The Sun.
London, England, 1853-10-17 00:00:00

Z-bgl

LONDON, MONDAY, OCTOBER 17, 1853,

In order that the recent Act for the protection
of women and children should be fairly tested—
in order that the Legislature should be willing
on a fitting occasion to extend its operation, so as
effectually to suppress the brutal and unmanly
offences against which it was directed, it is essen-
tial that its stringent provisions should be dis-
creetly, as well as vigorously, resorted to. Magis-
trates are thereby armed with extraordinary
powers—powers directly opposed to the constitu-
tional principle, that " No man should be deemed
guilty of any offence until found to be so by the
verdict of twelve of his peers." Until that trial
had taken place, no penalty could legally be in-
flicted. The party accused might be subjected to
imprisonment, but that could only be for safe
custody, not for punishment, and he had a com-
mon law right to be brought to trial on the
first opportunity, unless adequate grounds could
be assigned for postponement. A summary
jurisdiction was subsequently conferred, and
from time to time extended, in order to ensure a
certain degree of punishment in cases where there
might otherwise be a failure of justice. The
power was, however, vigilantly guarded. Magis-
trates were only enabled to sentence for common
assaults to pecuniary fines, or in default of pay-
ment to a short term of imprisonment. If the
crime was attended with aggravated circumstances
so as to render the pecuniary penalty inadequate,
the presiding Justice was authorised to commit
the prisoner for trial ; and whenever the facts
were doubtful, it was his duty to do so, that the
great Palladium of British liberty might not be
unduly interfered with. After some time an act
was passed for the protection of the police, who in
the discharge of their arduous duties were but too
frequently subjected to wanton and 11 ferocious
assaults by drunken ruffians. In such cases where
a policeman on actual duty was the victim, the
Magistrate was authorised to pass a sentence of
imprisonment for any term not exceeding two
months, without the option of a money fine. The
Act was, however, passed on the understanding
that its provisions should only be called into ope-
ration where no possible doubt or difficulty arose
as to the guilt of the accused. And we conceive
that, in such cases, is entitled, ex debit° justitce, as
a matter of unquestionable right, to demand a
trial before a jury rather than a summary adju-
dication. When such a privilege existed, so that
the accused could not possibly be prejudiced, the
summary jurisdiction might safely be allowed—it
lva4
only
nominally, but not really, in violation of
the
great constitutional principle "Trial by Jury."
One class of cases, however, arose, in which It
was deemed essential to infringe still further on
the constitutional privilege above referred to. It
was found that personal assaults, committed by
truculent scoundrels on members of their own fa-
milies, had been fearfully on the increase, unfit they
had arrived at such an unprecedented height
as to have an irresistible claim on legislative at-
tention. Truculent
scoundrels, who made a
practice of spending the greater
portion of the:::
earnings in low profligacy and dissipation, ha-
bitually ill-treated their miserable partners—
whether wives or mistresses—fet the purpose of
preventing just reproaches, or •
gratifying their
own vindictive and malevolent
feelings. Their
helpless children were also kicked about or vio-
lently beaten without cause or provocation. The
punishment, by a pecuniary fine, was clearly in-
adequate for such horrible outrages. It also, in
the great majority of instances, fell on the inno-
cent victims, inasmuch as it was the furniture or
savings of the afflicted wife that went to pay for
the injury she had herself sustained. Nor was a
committal for trial more efficacious, as the sufferer
was easily induced to absent herself from the
trial, so that the offenders escaped with practical
impunity, the majesty of the law remained unvin-
dicated, and was brought into contempt and dis-
repute.

