Sitting of 14 June 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Administration of Justice.—Read a second time:—Register of Voters.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Villiers, Mr. Blackburn, Mr. Protheroe, Lord Morpeth, Sir De Lacy Evans, Mr. Hawes, Mr. Denistoun, Mr. Hastie, and other hon. Members, from Nottingham, Crief, South Molton, Wolverhampton, Halifax, Bolton, Croydon, Surrey, Westminster, and a great many other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Sir Edward Filmer, Mr. Darby, Viscount Castlereagh, Lord Grimston, Sir J. Y. Buller, and other hon. Members, from West Sussex, Down, Hertfordshire, Devonshire, and other places, against Alteration of the Corn-laws—By Mr. Walter, from Essex, and other parts of the kingdom, complaining of the Operation of the New Poor-law Bill.—By Mr. Ainsworth, from Bolton, that Liverpool might be appointed a Station for the West India Mail Packets.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.—DISSOLUTION OF PARLIAMENT,
Mr. Lochwished to know what course Government meant to pursue in regard to the private bills before the House, in the event of a dissolution of Parliament.
Mr. Laboucheresaid, that he had given the matter his consideration, and he had no hesitation in saying, that if he held the same situation in the next Parliament which he held in the present, he would recommend that the course pursued in regard to private business at the dissolution of 1831 should be adopted on the present occasion. He did not believe, that any great amount of private business would be stopped by the dissolution of Parliament, but at the same time as there were one or two bills of great importance, he thought it but just that the House should take the same course in this respect as they did in 1831. It was impossible for the present House to pledge itself in any respect, but he had no doubt that the two Houses of Parliament would relieve those
1494
parties who had proceeded with private business, so far as to put any bills which might be stopped by the dissolution, in the same situation in the next Parliament as they stood at the time of the dissolution.

APPROPRIATION—BURDENS ON LAND.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhaving brought up the report of the committee on the Appropriation Bill,
Mr. Humewished to offer one or two observations in regard to what he had asserted the other evening, that, under the Corn-laws as they at present existed, the agricultural interest levied from the community a greater sum than the whole amount of the taxes paid to the State. He wished to show that his assertion was not of so vague a nature as it was represented to be by the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge. He had stated that he considered the landed proprietors of England to be in a much more favoured condition than the landed proprietors of any other part of the world, and he was prepared to prove, that while the landed proprietors of this country were almost free from taxation, those of France paid nearly forty per cent, of the whole revenue of that country. He stated this on the authority of a statement of M. Humann, minister of finance—a statement which he considered unanswerable, and which had never been contradicted. In Belgium he found that the land-tax was 22 per cent., and in Holland 25 per cent, of the whole revenue of the state. He had stated that England was in the same situation in which France was in 1789, when the nobility were exempted from taxation, and when the whole revenue was levied from the working classes. He repeated, that the people of England were now in the same situation in which the people of France were at that period, and that while they paid the greater part of the revenue, the landed proprietors paid no portion of the revenue whatever —the amount they received in the shape of protective duties being considerably more than the taxes which they were called on to pay. The landed interest in this country, consisting principally of the aristocracy, he thought sufficiently showed that it was for the benefit of the aristocracy alone that the Corn-laws were maintained. They enjoyed in addition a large portion of the twenty millions paid to the army and

