§ Any male person who is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under Section two of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, may, at the discretion of the Court, and in addition to any term of imprisonment awarded in respect of the said offence, be sentenced to be once privately whipped, and the number of strokes and the instrument with which they shall be inflicted shall be specified by the Court in the sentence.
§ Mr. G. GREENWOODI beg to move to leave out Clause 2.
This is not the first time that the question of flogging has been raised in this. House. The Clause proposes to put again upon our Statute Book the punishment of flogging, whether by the cat or by the birch. I do not think that even the most malignant person — I was going to say either in this House or out of it, but there are no malignant persons in this House— would suggest or insinuate that we who are opposed to the punishment of flogging in any shape or form being in our penal code have any sympathy whatever with the scoundrels against whom this Clause is aimed. On the contrary, we are at one in wishing to see them punished as severely as may be, consistently with the dictates of common sense and reason and with the interests of the community. This, to my mind, is the whole question: Is it in the highest permanent interests of the community to put again upon the Statute Book what I do not hesitate to call the reactionary and discredited punishment of flogging? I hope to make good that description. The objection has been made that this is a sentimental Amendment. I do not quite know the meaning of the word, but I think the word "sentimental" commends itself very much to a class of persons who think that an epithet may be made to do duty for argument because it is vague and indefinite. If "it is to be applied at all, we entirely repudiate its applicability to us who oppose this Clause in this connection. We say that the real sentimentalist or emotionalist is the man whose sole idea, when he hears, of some crime which he holds particularly 757 in abhorrence, is to cry out "Flog the brute." It is an extremely easy thing to say, and it is constantly said by those who have had no experience of the criminal law, and have no knowledge of criminology or the trend of modern thought in regard to the punishment of prisoners. I am sorry to say that in certain sections of society there seems to be a recrudescence of what I can only call "flagellomania." I am not responsible for the origin of that expression; it has already been used. A gentleman wrote to the papers the other day, under the appropriate name of Birchall, noting the various offences for which flogging has recently been suggested. They included the carrying of revolvers, reckless driving by motorists, the breaking of windows by suffragettes, assaults en girls and children, assaults on English girls by foreigners, the neglect of children by parents, the disobedience to parents by children, the illtreatment of animals, and inability to manage a boat on the part of sailors. I say that the real emotionalist is the man who, like a Right Reverend Prelate the other day, after working up his audience to a state of virtuous indignation—and quite rightly— against these abominable procurers, cried out, "They richly deserve flogging, and they shall hare it." Very likely they do deserve flogging, very likely they deserve branding, to have their noses slit, to have their cars cut off, or to have the boot and thumbscrew. I daresay they deserve it; but that is not sufficient. If you are going back to this punishment of torture you have to show that it is in the interest of the community to do so. It was not in the interest of the scoundrels or prisoners or convicted people that punishments of torture, except flogging, which is a form of torture, were abolished from our criminal code. It was in the interest of the community itself. These people also say that flogging will be a deterrent, and they think when they have said that they have said all that is necessary. But all these old discredited torture punishments were supposed to be deterrents. I believe myself that a very distinguished Member of this House, who had a very wide experience in criminal law—Sir Edward Clarke—was right when he said that flogging had not really proved to be a deterrent. At any rate, we know that all these torture punishments have been tried. It is not so many years ago that our penal code was a disgrace to civilisation. We had 200 capital offences, and we flogged 758 everybody, men, women, and children, indiscriminately. Can anybody say that crime has increased since those days? Everybody knows that, whether as a consequence or not, since the adoption of milder, more humane, and more sensible treatment of prisoners, crime in proportion to the population has steadily diminished.
I maintain that the punishment of flogging has all the faults that any punishment could have. Flogging is demoralising, it is discredited, it is unequal, it is uncertain, it is irrevocable. Now let me just very briefly take these points. It is demoralising. I know it is often said, when one refers to this as a degrading punishment: "Oh, but this wretch is so degraded already that it is impossible to degrade him further." I do not want to occupy the time of the House in dealing with that particular argument. But I doubt even that. I doubt that any man is so degraded that you cannot degrade him further. The late Mr. Justice Hawkins, a man with unrivalled experience of the Criminal Courts,, said:—
If you flog a man you make a perfect devil of him.When the question was discussed in this House on a previous occasion the present Prime Minister spoke. Perhaps I shall be pardoned for drawing attention to a most eloquent passage in his speech, where he says:—You may depend upon it that in most, of them there are latent, hut still present, sparks of self respect, and a sense of human dignity, which, if carefully watched and tended might, in course of time, hum into a purifying glow, which would be in great danger of extinction by such measures as the Bill proposes.That was on a Bill to permit flogging. He further said:—As to the deterrent effect of flogging it is impossible to look upon a punishment as really deterrent, if the question whether it will be inflicted in any particular case is no more a certainty than a chance in a lottery. The majority of judges never award this punishment at all.The right hon. Gentleman finished a very strong speech by saying:—I hope that Her Majesty's Government, will resist this attempt to alter our criminal law in a sense which involves a retrogression to an' obsolete theory of punishment, which is calculated not only to create greater uncertainty, but to introduce additional confusion and inconvenience in the administration of justice.I believe I may say with some certainty that the right hon. Gentleman has not changed those opinions since. They had great influence with the House at the time. But the real argument is not so much that this punishment is degrading to the criminal as that it is demoralising to the community. What we are contending is that the punishment of flogging not 759 only demoralises the criminal, but that it demoralises the judge who awards it, the officer who has to carry it into execution, and the community which can tolerate it. In fact, it is the very opposite to mercy. "It is twice cursed: it curses him that gives and him that takes." I remember a short time ago reading a story of a South African who saw his Zulu servant flogging an ox. He was very indignant and he proceeded to flog the servant very severely. Afterwards this Zulu servant reasoned it out with his master. He said, "You angry with me, you flog me. I angry with ox, I flog ox." The servant apparently seemed to think that he and his master were on the same level, and that whereas he had been guilty of violence to an inferior animal, his master had been guilty of violence to one accounted of an inferior race. I would state it in the words of the great authority, Dr. Havelock Ellis—I am quoting from his standard work on "The Criminal":—Flogging is objectionable, because it is ineffectual (as was shown long since), and because it brutalizes and degrades those on whom it is inflicted, those who inflict it, and those who come within the radius of its influence.That is the first objection. Again, it is a discredited punishment, because we have tried it and found it wanting. You have only to study past history and you will see that we were at one time always flogging— men, women, and children—over and over again. We gave it up. For instance, in 1843—as long ago as that—the Criminal Law Commissioners said that they did not recommend an extension of the punishment. In 1861, at the time of the consolidation of the Acts relating to the Criminal Law, there were vast numbers of Acts which imposed flogging upon criminals, and they were all swept away. In 1898 the Prisons Act reduced the punishment of flogging even in prisons to very small dimensions, and it never had to be inflicted except under very stringent safeguards. The only case practically in which you can now inflict flogging is under the Act of 1863, where the provision was introduced in a great panic because a Member of this House had been garrotted in St. James's Park. You can flog a prisoner now for robbery with violence if the judge chooses so to sentence him. Under the Vagrancy Act of 1824—which I have always thought a disgraceful Act to allow to stand upon our Statute Book—you can flog a man if he is convicted three times for wandering abroad without visible means of subsistence. I say further that this punishment is unequal. 760 Let me quote a very celebrated lawyer, Lord Herschell, subsequently Lord Chancellor, who said, in a Debate in this House:—He strongly objected to the punishment of flogging for two reasons. The first was that it was, perhaps, above all other punishments, an unequal punishment. They inflicted the same number of strokes upon two men, and the chances were that the man who deserved to feel the punishment most felt it by far the least. It was an extremely unequal punishment. In the next place, it was of all punishments the most uncertain, seeing that it was left to the discretion of the judges. There ware some judges who would always flog. There were some judges who would never flog.These were the two objections that were afterwards enforced in this House in a subsequent Debate by Mr. Morgan Lloyd, the present County Court Judge. When one comes to think of it, it certainly is unequal and uncertain. You take a schoolboy. I have no doubt one has often heard a man of burly physique say that he was very often flogged at school, and that that accounts for the splendid fellow that he is. After having passed nearly seven years in the greatest of our public schools, I know that some boys are really very sensitive as to this punishment. They think it would be degrading to them to have to be punished in this way, and they have the fear of their parents knowing it. The punishment, I say, is absolutely unequal at school, because it depends upon the temperament of the person. It hardens some boys altogether and it breaks the spirit of others. Again, it has been pointed out that it is irrevocable. Under the Criminal Law you flog a man, and then perhaps find out—as is so often found out—that he was unjustly convicted. What can you do? You have inflicted the degrading punishment, which is irrevocable; you can make compensation, but you can never undo the punishment of flogging which has been inflicted! This Bill introduces a new practice in Scotland, and I would ask the Lord Advocate what he intends to do with regard to it. There was an Act passed in 1862 applicable to Scotland, forbidding any adult to be flogged o" whipped, and that has been acted upon up to the present time. "Stands Scotland where it did?" or are the Scottish people anxious to introduce again this punishment of flogging?I do not know what views Irish Members take, but in Ireland there is no flogging now. It may be that in Ireland they enjoy a blessed immunity from crimes of this description, but there is no flogging practically in Ireland now. This Bill would introduce flogging into Ireland. I believe I am right in saying that no civilised country has this punishment now 761 included in its criminal code. Neither France, Germany, nor Belgium has it now in their criminal code. Surely if those civilised nations of Europe can get on without it, we are not going to go back to what I can only call these methods of barbarism. This question has been debated, and very fully, in this House on two previous occasions. First of all, it was debated in 1885, when this Act, which we are now amending, was before this House as a Bill. On that occasion, Sir Henry Fowler proposed an Amendment introducing flogging, and for what? As a punishment for the crime of rape on a little child. I do not think you could get a more horrible offence than that, and if you are to have flogging at all, surely it would be for such an offence as that. I have gone very carefully through the Debates and I find that all the most distinguished men having experience of the criminal law voted against this flogging Amendment. Mr. Hopwood, who was Recorder of Liverpool, said:—
