:, that the reports of all election committees,
for had been made to the act which had been passed
forthwith
'
for the prevention of those half insane attacks which had together with the minutes of proceedings, be printed. His
object in making this motion was simply that the house
been made upon the Sovereign by persons anxious to earn
should have a record ef these proceedings. Of
ssOifonnitnheetelin„ures-.
for themselves some little notoriety. But there had been
re-
no instance of such • punishment being inflicted ; and in- ports which had been made 'n_th
1.• h Ist hear that no record had
deed it seemed to him that it would be as absurd to adopt of
would he s r' toeolest
the whole principle of km tolionis. as the proposal of the crept of six e t gree. to.
hon. and learned gentleman. The house adjourned at 6 o'clock.
Mr. PHINN said the words " publicly and privately
whipped" were to be found in every act in which corporal -
punishment was inflicted ; but if there was any feeling
against public floggiag, he should be happy to omit the
former word. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGATE did not think there was any public
feeling against corporal punishment. (Hear, hear) There
had been a great deal of maudlin philanthropy of late, but
be was not prepared to say that a long imprisonment was
the best way of meeting such cases. When corporal punish-
ment had been indicted two or three times people would
take warning, and the act would fall into disuetude. Cer-
tainly the hon. gentleman's idea of making a man a hero by
giving him a whipping was a very strange one. (Hear.)
Captain SCOBELL observed that honourable gentlemen
who advocated corporal punishment had never seen a man
flogged ; or they would never support the clause. (Rear,
hear.) If they had seen a man's back scarified, as it
was by the lash, they would never forget the sight. Besides,
this power they were giving to two justices was not pos-
sessed by the judges themselves.
PIIINN—The judges can order corporal punishment
fur every larceny. (Hear, hear.)
Captain SCOBELL was not a judge ; but, at all events,
in those cases there was • jury as well as a judge. lion.
gentlemen bad talked as if this was a matter only between
husbands and wives. Why a man might be flogged for
beating another woman or another man's child; or one
woman might be flogged for an aggravated assault upon
another. He (the gallant Captain) had been a magistrate
nearly thirty years, but he bad never heard a lash ordered
to be inflicted on either a man or a boy during the whole of
that time.
Mr. PACKE could not bring himself to consent to the
amendment of the hon. and learned member, which to all
intents and purposes introduced a new punishment.
Mr. AGLION BY would support the proposed clauses.
Hs did not advocate the infliction of corporal punishment as
a general rule, but in cases of extreme pravity
he thought it might be resorted to with good effect. At
the Manchester sessions it was frequently ordered and was
found to work well. The hon. and gallant gentleman
talked of a man's skin being lacerated by the lash, but be
did not seem to value the skin of poor women, whom the
bill was designed to protect. (Cheers.) He did not think
that a flogging would procure much public sympathy for
the brats who should be convicted of ill-treating • woman.
All of what were called gaol offenses were punishable by
the lash. He remembered a case at the Manchester sessions
where a man who had been convicted took off his clogs
and threw, them at the chairman's head. The man was
immediately ordered to be taken back to the prison and
soundly flogged. The offence had never been repeated;
and the puni•hment had had a very beneficial effect. (A
laugh.) He hoped the amendment would be agreed to.
Lord LOVAINE had been the reluctant spectator of
dogging in the army, and he should notwithstanding that
note for the amendment. At the same time he thought
that corporal punishment should be reserved only for cases
which could not be reached by any other penalty. (Cheers.)
The hon. and gallant gentleman seemed to think a man
might beat another man's wife, and yet not his own. Now,
the law gave one power to beat one's own wife and
children—(laughter)—to administer to them " wholesome
correction," but no one bad a right to raise his finger or
even to threaten the wife or children of another person on
soy pretext whatever. (Laughter.)
