The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-02 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(Tins DAY.)

The SPEAKER took the chair shortly after 12 o'clock.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

The following bills were considered and ordered for
third reading :—Epping Railways (Dunmow Extension)
and Llanelly Railway and Dock Company.
The following bills were read a second time :—Caledo-
nian Railway (Branches to Lanark, &c.), Caledonian Rail-
way (Lesmahagow Branches, &c.), Newry, Warrenpoint,
and Rostrevor Railway, and Portadown, Dungannon, and
Omagh Junction Railway.
PETITIONS.

Petitions were presented against the Poor-law Medical
Relief Bill; against the reduction of the wine duties;
against the Fire Insurance Bill, &c. &c.
LEAVE OF ABSENCE.
--•-- -

On the motion of Mr. BRAND leave of absence for 10
days was granted to Colonel Biddulph on the ground of ill-
health.
AGGRAVATED ASSAULTS ACT AMENDMENT

BILL.

Lord RAYNHAM, inmoving the second reading of this
bill, said the question involved in this measure was one of
great importance. It was brought forward from a feeling
that the law was inadequate to meet the class of offences
with which it was proposed to deal, and it was a general
conviction that some amendment was demanded. He pro-
posed that for those offences magistrates should be enabled
to inflict on the offender corporal punishment, and in the
event of a second conviction the infliction of that punish-
ment was to be rendered compulsory. He contended that
the substitution of that punishment for a lengthened im-
prisonment;would be a mercy to wives who suffered with their
children from the imprisonment of their husbands, on whose
exertions they were dependent for the actual means of
subsistence. He admitted, however, that in many cases
the imprisonment was desirable, for there were some of the
working class whose conduct was so brutal to their wives
and families, that their being confined for a particular pe-
riod was an unquestionable benefit. It was objected that
corporal punishment tended to render more brutal the party
on whom it was inflicted ; but, even admitting that
such were the case, it was not a principle of jurisprudence
to consider what might be the conduct of an offender after
punishment, but to impose such punishment as would de-
ter parties from the commission of crime. They per-
mitted the lash in the army and navy, and it was not shown
that the effect on soldiers and sailors was to make them
worse than they were before they had been punished. He
did not see why they should be more tender in regard to the
backs of civilians than they were of those of the military
and navy. There was no innovation of the law, because
the power of inflicting corporal punishment was exercised
by magistrates for certain offences, and there was one party
who was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in Here-
ford with hard labour and to receive 36 lasfies, though his
offence was only stealing a pair of boots and two umbrellas.
The noble lord having stated that he proposed to abolish
fines, expressed a hope that the Government would not
oppose the second reading of the bill. lie contended that
the infliction of corporal punishment would have a powerful
moral effect in the neighbourhoods where the offenders re-
sided. The argument that corporal punishment should not
be inflicted except through the medium of a jury was
puerile, for the intervention of a jury had reference to the
mode of trial in particular cases, and not to the punishment
awarded for the commission of an offence. He believed it
was admitted by all persons that the present law should be
amended, and he hoped that, oven if his propositions were
not acceded tc, the house would allow the bill to go into
committee, where it could be modified to meet the
views of honourable members. The noble lord read a
list of cases in which husbands had behaved with the
greatest brutality towards their wives and children, and
entered into details to show that the punishments inflicted
were totally inadequate to the character of the offences
committed. He considered that the measure was a mode-
rate one, had entitled to the favourable opinion of the
house.

Mr. CLIVE denied that the bill was a moderato measure.
It provided that for the first offence there should be in
flicted 12 months' imprisonment and 50 lashes, and for the
second offence 18 months' imprisonment and 150 lashes.
The reason why the present law was inoperative was owing
to the indisposition of wives to prosecute their husbands,
and, when the punishment was rendered severer, that in-
disposition would be increased. He was satisfied that
practically the bill would not work well, because
magistrates would be reluctant to inflict punishment of
that character. He was ready to take on himself the whole
responsibility of recommending the rejection of the bill,
which he proposed should be read a second time that day
six months.

Mr. E. JAMES seconded the amendment,
Mr. D. GRIFFITHS supported the bill. The law
at present might be considered logically sufficient to
meet assaults such as those contemplated in the
measure ; but they had to deal with such a brutalised
class that it was found inefficient in repressing social
offences. He deprecated the tenderness exhibited in
regard to the infliction of corporal punishment, as related
to adult civilian offenders, when it was resorted to in the
army and navy. He agreed in the suggestion of an hon.
member near him that in respect to persons convicted of this
class of offences corporal punishment should be inflicted in
as degrading a manner as possible, and after the mode
adopted towards school boys. (Laughter.) However, he
considered it would be 'desirable to refer it to a select com-
mittee.