Whipping, as a punishment for stealing, had had no effect. Re said there was something debasing about corporal punishment, not only upon the men on whom it was inflicted but on society which was conniving at it or was accessory to the punishment. To operate upon the community by social regeneration they must repress all bnitalising influences.Then there was Sir F. Herschell, who was a great authority, as we all know, both as a lawyer and as a man of judgment, and there was Sir Henry James, who spoke extremely strongly upon this question. He said:—He had never given a vote in favour of flogging, and he hoped he never should. They might as well go back to the times of the thumb-screw and the boot as resort to Hogging, for flogging was torture.Some judges liked to use it as a punishment. Mr. Justice Day would give the cat lavishly, but the majority of judges refused to inflict this punishment at all. Sir Thomas Chambers, the well-known Recorder of London, spoke to the same effect. He said:—He earnestly hoped the Committee would not pass this Amendment. He did not suppose that any alteration of their criminal code was debated with more deliberation than the abolition of punishment by flogging, and he should be sorry now, if for any reason, they should revert to it again and take this retrograde step.Then a late respected Member of this House, Mr. James Stewart, "would be no party to the infliction of this terrible punishment." Sir Horace Davy referred to the fact thatit was on the Statute Book, and he, with many others, regretted it. It was because of that regret, because he believed the placing it there was a retrograde step, and a recurrence to a state of feeling in 762 which society thought itself entitled to administer the law in a revengeful spirit, that he objected to an extension of what he regarded as a revengeful and brutal punishment.It was not a party question. Members on both sides of the House spoke against it. Sir Edward Clarke said:—It was never shown that flogging was a, deterrent.…He did not believe this barbarous punishment-was any deterrent at all. He was glad to join the late Solicitor-General in the protest he made.There was an absolute consensus of opinion in this House at that time amongst men to whom we would all look up. It did not rest there. Is the Home Secretary going to say that this punishment will deter procurers, although it would not deter a man from the crime of rape upon a child? I think there is no logic whatever in arguments of that kind. In the year 1900, Mr. Wharton brought in a Corporal Punishment Bill with a view to inflicting the punishment of flogging and whipping. I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Colonel Lock-wood) is in his place. I see that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman said on that occasion that with the opinion of the judges and six Home Secretaries against the effect of flogging, he found the weight of argument was against the hon. Gentleman who introduced the Bill.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODI am afraid I shall now have to stand in a white sheet also.
§ Mr. G. GREENWOODThe right hon. and gallant Gentleman could not possibly improve upon his appearance by putting on a white sheet. I should like to refer to an excellent speech also made by Mr. Lloyd Morgan, who is now a learned County Court judge. He said:—
It seems to me to be a rather regrettable incident that at a time when so much is being done by the Government as well as by philanthropic agencies throughout the country to improve and elevate the criminal classes, an attempt should be made to revert to an old and discredited system of punishment which has been almost entirely eliminated from the Statute Book nearly half a century ago.I say, therefore, this is a retrograde step, and it is opposed to the stream and tendency of modern legislation. You have your Borstal system and your more humane methods of dealing with criminals, trying to humanise them, and you find that crime does not increase, but decreases under such a system. I say I am absolutely ashamed that in the face of all this we should find a Liberal Government against, I am sure, the better views and opinions of the Prime Minister, coming forward now and trying to pass a 763 Glause permitting this punishment. I hope the party Whips will not be put on so that the House may be free to vote as they desire, and that Members may not be coerced to support the Government on this matter. In the debate of 1900 Mr. Lloyd Morgan said:—It is strange if this form of punishment is so highly beneficial that it is not adopted in other countries, hut there is scarcely a country in Europe where flogging is allowed. I am not referring to prison discipline. I believe it is not allowed in America, and our Colonies have never taken to it.There has been some talk that in Australia procuration was put down by flogging. I believe this is a mere chimera because I am informed they have not the punishment of flogging in Australia at all. I have alluded to the case of Scotland and to the speech of the Prime Minister. The old fallacious argument at that time was repeated that garrotting was put down by flogging, but that was exploded in the Debate for the reason that it had been put down by the administration of the ordinary law. On that occasion the Prime Minister was followed by Sir Matthew White Ridley, who corroborated him and said it was proved that garrotting had been put down by the ordinary law and not by flogging. Sir Matthew White Ridley said:—I doubt very considerably whether it is desirable to inflict this punishment, or to give the judges power to inflict it. I know that a very large number of judges are unwilling to inflict it.The hon. Member for East Mayo spoke very strongly upon this question, and expressing the opinion of his colleagues as well as himself, he said:—There is no difference of opinion as to the offences. The question of the lash is one altogether of principle, of experience and also really of science. I hold that to propose at this time of day such a retrograde measure is a survival in the minds of hon. Members of antiquated prejudices, and a love of a system which I had hoped humanity and civilisation had completely swept away. I, for my part, and I speak the minds of all my colleagues in this respect, shall never be content until we see the punishment of the lash completely wiped out of the Statute Book of the country.This was supported by the hon. Member for East Clare, who said:—I must say that it does not say much for the progress of civilisation in this country, that there exists among us a certain class of society of such a savage spirit as to hold that you are obliged to seriously consider whether you are not obliged to go back to the old methods of torture used in the Dark Ages.The result was that Mr. Wharton's Bill was defeated by 195 votes to 72, the majority against it being 123, so that in recent times this House came to the conclusion after a long discussion that this question of flogging is discredited, and 764 that it belongs to a form of punishment by torture which ought not to exist on our Statute Books. In the interests not only of the criminal but also of the community and of our own human nature, I ask the House not to put again this discredited punishment on the Statute Book, and I strongly appeal to the Home Secretary and to the Government not to put on their Whips in this Division.
§ Mr. LYNCHI rise to second this Amendment.
We have listened to a very exhaustive speech from the hon. Member opposite on this subject. I do not propose to trouble the House with any quotations at all, but I wish to bring home if possible vividly to the minds of every man here what these punishments really consist of. It has been said, and it is indeed a counsel of perfection, that every magistrate should endure something of the punishments which he inflicts. I think it would be an excellent discipline and highly educative for every judge to spend a certain portion of his time in prison. I know that in the case of flogging that would be too much of the heroic to expect, but with the permission of the House I would like to bring home vividly one instance of flogging related to me by a native of Australia where flogging used to be extremely common, and where it never had any good effect. The man I allude to was not a town-bred man, but lie was a man who had faced life in various quarters of the world with the utmost stoicism of spirit. He was one who would not be swayed by any mere sentiment. He saw a man flogged. It so happens that I spoke to this man in London twenty-five years after, and he told me that the impression of that flogging had remained in his mind so vividly that it had been his invariable nightmare. The unfortunate victim of this flogging had his arms fastened up, and the common hangman was brought in to flog him, and he laid on the lash with such vigour that at every stroke, although this man had braced himself up to resist the punishment his whole frame quivered with agony, his eyes rolled and his muscles started out as though they would burst from the skin. His face turned livid, and every doctor, warder, and man present, who were accustomed to see punishments of all kinds, and whose hearts had been inured to ordinary forms of agony, turned almost sick at the sight, and were unable to face what is was their duty to behold. In the 765 old days in Australia flogging was so common that severe punishments with the lash were decreed and the payment for floggers used to be 1s. 2d. per day. Even with this salary the men came to love their work so much that sometimes a man would pride himself upon flogging another to such an extent that he could peel off the skin in four separate fringes with only one drop of blood on each fringe. These are the kind of "artists" the Home Secretary wishes to—
§ Mr. McKENNAIt is outrageous.
§ Mr. McKENNAThat is a most outrageous statement.
