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

13ill, 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 Bill 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 he 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.—(oll.) What was whipping but
torture.? As to publicity, the Hon. Member said he did
not insist on that; but it 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 c f a murder by
a fine of Is 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 ho 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 be 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 %as 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. PACKE 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 prest:nt
debate to consider. The punishment would take place
pursuant to the determination of two magistrates
exercising summary jurisdiction, and if they were men
of intelligence, as magistrates generally were, the re-
sult would net be materially different from that which
would hare been obtained through the instrumentality cf
a jury.
Mr. HUME observed, that though the Right Hon.
Baronet below him, the Member for the University of
Oxford, had 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 be bad the discre-
tion to disguise his real feelings.—(Hear, hear, and a
laugh.) His Hon. Friend had made an appeal to the
House which he 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
maintained, 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 brooms 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, hear.) 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 flegged, he 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 se. lie 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
crimina!s exceeding lout teen 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 had 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 had 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, hut at 16 he felt very much like a man—
(Loud laughter)—and thought the Right Hon. Baronet
near him bad asked which of them had not, in his
younger days, been subjected to punishment; he could
say that he, at h ast, had escaped, and that it would have
be en a clever fellow who would have laid his hand upon
him at 16.—(11ear.) The effect of the flogging system
was to inflict a degradation which was never forgotten,
and once imposed, rightly or 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
army.
Atter 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 he found
that the law established a distinction between the boy
who had not attained 14 and the boy who bad 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 he 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 ho apprehended was at variance with the
principles of our present code, ho thought that a very
strong case of necessity
should be made
,out. He had
heard no such case.—(Hear, hear.) As the Bill will
sfusrhtohuelrdpbreoposed, inflicted, tbnoou only
ly stand the boy between 14 and 16 would still be subject
to the summary jurisdiction of two magistrates; but it
wa
they no corporal
should
consider
thtahtat punish-
ment
him no longer as a 'child, and therefore that
he shall be exempted from corporal punishment at
tho will of two magistrates. Ile 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. Ile apprehended
there was a growing conviction that corporal punish-
ment should not be inflicted, except in very
grave easea
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 be 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 discoutinue 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 degradatior..—(Hear, hear.) In his
opinion this measure would be no improvement in the
law. There would be no praceical distinction possibly,
but it was important nevertheless to show that the House
of Commons was not prepared, without proof of absolute

• • a
necessity, to recommend departure from that course
which has hitherto been pufaued in respect to juvenile
offenderr.— (lieu, hear.)
Tho Committee then divided, when there appeared—
For the amendmen'i
Against it
Majority against the original clause —Bl
Before our re-aduAssion into the gallery we under-
stood that Mr. BOUVERIE had moved that the Chair-
man reprort progress.
Mr. ROEBUtjR asked the Hon. Baronet whether he
intended to persevere with his Bill after the Committee
had thus declared its opinion respecting it ?
Sir J. PAKII.IGTON said the main object of the
Bill was to swie youth from the contamination of a
gaol. He regretted to say he did not think that the
Howie bad °ogle to a merciful decision upon the quee-