1495
navy; and the journals of the House proved that every possible burden bearing on the land of the country had been removed by acts of Parliament. He had in his hand a list of taxes formerly levied on the whole of the community, but which, since 1816, had been gradually taken off the land while they were suffered to remain on the community at large. Taxes on husbandry, agricultural servants, horses, and so forth, had been repealed. The statement in his hand showed that 130,000 farmhouses were exempt from all taxes whatever, while taxes on houses were continued. The paper he had in his hand also showed that there was no less a sum than 983,000 l. annual taxation which was formerly borne by the land, and which it did not now pay, but which other portions of the community still continued to pay. It was an attempt to delude the community to say that there were burdens on the land which the community did not bear. He would refer to the evidence before the committee in 1835, on the distress which existed at that time in the agricultural districts; and he thought he could satisfy the House how completely the landed proprietors in both Houses had passed laws to favour property; and he would tell the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, that when he proposed to give 8s. protection to the landed proprietor for every quarter of wheat, he was imposing a tax of the most onerous nature, and one which the landowners were not entitled to. Now, he begged the attention of the House to the evidence given before the committee on agricultural distress, which sat in 1835:—
" Mr. John Rolfe, a farmer and appraiser of farming stock, renting from 200 to 300 acres, in the county of Bucks, was asked, ' Is there any other tax than the malt tax, which presses immoderately upon the farmer?—No, except the assessed taxes. I pay for my riding horse 1l. 8s. 9d., and for my groom, 1l. No tax but the window tax presses on the farmer, and I pay for that 4l. a year. There is a county rate, the removal of which would amount to something, but not a great deal. Is there any other tax that presses on the farmer?—No direct tax that I know of.'
Mr. Henry Morton was asked,
"What do you pay for your assessed taxes? —A mere nothing; our direct taxes are very small. I do not pay on all the land I hold above 10 l."
He (Mr. Hume) agreed with the hon. Gentleman, that if the landowners were
1496
burdened with any tax that other classes of the community were not subject to, protection should be afforded to them to that extent, but he saw that they were not, while up to the present time upwards of 20,000,000 l. had been repealed for the benefit of agriculture. He would proceed to state some of the burdens to which personal property was subject, but from which landed property was exempt. In 1798 Mr. Pitt had brought in two bills, the one for raising a revenue from the descent of landed property, the other for raising a revenue from the descent of personal property. The latter bill passed into a law; the former one was rejected on the third reading, and up to the present hour, personal property had continued liable to the tax. Since the act had passed, personal property had paid altogether 60,108,084 l. 16 s. 8d. to that tax, while landed property was entirely exempt from any such charge. Now this relief from direct taxation was a point which hon. Gentlemen who wished to continue to tax the food of the community, ought fairly to consider. Then, besides this relief from direct taxation, the landed interest had had, through the weakness of the ministry in yielding to the country gentlemen, upwards of 80,000 l. annually paid to them in aid of county rates, which amounted altogether to nearly 500,000 l. Besides this, the landed proprietors had, during the last four years, received every year, in consequence of the rise in the price of corn, and other articles of food, a tax exceeding 50,000,000 l. sterling, being more than the whole amount paid towards the wants of the state. It was useless to deny that the landed interest received 50,000,000 l. per annum from the taxes on food. In the evidence taken before the import duties committee, Mr. Macgregor stated
"That there were import duties on the following articles:—malt; beef and pork, fresh or slightly cured; lamb and mutton; cattle, sheep, and swine. High duties are levied on the following articles, to protect British agricultural and grazing interests:—tongues, 3d. each; bacon, 28 s. per cwt.; pork, salted, 12 s. per cwt.; sausages, 4d. per lb.; potatoes, 2d. per lb.; beer and mum, 3l. 1s, 1d., or about 21 s. per gallon; ale, other than mum, 2l. 13 s.; beans, kidney or French, l0 d. per bushel; fruits various duties; cider, 21 l. 10 s. per tun; hay, 24 s. per load of 36 trusses; lard, 8s. per cwt.; onions, 3s. per bushel; lentils, l0 d. per bushel; pearl barley, 17 s. 6d. per cwt.; mustard and carraway, and many other seeds."