§ Mr. LYNCHI leave that matter to the judgment of the House. Having given a description of what flogging really consists, I proceed to the question whether it is a deterrent. At the time when a thousand strokes of the lash were ordered for offences against discipline those offences were much more frequent, and the offences against discipline gradually diminished as the flogging diminished. I challenge any hon. Member as to whether he is in favour of a resumption of the brutal floggings of the past. In the old days, in Australia again, where men were often transported for such minor offences as killing a hare or, as I know in the case of one famous bushranger, for stealing a pie, floggings were so common that the prisoners themselves, goaded to revenge, formed a plot for mutiny and actually murdered the Governor who had ordered the flogging. Although they had stirred up men's minds to such an extent, and although the agony had been endured and felt by these men as though the "iron entered their souls," yet even to those very men who had endured that punishment it was never a deterrent to crime, for it was the experience, not only of that country, but of every country, that men who were flogged committed the same crime and underwent the same punishment perhaps two or three times over.
The hon. Member for Peterborough cited many authorities, and he referred to Germany as a country where flogging was nonexistent. I do not propose to quote authorities, but I will refer to Germany. I have here a book, written in 1908, called "Acht Jaehre Zucht-haus" ("Eight Years in Prison"), written by a man who had endured—for an offence which he said 766 he had never committed—eight years' imprisonment in Germany, and who had studied the system from top to bottom. He speaks in one chapter of flogging. He speaks of the horror of it, and mentions explicitly that in no case was it a deterrent, for in those prisons where flogging was most common offences against discipline and assaults upon warders were most common. He said it had a double effect. It was never a deterrent, and it evoked, in spite of the man's crime, sympathy with the criminal throughout the whole prison. There was a man who advocated even more drastic, though not more severe, punishment—that is death. He has left his name on history—Draco—as a symbol of all that is futile in this kind of legislation. The failure is evident.
If you can repress crime by this brutal punishment, why stop at offences of this kind? Why not flog for every offence that may be committed, and why not increase your punishment until at has reached the very extreme of brutality? It has been tried in the history of the world again and again, and it was found, even in the time of Draco, it was not a deterrent. Human nature is so constituted that crimes are not repressed by the violence or the barbarity of punishment. Crimes are repressed by the certainty of punishment. When reading an Army Book the other day, I found that principle had been incorporated in the legislation of the Army, where flogging has been abolished. I challenge any representative of the Army to say he would like to reintroduce flogging in the Army. One who is opposed to flogging is supposed to be tainted with some kind of sympathy with the crime to which it is to be applied. Let us carry that argument into the enemy's camp. If you refuse to apply flogging to such offences as those mentioned by the hon. Member for Peterborough, are you in sympathy with those crimes? If not, and you think flogging will stamp out those crimes, why are you not logical and consistent and apply flogging to those crimes, also? Flogging is itself a crime. The whole tendency of our civilisation has" been to remove these cases of barbarity and brutality from our legislative methods, and the whole history of the last 100 years proves that every fresh successive step towards a better understanding of human nature, and even towards more sympathy, not with crime, but with what is left of the man in the unfortunate criminal has been marked by a diminution of 767 crime. I should be sorry to see at this age, when we have so many evidences of progress by a Liberal Government, an Act promulgated which would place the State in competition with those brutal criminals—an Act which would seek to stamp out crime by the adoption of their own methods of barbarity and brutality.
Mr. MILD MAYI am in total disagreement with the Mover and Seconder of this Amendment. As to the outrageous speech to which we have just listened, I can only say we all know the Home Secretary, and are prepared to repudiate what has been said about him.
§ Mr. LYNCHI said nothing against the Home Secretary. I was only speaking against the system which this Bill proposes to introduce.
§ Mr. MILDMAYI am prepared to leave the hon. Gentleman's speech to the judgment of the House. I recognise there is much depth in what the Mover has said. It is contended by those who are in favour of this Amendment that flogging is degrading, but, notwithstanding what has been said by the Mover of the Amendment, the question we must ask ourselves is, is it possible further to degrade the man who lives upon this monstrous traffic? There can be but one answer, and that answer is "No." The only other question we have to ask ourselves is whether or not flogging is a deterrent, and, notwithstanding the long extracts produced just now, I maintain that experience tells us that it is a deterrent in such cases as those of men whose natural instincts are merely animal instincts. The Mover said just now we should demoralise the men who are guilty of these crimes.
§ Mr. G. GREENWOODNo; I said we should demoralise the community by adopting this policy.
§ Mr. MILDMAYI am sorry I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman. But when hon. Members are inclined to find fault with this punishment, they should remember the terrible ease with which the ruin of these girls can be brought about owing, as I think, to the criminal state of ignorance in which girls in all classes in this country are kept in regard to sexual matters. They can be lured into houses by these monsters, and their ruin can be effected before they know what is going on. We have in the past prided ourselves on setting 768 an example in these matters to the whole world, but surely it is a reflection upon our national honour that this terrible state of affairs should have prevailed in the past, and it will be a still greater reflection upon our personal honour in the future if we do not, this afternoon, make it, so far as we are able, absolutely impossible for this state of things to continue.
§ 3.0 P.M.
§ Mr. McKENNANo one could have listened to the speech of my hon. Friend behind me without feeling there is great force in his general argument, and I hope I shall not be misunderstood if I say that I agree with the general trend of that argument. Indeed, I have very frequently been called over the coals because I have not permitted flogging when ordered by the justices. But having said so much I wish to make it perfectly plain that, in this case, there are the strongest arguments in favour of retaining this Clause in the Bill. I am, in a matter of this kind, acting on the expert advice which I receive from the police, and I can only give the House the case as it is represented to me. Take London at the present moment. There are, I am informed, quite a number of young men almost entirely of foreign origin who live, not merely to the extent of making an income, but who live upon young women to the extent of £15 or £20 a week. They really accumulate fortunes in this way. An individual young man will have five or six girls working for him, and in most cases everyone of these girls has been ruined by the man himself. He watches them at their work. He has procured them in fact. He has been responsible for the girl's ruin in the first place, and he has ruined them with the intention of procuring them to work for him in the streets. The police tell me that in nearly every case the men who carry on this trade in London are of foreign origin. They ask for two things. First of all, that what has hitherto been a defence in cases against men charged with living upon the earnings of prostitution, namely, that they have got means of their own, should no longer be accepted. That is provided for in the latter part of this Bill. Again, they say that the temptations for carrying on this trade are so great to men of no moral character, and the trade is so easy that, unless you have some power beyond the ordinary power of imprisoning them, you cannot hope to put a stop to it. The police advise me that, after a conviction has been obtained, if there is power 769 to flog there will be nobody to flog. Flogging can only be administered after a second conviction, and, after a first conviction, not one of these men will remain in this country any longer. The police speak from experience, and I can only give this House such experience as they have reported to me. They say that after the passing of the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885 there was a general exodus of these bullies, or procurers, or ponces, whatever professional terms they may be known by— there was a general exodus, and for a long time after that Act came into operation there was tolerable freedom from this curse. But it has been discovered of late years that these men can escape the meshes of the law, and once again, consequently, London has become the dumping ground from countries all over the world for this particular class of individual. We believe that, with this power of flogging, we shall 'be able once more to get rid of them. My [hon. Friend's fears as to the demoralisation of the community, and of judges and police, are, to my mind, wholly illusory. If there, were really any danger of flogging being extended to crime in general throughout the country, I should regard his arguments with more sympathy. But we are dealing with a particular class of persons that have recently come into this country, and who can be driven out of it, as the police advise me, because in fact they will be intimidated by the fear of flogging.
§ Colonel LOCKWOODI should like to explain in a few words the reason why I have entirely changed my opinion on this subject. I do not like to disagree with my hon. Friend on any question of humanity. I know well what good work he has done in that direction. I think I know as well as any man in the House what are his convictions on the subject of humanity. I remember the Debate to which he has referred perfectly well, and I believe one of the reasons that changed the course of i hat Debate was that Mr. Wharton, who brought forward that measure, relied greatly on the argument that flogging had proved a cure for the crime of garrotting. That is one of the few occasions on which I changed my opinion in consequence of the speeches I listened to, and I must say that I have heartily regretted having done so ever since. I believe now that the skilled opinions on the point arraigned against me were better than my own opinion. I gave way, however, because I was convinced by the speech of the 770 present Prime Minister who relied for his great argument upon the inequality of sentences, and on the impossibility of withdrawing the punishment or pardoning after it had been once inflicted. But I cannot help thinking that there are certain? offences for which it is worth while running that risk. I heard the speech of the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch), and I confess I cannot agree with what he said. I have seen six cases of flogging—four in the Army and two in prison—and, though no doubt the punishment is seven.-, I cannot recognise it from the description given by the hon. Member. It may be said that flogging is a degrading form of punishment. In my opinion it ought to be, and on these occasions, when we are debating questions like this, we are apt to think too much of a man on whom the punishment is inflicted and too little of his victim. A man who is found guilty of a crime of the description mentioned in this Bill is not a man; he is an animal. His moral instincts and his man-like instincts have vanished, and he becomes an animal, and should be treated as an animal, in my opinion. Punishment inflicted upon his back is one of the few things that will make an impression upon him. I thoroughly agree with the Home Secretary when he says that the mere fact of its being known that this punishment exists for the crime will act as a deterrent, and that it will not be found necessary to inflict the punishment at all. I would go even further than the Bill goes— and I am now in my old age; I was a younger man when I voted against this before—I should like to see flogging inflicted for all offences against women and children, especially helpless children of five or six, who have this offence committed upon them which soils them for life. The House would do well to remember them. The man who commits the offence is not a man but a beast and a brute, and should be treated as such. I hope the House will not allow sentiment and feeling for the man who commits the offence to outweigh the hideous offence committed against women and children, especially children.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI have a difficult part to perform after the eloquent speech of my right hon. Friend (Colonel Lock-wood). Ho has deprecated any appeal to sentiment, but I think he has appealed to sentiment very strongly. I am going to take an unpopular point of view. Here is a person who has been convicted of an 771 offence, an offence with which we do not sympathise, and which we know to be wrong. It is easy to say, "Why don't you flog him, it is an easy thing to do." Let us deal with this apart altogether from the sentiment my right lion. Friend has thrown into it, and let us deal with the Home Secretary's speech merely as a business matter. He says he is acting (not on his own opinion, but upon the advice he has received from the police. We have had one example to-day of the result of following police advice too closely. Are we equally sure we are not going to make the same mistake again?
