Lords Sitting of 14 April 1864

MINUTES.
— PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Joint Stock Companies (Foreign Countries) [H.L.]* (No. 45); Warehousing of British Spirits* (No. 46).
Committee—Punishment of Rape (No. 52).
Report—Settled Estates Act Amendment [H.L.] * (No. 47); Vestry Cess Abolition (Ireland)* (No. 48); Charitable Assurances Enrolments* (No. 49).
Withdrawn—Leases and Sales of Settled Estates Act Amendment * (No. 30).

PUNISHMENT OF RAPE BILL.—(No. 52.) COMMITTEE.
House in Committee (according to Order),
Clause 1 (In Convictions for Rape, Whipping may be added to other Punishment).
LORD WENSLEYDALEproposed, in line 2, to omit the word "may" for the purpose of inserting the word "shall," so as to render the punishment compulsory.
LORD RAVENSWORTHobjected to the proposal to make the punishment compulsory. However effectual flogging might be in certain cases, he did not think it was likely to have a deterring effect with respect to a crime which was generally committed without premeditation, and under the influence of a sudden impulse. He would prefer vesting a discretionary power to order that punishment in the hands of the Judge, which might be exercised when great violence was used, or where persons aided and abetted in the offence.
LORD CRANWORTHthought it a system fraught with inconvenience to legislate in this piecemeal manner. He should much prefer that some general view should be taken as to the cases in which flogging could be effectually applied. Why, for example, should not the punishment of whipping be inflicted in a class of cases which would easily occur to their Lordships, or for the crime of sending letters threatening to charge persons with infamous offences? Instead of considering the whole subject, one noble Lord took up one class of offences, and another some other, and the result would be to import into the Criminal Law the same discordancy and difficulty from which they thought they had relieved the statute-book three or four years ago.
THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHsaid, he stated the other night, and he would repeat, that there was no analogy whatever between the crime of rape and any other.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he agreed with the noble and learned Lord that there was great inconvenience in piecemeal legislation of this kind. He remembered, however, that last year, when he asked the House to agree to a Bill for inflicting the punishment of whipping upon garotters, the noble and learned Lord pointed out that such a punishment was peculiarly applicable to the crime of rape. The object of applying this punishment was not to inflict torture, but simply to make the punishment of rape more determinate. Having sat upon one of their Lordships' Committees last Session, which had before it gaolers from various parts of the country, he could state their testimony in regard to whipping, which was, that one single infliction of corporal punishment was so effective with some of the most hardened offenders that no repetition of the offence took place. Almost every Judge upon the Bench stated that, in regard to the class of crimes which were committed by young lads and boys when they were hurried away by the impulse of the moment, no form of punishment exercised such a deterrent effect as corporal punishment. The measure was, he admitted, not so perfect in form as could be desired, but he should be sorry to see the Bill dropped. He would propose to subject to the provisions of the Bill not only persons convicted of rape, but also those convicted of assault with intent to commit a rape.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that the crime of rape was so serious, and the

961
law attached to it so heavy a penalty, that the Legislature would, he feared, only diminish the gravity of the crime by super-adding the present additional punishment. He should think it better to confine the punishment now proposed to cases of assault with intent to commit a rape. In that case it might be desirable not to make the punishment of whipping compulsory. No doubt it would be very much better if the whole subject of the Criminal Law and the punishment of whipping were comprehensively considered; but as that was impossible at the present time, he did not see why their Lordships should abstain from doing that which was desirable, although it was not so general or so extensive as it might be.
LORD CRANWORTHdesired to repeat his opinion, that it was very unadvisable to raise questions of this nature, when only three years ago they had passed, with the greatest deliberation, some six or eight Bills in reference to the Criminal Law; at which time the punishment of flogging was considered and rejected.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he did not remember that Parliament had at the time expressed any opinion adverse to whipping for such an offence as was now under their Lordships' consideration.
LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he well remembered that the propriety or impropriety of inflicting this punishment was a matter of great deliberation at the time to which he had referred.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, it was quite true the Criminal Law had been consolidated three years ago; but, unlike the Medes and Persians, their Lordships, he thought, would be willing to modify former legislation upon good cause shown.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that having listened carefully to the debate, both upon that and a former evening, he was unable to agree entirely with either of the views expressed by noble Lords who had made proposals to the House. He suggested that a compromise might be effected, according to which, while it would be compulsory to inflict punishment of the nature referred to in cases where the offence had actually been completed, its infliction should be left to the discretion of the Judges where there was only an attempt. He did not think it wise to place both classes of offenders upon the same footing.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONgladly accepted the compromise suggested by his noble Friend. He begged to withdraw the
962
Motion which he had proposed, and gave notice that he should move a separate clause when the Report was brought up.
Amendment agreed to (with a consequent Amendment).
Clause agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
The Report of the Amendment to be received on Tuesday next.