To meet this formidable and rapidly-increasing
evil the Act of last session was passed ; and Ma-
gistrates were empowered to sentence to six
months' hard labour for assaults on women or
children of tender years. It was under considera-
tion whether the further power cf inflicting cor-
poral punishment should not also be granted, but
that 'was withheld, chiefly because serious doubts

were entertained as to the " discretion" of Magis-
trates, and it was feared that it might be exer-
cised under unsuitable circumstances. The Act
was accordingly • passed as a great experiment,
which should, after a short trial, lead to further
legislation, either in extension or limitation.
That law we are desirous of seeing fully and fairly
tested. We are anxious that its provisions should
be vigorously exercised whenever circumstances
may require, but that they should never be
abused or resorted to in a doubtful case—for that
would be to deprive', the Salutary Enactments
of their entire value, to bring the law itself into
disrepute, and prevent the extension which is sti:l
unhappily so urgently required. Last week we
felt ourselves bound to protest against a judgment
of Mr. YARDLEY'S, who strained the Act beyond
its intended operation, by applying it to a com-
mon quarrel between two women. And we now
most reluctantly find it necessary to complain of
a sentence passed by Mr. HAMMILL, whose deci-
sions heretofore have been entitled to the highest
approbation, and received many tributes of well-
merited praise from ourselves as well as others.
On Saturday, a respectable licensed victualler
was brought up before the Hon. Gentleman at
Worship-street Police-court, charged with a
violent assault on an unfortunate woman
named MARY ANNE BAKER. The matter
occurred at between one and two o'clock in
the morning, and was owing to a quarrel with
a male friend of the complainant, in which she
appeared to have interfered. This friend, how-
ever, did not come forward. He was known to
the police as a notorious smasher, and was seen
to run away on their approach. The story of
the complainant was only partially corroborated
by another unfortunate female—while it was not
only met by a decisive andpositive denialon the part
of the accused, but the two persons who were in
his company distinctly swore that they saw no
assault committed by the defendant—and from
the evidence of the constable who came up, it
would appear that all the violence was at the
other side. Mr. HAMMILL, however, sentenced
the prisoner to two months' hard labour, a punish-
ment which was stated would be positively
ruinous to his future prospects.

Now, if the charge had been clearly established,
the punishment would not have been by any
means too heavy for the offence. Unfortunate
women, however degraded the position in which
they are placed, must be protected against wan-
ton and unprovoked violence. If, however, they
choose to rush into a fray—to interfere in quar-
rels between men, and come in for an accidental
blow, the matter assumes a very different aspect,
and certainly does not come within the mischief
intended to be guarded against. But in the case
under notice the probabilities were all in favour of
the prisoner. His witnesses were unimpeachable,
and we venture to assert no Jury would have
convicted him on the evidence. We regret that
Mr HAMMILL, to whose decisions we have so
frequently directed the attention of less efficient
Magistrates, should have committed this grave
mistake. We trust, however, that he will endea-
vour to rectify it, and to prevent the ruinous
consequences that may result from his erroneous
impression. There is nothing more honourable
than the candid confession of an unintentional
error, and the willing atonement therefore. Mr.
HAMMILL may feel assured that such would not
in any degree derogate from his deservedly high
character.