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. and learned Member is incorrect. I did not say I was acting on police advice. I said the police advised me as to the facts which I have quoted. They were facts that could not be denied.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONLet us sec whether the facts are not as inaccurate in this case as in the other. The defence which the police put forward is that there is a crime going on which is increasing or not abating, and they cannot deal with it properly. I agree that in certain cases flogging is the proper punishment for an offence when there is no other means of stamping it out. It is therefore important to see what are the figures which may be affected by this Clause. If, according to the police report during the past few years this kind of crime has been constantly increasing, it may possibly be right to use violence to prevent it after a second conviction. I took the precaution of asking the Home Office some months ago to give a Return of the number of people who would come under this Clause, the omission of which I support. The people who would come under this Clause, or who have been convicted of the crime of procuring under the particular Section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, upon a second conviction may be sentenced to be flogged. I wanted to find out how many people had been convicted for a second time during the past few years, and whether there was sufficient to justify us in taking the extreme step of ordering this punishment to be inflicted. I took a period of three years, and asked the Home Office how many such offences there were. The Home Office answered me, that there had not been one single case under Section 2.
§ Mr. McKENNAThe hon. Member will forgive me, he is making a mistake. The 772 case of the police is twofold: first, that they cannot get a conviction now under Section 6, and, secondly, that when we have got a first conviction we shall never be troubled with the second.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONI do not object to the right hon. Gentleman putting it m that way, but I do not think I am incorrect in what I say. By a Section of the Act of 1885 it was made an offence to procure or to attempt to procure people in England or out of it. It is not confined to the white slave traffic abroad, it is the offence of procuring in England. That offence exists, and convictions have been obtained under it from time to time. It applies to-procurers or procuresses, and they are liable to considerable terms of imprisonment and can be brought up a second; time. There is no sort of reason why such offences could not be proved as they have been, and if they are largely on the increase there would have been large increases in the convictions in that connection. No sort of case has been made out by the Government, because for the last three years there has not been a single second conviction for the offence of procuring. I am in a somewhat difficult position, because I do not entirely agree with my hon. Friend (Mr. Lynch), who made such an exhaustive speech in favour of the omission of this Clause. Although I am going to act contrary to the opinion of many of my hon. Friends on this side of the House I am willing to support him. I hold that in certain cases flogging is a necessity, and nobody objected more than I did during the last ten years to abolishing it for certain crimes inside prison. In the case of the Children Bill I remember I had an altercation with the then Home Secretary as to whether boys who smoked cigarettes should pay a fine of 5s. or should be birched. I had not the slightest objection to that, but the Government were horrified at the idea and would not put the Clause in the Bill, yet the same Government is coming down here and supporting what is a totally different punishment, that is the punishment of the cat. No one can doubt it is very different from the punishment of the birch. It is a very serious, and I doubt that my right hon. Friend (Colonel Lockwood) agrees that up to a certain point it is a very degrading punishment, both for the man who receives it and the man who inflicts it. It is said that we ought not to think of the prisoner but of the unfortunate victim. When a man is put in a dock, the man who has 773 had his purse stolen, says, "There is the man, flog him, it is cheaper."
§ Colonel LOCKWOODI only suggested it for a certain class of offence.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONWhy?
§ Colonel LOCKWOODBecause the offence is committed by a man who is an animal.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONWill the right hon. Gentleman say that is the experience we have of this offence1? We know that the bulk of this traffic is done by women.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONYou said so upstairs.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHA good deal of it is done by women.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONA good deal is sufficient for my purpose. If there is any doubt about it I can certainly tell my right hon. Friend that a great amount of it is done by women, by procuresses. It is done for the sake of money undoubtedly. In many cases, revolting as the crime is, it is introducing a willing purchaser to a willing buyer. In a moment of virtuous indignation you will say a person making money out of someone else's weakness ought to be punished, and so he ought, but does it justify it to say it is such a different offence from many other bad offences—that it is the offence of an animal rather than of a human being? Take the case of an ordinary procuress. Does the hon. Baronet really say there is anything so extraordinarily different in the offence from many others? Of course, it is a deterrent. One wishes to prevent furious driving on the high road, but would you flog a motor driver for running over a child?—One always introduces children and widows. Why not flog him? It is a dangerous argument for anyone who has to sit to administer justice, and I appeal to the House not to be led away by it.
People are, under these circumstances, actuated by the best motives. They are carried away, more or less hysterically, very often by horror of the crime. We know the extraordinary hysterical emotion which this Bill has aroused throughout England. We get letters from all sorts of people, chiefly women, "flog them, crucify them," and anything else you like. It is a cry we have had through the ages. It is 774 more dangerous when it is an offence likely to arouse the righteous passion of people against any particular offence, and you must look carefully before the House of Commons passes such a power and gives it to people who, acting from the best of motives, have to administer the Bill, but think rather too much of the person who is injured rather than of the interests of the community. There are only two things which justify you in inflicting the cat. The first is where the offence is so continuous that it is impossible to eradicate it without this extreme means. There is no case of that sort here. You may have it in the future, but you have not got it at present. The second is where violence is used. It is conceivable that in that case, or a case of fraud amounting to violence, the cat may be justified. There is the case of burglary with possession of arms. You ought always to try to distinguish between persons who use violence and persons who do not in crimes of that kind, but beyond that you ought not to go. Personally, I have another great fear, even apart from the two real canons I have laid down, of where the evidence rests, as it would in this case, very largely on the uncorroborated testimony of a woman and her accomplice. The procurer here would be convicted on the evidence of the man and the woman—a very easy thing to do. In a case of that kind I should go particularly steady on the question of flogging, because once the punishment is inflicted you cannot put it right. I have the greatest belief in the way in which our criminal law is being administered. I have a boundless admiration for it and a deep jealousy for keeping it pure and strong, as it is at present; but if there is any case where I have the slightest doubt as to whether justice is always done, it is where charges are made mixed up with this class of case where the evidence rests upon women and men of doubtful character and where no decent man dare stand up really to protect or say a word in defence of the accused. It is in those cases where justice ought to come in.
§ Sir RYLAND ADKINSI will try and follow the example of the hon. and learned Gentleman in the tone in which he has discussed this terrible and most difficult problem. No one who has heard the speeches on both sides can fail to agree that this is one of those grave matters on which the most sincere and most thoughtful men may legitimately take different 775 views. When it passed through the Committee upstairs, I, like many other Members, felt bound to consider very carefully whether we could support this proposal when it came back to the House, and after prolonged consideration I have come to the conclusion that, while the proposal of the Government is a novelty and does involve the extension of a very rare and peculiar form of punishment in matters which are not connected with violence, yet under all the circumstances of the case, bearing in mind the careful limitation of it to a second offence, I am bound, on the whole, to support the Bill as it stands now. I would deal with two most powerful considerations which have been put forward by the hon. Member (Mr. G. Greenwood) and others against this proposal. One is the general argument—general in scope, but most particular in exposition—that this is torture. I do not think that the word "torture" can be confined to physical chastisement, and, in contradistinction, taken away from the mental agony which is involved in long terms of imprisonment. It depends entirely on the temperament of the individual which form of punishment is to him the greatest torture, and we ought to decide this bearing in mind that the alternative form of punishment may well be even greater torture to certain types of criminals who are properly called upon to suffer. The other consideration is that this particular form of punishment ought necessarily to be connected with crimes of violence. Here I am fortified by a remark made by the late Lord James of Hereford, when he was opposing this proposal to add flogging under the Criminal Law Amendment Act for offences against women and children— what I may call direct offences. He said:
It was possible that flowing might, be regarded as a useful punishment if they were dealing with crime the result of deliberate premeditation, when the offender might calmly contemplate that lie might have to suffer flogging.I agree to that dictum. Sir Henry James went on to say that the proposal there was to inflict flogging for direct offences on women and children, and though saying these might be due to strong momentary passion, no doubt of the vilest kind, he did not think flogging ought to be applied to them. There was great weight in this remark from a very experienced criminal lawyer, that this kind of punishment may well be adapted to crimes of premeditation and crimes committed in cold blood. The particular crime here, particularly 776 when it is limited to the second occasion, is almost the only crime that we can easily conceive which combines the maximum of premeditation with the utmost sexual depravity, and therefore I, for one, am unwilling to take the responsibility of opposing a proposal of this kind made by the Government after considerable discussion upstairs, and made with knowledge of the very important facts which the Home Secretary has laid before the House. I do say, I own not without hesitation, that I attach the greatest importance to the expectations which have been expressed on both sides of the House, that when this Bill becomes an Act of Parliament, the knowledge of it may act as a great deterrent. The experience which I have had of criminal courts for twenty years leads me to believe that this type of criminal has a fear, and a very wholesome fear, of corporal punishment, and therefore while I should be opposed to any further extension of that form of punishment at the present time, and while T admit that this is a great and novel departure, I ask, what are we here for except to face the necessity for grave and novel departures if we believe, as I believe, that the gravity of the circumstances really require that they should be made.