Lord PALMERSTON agreed with his hon. and learned
friend behind him, that public opinion would go along with
the proposition of the hon. and learned member for Bath ;
but that public opinion was subject to ebb and flow, and
what was by anticipation public opinion to-day might not
be the public opinion when that proposition came to be
tried. The main object of the proposition was to increase
the punishment to be awarded summarily, for what had
been very properly described as brutal assaults committed
on women and children. He could not admit that a man
was more entitled to commit an awash upon his own wife
than upon another. (Laughter.) He considered it was
• greater offence, because he was rather expected to pro-
tect his own wife from such violence, and other wives
bad their own husbands to protect them. Their object was
to encourage the victim to complain on the one hand, and,
on the other, to inflict a punishment sufficiently severe to
prevent the commission of the offence. The wife or child
who received an injury would make complaint if the punish-
ment was sufficiently severe to prevent a repetition of the
ledfasnec hat if, besides being severe, the punishment was to
'be fig, if it were such as to leave marks for life on
the piety, they would firstly deter the wife from making
the eemplaint, because she would share in the disgrace
beessist down on her husband and family • and secondly,
these marks for life would sow the seed; of perpetual
dentestie dissension between the parties. (Hear, bear.)
Tbi wife would be pointed out as the peon who got her
hatband flogged.(Rear, hear.) So that it would tend ad-
nfto the object which they had in view. This applied
totaKs lie flogging. But then it was said that what was
asked for was private Bogging, and not public. This was
contrary to the object fur which all punishment was in-
flicted ; for punishment was inflicted, not for the purpose of
taking revenge on the offender, hut that by the example of
his punishment others might be deterred from the commis-
sion of crime. (Hear, hear.) They did not inflict punish-
ment in wornUen to the criminality of the perm who
isonemined the offence. If they did, they ought to go
back to the example of former ages, and inflict torture
on the individual in proportion to the magnitude of hie
offence. Hat they abandoned that vaunt, and adopted the
principle of poniAlng for the sake of example. In the
me a the offender who threw his iron shoes at the magi-
melte, he was immediately tent to be whipped. AU those
In court knew it, and that was a public example. A light
flogging would produce no adequate advantage, and a se-
vere one would in Sept I. peeing, fasting resentment be-
tween the offender and his wife. (Hear.) He thought the
bill of his hon. friend would answer the object in view;
and that it would bettor to wait and see its onsets before
having recourse to serpent punishment. In this matter he
would rather fall short of public feeling. Let an experi-
ment be made with the provolone of this bill, and if they
ware found to be insallelent, parliament could be asked to
give further powers. (Hear.)
Mr. PRIER said that if they were to legislate on the
principle of • flux and reflux in public opinion it would put
en end to all improvement in the law. (Hear, hear.) They
had already passed in the last few years six or seven acts
which imposed the punishment of whipping. He was op-
posed ton lengthened imprieonment,because in thatease the
wesght of the punishment fell on the wife, who would in
many cases have to go to the workhouse. (Hear, hear.)
bir. WALPOLE said that common sense in his opinion
dictated that they should rather attempt to put an end to
these brutal offences by means of the Dill on the table than
by the proposition of the hon. and learned gentleman. If
that proposition were carried they would run the risk of
outraging public opinion, and brutalising, instead of human-
isiag, the individuals who were subjected to it. (Hear,
hear.) He asked with what feelings the husband would re-
turn back to the wife by whom he was subjected to the
punishment of whipping. (Henr, hear.)
Sir .1. SHELLEY thought that they ought to try all
other means before they had recourse to corporal punish-
ment. (Cheers.)
Mr. HENLEY thought these could be nothing more ob-
jectionable than that part of the hon. and 1 d gentle-
man's proposition which required an application to be
made to the Secretary of State within eight days before the
whipping could be inflicted. (Hear, hear.) Nothing could
be more calculated to lead to future misery between the
husband and wife than the infliction of Corporal punish-
ment. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DEEDS said that he would vote against the clause,
if it involved the power of appeal to the Secretary of State.
Sir J. PAKINOTON was inclined to vote for the in-
diction of this corporal punishmeat, because he looked
upon it as the most efficient means of preventing these
brutal offences. But before he would vote for the clause
he should like to know whether the hon. and learned gen-
tleman would press the appeal part of the clause.
Mr. I'HINN said that if the present amendment were
carried he would abandon that part of it which related to
the appeal.
Mr. HUME deprecated the infliction of corporal punish-
ment, which it had been the object of all their recent legis-
lation to erase from the statute book.
The house divided, when them appeared :
For Mr. Phials's clause 5O
Against it

'411? fiErdr:kii4i.

Majority s 5B
On the motion of Mr. FAME, words were added to the
claase requiring the offender to give bail at the aspiration
of kis sintenee to keep the peace for sir months.
Mr. FITZROY proposed words taking away the right of
appeal to the Quarter Sessions, after conviction before the
magistrates.
Mr. BARROW said he could see no reason why they