§ MR. THOROLD ROGERSasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether it be not possible for the parent or parents of a child sent to an industrial school to avoid, and without risk of punishment, the responsibility of maintaining such a child, and to impose this duty on the ratepayers, mainly owing to the Summary Jurisdiction Act; and, whether, if this be the case, any hope may be held out that the Law will be amended, in order to bring such persons within the liability of punishment?
§ SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT, in reply, said, that under the 35th section of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, the contribution ordered to be paid was a civil debt, and was not, therefore, one in respect of which a warrant of apprehension could be issued, unless the Court was satisfied that the defendant had means to pay and refused to pay. The question of the amendment of the law was under consideration.