SHIPS OF WAR—PETITION OF MR. JAMES CHALMERS.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE presented a Petition from Mr. James Chalmers in favour of an Invention by the Petitioner in Naval Armour, and praying for compensation. The noble Earl said, he trusted that, in bringing under the notice of the House similar petitions from time to time in the case of inventors who thought themselves aggrieved, he would not be supposed to be trespassing unduly on its attention. In the present instance, the petitioner stated that he was the inventor of a new and improved mode of building and fortifying ships of war, and that he had applied to the Admiralty with respect to it; that they had refused to his plan the consideration which they had freely extended to those of others, and that, though his target had been officially promised a fair trial, it had been subjected to a test which had never been resorted to in the case of any other armour target; that the representatives of the press and all those who had witnessed the trial had regarded it as unsatisfactory; that the plan had in its main features been ultimately pirated by the Chief Constructor of the Navy in the building of the Bellero-phon, and that the Chairman of the Iron-plate Committee had declared such to be the case. The petition concluded with the prayer that the House would be disposed to take the matter into its favourable consideration.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, nothing could be more fair than that the noble Earl should, if he thought fit, bring under the notice of the House any grievance to which an inventor might think he had been subjected. With respect to the question of targets generally, he would state that it might be quite possible to produce one which could resist shot, and yet which could not with advantage be used in building the side of a ship. As to the particular plan of Mr. Chalmers in August 1862, Mr. Chalmers made application to the Admiralty to give it a trial. That application the Admi-

963
ralty referred to the Iron-plate Committee, who reported that the plan was so like another which was under their consideration, that they did not think it worth trying. The trial was accordingly refused, but Mr. Chalmers again and again renewed his application. Ultimately, the Admiralty told him, that if he constructed a target, he must do so at his own expense, and on the express understanding that they were not committed to any engagements for the future. Mr. Chalmers undertook that his target should be superior in every way to the Warrior target—that it should be lighter, of simpler construction, and more economical. But when it was made and tried it was proved to be heavier, to be more complicated in its construction, and to be more costly. The Warrior target weighed 347 lb. per square foot, but Mr. Chalmers' target was 385 lb. per square foot, without its supports, the weight of which brought it up to 485 lb. per square foot. As to the system of construction, the object sought was, as he had often stated to the House, that the iron plates should contribute to the strength of the structure of the ship. The Warrior target consisted of five parts, two only of which did not add to the structural strength of the ship; but the Chalmers' target consisted of seven parts, of which four did not add to the structural strength of the ship. In fact, the target was very complicated in construction, and he had been told by various persons connected with shipbuilding (to whom he had spoken ou the subject) that it would be extremely difficult to build a ship on that principle, even without regarding expense. In point of resistance, no doubt, the Chalmers' target did resist shot better, in some respects, than the Warrior target. It did not resist the 68-pounder quite so well. It was quite true that the target was very severely tried; but every target was submitted to the progress of gunnery. They submitted Mr. Chalmers' target to shot from guns of new construction, and Sir William Armstrong's 300-poundersent a steel shot right through it; but the Admiralty did not condemn it on that account. The Admiralty agreed to pay the cost of the target, and did pay £1,200 when the account was sent in; but Mr. Chalmers, being very much dissatisfied, wrote several letters to the Admiralty, asking them to make new targets and try further experiments on them. The Admiralty, however, having other series of experiments on hand, did not choose to go
964
on trying experiments with a principle which they did not mean to adopt. The great fault he had to find with inventors was, that they did not invent. They often make small adaptations of previous constructions and proclaim the result as a great discovery. It was very easy for people when they saw a new idea at work to suggest alterations which might be improvements; but if everybody who did that paraded his suggestion as a great invention, it would be impossible for the Admiralty to make any progress with their experiments. Then Mr. Chalmers asked to have his target back again, and when the Admiralty consented to that — being apparently by their assent deprived of a grievance — he wrote back angrily to say that they had no right to give it him back as it was public property, and that the Admiralty had made use of his improvements in other constructions. But that was not the case. A great many minor improvements had been adopted from time to time, but it could not be said that any particular person was entitled to claim them as his inventions. No doubt improvements had been made on the Warrior target. When that was first built the plates were only 4½in. thick—for the manufacturers then could not roll plates any thicker. It was many months before the manufacturers could roll 5½in., and months before they could turn out 6-inch plates. Then the Minotaur target was tried; in some respects it showed inferior resistance to the Warrior, but the fact was that the plates at that time were inferior. Now, however, so much improvement had been made in the manufacture of iron, that in three months he could get more iron plates, and of a better quality, than he could have got in two years before. He had no doubt that in another year or so they would get still better plates. With regard to the statement that the Bellerophon target was not submitted to the same test as Mr. Chalmers' target, that was true in some respects, but in others it was submitted to a severer test, and besides other trials to which it was subjected, it was experimented on with the 68-pounder gun, the Armstrong 110-pounder, and the Whitworth 70 and 150-pounders. The statement that anything was copied from Mr. Chalmers' target for the Bellerophon target was quite a mistake. Mr. Chalmers said there was a stringer of iron edge-ways round the vessel, but that was to some extent the case with the Warrior,

965
which had iron stringers at a distance of 3ft. 9in. apart. They might as fairly say that Mr. Chalmers had copied his stringer from the Warrior, as Mr. Chalmers could say they had taken his stringer for the Bellerophon. There had, indeed, been very little advance since the construction of the Warrior, except that they now got thicker plates and better iron. People complained of the cost of these experiments, but he was told by iron manufacturers that they had an immense effect in improving the manufacture of iron; and the result of the experiments was that I there was an increased supply of good iron. It was not at all his wish to do any injustice to inventors, but, on the contrary, he would be glad to see any inventions brought forward that were calculated to be useful.
Petition to lie on the table.

SHIPS OF WAR—PETITION OF MR. JAMES CHALMERS.

  JOINT STOCK COMPANIES (FOREIGN COUNTRIES) BILL [H.L.]
  A. Bill to enable Joint Stock Companies carrying on Business in Foreign Countries to have official Seals to be used in such Countries—Was presented by The Lord REDESDALE; and read 1a. (No. 45.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, Till to-morrow a quarter before Five o'clock,