§ Mr. LEIF JONESIt is no easy matter to stand up and oppose the Government in this matter, but it is precisely because I am afraid that we, who are supporting the Amendment, are in a considerable minority that I cannot give a silent vote. I feel strongly that this House under stress of feeling against an odious crime is indulging in retrograde action, and going back upon the progress which has been made during the last 100 years. I am bound therefore to protest against the passing of this Clause. We have had important speeches in support of the Clause as it stands from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Epping Division (Colonel Lockwood) and the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary. Both of these speeches were loudly cheered by the supporters of the Clause, but they were absolutely contradictory as regards the arguments used. What was the argument of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping? It was that you are dealing with brutes—animals—and that you ought to give them punishment only suited to animals. That was the whole of his argument, and on that he justified the Clause. That is not the argument of the 777 Home Secretary. He is as strongly opposed as ever to flogging, and he does not withdraw one of the arguments he has ever used against flogging, but he is in favour of the Clause, not because that punishment is to be inflicted upon these men, but because he believes it is going to prevent them from committing the crime for which it is the punishment. He is riot going to administer flogging at all. There is no question with him of dealing with an animal. He is dealing with astute and clever men who have been ingenious enough to get through the Act of 1885. He is putting in something to frighten these men. He is not going to administer flogging for a first offence. When the first offence has been committed he is going to let the man out without administering this punishment, and then the argument is that because the man is afraid that ho is going to have it for the second offence he will leave the country, and so we will be delivered from his presence.
I desire that our society should be purified of these scoundrels, but what is there to prevent the Home Secretary from having a Clause in the Bill forbidding men coming back to this country when they have committed this crime. You have the Aliens Act. The offenders are nearly all men of foreign extraction, and so far as they are aliens, they can be deported. I would rather support my hon. Friend in doing something which would banish these men from our shores. I would insist upon their leaving this island, and I would not allow them to get back except on pain of imprisonment. The right hon. Gentleman has given away very easily all the arguments which were put before him against flogging. I am very much afraid that the motive of most, or, at all events, of many Members of the House, is not that of the Home Secretary. They believe that the punishment will be inflicted, and that it will be severely felt by those men on whom it is going to be inflicted. What is the real motive for inflicting this brutalising punishment? What is the object? Not deterrent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Deterrent for others or for the criminals? [HON. MEMBERS: "Both."] I think experience is very much against those who believe that flogging is going to be deterrent. I do not see anything in the argument used by the hon. and learned Member for the Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson). If you actually believe that flogging is a deterrent, why limit it to this 778 particular class of offences or offenders? I really do not see any answer to that argument. If it is a deterrent, why not use it more freely? In the days when they believed it was a deterrent they did use it freely, and they took care that the punishment should be inflicted in public, because it was intended to be not merely a punishment for the man who suffered it but that it should inspire fear in those who witnessed it. I would point out that all the offences for "which it was formerly inflicted were far more common than they are now when it is not the punishment.
No case has been made out for the Clause. If I believed that you would have a deterrent by inflicting this punishment, I should not be opposing it, but no evidence has been adduced that that is the case. I think the historical evidence is all the other way. I do not think that hon. Members who support the proposal can, judging from past experience, get up and say that the infliction of violent punishments of this kind has operated as a deterrent with respect to the crimes against which they were directed. I hold the opinion held by Members on all sides of politics that flogging has failed when intended as a deterrent. In 1885 the case was regarded as proved, and it does seem to me a great pity now that in a Bill dealing with this class of offences, as to which the feeling of every right-minded person in the community is aroused, you should not be content with making detection easier, and making it easier to bring the criminal to justice, but that you should go further and mix it up with the question of flogging. I do not believe that it is a deterrent. I believe it is brutalising to the criminal. It is said that you cannot brutalise the brutes with whom you are dealing. I doubt that. No one knows that depths to which human nature may fall or the heights to which it may rise. I think the feeling that flogging is a suitable punishment for these offences is unworthy of the House and the community. It not only brutalises the man who suffers the punishment but the man who inflicts it. I wonder how many hon. Members would take the "cat" in their hands and inflict this punishment. [HON. MEMBERS: "I would."] I am sure the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite would never ask anybody to do anything he is not willing to do himself. I say, in spite of that, that it is a punishment which is brutalising both to those who indulge in it and those who witness it. That is admitted 779 when you say that the punishment is to be inflicted privately and not in public. It most of all tends to lower the tone of society which allows flogging to go on. I hope that my right hon. Friend will not put the Whips on on this Amendment, but whatever he may do I shall not be deterred from voting against it.
§ Mr. CROOKSI rise to support the Clause in the Bill. May I remind the hon. and learned Member who spoke about sentiment that after all this punishment is voluntary. If they do not commit the crime they will not get it.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThe hon. Member pays a great compliment to the administration of the criminal law when he cannot even conceive the case of an innocent man being convicted.
§ Mr. CROOKSNot twice. You will not get up the same class of witnesses against a man the second time whom you have allowed, because of your maudlin sentiment about hurting his skin, not only to ruin the person against whom he has committed the offence, but the whole of her connections. We are trying to pass a law to be a deterrent. We do not want to punish anybody; but if they commit the offence, I cannot imagine anything bad enough to punish them. If you ask, "Who will do it," all I can say is you can ask me. The hon. Member has very properly said, "Why not punish the clients as well?" I agree that if you stop the procurer, the other should come in and take a share of it as well. There is nothing in the Bill to prevent that. But why are we always pleading for the "civilising influences" and all the rest of it, when you allow these people to go on committing this crime and boasting of it? There are men walking the streets of London to-day who say they have ruined as many girls as would stretch from Victoria Station to St. Paul's, and yet you talk sentiment about the punishment of these people. Have you any children of your own? It is wonderful how philosophically you can bear other people's troubles. You want to prevent this and all kinds of brutality where they exist, but you say, "Don't hurt the man's skin. You brutalise him; you demoralise the whole community." We are not to be charged with want of sentiment, but what greater sentiment is there than the love of purity and honour? We want to secure it for all time. We want that our young women shall be 780 pure; and is it not worth a sacrifice to do that? Everyone of you will agree that it is worth making a sacrifice for—a sacrifice of these people. I am glad that they have got a skin that can be tanned. There would be very little sentiment about me if it were my sister or my daughter who had been ruined, and there would be very little sentiment about any other hon. Member. We are out for the protection of these girls, who, it has been said, are not so well brought up as they might be. Speaking as the father of a family of girls, I do not want my girls to be broken in to be old women until they reach the age of maturity. Why should I be talking stuff to them that I do not want them to understand until they get to be sufficiently old; and are they, then, to be left to these villains to be ruined because of their sweet innocence? I am not wanting to punish these people. I think an English jury should decide what punishment is to be inflicted. It is only if they commit the offence a second time. They are asking for it. Why should we deny it? I will not say another word. I am going to support the Clause.
§ Mr. EDWARD WOODI find myself as a rule privileged in following my hon. and learned Friend below me, and I regret extremely on personal grounds that I am unable to do so this afternoon, because I conceive this to be the most admirable Clause in the Bill. If I may compare great things with small, I think one of the hon. Members who spoke on the other side gave a personal experience. A good many of us can give personal experiences. I know very well that when I was at school —and I suppose it is true of a good many of us—I often was compelled to experience the whip for offences which were slight, but, as I think, it had a most valuable effect. I know that I was once whipped three times before breakfast, and I do not think I was the worse for it. I can honestly say that it had an extremely deterrent effect in my after career. That, to compare great things with small, is really the whole question at issue this afternoon. In reply to what has been said as to this being a retrogression upon our civilised ideas which I think has been absolutely dispelled by the hon. Member for Woolwich, is it not at least conceivable that those who urge that, with all the strength with which it is urged in their respect for civilisation, are inclined to forget that why we are so particular at this moment about 781 this Clause in the Bill is because we are concerned with our civilisation in one of the other spheres in which it is attacked? You have got those two forces in operation: one the sentiment concerned for the man who may get into trouble under this Bill and the other the sentiment that is concerned with preserving the purity of our life in another direction. I cannot hesitate as to the side on which my support will lie. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. G. Greenwood) charged us earlier in the Debate with using this punishment for this offence on the ground that it is a deterrent, and said that to be logical we should introduce it for all offences. The hon. Member for Peterborough said, "You will not even introduce it for such a horrible offence as the rape of a child. Why, then, should you introduce it here?" My answer is simple. The one crime in ninety-nine eases out of a hundred is the result of a momentary passion. I do not minimise it. I only point out that it is due to a very momentary passion. This other crime is the result of a kind of diabolical deliberateness for which there can be no excuse, and which, least of all, can be excused on the ground of momentary passion. The hon. Member opposite urged that we should try the advantages of the Borstal system.
