The Sun.
London, England, 1860-06-20 00:00:00

BILL.

Viscount RAYNHAM moved that the house go into
committee on this bill.
Lord ENFIELD in opposing the bill said, the
punishment of 25 lashes for a first offence and
for a second offence of 50 lashes would have the effect
of preventing women coming forward against their
husbands. Daily experience proved that women
were deterred from appearing against their husbands when
a severe punishment was liable to be inflicted. He denied
that punishment of the lash would render the person who
suffered it better behaved towards bis wife and family after-
wards, and drew attention to the fact that the only peti-
tions presented on the bill were from females against it.
The tendency of modern legislation was of a humanising
character; and he was ono of those who considered that the
punishment of flogging soldiers and sailors was brutal and
degrading. (Hear, hear.) He contended that the law would
be totally inoperative, and concluded by moving that the
house should go into committee this day three months.
Mr. HARDY seconded the amendment, and went
into different returns respecting the number of convictions
and punishments in the metropolis during the last five years,
to show that the present law empowering police magistrates
to inflict six months' imprisonment for assaults on women
was inoperative, which he maintained was a strong argu-
ment against increasing the severity of punishment. He
objected strongly to giving a single magistrate, who might
be influenced by his feelings or mistaken in his judgment,
full power to inflict a degrading punishment.
Mr. PAUL L opposed the bill.
Mr. EWART said that although he had voted for the
second reading of the bill, on further consideration he felt
bound to oppose its further progress.
After a few remarks from Colon‘l NEILL,
Sir G. C. LEWIS said the feeling which animated the
members of the house who supported the bill was very
honourable to their humanity, but to increase punish-
ment was not in accordance with legislation of late
years. The principle on which their ancestors
proceeded was when a particular offence became
frequent to increase the severity of the penalty. The
consequence was that the criminal statute book
was crowded with capital punishments for numberless
offences. Modern legislation diminished the severity, and
the result had proved most beneficial. At the beginning of
the last century the punishment of exposing in the pillory,
and cutting off the eau of offenders was very common, and
perhaps- some hon. members might consider it desirable to
revive these punishments, to which a poet had alluded in
the following couplet—
" Earless on high stood unabashed the foe,
And blushing fragrant from the scourge below."

(Laughter). The right hon. gentleman then refei red to
the statements of Mr. Hall and Mr. Paynter, the police
magistrates, to show that the maximum punishment was
seldom inflicted, and that, in their opinion, the effect of the
present bill would be to deter women from prosecuting
their husbands to any considerable extent, thus rendering
the law a nullity. (Hear, hear.)
After some remarks from Mr. B. Carter, Mr. Deedes,
Mr. Puller, and Mr. Brady,
Lord RAYNHAM replied, and the house divided.
The numbers were—
For the amendment
Against it
Majority —ll7
The announcement was rec Lived with loud cheers.
VALUATION OF LAND
_(FOTLAND) ACT

AMENDMENT 'BILL.
Mr. BLACKBURN moved the second reading of this
bill.

Sir G. C. LEWIS suggested that the house should not
come to a decision without hearing his learned friend the
Lord Advocate, who was unavoidably absent, as the bill
proposed some very important changes.
Mr. BLACK said the essence of the bill was that three
years should be taken for assessing the value of land and
buildings. He advocated a uniferm mode of valuation, and
he was opposed to the bill, as he believed it would lead to
considerable confusion. He would therefore move that the
bill be read a second time that day three months.
Mr. CRAUFURD seconded the amendment, and con-
tended that the bill, if passed into law, would produce
much heartburning, and disturb existing arrangements
without providing any adequate substitute.
After some observations from Mr. MontE,
The LORD ADVOCATE, who had entered the house a
few minutes previously, objected to the bill on the ground
that it would lead to inaccuracies and discrepancies, estab-
fishing onlyaverages of valuation, the result of which would
be that in several cases persons would be unjustly struck
off the electoral roll. He did not disapprove of the principle
of the bill.
Mr. BLACKBURN, in reply, said that the object of his
bill was to establish a net valuation for a gross valuation,
and he thought it would effect a beneficial alteration in the
present state of the law.
The house then divided, and the numbers were—
For the second reading .. 69
Against ......
Majority ..
The bill was accordingly lest.
FELONY AND MISDEMEANOUR BILL.
Mr. DENMAN moved the second reading of this bill,
and repeated substantially the statements which he had
made in moving the first read ng. The hon. and learned
member stated that the object of the bill was to assi-
milate the law in regard to the speeches of counsel
in criminal cases to that in civil trials. Ile
believed that 'the bill if passed into law would do much
to elicit truth in judicial investigations. Under the present
state of the law the judge was frequently forced into the
character of an advocate, in consequence of sufficient oppor-
tunity not being afforded to counsel of combating
evidence, and nothing could be more prejudicial to
the interests of justice than anything like aivocacy on the
part of a judge. His bill did not apply to high treason, be-
cause the practice in reference to trials for that crime was
similar to that which he now contended for in respect to
trials for other criminal offences. Under the present law
there were more unjust acquittals than just convictions,
and a very anomalous state in the administration of the law
was accoraingly introduced.
Mr. HARDY took some exception to the bill, but said'
that he would not oppose the second reading.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL supported the second
reading.
Sir G. C. LEWIS followed on the same side, as he
considered that a prisoner's counsel should have the
right of a second speech, but, according to
.!he,
law as it at present stood, he did not "jotn
privilege. The consequence was that the counsel for
the
the
prosecution had the first and last word, exceptwhe that
prisoner did not call evidence, a course which
he
fre-
quently induced to adopt in order that his
counsel should be the last to addressid theet jury
before the judge summed up.
sthideer prosecutionth at when
should
theh eu d bbe prisoner
allowedt h
was uen
pdlier eify
of
fonuansecond
r
speech.
Mr. M. SMITH approved of the
Ee sseTecoonudßrTeading of he
against,bill.
andt
umte.a division, and the
M rA. f CteOrTian fEeTwT nremarks
rf reofmt
hAel
hr
bill Tl:vea smotion
rd was
y argeraede da
et
eo
ew
(t 1 htoi
ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSION, &c. BILL.
The adjourned debate on the amendment to the second
reading of this bill, which was to the effect that it be re-
jected,Mr. HENLEY, who contended that no charge of ne-
was resumed by
ne-
glect of duty had been made against the commission, and
therefore supported the bill. The hon. and learned mem-
ber (Mr. Selwyn), who moved the amendment, said that the
bill was a measure the elements of which were centralisation,
compensation, and confiscation, and had stated that the ex-
penses of agency and management in dealing with _073,000
was £43,000 in one year. He hal looked into the accounts,
which he admitted were not very lucid to persons unac-
quainted with such matters, but he certainly considered
that the statement was most incorrect, because in.the year
question in the commitisiA 114 d to deal with property to the