THIRD READING. (Hansard, 3 April 1884)

§ MR. SEXTON
said, he had been looking through Section 4 of this Bill since the discussion the other night which led the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) to make an important alteration. Instead of providing that a child might be both flogged and sent to prison, the right hon. and learned Gentleman made flogging an alternative punishment; but on looking over the Bill he (Mr. Sexton) found that Sub-section 4 of Section 4 provided that— This section shall not prejudice the right of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction to send a child to a reformatory or industrial school. He wished to know whether this subsection would over-ride the alternative provision; whether a child, having been flogged, could be sent to a reformatory or industrial school, or whether the punishment should be simply alternative; and whether, in case of flogging, there would be no other punishment inflicted? Unless he was satisfied by the right lion, and learned Gentleman that Sub-section 4 did not cancel the apparent concession given in the previous section he should move the adjournment of the debate, in order to give time for the further consideration of the section.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, the section as to industrial schools was a section which must be retained, because jurisdiction in reference to reformatories and industrial schools was obviously most important in the interest of children as well as of the general community; and he should be very sorry to see any change in the reformatory law. The Government, he knew, could not consent to any such change.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, the power of flogging would then be given in addition to the power of sending to a reformatory or industrial school. He thought the House would agree with him that there would be no gain in giving this additional power to the police in the case of 1598 children whom the magistrates intended to send to a reformatory or industrial school for a long period. If the child's mind was to be reformed by a course of treatment and discipline in a reformatory, that treatment should take place under the management of the directors of the reformatory, and within the walls of the reformatory. It was not necessary, and, indeed, it was highly objectionable, to inflict additional penalties to those already given to magistrates in regard to the power of sending children to a reformatory. Nothing could be more objectionable, in reference to the punishment of children, than punishment inflicted by the authority of magistrates in ordinary prisons previous to the children being sent to reformatories. As the law now stood, children were often sent to gaol for a fortnight before being sent to a reformatory; they were put in cells and frightened out of their wits. In his judgment, the course to adopt would be to send a child at once to a reformatory, so that the reformatory course could be at once entered upon, without the child being first sent to gaol or subjected to the barbarous punishment of flogging, which this Bill provided. He therefore hoped that, in order that this point might be cleared up, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would agree to the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. GIBSON
said, he would, of course, agree to the adjournment of the debate till to-morrow; but he believed there must be a short imprisonment first. He would make inquiry, and very likely he would be able to-morrow to give a satisfactory answer.

§ MR. T. C. THOMPSON
said, that in some cases these children were dealt with without anyone being present to defend them. Parents, by this Bill, were not to be summoned, and there might be nobody present to defend the children. A child of 10 years of age could not answer for himself; and, therefore, he thought care should be taken not to punish him unless someone appeared for him.