§ Mr. G. GREENWOODI never said anything of the kind. I only instanced the Borstal system of dealing with criminals generally.
§ Mr. E. WOODUnless the hon. Member did apply the Borstal system to this kind of offence, I fail to see what relevancy his observations had. I wish merely to record my conviction that all the arguments which have been advanced against this Clause seem to proceed on the false supposition that the men who would be convicted of this kind of crime will be the accidental dinner who has fallen into crime by mistake or misfortune. That is a complete delusion. These men are not accidental first offenders; they are hardened sinners who have set themselves to corrupt one portion of society, and to get women into their clutches. I submit that in these circumstances it cannot be contended that the penalty to be imposed is too severe. A point has been raised as to the object of punishment. The object of punishment is to effect its purpose as far as possible in preventing crime, and the Home Secretary's observation was that the object was an absolutely practical one. Certain hon. 782 Members have discussed this punishment from the point of view of sentiment, and from a great many other points of view, but the one point to which we must always come back is that this punishment will be judged, examined, or approved by the extent to which it will practically succeed. I cannot for the life of me suppose that hon. Members have been for one moment misled by the argument that in introducing this provision into the Bill we are introducing something which exceeds the general principles of the administration of the law, because it is clearly laid down in the Bill that it is optional, and also that it is to be applied in the case of a second conviction. I noticed with interest what my hon. Friend said just now, that there has been no case of a second conviction in three years. I do not know why we should not inflict this punishment for a first offence, but that is outside this Amendment. I only urge with all the force I can that the Committee should insist upon keeping this most valuable Clause in the Bill.
§ Mr. THEODORE TAYLORAn argument was used a few minutes ago by the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rawlinson) which has been alluded to by the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, that for the past three years there has been no second case of conviction for an offence of this kind. That would appear for the moment to be a rather effective argument against the retention of the Clause. It has no validity at all, because it will not apply in the future. The whole case for this Bill is that the police authorities have been unable to get convictions where they ought to have obtained them. They have not obtained them in the past because the law has been too weak.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONThis Section deals with procurers only. This Bill does not alter in any way that I am aware of the means of getting evidence against procurers.
§ Mr. T. TAYLORThe whole purpose of the Bill is to enable the police to bring these criminals to justice, and the measure is not worth supporting at all if it does not effect that purpose. It is because it will effect that purpose that there will be many more cases of first conviction during the next few years than in the last few years. This is indeed the very case in which nothing could be more effective as an argumentum ad hominem than the lash to their backs. Several hon. Members have 783 said that they are opposed to the use of the whip in any circumstances as being degrading, and they have remarked over and over again, why not apply it to other cases 1 I know of no offence so cold-blooded as this one with which we are dealing. It is an offence peculiarly atrocious. I do not suppose there are half a dozen men who would vote for the re-imposition of the lash in the Army and Navy as a means of enforcing discipline, and I maintain that there is a radical difference between that and the offence with which we are dealing. We have had a great deal of irrelevant matter imported into the discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Greenwood) recalled the wretched state of the penal laws in days gone by when people were whipped. Yes, and they were hanged for stealing five shillings' worth.
It has nothing to do with the question before us that the lash was cruelly and unjustly administered for small offences or that capital punishment was wrongly meted out to criminals for small offences in days gone by; but that is not to say-that we are not to use this special punishment for this special offence. I do not believe that public opinion will be in any degree brutalised by the knowledge that the lash may be imposed upon this class of men, who certainly deserve it more than any other class I know. I only want to support the giving of power, and I do so at the risk of some misunderstanding outside. I am afraid I am not like my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough, who would not have the lash in any case. I may say that I am a thorough disbeliever in the lash for the mere offence of stealing or for offences against discipline in the Army or Navy, because there are other methods of dealing with (hem. But I am perfectly certain, that there is no argument of that kind which could apply to this class of criminals, who are cowards and bullies combined, and I support the infliction of this punishment as a strong deterrent against this atrocious offence.
§ 4.0 P.M.
§ Sir W. BYLESI could not allow this Clause to pass without expressing my strongest aversion to this method of punishment. I have just as much aversion as any hon. Member here to the kind of crime that has been described and which has formed indeed the large staple of the argumentative capital with which this Debate has been carried on. We all have the same horror of the kind of offence which is aimed at here. It is a question 784 of the method of punishment, however, whether it is a wise method or a justifiable method, and whether it has been a successful method in the past. The voices of hon. Members, whose characters and opinions I hope I respect as much as anyone, have been lifted in favour of this method of punishment, and I really hoped that support of this kind of punishment was dying out in the mind* of thinking men. I would just by way of bringing the argument home point to tin words of this second Clause, "Any male person." Why use those words? It is just because there is not a single Member of this House who would apply the lash to the back of a female. Why not? The Clause goes on to say that this is to be in addition to any term of imprisonment, but if that was as effectual as has been pointed out, what is the necessity for this provision as well? The method of flogging is a mere survival of revengeful ideas. I would respectfully suggest that that-form of punishment has disappeared from the minds of all men who are students of criminology, and all those who have tried to study methods of punishment scientifically absolutely disapprove of the use of the lash. I confess I am perfectly amazed that the Home Office should have responded in this way. The predecessor of the right hon. Gentleman would certainly not for a moment have sanctioned the recrudescence of the flogging method, and neither would his predecessor. Somehow or other the Home Office appears to have got into the hands of men who do not study and do not realise what the progress of thought has been upon this subject. I maintain we are going back on civilisation. I would as soon have expected to see my clock going back as that the Home Office of a Liberal Government should adopt this. I implore the House to consider and think on this question before going to a vote. The right hon. Gentleman used the argument that he did not approve of flogging the ordinary criminal, but that in this case they were animals or human brutes. No doubt they are, but there is not a Member of this House, and least of all the right hon. Gentleman himself, who would treat any brute in the way in which he wants to-treat these human brutes. Gentlemen have called in their dogs from the hunting field or on the moors, and I have witnessed them flogging them, and I thought it was rather cruel. Is there an hon. Gentleman opposite who would like to see his dog 785 beaten in the way in which it is proposed in this Section—not one, and the dog has fur on its back to protect it. You see a horse being flogged by an angry carter because be will not draw a load up a hill. You send an officer of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and you bring the carter up to Court and punish him, perhaps with flogging. The thing is so inconsistent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] As far as the House is concerned it can divide directly so far as I am concerned. I say if the State in its majesty employs men to lacerate the flesh, the delicate flesh of a human being, however brutal he may be, it is doing that which it ought not to do. It is doing that which no individual member of it would do willingly, and to employ an officer to do it as the representative of the State is a degradation. It degrades the man who is already degraded still more, it degrades the warder or officer who is called upon to inflict the punishment, and it degrades the House of Commons which sanctions it, and it degrades the State and every member of it.
§ Mr. HODGE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. SPEAKER withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
§ Debate resumed.
§ Sir JOHN JARDINEWhile I entirely agree with the principle that the State has the right to inflict the punishment of the lash when it considers it expedient for the protection of the citizen, in many instances I have experience of its use—-I will not say of its value. These criminals have been described as animals, brutes, and degraded beings, and that nothing-could degrade them further, and that therefore the lash ought to be thoroughly-well used. It struck me while that argument was being used that it could also be applied to those women who have been stated by the Home Secretary to be the chief and the most numerous of the offenders. I think we ought not to put this on the Statute Book without further experience. We could very well wait for that experience, and we could then see whether it should be applied. In the meantime, how are you going to check this trade] It is all very well to argue that because it is so difficult for the police to check crime recourse should be had to more severe sentences. I do not think that that is the right way to deal with the matter. With this Bill the police 786 will have more opportunities, and by putting on more detectives and in other ways they will be able to secure more convictions. I shall therefore vote against this-proposal to introduce flogging in this Clause.
§ Colonel BURNI would not have risen had not the hon. Member for West Clare (Mr. Lynch) thrown out a challenge to the old soldiers in this House. He asked, "Would you wish to see flogging reintroduced into the Army?" My answer is: Thank Heaven, the crime in the Army is not of the sort that requires flogging. In all my service I have never known a British soldier ply this vile, nefarious, loathsome trade. If a British soldier had done that, I should say that the only punishment to meet the crime was a good sound flogging. [An HON. MEMBW: "Why not shoot him?"] No, I would not shoot him. But, thank Heaven, the British soldier is made of different stuff from that! My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University said that the trade, is carried on mostly by foreigners. It is a great joy to hear that, and to feel that our fellow countrymen are not. in it to the same extent as foreigners. He said that you could deport them. I am very glad you can. But when you do deport such a man I should like him to have the hallmark of some British muscle on his back. I shall certainly vote against this Amendment, and do everything in my power to protect the womanhood and childhood of this country.