1497
The witness was then asked,
" Have you ever heard any estimate of that kind with respect to bread or flour? With respect to bread and flour, the difference which the labourer pays in money is from forty to eighty per cent more than the foreign consumer. Taking the gross amount of revenue paid into the Treasury at 50,000,000 l, a year, have you been able to form an opinion what proportion this additional taxation on the food of the country would be?—I consider that the taxation imposed upon the country upon the production of wealth, through labour and ingenuity, by our duty on corn, and the provision duties and prohibitions, are far greater, probably much more than double the amount of taxation paid into the Treasury."
Another witness, Mr. Deacon Hume, was asked,
"You are of opinion, that all those protective duties are, in fact, a direct tax upon the community, by raising the price of every one of those articles to the consumer?—Most decidedly. I cannot analyse the charge which I pay in any other way, than that part of it is the prices of the commodity, and part is a duty, though it goes out of my private pocket, into another private pocket, instead of into that of the public. Have you ever made a calculation as to the amount of taxation which the community pay in consequence of the increased price of wheat and butchers' meat, which is occasioned by the monopoly now held by land?—I think that a tolerable calculation may be made of that increased charge. It is generally calculated that each person, upon the average, consumes a quarter of wheat a year. Assuming, then, the amount of duty that this wheat paid, or the price enhanced by protection, whatever that is, as far as bread goes, to be 10 s., it would be that amount upon the whole population. Then you could hardly say less than, perhaps, double that for butchers' meat and other matters; so that if we were to say, that the corn is enhanced by 10s. a quarter, there would be that 10 s. and 20 s. more as the increase of the price of meat, and other agricultural productions, including hay and oats for horses, barley for beer, as well as butter and cheese. That would be 36,000,000 l. a year, and the public are in fact paying that as effectually out of their pockets, as if it did go to the revenue in the form of direct taxes."
The House would see, from this statement, that the estimate which he had given was extremely low. He considered that it was impossible for the House longer to persist in maintaining such a state of things, when they saw the misery and distress existing at this moment in every part of the country. He had statements from Birmingham, Bolton, and other places, which he would submit to the
1498
House to-morrow, when he intended to enter into the subject at greater length. Before they persisted in refusing to admit an amelioration, he begged them to understand what were likely to be the consequences, and not to throw away the examples which history furnished of countries driven to desperation by famine and want. These were the grounds upon which he considered they had been defrauded of the opportunity of discussing the question of Corn-laws by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth's majority of one in the recent vote of want of confidence. If the right hon. Baronet had not introduced that motion, they would have had the question of the Corn-laws properly discussed. If the right hon. Gentleman had been candid, as he (Mr. Hume) expected he would have been, he would have stated the course he intended to pursue with respect to the Corn-laws.
Mr. G. Palmerthought that it was not only the height of impropriety to delude the people on a question like the present, but that it was wicked in the extreme, and the statement of the hon. Gentleman that the landed interest bore no share in the taxation of the country was a statement which would only tend to delude the public. The land-tax, the poor-rates, and tithes, all which were borne by the landed interest, did not amount to less than 50 per cent of the whole revenue.
Report received, and the Bill ordered to be engrossed.

DEBTS OF PARISHES.
Sir E. Knatckbullmoved the order of the day for the adjourned debate on the Debts of Parishes Bill for the purpose of having it discharged.
Mr. Benjamin Woodsaid, he objected to the Bill, as it provided for the payment of certain debts—one upwards of seven years, the amount and number of which were not specified. He was desirous to ascertain what was the real object of the Bill, and was glad that the hon. Gentleman meant to withdraw it, as next session he trusted such information would be laid before the House as would enable it to legislate on the subject.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, as far as he was concerned, he had no objection whatever to the Bill going through another stage. He was not responsible for the Bill not going through another stage. It would be most unreasonable to pass the Bill

1499
at once, involving, as it did, parish property to an enormous amount, without instituting a full inquiry into the circumstances connected with the subject. He knew a parish in the metropolis which forty years ago borrowed a sum of money for the repair of a church, agreeing to pay 12 per cent, interest on the sum, and it was most unreasonable that parishes at the present time should be answerable for such contracts. He hoped the returns which his hon. Friend had moved for would procure the requisite information whenever the subject came again under the consideration of the House.
Order of the Day discharged, and Bill withdrawn.

CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS.
The Order of the Day for the House resolving itself into a Committee on the Controverted Elections Trials Bill having been read,
Sir R. Peelsaid, that the Bill referred principally to the technical objections in the present law, which it was desirable to amend. The clauses of the Bill were mostly of an unimportant character, but still, on the eve of a general election, with the probability that many election petitions would soon be presented, it appeared to him advisable to make the Bill as complete as possible. It should be remembered that the act would expire at the end of the first session of the ensuing Parliament. There were, however, some alterations of rather an important character. Under the proposed alteration of the law, a Member was disqualified for serving on the Select Committee, on the grounds of certain degrees of relationship, or of his having voted at the election. It had been found that in one or two instances Members had inadvertently been placed on committees against whom reasonable objections might be urged. Such, for instance, as their having taken an active part in the election; and in those instances Members had expressed a regret that they had not an opportunity of disqualifying themselves. He proposed in the amended measure, for the purpose of remedying that inconvenience, that any Member who had satisfied the majority of the committee that there were good reasons, not having reference to considerations of personal convenience, but affecting the impartiality of the committee, why he should be excused from serving, that in such a
1500
case the committee should have the power of dispensing with his services. The amended act also provided for the more impartial appointment of chairman, and for a better arrangement in the selection of the committee. He thought these substantial alterations ought to be made with the decisive opinion of the House in their favour. He was afraid it would be very difficult to obtain the voluntary consent of Members to fill the office of chairman, and if it was a necessary duty, he thought the House ought to provide for its execution. He would suggest, that the extent of the duty that might be imposed upon any Member to act as chairman should be limited, and that if he were called upon to preside at several committees, it should be provided that if he claimed exemption (having once served the office) he should be entitled to it during the Session, and that the general committee should have the power of nominating another chairman. He felt exceedingly grateful to those Gentlemen who had performed those duties. He thought the bill a great improvement; at all events every one must feel it a relief to have got rid of those painful scenes which were formerly exhibited in the nomination of a select committee. At all events that law must be acted on during the next Session, and therefore it was desirable to make the experiment perfect if possible. He trusted the House would approve of the course he had pursued in re-enacting the whole bill, instead of merely introducing a separate bill to make the alteration, so that one law might contain the whole law of the subject.
Mr. C. Bullersaid, that the bill of the right hon. Baronet was a great improvement on the former system; it altered the original system in the right direction, and whatever defects it might leave, they might be easily repaired. There was one alteration, however, which the right hon. Baronet proposed to make, to which he felt an objection. The original committee on controverted elections, of which he was the chairman, proposed a plan by which election committees were to be selected as before, by chance; but in order to secure the permanence and competence of one person at least on the committee, that committee proposed that an assessor should be chosen out of the House, who should act as chairman. But the right hon. Baronet proposed a bill as an improvement,

