§ Sir WILLIAM BYLESasked the Home Secretary whether the new Recorder of Liverpool, Mr. Hemmerde, K.C., has just sentenced a young man, Edward Gillibanks, to twenty-five strokes with the birch, in addition to twelve months' hard labour, for being an incorrigible rogue; and whether, in view of the effect of this form of punishment, he will consider the desirability of proposing the repeal of the Vagrancy Act?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe prisoner in this case was, I understand, a man who had corrupted a girl of fifteen, and for the second time had been convicted of living on the earnings of her prostitution. I cannot say that I think the punishment inflicted on him supplies an argument for repealing the Vagrancy Act.
§ Sir W. BYLESIs it necessary to suggest that the questioner is in sympathy with such crimes as this, and was not that the object of the right hon. Gentleman, not in his answer to-day, but on previous days where anybody objects to that punishment, in drawing attention to the nature of the crime which has nothing whatever to do with the question.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI can assure the House and my hon. Friend that nothing was further from my thoughts or from my words than to suggest that he had the slightest sympathy with the odious character, but it is necessary to state what the offence is in order to justify the very proper and salutary punishment.
§ Sir W. BYLESWhat I want to get at is whether it is possible to get rid of this degrading method of punishment. I want some answer from the Home Office on this question.
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI have given my answer. I think it is very proper punishment.
§ Mr. GEORGE GREENWOODIs the right hon. Gentleman aware that Section 10 of the Vagrancy Act of 1824 lays down no restriction whatever as to the amount of flogging, or as to the manner in which it is to be inflicted, or as to the instrument by which it is to be inflicted, and whether he will consider the advisability of repealing that part of the Section?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member must give notice of an important question of that kind.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONMay I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman says that this punishment was inflicted for the offence of seducing a girl of the age of fifteen?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe man was convicted of being a rogue and vagabond, living on the earnings of prostitution, and what adds to the gravity of the offence is the youth of the girl with whom he was living. Under those circumstances I think 2105 the Recorder, whom we all know is thoroughly in touch with the opinion of this House, acted entirely properly.
§ Sir W. BYLESIs it the view of the Home Office that any young man of twenty-six who is physically healthy is incorrigible?