Show I A sin I pending Jn the British I i parliament the object of which I to render liable to corporal punishment I turglars who provide themselves With firearms for Uie execution of their criminal designs I Is opposed I by Lord Ksher and Lord Herscbell 6ri the ground hat It Js tnrbaroutlr cruel and lht I w ill not liave jlre deterrent effect claldttl for It The London Timci commenting Hpod this argument says There I only one explanation of the obvious Inconsistency In-consistency which Is that many people juts 1 of puulfehmeuta not by their fitness for their purpO but by the sensations they excIte the minds of unconcerned spectators The allegation Uiat the sort of pain which revolts sportsmen will not deter the tmrglar from shooting I I pollcemati is nothing more than an expression of personal Indifference ep pttlllldlffernce t the pain Inflicted on other by I flhotjacd ken personal sympathy with the pain inflicted by a whIp Upon no other theory cat he Timci account for the seeming solicltucic for the burglar and lack of Interest In his victim It mates thereason ablo suggestion which however 1 have no weight with Lord Kshef ami Lord Hencheil that the burglar nt itvold the whipping post by simply leaving Ills tteaposs at home when ho goes out to burgle |