SECOND READING. (Hansard, 5 June 1872)

§ MR. RAIKES
, in moving that the Bill be now read a second time, said, the necessity for providing some better protection for private character had only been too largely shown in recent times. He did not wish to refer to any recent incident which had impressed the public with the deficiencies of the law in regard to this matter; but the facts to which he made this passing allusion would be sufficiently fresh in the minds of hon. Members to enable them to appreciate the necessity for providing some more stringent protection against the taking away of private character. The only statutory penalty for a defamatory libel which existed now was one year's imprisonment where the libel was true, and two years' imprisonment where it was not true; in both cases without hard labour. The first object of the present Bill was to accompany those penalties with hard labour at the discretion of the Court before which the offender was convicted. With regard to the even greater offence of endeavouring to practise upon the fears of any person, and to extort money either by the accusation, or by the threat of accusation, of some odious and disgraceful offence, that was at present punished by the very severe penalty of penal servitude for life; but he confessed that, judging from the operation of the law, that penalty did not seem to have a sufficiently deterring effect, and persons had been found willing to run the risk of such a penalty, believing that they were sufficiently protected by the natural fears of their unfortunate victim. Another form of punishment would, perhaps, be more deterrent, and might be tried as an experiment in these particular cases, and he had therefore incorporated in the Bill those clauses which formed the body of an Act passed a few years ago for the better punishment of robbery with violence, and which provided that an offender might be flogged. The House, justly and properly, was always unwilling to resort to severe personal penalties; but it was the law at present that a person who extorted money by the 1255 threat of an abominable charge might, if under 16 years of age, be punished by whipping, and no one would consider that an adult offender preying on society in that way was deserving of a less disgraceful punishment than that applied to a juvenile criminal. He therefore merely proposed by the Bill to extend to any person found guilty of extorting money by threats of accusation the penalty which was now inflicted on young persons who did the same thing. The third feature of the Bill was to subject to these penalties any person found guilty of extorting money by a threat to accuse the chastity of a woman, and whatever might be the opinions of hon. Gentlemen with regard to flogging offenders, there would be little difference on this point—that a man who endeavoured to extort money from a woman's fear by threatening to rob her of that character which was of greater value than anything to her deserved a very severe punishment indeed. But he would ask any hon. Gentleman who objected to the flogging clauses of the Bill not to move the rejection of the measure at this stage, but to move the omission of those clauses in Committee. There was one other point to which he wished to call attention. Many gentlemen interested in the operation of the criminal law had noticed that prosecutions for this class of offences only too frequently failed, or were not brought forward at all, from the natural reluctance of the victim to expose himself to the torture of cross-examination on such matters as those which formed the body of the charge. He would have been glad if he could have embodied in the Bill any proposition which would have exempted the prosecutors in these cases from a torture which was so great as practically to defeat the operation of the law; but he felt that if he did so he should encounter an additional opposition, and he had therefore refrained. At the same time, if any other hon. Member proposed such a clause in Committee it would have his support. Hoping, therefore, that any opposition that might be offered to the Bill would be reserved for the Committee, he would conclude by moving the second reading.

§ SIR WILFRID LAWSON
, on behalf of the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor), said, that hon. Gentleman intended to oppose the flogging clauses of the Bill; but he did not know that he entertained any objection to the principle of the measure.

§ MR. J. LOWTHER
said, he trusted the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) would withdraw the flogging clause in Committee, or, at all events, that the House would pause before it adopted such sensational legislation. It was thought proper to flog garrotters because it was justly considered that acts of brutal violence should receive punishment in kind; but such offences were of a very different kind from those which would come under the Bill. Flogging was a description of punishment which should be reserved for habitual offenders, who were dead to every sort of penalty except that which went home to their physical feelings. By adopting the flogging clauses of the Bill Parliament would run a great chance of brutalizing our criminal code without giving any compensating advantage.

