The Sun.
London, England, 1850-04-19 00:00:00

TILE SUN,

Bill, would do more to deter from crime than they now
did by an elaborate criminal discipline.
Mr. BRIGHT agreed in all the Hon. and Learned
Member for Sheffield had said as to the degrading effect
of whipping, but he objected to the Bili on another
ground. The Hon. Baronet proposed that the punish-
ment should be inflicted by two magistrates—(Laughter)
—by the sentence, and at the order of two magistrates.
Now let them consider what magistrates generally were,
and the class from whom they were selected. They were
usually selected because they were the most wealthy men
in the neighbourhood, and thorough-going political par-
tisans. They were not selected for their legal attain-
ments. Let them take a rural neighbourhood, and sup-
pose a lad of fifteen or sixteen, brought before magis-
trates having such a power, being told by the police-
men that he was a bad lad, and known to go after hares
—(Hear, hear)—what would be the consequence? They
might all guess. For the sake of the magistrates
themselves be would refuse them such a power, and he
thought their friends were very unwise in asking it.
Mr. ROEBUCK said the Hon. and Learned Gentle.
man (Mr. R. Palmer) supported the punishment because
it was cheap and did not inflict lasting degradation.
Well, he would show him a sharper and more powerful
punishment—torture.—(Oh.) What was whipping but
torture? As to publicity, the Hon. Member said he did
not insist on that.; but if so, that would take away the
only value of the punishment—its deterring influence.
Well, but take the thumbscrew, that was far more painful
than whipping, and it was as cheap. Cheapness! How
easy and cheap it was to inflict pain! But the question
of cheapness ought not to enter into the consideration of
the matter, the least possible punishment consistent
with the prevention of crime was what they should aim
at. If he could prevent the commission of a murder by
a fine of a farthing, that was the utmost extent he was
justified in going. Vindictiveness, and the desire of in-
flicting pain, ought not to weigh with the Legislature;
the great object ought to be to inflict the least possible
permanent degradation, and he could conceive of no pu-
nishment more degrading than this.
Colonel THOMPSON said there was no serious in-
tention of applying this punishment to the children of
the rich. Yet Eton boys stole geese.—(Laughter.) He
knew it?—(Renewed laughter)—and he knew them to
have boasted of doing so. He believed that the public of
this country were opposed to the idea that the whipping
was a proper mode of correcting a lad of thirteen and
fourteen, which appeared to be the basis of the whole
system. He saw another danger, which was this, that
the effect made upon society by the appearance of an in-
dividual lacerated by the cuts of the executioner would
be decidedly bad. If they legislated in that spirit, let the
• responsibility of it rest with those who advocated so re-
volting a course of policy.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir R. H. INGLIS said that the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman the Member for Sheffield, one of the
greatest orators of the House, and its greatest actor—
(A laugh)—had told them, with great feeling, that the
sufferings of a boy of fourteen and those of sixteen
were hardly to be measured. Why, the punishment
of the whip was familiar to every school-boy
—and many a gallant Eton boy had been subjected
"to it, as, indeed, he might look around this House,
and ask who had not?—(Laughter.) The question here
was not whether. they liked the punishment. No one
liked
.punishment; but punishment being occasionally
necessary, and a crime having been committed, the
question was, what was best to be done? The arguments
of some Hon. Members would appear to suggest the
question whether there was to be an end of all punish-
ment. He was more for prevention than repression; but
punishment he thought necessary to promote either
alternative.
Mr. PA CKE observed, that the objection of the Hon.
Member for Manchester, that it was wrong to dispense
with the intervention of a jury, was not an objection
which it was very essential to the purpose of the present
debate to consider. The punishment would tako place
pursuant to the determination of two magistrates
exercisieg summary jurisdiction, and if they were men
of intelligence, as magistrates generally were, the re-
sult would not be materially different from that which
would have been obtained through the instrumentality of
a jury.
Mr. HUME observed, that though the Right Hon.
Baronet below him, the Member for the University of
Oxford, bad represented the Hon. and Learned Member
for Sheffield as being an actor, he (Mr. Hume) knew no
man in that House who better acted his part than did
the Right Hon. Baronet himself.—(Laughter.) The
Learned Member for Sheffield might perhaps attain a
still greater proficiency in the art if he had the discre-
tion to disguise his real feelings.—(Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) His Hon. Friend had made an appeal to the
House which be was sorry to find Was not attended to.
The Hon. Member for Plymouth stated that he was
prepared to sanction the system of flogging, as proposed,
for the class of society to whom it would be applicable
were destitute of proper feeling. That was the argu-
ment upon which the system of military flogging was
maintatned, and it was thus that the House had ap-
proved of 500, 600, and 1,000 lashes. On the ground
that they were insensible to punishment, it was settled
that flogging was the only mode of governing British
subjects. The House had since then become better in-
formed as to the brutality of this punishment, and
the degrading influence which it exerted on
the men. Were they about now, as the only means
of correcting juvenile offenders, to apply this
obnoxious system?—(Hear, bear.) Did it not occur to
the House that, instead of degrading men by flogging
them, by educational measures they might be turned