§ Mr. MOLTENOI want to appeal to-the Government to take off the official Whips and allow us to vote according to our conscience. I do so with the more confidence because I see the Chancellor of the Exchequer present. I find that so recently as 1900, when there was introduced a Bill to inflict corporal punishment for disgraceful assaults upon women and children, the Chancellor of the Exchequer voted against that brutalising punishment being applied in cases of that kind. He was supported in that view by many Members who now occupy positions on the Treasury Bench. The Prime Minister spoke strongly against the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade, the-Chief Secretary for Ireland, the President of the Board of Education, the President of the Local Government Board, and the Secretary to the Board of Education voted against it, as also did the senior Member-for the City of London. I can hardly 787 think that humanity has gone back so far as to make all those distinguished Members recede from the point which they had reached at that time in the direction of the highest humanity. Scotland since 1862 has done without flogging, and she has done very well. Not one single word has been said in favour of Scotland's reverting to this brutalising and degrading punishment. For these reasons, so
§ admirably put by my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough and for Cambridge University — arguments that I strongly supported before the Committee —I only make a final appeal to the Government to take off the Government Whips.
§ Question put, "That the words 'Any male person who is convicted,' stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 297; Noes, 44.
789| Division No. 287.] | AYES. | [4.15 p.m. |
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Crooks, William | Henderson, Major H. (Berks, Abingdon) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Crumley, Patrick | Henry, Sir Charles |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Cullinan, John | Higham, John Sharp |
| Adkins, Sir W. Ryland D. | Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | Hill, Sir Clement L. |
| Allen, Rt. Hon. Charles Peter (Stroud) | Davies, Timothy (Lincs., Louth) | Hills, John Waller (Durham) |
| Arnold, Sydney | Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Hodge, John |
| Ashley, Wilfrid W. | Dawes, James Arthur | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Astor, Waldorf | Delany, William | Hope, James Fitzalan (sheffield) |
| Bagot, Lieut.-Colonel J. | Denman, Hon. Richard Douglas | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) |
| Baird, J. L. | Denniss, E. R. B. | Horne, E. (Surrey, Guildford) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Donelan, Captain A. | Horner, Andrew Long |
| Baker, Joseph Allen (Finsbury, E.) | Doris, William | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey |
| Balcarres, Lord | Duffy, William | Hunter, Sir Charles Rodk. (Bath) |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Ingleby, Holcombe |
| Baring, Maj. Hon. Guy V. (Winchester) | Edwards, Clement (Glamorgan, E.) | Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea) |
| Barton, William | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) |
| Bathurst, Hon. A. B. (Gloucs., E.) | Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Joyce, Michael |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Keating, Matthew |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Esslemont, George Birnie | Kelly, Edward |
| Beauchamn, Sir Edward | Eyres-Monsell, Bolton M. | Kennedy, Vincent Paul |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Faber, George Denison (Clapham) | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Falconer, James | Kilbride, Denis |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Falle, Bertram Godfray | King, Joseph |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Fell, Arthur | Lamb, Ernest Henry |
| Benn, W. W. (T. H'mts, St. George) | Ffrench, Peter | Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon.S.Molton) |
| Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish. | Field, William | Lardner, James Carrige Rushe |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Finlay, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert | Larmor, Sir J. |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Fitzgibbon, John | Law, Rt. Hon. A. Bonar (Bootte) |
| Bird, Alfred | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) |
| Boland, John Plus | Fleming, Valentine | Leach, Charles |
| Boscawen, Sir Arthur S. T. Griffith- | Fletcher, John Samuel | Lee, Arthur Hamilton |
| Bowerman, C. W. | France, G. A. | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Boyton, James | Gardner, Ernest | Lewisham, Viscount |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Gibbs, George Abraham | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Ginnell, Laurence | Lowe, Sir F. W. (Birm., Edgbaston) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Lundon, Thomas |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Glanville, Harold James | Lyell, Charles Henry |
| Butcher, John George | Glazebrook, Captain Philip K. | Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. A. (S. Ges.,Han.S.) |
| Campbell, Captain Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Lyttelton, Hon. J. C. (Droltwich) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Goldman, Charles Sydney | MacCaw, Wm. J. MacGeagh |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Goldsmith, Frank | Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) |
| Cator, John | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Macmaster, Donald |
| Cave, George | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lanes., Heywood) | Greene, Walter Raymond | MacVeagh, Jeremiah |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Greenwood, Hamar (Sunderland) | McCallum, Sir John M. |
| Cecil, Lord Robert (Herts, Hitchin) | Greig. Colonel James William | M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Gretton, John | M'Neill, Ronald (Kent, St. Augustine's) |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Griffith, Ellis Jones | Magnus, Sir Philip |
| Chappie, Dr. William Allen | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Malcolm, Ian |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Gwynne, R. S. (Sussex, Eastbourne) | Mallaby-Deeley, Harry |
| Clay, Captain H. H. Spender | Hackett, John | Marks, Sir George Croydon |
| Clough, William | Hambro, Annus Valdemar | Mason, David M. (Coventry) |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. |
| Compton-Rickett, Rt. Hon. Sir J. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Meehan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Harmsworth, Cecil (Luton, Beds) | Menzies, Sir Walter |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithness-shire) | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, W.) | Millar, James Duncan |
| Craig, Ernest (Cheshire, Crewe) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | Molloy, Michael |
| Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth) | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Mond, Sir Alfred M. |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Hayden, John Patrick | Money, L. G. Chiozza |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) | Mooney, John J. |
| Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Morison, Hector |
| Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Mount, Wiliam Arthur | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone, E.) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Muldoon, John | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Touche, George Alexander |
| Munro, Robert | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) | Tryon, Captain George Clement |
| Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | Roch, Walter F. | Ure, Rt, Hon. Alexander |
| Nannettl, Joseph P. | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | Verney, Sir H. |
| Neville, Reginald J. N. | Roche, John (Galway, E.) | Ward, A. S. (Herts, Watford) |
| Nlewdegate, F. A. | Roe, Sir Thomas | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Newton, Harry Kottingham | Rolleston, Sir J. | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| Nicholson, Sir Charles N. (Doncaster) | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Wason, J. Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Nield, Herbert | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Nolan, Joseph | Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen) | Webb, H. |
| Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Samuel, Sir Harry (Norwood) | White, Major G. D. (Lancs., Southport) |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Sanders, Robert Arthur | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) |
| O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. | Williams, Penry (Middlesbrough) |
| O'Dowd, John | Sheehy, David | Willoughby, Major Hon. Claud |
| O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Sherwell, Arthur James | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| O'Malley, William | Shortt, Edward | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim) | Smyth, Thomas F. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| O'Shaughnessy, P. J. | Snowden, Philip | Wolmer, Viscount |
| O'Shee, James John | Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Wood, Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripen) |
| O'Sullivan, Timothy | Spear, Sir John Ward | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glas.) |
| Paget, Almeric Hugh | Spicer, Rt. Hon. Sir Albert | Worthington-Evans, L. |
| Palmer, Godfrey Mark | Stanley, Major Hon. G. F. (Preston) | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart, |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) | Starkey, John Ralph | Yate, Col. C. E. |
| Perkins, Walter Frank | Steel-Maitland, A. D. | Young, Samuel (Cavan, E.) |
| Phillips, John (Longford, S.) | Stewart, Gershom | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Pollock, E. M. | Sutherland, John E. | Younger, Sir George |
| Power, Patrick Joseph | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Talbot, Lord Edmund | |
| Pringle, William M. R. | Taylor, John W. (Durham) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcilffe) | Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Reddy, Michael | Tennant, Harold John | |
| NOES. | ||
| Atherley-Jones, Llewellyn A. | Horne, C. Silvester (Ipswich) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Baring, Sir Godfrey (Barnstaple) | Hudson, Walter | Pirie, Duncan Vernon |
| Barlow, Sir John Emmott (Somerset) | Jardine, Sir John (Roxburghshire) | Radford, George Heynes |
| Barnes, G. N. | John, Edward Thomas | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Jones, Leil Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) |
| Brunnor, John F. L. | Jowett, Frederick William | Rowlands, James |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | Kellaway, Frederick George | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Cassel, Felix | Lansbury, George | Samuel, J. (Stockton) |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Macpherson, James Ian | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| Cotton, William Francis | M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Wadsworth, J. |
| De Forest, Baron | Manfield, Harry | Wardle, George J. |
| Dickinson, W. H. | Molteno, Percy Alport | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Elverston, Sir Harold | Morgan, George Hay | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | O'Grady, James | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Goldstone, Frank | Outhwaite, R. L. | G. Greenwood and Mr. Rawlinson. |
| Hazleton, Richard | Parker, James (Halifax) |
§ Mr. STEWARTI beg to move to leave out the words "of a second or subsequent offence."