1501
which did away with the selection by chance. The committee on controverted elections did not venture so far as this, which he admitted was the better plan; but the right hon. Gentleman refused to act upon the suggestion with regard to a permanent chairman. When that suggestion was made in the House, there was a general feeling evidenced in its favour, and though the House did not adopt an assessor, they adopted the present panel of chairmen. Now, what he (Mr. Buller) objected to in the proposal of the right hon. Baronet was, that it did away with the whole of the permanence of the system. It was true that, by the existing mode, they did not secure men of legal knowledge or of legal experience; but at any rate, they had the experience which was acquired by the hon. Members of that panel having before sat on election committees; and the committees were presided over by Gentlemen who understood the prominent points. The right hon. Baronet also proposed to make one man chairman of a committee during the whole of a Session; but that, he thought, would be imposing a duty on Members of this House of a very onerous nature; and would, in fact, do away with the advantages derived from the present method. It would be very difficult to find in a new Session many Members of this House qualified to take such an office. He felt that a permanent chairman would be of great importance; so important, that he desired to have the sense of the House upon the subject, but he would not take advantage of the lateness of the Session to press his opposition.
Viscount Howickconcurred in the opinions of the hon. Member for Liskeard, as to the advantages of the bill of the right hon. Baronet Sir R. Peel; and he thought that [the object of that bill would be destroyed unless they had a permanent chairman, and that it would be impossible to impose on any Gentleman of this House, at the commencement of a new Parliament, a duty so onerous as that of permanent chairman of a committee during the whole of a Session. Having himself had the misfortune to serve ou a committee since the new act came into operation, his experience confirmed him in the opinion that it was necessary to give these committees the benefit of professional assistance in some shape or other. Difficulties and embarrassments were experi-
1502
enced by the committee, in consequence of questions which were raised by counsel on each side; and which, he was convinced, a Gentleman with the advantages of a professional education would have been able to settle at once. He believed that the appointment of professional Gentlemen as assessors or permanent chairmen, who should be paid for their labours, was a plan which the Legislature would be forced to adopt at no very distant period.
House in Committee.
Sir R. Peel,in order to obviate the objection made with regard to the onerous-ness of the duty of chairman to a committee during the whole of a Session, moved the introduction of a proviso, to the effect that every Member on the chairman's panel who had served on one or more election committees during a Session, should be excused from serving on such committee, either as chairman or member, and he should be discharged from attendance on such committee, upon making an application to that effect. If the House did not adopt something like that which he now proposed, in the next Session of Parliament they would have to depend on the services of a voluntary chairman, who, perhaps, would find something onerous in a pecuniary way in the performance of his duties, and, therefore, would refuse to serve, leaving only the alternative of selecting persons for the office who were hot qualified to fill it. That was the danger which he apprehended, and he hoped that those hon. Gentlemen who might accept the office of chairman would endure the suspicion which was inseparable from that acceptance, and which could only attach for a very short time to those who honourably and honestly performed their duty, a suspicion which would not press heavily upon their minds, and which would be counterbalanced by the consideration that the proper discharge of their duty had gained them the approbation of this House. The balance was in favour of an alteration in the law, and he hoped the House would express an opinion strongly in approbation of the clause.
Lord J. Russellthought the right hon. Baronet was acting judiciously in proposing this amendment.
Viscount Mahonconcurred that all the argument was in favour of the right hon. Baronet's amendment.
Sir E. Sugdenagreed with the noble Lord, that it would be a great advantage

1503
to get a permanent chairman; but as a permanent chairman could not be obtained under any system which could be adopted, the right hon. Baronet's amendment was the only one which the House could agree to.
Proviso agreed to.
House resumed. Report received. Bill to be read a third time.