§ MR. STRAIGHT
said, he would also express a hope that the flogging clauses would be withdrawn from the Bill, for he did not see how flogging would be likely to lessen the number of these offences. The other clauses of the Bill were, however, of considerable importance; and, with regard to them, he had often heard the Judges express regret that persons convicted of most objectionable libels could not be sentenced to imprisonment with hard labour. He did not hesitate to say that something ought to be done to prevent the repetition of a class of offences, of which there had lately been an instance in one of the metropolitan police courts; and although the 4th clause might require alteration, he hoped the Bill would be read a second, time.

§ MR. WINTERBOTHAM
said, he was unwilling, in the absence of the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State, to take upon himself the responsibility of opposing the Bill; but he must reserve liberty to oppose it, if necessary, at a later stage. He agreed in much that had been said by the hon. Member for York (Mr. J. Lowther) with regard to the flogging clauses; and he felt also that there were very grave doubts as to whether the penalty of flogging 1257 was applicable simply as a means of increasing the intensity of punishment. The Preamble declared that the law at present was found to be insufficient; but those clauses materially changed its character. The 4th clause seemed to be open to greater objections than had been stated, because it must be remembered that the analogous crimes for which this punishment was now inflicted were criminal offences.

§ MR. DENMAN
said, that although his name was on the back of the Bill, he must not be held responsible for all it contained. He thought its main principle a very good one, believing that there were certain offences, such as those mentioned in the 4th clause, which at present were not regarded with sufficient severity by the law, and that they were of an analogous character to certain other offences now punished very severely, so that there was no reason why the same punishment should not be applied to the analogous crimes. He did not assent to the principle that the punishment of whipping could only be applied to offences of violence. On the contrary, he thought that the infliction of that punishment for such offences might suggest the idea of lex talionis, and he was not sure, when that view was taken, that the brutality they wished to prevent would not be increased. But it was well worthy of the consideration of the House whether whipping might not be advantageously inflicted for offences which were disgraceful, shabby, or morally brutal.

§ SIR CHARLES ADDERLEY
said, he reflected with gratification that he had induced the House to attach the punishment of whipping to garrotting, for he believed that the result had been most satisfactory. What the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Denman) had said as to the fitness of this punishment would not quite serve as its true test, because the law already punished with flogging very different crimes, such as attempts upon the life of the Queen, and also wilful destruction of works of art. In both cases it had been as successful as in the case of garrotting. There were two points to be considered in attaching any punishment to a crime. First, it should be asked whether the punishment was the one most likely to prevent a repetition of the crime; and the general recommendation of flogging was, that 1258 few people were likely to incur that punishment a second time if they could avoid it. It was, moreover, undesirable to multiply needlessly punishments by which a great number of men were maintained at the public expense in prison because they had violated the public interests; and if a more rapid mode of punishment could in every case be found which would be equally effective, great economical advantage would be gained. There was also another consideration as to whether the punishment was suitable to the probable motive of the crime and to the character of the criminal upon whom it was meant to operate; and, in that respect, he would instance the successful manner in which the classes of cases he had before referred to had been treated. A morbid vanity of the lowest description generally led to these crimes, and an equally vulgar castigation by bodily pain was their best deterrent. Whether these rules applied to the offences dealt with by this Bill he had not had time to consider; but he thought the subject might fairly be discussed, and would suggest that the Bill should be considered with the Bill already before the House, proposing to inflict flogging for some other crimes.

§ MR. J. G. TALBOT
said, he was glad it was understood that, by assenting to the second reading, the House did not commit itself to the provisions of the 3rd clause; but, at the same time, he hoped that the hon. Member for Chester (Mr. Raikes) would persevere with that clause providing for flogging, and that he would take the sense of the Committee upon it, for he (Mr. Talbot) was of opinion that if flogging were to be inflicted for any crime it should be inflicted for attempts to extort money by odious accusations. It would be only a permissive penalty, to be inflicted at the discretion of Judges of Assize; and he thought they might trust to the Judges of the land, backed by public opinion, not to inflict the penalty except in extreme cases. He believed, also, that the lower classes would be in favour of this penalty.