HC Deb 27 March 1884 vol 286 cc980-6

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 4 (Summary trial of children for indictable offences unless objected to by parent or guardian).

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. GIBSON

said, he had made inquiries, and he found that the practice at present was that no child under 13 years of age, or a man or woman over 60 years of age, was allowed to sleep on a plank bed.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, he wished to move the omission of sub-section (d) of this clause, which gave power to policemen to administer the punishment of whipping to children. People had already had too much experience of the power of the police in Ireland; and he objected very strongly to any power being given to them to administer corporal punishment to children. He could very well imagine such a power being made use of by policemen whose resent- ment children had incurred by some; trifling offence. They all remembered that during the recent agitations the Irish police were not very good humoured or kind towards children; and he should not care to find that the child of an Irish tenant could be whipped by a policeman for whistling Harvey Duff, or for some such trifling delinquency. The presence of an officer was not sufficient guarantee that this power would not be abused; and he could see no reason why a punishment of this sort, which was considered degrading to a soldier or any grown-up man, should be inflicted upon children of tender age, particularly as it might be inflicted in a case which involved some political bias. He therefore begged to move the omission of the sub-section.

Amendment proposed, that sub-section (d) be omitted from the Clause.—(Mr. O'Brien.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. GIBSON

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion. The Bill was intended to mitigate the present law; and he was sure that all Members desired that the change should he brought about without opposition and by general consent. If the Bill became law any child brought up under summary conviction would not get more than one month's imprisonment. This particular passage was, word for word, the present law in England; and it was most desirable that there should not be a difference between the law in the two countries. An appeal could be made where that should be thought desirable.

MR. O'BRIEN

was sorry to say that he should be obliged to press his Amendment, for the law in England and the law in Ireland were worked very differently. There had been cases in Ireland, and there might be cases again, in which power given to policemen to punish children by whipping was very degrading; and he could see no reason for retaining this provision.

MR. MOLLOY

suggested that his hon. Friend should bring the matter up on the Report, when there would be more time to discuss it.

MR. SEXTON

said, no one had anticipated that this Bill would come up for discussion that night, and he thought a Bill of that importance should not be taken at so late an hour. He was inclined to agree with the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien); but he would suggest that flogging should only be inflicted with the consent of a parent or parents.

MR. MAYNE

said, the only argument put forward by the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gibson) for retaining this provision was that this was the law in England; but in England the police could be trusted with those extraordinary powers, while in Ireland they could not, owing to the well-known want of sympathy between them and the people of that country.

MR. KENNY

said, he should support the Amendment, regarding this power to flog children as perfectly revolting. Nothing made a more lasting impression on children than having personal chastisement inflicted on them; and he was convinced that nothing tended more to addict children to vicious criminal habits than resorting to this species of punishment in the case of children of tender age. Even on the grounds of mere humanity English Members should join with them in rejecting this portion of the Bill. Children could be punished severely enough for whatever offences they committed without resort being had to the birch rod—the birch rod of the Royal Irish Constabulary and of the Dublin Metropolitan Police. He trusted that English Members, who professed to have such lively humanitarian instincts, and to be always so affected when they heard of cases of cruelty even to dumb animals, would join with the Irish Members in opposing this clause.

MR. GIBSON

said, that if there was one man who had a greater dislike to whipping in any shape or form than another, that man was the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood). He was particularly strong on the question; but he had been a Member of the Committee which sat and thrashed out the question, and he had thoroughly acquiesced in the clause, believing it a humane provision. Any father in the world would—he himself would, unquestionably—prefer, on the grounds of humanity, seeing his child whipped, let them call it by what name they liked, than seeing the child sent to prison for a month. If they took it out of the power of a magistrate to inflict corporal punishment on a child they would only compel him to send it to prison, which was a thing he (Mr. Gibson) was striving to prevent.

MR. SEXTON

said, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would make whipping an alternative punishment the Irish Members might be disposed to consider the question; but to leave the use of the lash to the magistrate's discretion—which, to their knowledge, in Ireland often meant extreme indiscretion—was a thing they were not disposed to concede. This discretion would leave it to the magistrate first to flog a child, and then to send him to gaol for a month. Could the right hon. and learned Gentleman produce evidence to show that such a discretionary power as that was necessary in Ireland? If he could not, he (Mr. Sexton) should be disinclined to agree with him, the opinion of the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood) and the Committee notwithstanding. He was not inclined to take the Report of a Committee on such a matter as this as conclusive; indeed, so strongly did he feel on this matter that he would now move to report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."— (Mr. Sexton.)