into better paths? It appeared to him that they were
going on a wrong principle. An objection which ought
to prove fatal to the plan was this, that within 24 hours
of a boy's being flogged, be might turn out to be inno-
cent. What reparation could be then made to him. He
was branded for life.—(Cries of " Question.") Hon.
Members cried " Question," and it was very little to
their credit that they did so. Ile entreated them not to
adopt this system too hastily.
Mr. PLUMPTRE expressed himself as being opposed
to the system of flogging being carried into effect against
criminals exceeding fourteen years of age.
Mr. HEADLAND said he could not agree in either
of the arguments which had been urged against this
measure—either that the punishment of flogging, if good
up to fourteen, was bad up to sixteen, or, as was con-
tended by the Hon. Member for Manchester, that though
the punishment in itself was not objectionable, the tri-
bunal by which it was to be inflicted was highly so. He
thought that if the proposed system was fairly contrasted
with that which now existed it would be found to lead
greatly towards good behaviour.
Mr. MUNTZ said he bad a disposition to support the
Hon. Baronet's Bill if he could, in order to prevent the
contamination of youth which at present frequently at-
tained, but he was never able to screw up his courage to
do it.—(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) He himself had often '
witnessed that many magistrates bad not a great know-
ledge of law, and some of them not a great knowledge of
justice. To such men it might be dangerous to entrust
too large a power. He could easily conceive why a pu-
nishment suited to 14 might be bad at 16. At 14 they
were boys, but at 16 he felt very much like a man—
(Loud laughter)—and thought the Right Hon. Baronet
near him had asked which cf them had not, in his
younger days, been subjected to punishment; be could
say that he, at h ast, had escaped, and that it would have
been a clever fellow who would have laid his hand upon
him at 16.--(Hear.) The effect of the flogging system
was to inflict a degradation which was never forgotten,
and once imposed, rightlyor wrongly,no reparation could
ever be made.
Mr. HENLEY said that this Bill intended to decide
summarily a class of offences which would otherwise go
to another tribunal for adjudication; and that being so he
should give his vote against the extension of the punish-
ment to the age of 16; because the correction of a boy
at 14 might be by the rod only, but at 16 the constable
might take it into his head to use the cat. The cat would
mark the individual, and prevent him from entering the
arAttmy.
er a few words from Mr. SLANEY, also against
the extension of the punishment to the age of 16,
Sir R. PEEL would state in two sentences the ground
upon which he would give his vote. At present be found
that the law established a distinction between the boy
who had not attained 14 and the boy who had not ex-
ceeded 16. In the case of the former the law treated
him as a boy, and subjected him to immediate punish-
ment under the summary jurisdiction of the magistrates.
In the case of the boy above 14 he was not certainly ex-
empted from the liability of corporal punishment, but it
was required that be' should be convicted before the or-
dinary tribunals. It was now proposed to confound
these distinctions, and to permit the boy between 14 and
16 to be subject to corporal punishment at the discretion
of two magistrates. Before such an alteration was
made, which he apprehended was at variance with the
principles of our
present code, he thought that a very
strong case of necessity should he made out. He bad
heard no such case.—(flear, hear.) As the Bill will
Stand the boy between 14 and 16 would still be subject
musrhtohuelrdbe proposed,
infliced, not
to the summary jurisdiction of two magistrates; but it
wasentf
bountlythtahtatthneoycsohrpouorld alpun h-
consider
him no longer as a child, and therefore that
he shall be exempted from corporal punishment at
the will of two magistrates. He thought that that
would be a much better state of the law than if they
consented to the extension of the punishment without
any allegations of absolute necessity. He apprehended
there was a growing conviction that corporal punish-
ment should not be inflicted, except in very grave cases.
They found that although an adult might be subject to
corporal punishment, yet the principle upon which the
judges acted was to select some other mode of punishing
them, rather than this degrading one.—(Hear, hear.)
But he would say, if Parliament, without any allegations
of necessity, widened the discretion of magistrates in
respect to corporal punishment, it would then be holding
out encouragement to discontinue that milder practice
which had made such progress in our criminal tribunals,
rather than giving discouragement to the substitution of
corporal punishment. He held that the practice of
public schools was no analogy, for these kind of offences
by the present Bill would not only be visited by pu-
nishment but by degradation.—(flear, hear.) In hie
opinion this measure would be no improvement in the
law. Thero would be no practical distinction possibly,
but it was important nevertheless to show that the House
of Commons was not prepared, without proof' of absolute
necessity, to recommend a departure from that course
which has hitherto been pursued in 'respect to juvenile
offenders.—(Hear, hear.)
The Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendment l7O
Against it B9
Majority against the original clause —Bl
Before our re-admission into the gallery we under-
stood that Mr. BOUVERIE had moved that the Chair-- .
man reprort progress.
Mr. ROEBUCK asked the Hon. Baronet whether he
intended to persevere with his
Bill after the Comissittee
had thus declared its opinion respecting ?
it
Sir J. PAKINGT ON said the main object of the
Bill was to save youth from the contamination of a
gaol. He regretted to say he did not think that the
house ha& c9melo_B merciful decibiga upon tiae,quel-