REGISTER OF ELECTORS (HERTFORD).
On the motion of Mr. T. Duncombe, the Register of Electors Bill was read a second time, and, the standing orders having been suspended, was carried into committee, and was going through the committee, when the House was counted out.
Adjourned.

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Metropolis Improvements; Expenses; Bribery at Elections; County Bridges (No. 2).—Read a second time:—Houses of Industry (Ireland); Insolvent Debtors (Ireland); Western Australia; New South Wales; Dublin Wide Streets; School Sites (No. 2); Loan Societies Acts Continuance t Banks of Issue.—Read a third time:—Tithe Compositions (Ireland); Administration of Justice Act Amendment; Bills of Exchange Acts Continuance; Loan Societies Acts Continuance.
Petitions presented. By Lord Lyndhurst, from Lancashire,
1484
against the proposed Financial Measure.—By the Marquess of Ailsa, from Ayr, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By the Duke of Argyle, from various places, against Church Patronage

CORN-LAWS.
Lord Wharncliffewished to know whether the noble Earl opposite intended to bring forward his motion on the subject of the Corn-laws to-morrow?
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, that he would not bring on the motion to-morrow. The only other day on which he could introduce it was Friday, but as he understood, that the noble Duke who usually sat at the head of the benches opposite would not be in the House on that day, he was afraid, that he would not be able to bring the question forward in a substantive form during the present Session. The noble Earl presented a petition from Liverpool, complaining of the general depression of trade, and approving of the financial measures, with reference to corn, sugar, and timber, proposed by her Majesty's Ministers. The noble Earl also presented several petitions from places in Yorkshire, for a repeal of the Corn-laws.
Earl Stanhopeinquired whether the Liverpool petitioners attributed the distressed state of trade to the operation of the Corn-laws, or to the alteration of the currency?
Earl Fitzwilliamsaid, if his noble Friend would read the petition he would see, that the petitioners approved of the proposition of Ministers to remove the sliding scale, and to have recourse to a fixed duty, because the existing system, by restricting our commerce with foreign countries, tended, together with other restrictive measures, to produce the evils of which they complained. Three-fourths of the persons engaged in the iron trade had signed the petition. The iron trade was unquestionably in a state of great depression. A remarkable circumstance had lately occurred (of which such of their Lordships as were interested in the subject must be aware), which proved this to be the fact. So much was the iron trade depressed, that in the counties of Stafford and Salop not less than fifty furnaces had been put out of blast. If some steps were not taken to remedy this state of things, a permanent injury to the amount of several millions annually would be inflicted on the manufactures of this country.
Lord Ashburtondoubted not, that severe distress prevailed in the iron trade at the present time. He took it for granted

1485
that it was so. This exemplified the manner in which distress occasionally came upon manufactured articles, but that distress was wholly foreign to the Corn-laws. As regarded the iron trade he had to observe, that if any one branch of industry had been carried to greater lengths than another, it was the iron trade. It had, however, been in a most prosperous condition, for he had heard of cases in which persons had realised fortunes of 50,000 l, 60,000 l., and 80,000 l. a year out of that trade. There might be, and doubtless were, checks in the trade, but that was no justification for attacking other branches of industry. It would not, however, be pretended, that the iron trade was depressed by foreign competition, for it did so happen, that no part of the world could compete with this country in the manufacture of iron. If the noble Earl stated, that the iron trade was labouring under depression on account of the Corn-laws, he must tell the noble Earl, that he was labouring under a delusion.
Earl Fitzwilliamhad never stated, that the iron trade was particularly affected by the Corn-laws, nor had the petitioners themselves asserted any such thing. What they said was, that the distressed state of general trade (of which the iron trade formed a part) might be traced in a considerable degree to the operation of the Corn-laws. They, as a part and portion of the great commercial interests of the country, complained that those interests at large were injured by our restrictive commercial policy, and they referred to their own case as a proof that their proposition was well founded.
Lord Hathertonpresented a petition from West Bromwich, signed by 5,017 persons, for the repeal of the Corn-laws. He did not mean to enter into a discussion of those laws, but would read the concluding paragraphs of the petition. The petitioners deplored the frightful depreciation in the value of manufactures, without any corresponding reduction in the price of provisions. They complained, that though employment was scarce, the provision market was as high as when labour was abundant; and further, that while food was rendered excessively high in price, the existing system, by closing foreign markets against our manufactures, made labour extremely cheap.
Petition laid on the Table.