MR. GIBSON

said, he was sorry the hon. Member had taken that course. He believed every single Member from Ireland was in favour of the Bill—["No, no!"]—yes; although some of them challenged this particular clause; and now moving to report Progress was going, as far as it was in an hon. Member's power to go, in the direction of killing the Bill. The clause was clearly for the benefit of children in Ireland, and decidedly in the interest of the peace of mind of many parents in Ireland, who were sorry to see their children sent to gaol and subjected to contaminating influences. The Bill was one of social merit and social importance; and he therefore trusted that the Motion would not be persisted in. If hon. Members wished to mark their opinion of the punishment of whipping generally, they could do that by taking a Division. He understood that that was the desire of the hon. Member for Cavan (Mr. Biggar), who was as good a fight- ing man as there was in the House. That hon. Member was in favour of taking an opinion only on one clause.

MR. SEXTON

said, that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman was sincere in his statement that this clause was for the benefit of the children and for the peace of mind of the parents, the Irish Members would offer, as a compromise, that the Court might inflict a flogging on a child with the consent of one or other of the parents.

MR. GIBSON

said, the hon. Member was a very acute and intelligent man; but he had not, perhaps, gone into this matter as fully as he (Mr. Gibson) had. On reflection, the hon. Member would see that many unfortunate children whom it might be desirable to bring under this provision might have no parents, or none that were available—they might be unfortunate waifs and strays—and it surely would not be suggested that these should be subjected to conditions which would render it necessary for them to be sent to gaol—conditions which hon. Members were satisfied were not for the benefit of the children or their parents, when they had any. He had no right to make any appeal to the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton); but if the hon. Member would take his assurance that on the Committee hon. Gentlemen who differed from him (Mr. Gibson) as widely as the poles on political questions were satisfied that the words of this clause were for the benefit of the children, the hon. Member would probably not press his Motion.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, that what would most likely afford an easy solution of the difficulty had just occurred to him. According to the clause, this punishment of whipping was to be inflicted on a child by a policeman in the presence of the child's parent; but he (Mr. O'Brien) would propose the alternative that the whipping should be administered by the parent in the presence of the policeman. He objected very strongly to the employment of policemen in the infliction of this punishment—nothing could be more objectionable to Irish feeling than that.

THE CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the Committee that if the discussion on the words of the Amendment is to be continued, the Motion to report Progress must be withdrawn. At the present moment only the Question of reporting Progress can be discussed.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, he had been offering, as he thought, some reasons to the right hon. and learned Gentleman why he should defer to the opinion of so many Members from Ireland. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would show no signs of yielding in that respect, unquestionably Irish Members would be obliged to oppose the Bill. Every advance in the direction of a compromise had been made by the Irish Members on the particular provision before the Committee, which happened to be the only provision in the whole Bill which was objectionable.

MR. MOLLOY

said, they were all agreed as to the merits of the Bill, and there was no animosity in any quarter against anyone in regard to it. He trusted the right hon. and learned Gentleman would consider the suggestion which he (Mr. Molloy) had made some time ago, and would consent to take this point on the Report stage of the Bill. That would give hon. Members ample time to consider the matter. He had no desire to oppose the right hon. and learned Gentleman in the ordinary sense of the word.

MR. GIBSON

said, he had been turning over in his mind what had fallen from the hon. Member for Mallow (Mr. O'Brien) and the hon. Member for Sligo (Mr. Sexton) upon this question; and, probably, it would meet the views of these hon. Gentlemen if he struck out from the clause the words "either in addition to or." That would leave the punishment of whipping as an alternative punishment to imprisonment. It would be making a great change in the Bill.

MR. SEXTON

said, that, as a matter of principle, the Irish Members had made their protest against the infliction of this punishment; and he thought it now would be well to assent to the proposal of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. He would withdraw his Motion for reporting Progress.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. O'BRIEN

said, that as the Bill was one for the mitigation of the punishment of children in Ireland he would withdraw his opposition.

MR. GIBSON

I now propose my Amendment.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, lines 25 and 26, to leave out the words "either in addition to or."—(Mr. Gibson.)

Amendment agreed to.

MR. SEXTON

said, he saw the right hon. and learned Gentleman had several Amendments down to Clause 8, to insert after "child" the words "or young person." He presumed this "young person" meant a male person?

MR. GIBSON

That is so.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.