tion. Reduced, however, as the powers of the Bill were,
he would still persevere with it, n 9 juvenile offenders
would, if passed into a law, ha saved from the conta-
mincion of a gaol before they ware declared to be
guilty. •
Mr. ROEBUCK said that the Her. Baronet did not
seem to understand his own Bill, for r.e could only
punish these offenders by first imprisoning them.
Mr. AGLIONBY hoped that the Hon. Baronet would
persevere with the Bill ; for it would, in a great measure,
save these juvenile offenders from the contamination of
gaols before their trial.
After a few words from Mr. BOUVERIE,
Sir R. PEEL remarked that the Hon. and Learned
Member for Oxford, and others well acquainied with
magisterial duties, were adverse to tbisVart of the Bill.
A desultory conversation as to whether another divi-
sion should be taken ensued.

The clause, as amended, was then ordered to stand
part of the Bill.
The last clause was struck out.
Mr. LAWLESS moved that the Bill should not be
extended to Ireland.

Lord NAAS thought the Bill was particularly appli
cable to Ireland.

Mr. NAPIER was opposed to the Bill as it was; but
if applied to England it ought to be applied to Ireland.
Sir J. PAKINGTON objected to the amendment.
Mr. LAWLESS said he would bring up his clause on
the report.
The Bill was then reported to the House.
TENANTS AT RACK-RENT RELIEF BILL.
The House went into Committee on this Bill.
The clauses were agreed to, and the Bill was reported
to the House.

MARRIAGES BILL.
Mr. S. WORTLEY presented several petitions in fa-
vour of the Bill.

Mr. F. MAULE presented several petitions against
the Bill, two of them were signed by 4,800 persons and
1,410 persons.
Mr. F. THESIGER appealod to the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman not to go on with this Bill, which was a Bill
of vast importance. He had been there from an early
hour watching it.—(Hear, hear.) He really thought
the House would not be justified in going on with the
Bill at that late hour.

Mr. S. WORTLEY hoped the House would not con-
sent to a postponement. lie considered that all the ob-
jections to the Bill were already known, and therefore it
was not likely anything novel would be brought forward
that evening. He hoped, at least, the House would go
into Committee.

Sir F. THESIGER must move, as an amendment,
that the debate be adjourned.
Mr. HUME said the Bill had been before the House
so long that he really thought no further delay ought to
take place. He hoped the House would go into Commit-
tee on it.

Mr. R. PALMER said that the Hon. Member for
Montrose spoke as if no important questions, required to
be discussed; but the contrary was the case, he himself
having one important amendment to propose at the fit-
ting time. If the House were determined to proceed
with the Bill he would remain, though he considered
the Bill could not be discussed with advantage at that
late hour.

Mr. F. MAULE had also an amendment to pro-
pose—that Scotland be excluded from the operation
of the Bill. Ho regretted the delay which had occur-
red in bringing on this Bill that evening 'owing to the
length of the previous debates, but he was satisfied this
was a question about which the people of Scotland were
quite unanimous, and they would be much dissatisfied it
the Bill were brought on at such a late hour.
Mr. FORBES hoped tho Bill would not be pressed
forward at that late hour. He, too, had an amendment,
similar to the Right lion. Gentleman (Mr. F. Maule)—
namely, that Ireland be exempted from its operation.
Sir B. HALL hoped the Bill would be postponed for
the present, as it was most important in its character.
It was said the Bill was brought forward for the benefit
of the humbler and poorer classes. He denied that this
was the fact.—(llear, hear.) Locking at the expenses
of the Bill and the way it was pushed forward, he be-
lieied the Bill was really intended to put persons in a
higher grade is a more respetable position than they
at the present time occupied.—(Hear, hear.) He would
not mention names, but ho could name those who were
to pay the expenses.—(Hear.)
Mr. COCKBURN considered the House was in a
sufficient state of attention and vigilance to enable them
to go on with the Bill. It was too much to ask the
Hon. Member who brought forward the 'Bill at that
comparatively early hour of the evening—(Laughter)—
to postpone the Bill. If Hon. Members opposite were
in a condition to go to a division the House would hear
nothing about delay.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the
House was justified in going on with the Bill.
Sir R. H. INGLIS could consent to no arrangement
that would forward the Bill. He entirely concurred in
the proposition for a postponement of the Bill.
Mr. BOUVERIE could not see that anything would
be gained-by pressing on the Bill.
Mr. S. WORTLEY had been in the House a great
many hours, and had not received any intimation
of an opposition to the Speaker's leaving the chair.
He trust the House would allow the Bill to go into Com-
mittee; if not, he must really divide the House.
Sir G. GREY thought the proposition was reasonable
to go on with the Bi►l.

