PUNISHMENT OF RAPE BILL.—(No. 52.) COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 14 April 1864)

§ LORD WENSLEYDALE
proposed, in line 2, to omit the word "may" for the purpose of inserting the word "shall," so as to render the punishment compulsory.

§ LORD RAVENSWORTH
objected 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 CRANWORTH
thought 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 WESTMEATH
said, 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 CARNARVON
said, 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 CHANCELLOR
said, 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 CRANWORTH
desired 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 CHANCELLOR
said, 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 CRANWORTH
said, 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 MALMESBURY
said, 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 DERBY
said, 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 CARNARVON
gladly 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.