SUNDAY TRAFFIC
Lord Hathertonsaid, that he was desired by the committee appointed by their Lordships to inquire into the subject of trafficking on railways and canals on Sundays, to present to the House the report which they had caused to be drawn up. The committee had received a great deal of evidence on the subject. They had examined parties connected with all the different lines of communication between the Thames and the Mersey. They had examined the owners, servants, and many of the carriers on those lines, and they had only abstained from entering into an examination of the boatmen as a class, because their numerous petitions to that and the other House of Parliament sufficiently indicated their opinions on the subject. The committee were unanimously of opinion, that the evidence taken presented the strongest possible case for legislative interference. The social and moral interests of the country required either, that some prohibitory law should be enacted, or that power should be given to companies to exercise a discretion as to certain hours during which Sunday travelling on those lines of communication should be stopped. If the Government did not take up the subject he would himself early next Session present a bill to their Lordships for the purpose of investing companies with permissive powers.
The Marquess of Normanbybore testimony to the unanimity of opinion which prevailed on this subject in the committee, and expressed a hope, that next Session their views might be carried into effect.
Report laid on the Table.

PUNISHMENT OF DEATH.
On the Motion of the Marquess of Normanby, the House resolved itself into Committee on the Punishment of Death Abolition Bill.
On the second clause,
Lord Wynfordmoved, that the offence of destroying or attempting to destroy sacred edifices, should be excepted from the operation of the bill.
Amendment negatived.
On the third clause,
The Marquess of Westmeathexpressed his objection to that part which removed the crime of rape from the list of capital offences. If their Lordships should agree to that proposition, as respected England, which it appeared to him would be an act

1487
of madness, he conjured them to pause before they extended the bill to Ireland. He found from authentic returns, that the number of assaults upon females, with intent to commit a capital offence, which occurred in 1840, in England, with a population of fourteen millions, was 169; whilst in Ireland it was 173, with a population of only eight millions. [Lord Brougham: 173 cases of rape?] Of rape, and assaults with intent to commit a rape. [Lord Brougham: That made a considerable distinction.] He repeated, that there were in Ireland, in the year 1840, 173 cases, out of a population of eight millions. As he had before said, he trusted their Lordships would not sanction the extension of the clause under consideration to Ireland.
The Earl of Mountcashellprotested against such a clause as the present, as it went to break down all those barriers which had hitherto remained sacred as a protection to defenceless woman.
The Marquess of Normanbyobserved, that if it had before been necessary that his noble Friend and he should have assured their Lordships, that they had not given their support to the alteration of the criminal law in this respect from their want of abhorrence of the crime it attempted to repress, it became now even more necessary to give them that assurance. Indeed, he would add, that it was the abhorrence with which his noble Friend and he regarded this atrocious crime which had induced them to support this clause, as the way to render the punishment both certain, and likely to prove effective in the repression of the crime. He hoped that the alteration would have the effect of inducing jurors not to seek hereafter for ingenious reasons to disbelieve the evidence of unhappy females who had been thus abused, as had too frequently been the case of late years upon trials of this nature. It would also prevent, by inducing convictions in cases clearly made out by the evidence of the female injured, that which had been but too frequent, the infliction of a stain upon the character and veracity of the poor sufferer — a stain which was almost inseparable from the rejection of her evidence by the jury, and the acquittal of the party arraigned. For these reasons he trusted their Lordships would reject the amendment.
Lord Abingeradmitted, that our criminal code had with great justice been stig-
1488
matised by the civilised world as too sanguine. Still he conceived the bill, or at least this clause of it, went rather too far, and he could have wished, for his part, from all he had been enabled to gather upon the subject, that the punishment of death for aggravated offences of this kind should be retained. It had certainly been found, upon reference to the returns of convictions for this offence during the last ten years, that the sympathies of the neighbourhood where the offence had been perpetrated were but too generally excited in favour of sparing the life of the party, and this very materially militated against the due administration of the law as it stood, for the consequences were, that the Home-office was besieged by applications in favorem vitœ, and thus it happened, that the law imposed upon a judge the invidious duty of pronouncing the sentence of death upon criminals of this kind, which was scarcely ever executed. He would with deference ask their Lordships, what was the use of a capital punishment for a particular offence remaining on their statute book which was rarely ever suffered to be inflicted on the culprit? He confessed his objection went no further than this, that the capital punishment should not be altogether abolished, but should be reserved for aggravated and atrocious cases. If they adopted this course, they would not hereafter find jurors so anxious to seize upon every trifling pretext or formal legal nicety, in order to destroy the evidence of the woman, and save the culprit from a sentence of death—a sentence which always enlisted the sympathy of the jurors to a great extent. He should have been glad if any noble Lord had introduced a clause making an act of this kind, committed by several men upon a female, a capital felony against all the offenders, but as this had not been attempted, he confessed he was not prepared to move such a clause, and he should therefore support the clause as it stood.
The Earl of Winchilseasaid, he could not support the clause. He believed, that the punishment of death for cases of violent assault and forcible rape was indispensable for the protection of virtuous females, for he was fully convinced, that nothing short of the positive dread of an ignominious death could restrain those fierce passions which the most charitable in society admitted sunk the offender lower than the brute. Entertaining the