Sir F. THESIGER had no wish to oppose the Bill
going on a stage, but if there was a disposition to discuss
the Bill, then he thought a postponement ought to take
place.
Mr. GOULBURN had no objection to the House go-
ing into Committee, but he did object to the Bill being
discussed.

The House divided, when there appeared—
Fur the amendment ... ... ... 89

For going into Committee ... 152
Majority for going into Committee —63
Captain BOLDER() then moved the adjournment of
the Houle amidst loud cheers.

Colonel RAWDON appealed to the Hon. and Gallant
Gentleman whether persistence in a course like this was
calculated to raise the House in the estimation of the
country.
Sir F. THESIGER understood his Hon. and Learned
Friend's (Mr. S. Wortley) feeling to be this ; that as
there were a great many Members who thought it was
too late an hour to enter into a discussion upon the
principle of the Bill, he was willing to obey that incli-
nation on the part of the House ; but he said, " Grant
me this stage, and then, on a future day, we will go
into Committee and discuss the ♦arious amendments."
If that were understood to be the arrangement, there
could be no reason whatever for the adjournment of the
House.

Mr. F. MACKENZIE—Either his Hon. and Learned
Friend must gain something or nothing by the course
now proposed. If he gained something, he (Mr. Mac-
kenzie) was not inclined to grant it to him ; and if he
would gain nothing, why persist further?—(Hear.)
Mr. F. MAULE was as strongly opposed to the Bill
as any
.Hon. Member could be; at the same time it was
only fair to put the Hoe. and Learned Gentleman in the
same position in which he would have been had the Bill
come on at an earlier period of the evening. He hoped
his Hon. and Gallant Friend (Captain Boldero) would
withdraw his motion for an adjournment of the House.
Mr. PLUMPTRE—The more the Bill was discussed
the more objectionable would it appear, and he was not,
therefore, willing to neglect any opportunity for dis-
cussing

Mr. WALPOLE thought it would be better to go into
Committee and discuss the details, with the understand-
ing that the House should have a discussion upon the
principle on the third reading of the Bill. He hoped
Captiin Boldero would not divide tho House upon his
motion for adjournment. •
Mr. ROUNDELL PALMER joined Mr. Walpole in
calling upon the lion, and Gallant Gentleman to with-
draw his motion.

Sir R. INGLIS recommended that the proposition for
going into Committee should be withdrawn. Already
forty minutes of the time of the House had been wasted
in this preliminary discussion, and yet not the least ad-
vance had been made. -
Captain BOLDER() had come down with the deter-
mination of opposing the Bill in every possible way that
the forms of the House would allow. He considered it
to be one of the most obnoxious measures ever intro-
duced into Parliament. Ho declared upon his honour
that he had a stronger feeling against this Bill, and
greater pleasure in voting against it, than he had ever
entertained with regard to any other measure.—(ob.)
The House divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment of the House ... 52
Against it ... 147

Majority against the motion ... ... -95
Mr. FORBES then moved the adjournment of the
debate.

The House divided, when there appeared—
For the adjournment .........48
••• Against it •• ••• ••• 133
•••
Majority against the adjournment —B5
An HON. hinmen then moved the adjoarnment of
the Rouse.
After a short conversation,
Mr. B. WORTLEY announced his determination not
to press, at that moment, the motion fur the Committee
on the Bill.
The debate was then adjourned to Thursday, the IGth
of May.
The Parish Constables Bill passed through Com-
mittee.

The other orders of the day were then disposed of,
and the House adjourned at One o'clock.

ROUSE OF LyRDS, April 18.

Their Lordships assembled at Five o'clock.
The Marquis of WESTMEATII gave notice of a mo-
tion on the subject of the consolidation of repayments of
advances to Irish Union!, for Tuesday next, as he did
not consider the information which he had received from
the Noble Marquis (Lansdowne) on this subject satis-
factory.
The Duke of ARGYLE asked if it was the intention
of the Government to lay before the House the papers
relating to the case of Mr. Ryland ?
Earl GREY laid the papers on the table.
The Earl of MALMESBURY gave notice for Mon-
day of a motion relative to the importation of foreign
Corn.