The antiquarians, so it would seem, are already
beginning to bestir themselves in consequence of
the talk about Temple-bar, as being ugly, as being
in the way, as being altogether devoid of anti-
quity, and therefore as being precisely the very
object to be at once swept away by " the besom
of destruction." Excellent Mastar ZIGZAG may
be silent as yet, but a kindred observer has spoken
out through the person of Mr. PETER CUNNINGHAM.
Doubtless, before long we shall have a prolonged
storm of controversy upon the subject blowing
hot and cold, for and against, through the medium
of Notes and Queries. Probably, too, we shall find
arguments speedily enough abounding in the
Builder in reference to this projected improve-
ment. Punch will, of course, by necessity deal two
or three blows of his baton—that ingenious baton
which shoots out a pencil at one end and a pen at the
other, according to the whim or pleasure of its pos-
sessor—upon those dirty old doors which are ever-
lastingly sticking in the mud, excepting only at
the rare intervals when they are politely slammed
in the face of the SOVEREIGN. We ourselves, in
The Sun, have insisted upon the folly of allowing
the principal approach to the city of London to be
any longer obstructed by what is, at the same
time, almost as bad as an obstacle to traffic,
a grotesque and preposterous disfigurement. A
similar course has been pursued by the Times,
and before long we anticipate a general chorus of
demand for the demolition of Temple-bar from
the majority of our daily and weekly contempora-
ries. Call it a new cry if you feel so inclined—
nevertheless, reflection must assure your common
sense sooner or later, that it is a cry originating
in reasons sufficiently cogent, and derived from
sufficiently forcible considerations. Let it be
remarked, that we are tired (we journalists)
of insisting upon the exorbitance of the
charges made upon the public by hotel-keepers ;
that we are utterly sick of this wretchedly pro-
tracted squabble about Russia and Turkey; that we
are blasé in consequence of the exhausting results of
the last Parliamentary session; that we are weighed
down with ennui by the monotony of the long.
vacation ; that we are bored to death by this per-
petual reference (and reference only) to the seizure
of Moldc-Wallachia ; that we are worn out of all
patience by this long babbling about the CZAR,
and the Divan, and the Sublime Porte, and
the Vienna Conference, and the Olrafitz reviews,
and the conflicting news about the quarrel coming
to us from St. Petersburg, Berlin, and Constanti-
nople—and that, therefore, we go in search of
some new grievance, and perhaps, for the sake of
contrast, or possibly for a freak of fancy, or per-
chance in obedience only to a whim that is prov-
ing unexpectedly contagious, fasten for the nonce
upon Temple-bar, the luckless point of demar-
cation between the city of London thecity and
Westminster. Insist upon all this if you list,
O " pensive public," or 0 " gentle reader," or by
whatever title you (the many-headed who turn
over the broadsheets of the morning or evening
papers) papers) may
be addressed—but acknowledge
second thoughts, as you must perforce, we con-
jecture,
that there is truth in our indignation,
that the gateway to the metropolis is in many
respects a manifest nuisance in the centre
of our principal thoroughfare, that it is in the
way, that it is ugly, that it 28 devoid even of the
saving merit of antiquity. Granted, says Mr.
CUNNINGHAM, that Temple-bar is not a piece of
antiquity, adding naively " that defect, however,
will cure itself if you will only allow it to
stand !" Why, the same argument wouldhoinld
good of any detestable monstrosity erected
the capital only yesterday. It might have
been adduced some time ago in behalf of that
horrible, straddling effigy of GEORGE IV. a t
King's-cross, or in favour of the preservation of
that miserable stone caricature of Queen VICTORIA,
disfiguring a little out-of-the-way square at Pim-
lico. Fortunately, the argument was not once
thought of, and those detestable eyesores were
swept away to the limbo of some stonemason's
backyard. Away in like manner with this ob-
structive gateway across the extremity of Fleet-
street—away with it ! If the West-end has
its Marble Arch, that is no reason why the
City must be disfigured at its very en-
trance by Temple-bar. -Under any circumstances
the removal of the latter must ultimately be
regarded by those in any way
interested
facilitation of the traffic of the
ro v m
metropolis,
atshae
reaTilhyesdurepmroislii
Templaree-nbt would be an im-
tnigon irnopf
provement, as we have already insisted, if only
because it would clear away a huge obstruction
from the very centre of our principal thorough-
fare. It would be an improvement, moreover, as
we have shown, by getting rid at the first step
into the English capital of what is obviously a
flaw in its general appearance. It would
be an improvement, likewise, for yet another rea-
son, and one which we do not think has yet even

once been particularised. We mean, in a sanitary
way, that the removal of Temple-bar would be a
manifest and decided improvement. It would
tend materially to forward the desirable project of
securing better ventilation to the locality. This
consideration of itself, we submit, is enough to
justify the Common Council in declining to con-
sent at once to the continued preservation
of a building about which there has long been
a question as to whether it -were not better razed
to its 'foundations. SHARSPgRE'S tomb at Strad-
ford- upon-Avon has n othing Nlhatever to do with the
subject before us, good Mr. CUNNIN GRAM. Be it
remembered, we are talking of' Temple-bar, which
is a relic of nothing but' the stupidity of our fore-
fathers, and not of a monument which is among
the most precious relics of the greatest, the wisest,
and the noblest of all Englishmen.