1489
strongest objections to the principle embodied in the clause, he should, therefore, move the third clause be omitted.
Lord Broughamadmitted the subject under consideration was one of the utmost importance to the morals of society. Within the last four or five years there were about a hundred prosecutions for this offence, but only twelve convictions. The jurors could not be prevailed upon for any consideration to be made parties to what must turn out to be the destruction of human life, where there was the possibility or a doubt in their minds that guilt did not really exist. He must remind their Lordships of the great peculiarity of this offence. A very learned judge had said, with reference to this offence, that the accusation was very easily made, but most difficult to refute. It was not simply a question whether the prisoner should be convicted or not, but it was a question as to whether the prisoner should be convicted or the witness discredited. The consequence of this consideration was, that the juror always felt more or less a doubt hanging over the testimony given, and hence the difficulty under the existing law of procuring convictions where guilt did really exist. The juror would say, he would not send the prisoner to be executed upon evidence which he was not willing to believe. He recollected an extraordinary case which had occurred not very long ago, of apparently the most aggravated nature. The prosecutrix was called and examined at great length, the case appeared to be perfectly plain, and the feeling with which the judge and the jury were influenced was, that it was a case of extra-personal violence, and one of the most aggravated nature. The evidence that was adduced on the occasion went to show, that the prosecutrix had been knocked down upon the ground with the most brutal violence. The prisoner denied the charge altogether, but the charge against him appeared to be so clearly proved, that the jurors overcame their usual scruples and brought in a verdict of guilty. Notwithstanding this result, it soon afterwards appeared there was every reason to believe, that this verdict was an erroneous one. Notwithstanding all appearances were against the unfortunate prisoner, it speedily turned out that the prosecutrix should not have been believed. His noble Friend at the head of the Home Department immediately or-
1490
dered a commutation, or a postponement of the sentence (he did not recollect which), but at all events time was given for further inquiry into the matter, the result of which was, that the most satisfactory evidence was produced to show, that the commutation and postponement of the sentence was right, and the verdict of the jury was wrong. The evidence was no less than the complete confession of the prosecutrix herself. The bare existence of such a case, from his knowledge of the law in this country, will make it for years and years to come, impossible to procure, in that part of the country, a conviction for this offence. It was for the purpose of making the law effective, and to prevent the recurrence of such cases as that he had just stated, that he wished to see the law in this respect changed. He wished it were possible to frame the law so as to retain capital punishment for particular cases of an aggravated nature, and in which the offence had been prove beyond the possibility of a doubt, and to abolish capital punishment in those of a general description. This House was certainly not bound to pay that deference to the other House of Parliament, by passing this bill, because the other House had agreed to it, but, upon a question of this peculiar description, he thought they were bound to look at what was passing in the House of Commons, which had so many divisions of late, and which had latterly been muttering rather than pronouncing its decisions upon so many important questions of policy. But upon a question like this before their Lordships, when they saw the other House, notwithstanding their conduct on other subjects, coming forward with the majority of two or three to one in favour of this clause, he thought their Lordships should agree to it. He would venture to say that, practically speaking, if the law stands where it does, it is changed in its administration, and should now be altered in its letter. He would, therefore, earnestly hope that their Lordships would affirm the clause.
Lord Wynfordsaid, that he considered capital punishment should be retained in cases of an aggravated nature, and where the prosecutrix was corroborated in her evidence. He thought the sympathy of the public would always go with the punishment, particularly when the offence had been committed by two or more persons, and where the prose-

1491
cutrix had been clearly confirmed in her testimony by 'another witness. He could not help thinking that there was some inconsistency in proposing a bill of this importance the last week of the Session. He was of opinion that it was much better to leave the law as it stood than to legislate upon it in a hurry. By so doing he was satisfied that no improper execution would take place. He suggested that the law should be left as it was, until they could give the subject that deliberation which the importance of the case demanded. He was, however, of this opinion, that there should be always a confirmation of the evidence against the prisoner before capital punishment should be inflicted. If the House should divide upon the amendment, he should vote in favour of expunging the clause altogether.
The Lord Chancellorsaid, that their Lordships should recollect that the question was not altogether as to whether the individual deserved the punishment which the law awarded for this offence, but whether that punishment was calculated to prevent the commission of the crime. Now, if they found that the severity of the punishment attending the commission of this offence, and the probability of the prisoner's innocence, notwithstanding the evidence of the prosecutrix, if they found that these ideas were operating upon the jurors' minds, to deter them from finding the prisoner guilty, and thereby perhaps, in many cases enabling the really guilty to escape, surely they must see that the law required some alteration. The law was formed not so much for punishment as prevention. With this view of the question, he thought they would have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion, that by retaining this clause as it stood, they were adopting that course which was better calculated to prevent the commission of this offence than when the law was more severe. It was the certainty of punishment and not the severity of the punishment that prevented crime. It was because there was such a great probability of escape, that the offence had been so often committed. The noble Marquess who moved this question before the House had referred to certain returns in 1840, but he had included in the one number the charges of rape, and the charges of assaulting with the intent to commit rape. If the noble Marquess had pursued his inquiry, and kept those returns separate,
1492
he would doubtless have found an argument strongly opposed to the part he had taken in this debate. It appeared by the returns of the number of charges for rape during the year 1840, there were fifty-six, of which number only eighteen had been convicted, being only about the one-third. But of the charges of assault with the intent to commit a rape there were 106, and seventy-four convictions, being about two-thirds. He would ask if those facts did not lead them to the conclusion, that by keeping up the severity of the punishment they were only encouraging rather than suppressing the crime.
The Earl of Haddingtonsaid, he had come down to the House with an inclination to vote for the omission of the words objected to by the noble Marquess; but after hearing the reasons urged for their retention, founded on the state of public opinion, and the experience of the last ten years, as well as the arguments of the four learned Lords who had spoken in the course of the debate, he confessed he could not vote for their omission. But he was most desirous to frame a proviso, if possible, to retain the punishment of death for aggravated cases of rape effected by a combination of persons.
The Marquess of Westmeathremarked that the law would adopt the principle of the New Poor-law, which threw the whole hardship on the mother in the case of a putative child, by throwing all the hardship on the woman in cases of violation. In order, therefore, to make room for the amendment which would have been proposed by his noble Friend, he would withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Chichestersaid, that leaving the law capital in respect to certain aggravated cases would defeat the object of the legislature, for the counsel for the prisoners would, in pleading for them, work on the feelings of the jury by impressing on them that by bringing in a verdict of guilty they would, perhaps, hang an innocent man; and thus the doubt and the contemplation of the awful contingency would induce juries to acquit the criminals of whose guilt they might not have the slightest moral doubt. Such a clause would therefore be of no real protection to women. His experience as a chairman of quarter sessions had impressed upon him the opinion he now gave.
On the question that the clause stand
part of the bill, their Lordships divided. Contents 42; Not Contents 38: Majority 4.
The Marquess of Westmeathasked whether the noble Marquess opposite would on the third reading propose any proposition to meet aggravated cases of rape?
The Marquess of Normanbysaid, he thought the difficulties in framing such a provision would be insuperable; he should therefore neither propose a clause himself, nor agree to one proposed by any other noble Lord.
Bill reported—to be read a third time.
Adjourned.