As the House has finally settled the principle in regard to flogging, I do not propose to deal at any length with that part of the case. The point of this Amendment is that once the House has decided that flogging is a means of meeting this evil it shall deal with it at the very start. To give a second chance is almost inviting the procurer to try again, and in that I think we are forgetting altogether the effect of his action upon the victims he may ruin. I have listened to this Debate with very great interest, and I yield at once in the fullest degree, to those who are opposed to flogging, that they are entirely sincere. But I think they make a mistake when they say that owing to the absence of flogging and 790 very severe punishments from our social code our social condition is better. I think they fail to realise that this in really owing to the gradual elevation of the whole social tone. When we are dealing with people whose object is to drag down the community to a very low level, I think we are entitled to apply ancient and rougher methods to defend ourselves.
You cannot help a feeling of sentiment coming into this question, and I agree with what fell from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Colonel Lockwood) that in questions of crime against women and children we ought to harden our hearts, and apply a punishment which we would not apply in other cases. The man who attacks you with violence is a gentleman in comparison with the pimp and procurer. The hon. Member for Cambridge pointed out the danger of a man 791 being wrongly accused, and I agree that it is only after these people have been proved guilty after a full and fair trial that the severe penalty should be enforced. I cannot see why we should flinch in this matter. We may be sure that we shall never catch the offender in his first offence, because they serve apprenticeship in crime, and before the police are able to get evidence against them we may reasonably assume that they have been practising this crime for a considerable period. You are dealing with hardened scoundrels, and I am sure that the infliction of this very wholesome Clause will drive them from our shores. Even if they are Englishmen I think we are right to beat them, and beat them hard, because they are a class we do not want to have anything to do with. I think the advocates of leniency are apt to forget the sufferings which the deluded victims of these men endure, and I think it might be well if some modern Richardson were to write a new "Clarissa Harlowe" to demonstrate the sufferings that women have to endure to-day at the hands of these people. I would remind hon. Members who speak with horror of the lash that the highest authority in the world used the scourge to clear the Temple of those who were committing a crime, much less than this now under discussion. Supposing these pimps and procurers adopt the new fashion of hunger strike, are you going to let a man like that out in a week? If we are to let him out in a week, we ought at least to let him out with the hall mark of British muscle on his back, so that he will carry away some appreciation of the sentiment of Great Britain towards procuration. It is my firm conviction that if a man like that, at any rate, carries away this visible sign of his absolute want of inward and spiritual grace it will act as a wholesome deterrent and be a stimulating form of retributive justice.
§ Mr. E. WOODSome reference has been made to the Act of 1863, which was passed to stop garrotting. The Act made flogging the penalty for the first offence, and on an Amendment moved in this House that it should only be the penalty for the second offence it was retained as a penalty for the first offence by a large majority. I hope the House will proceed to do what to my mind is really the logical corollary of the conclusions to which it has just arrived.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHThere are two-considerations I would submit why we cannot accept this Amendment and why we think flogging ought to be reserved as the punishment for a second offence. As the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Eawlinson) said on the other Amendment, you must first be satisfied the ordinary law is not a deterrent. When a man is convicted a first time he is subjected to ordinary imprisonment with hard labour, but when he is convicted a second time it is clear ordinary imprisonment with hard labour will not deter him, and therefore he is subjected to this further penalty. There is a second consideration we ought not to neglect. There is some risk—I think it is almost a negligible one—that a man who is innocent might be convicted a first time, and, if flogging is a punishment for the first offence, you might be flogging an innocent-man. However negligible that risk is, it has been mentioned in the course of the Debate. I think it is practically impossible that a man should be convicted twice of this class of offence and remain innocent. Under these circumstances and for these reasons the Government are not able to accept this Amendment, that flogging shall be inflicted on the first conviction.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI have voted in favour of flogging, but I am not sure that I can support the hon. Member if he presses this Amendment to a Division. There is a great deal to be said for the view of flogging for garrotting and robbery with violence; but we are now, for the first time, deciding that a person who commits one of these offences shall be liable to be flogged on the second conviction. Would it not be a wise course on the part of this House, having instituted a novel procedure, to wait and see how it will act, and whether or not the knowledge that on a second conviction a person will be liable to be flogged will act as a deterrent. If it is found later on that the punishment of the lash is not a deterrent, and that these offences are committed as often in the future as in the past, it might be possible to bring in a Bill to deal with the point, but is it wise to say at once that the penalty of flogging shall apply on the first offence. I think on the whole it would be wise to proceed cautiously in this direction.
§ Mr. LEEIt would appear from the records that there has been no such thing as a second conviction for the offence of 793 procuring. If that should be the case then the punishment which is suggested for the second offence will be wholly ineffective, because it will never be brought into operation. I would ask the House to consider this: that whilst a man might possibly be convicted a first time of procuring, it is extremely doubtful whether it would be his first offence, and it would be well for the House to consider, seeing that we have a law which enables garrotters to be flogged for the first time at the discretion of the Court, whether procurers of girls should be allowed, to use the imagery of an hon. Member, a "first bite": that they should be allowed to commit the offence of procuring a girl once before they incur the penalty of flogging. I think this punishment should be a deterrent. I wish to deter anyone committing the offence a first time as well as the second time, and therefore I cannot help thinking there are very good grounds for supporting the Amendment of my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. BUTCHERI very much regret the decision announced by the Government to oppose this Amendment, and all the more so because it appears to me that the reasons given by the Under-Secretary for doing so are really reasons in support of it. He admitted it was likely to prove a deterrent against a second offence. If so, why should it not prove a deterrent against a first offence? If it is a deterrent against the first offence, why should it not be inserted in the Bill? As to the argument of my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) that second convictions for offences of this character are very few, that may be a good reason for opposing the Clause as it stands, because, if it were only in cases of second offences that the Clause is applicable and there are no such cases of second offences, the Clause is an absurdity. Having already come to the decision that the Clause is a good one, and that in a few cases flogging would be a deterrent against this abominable offence, let us act logically and make it a deterrent against the first offence. If there is a peculiarly atrocious case of this class of offence which comes before a judge, the House will be well advised to give the judge a discretion, knowing that it will be properly used, to impose the penalty of flogging in addition to the other penalties provided.
§ Mr. POLLOCKI desire, after considering the Amendment, to support it. The Under-Secretary says there is a possibility 794 of an innocent man being subjected to this very severe punishment. There are two bulwarks against that fear. First, there is now a Court of Appeal, which works very swiftly and effectively. It is inconceivable that in any case this punishment would be inflicted until sufficient opportunity had been given for a person to appeal, if he were minded to do so. We ought to have regard to the fact that we have now a very effective system under which, if there is any doubt at all, the case can be brought very swifty before the Court of Appeal. It is almost inconceivable that the discretion of the Court would be exercised in any doubtful case to inflict this punishment. We can therefore put aside the possibility of the penalty being inflicted upon an innocent man. We are all trying to put a stop to a crime which is dealt with under Section 2. The success of a prosecution and the procuring of a conviction is very often not easy. It is not in every case that a conviction can be secured. What you really want is to give a discretionary power to the Court, in a case where a prosecution has been successful and you have a really bad man before the Court, to make an example of the case that will deter the commission of other crimes of a similar nature. If we are to postpone it, as has been suggested, till another time when we may pass another Bill, we are putting it off a great deal too much. We have an opportunity this afternoon, and while the matter is fresh in our minds we ought to deal with it. If we want to stamp out this crime, what can be more effective than using the deterrent—for by our last vote it is admitted that it is a deterrent—immediately upon a person being brought before the Court. The sooner the criminals who are engaged in this class of crime learn from the fate of those who are convicted that there is a serious danger, not merely to their liberty but also to their skins, by having committed this class of crime, the more effective will this weapon be to put an end to crime. That is our object, and upon the whole, giving due weight to the considerations which have been urged by the Home Secretary and to the humanitarian feelings which have been expressed in many parts of the House, I think it would be wise to pass the Amendment. The question of garrotting has been referred to. The power which was given in that case was much more stringent—it may be said much more brutal. It was that for a single offence—not on several convictions —the convicted person should be once, 795 twice, or three times privately whipped, and I think it is quite likely that a great number of Members, perhaps every Member in the House, would say that for one conviction it is a little hard that a man should be flogged successively at different periods of one, two, and three months. That was the penalty that was thought good in those days. We are asking for a great deal less. We are only asking that discretion should be given immediately to bring into effect this punishment, and I feel confident it would only be used in proper cases where a really bad man had been convicted of this abominable crime.
§ Sir THOMAS ESMONDEI hope the Government will reconsider their attitude. If the Amendment goes to a Division I shall certainly vote for it, and I think a considerable number of my hon. Friends will do the same. The Home Secretary told us that, in his opinion, no really innocent person has ever been convicted. However that may be, and I think it is more than likely, the cases of innocent men being convicted of this offence must be extremely rare. Apart from the general question of flogging, this provision in the Bill is purely at the option of the Court. I do not know that magistrates in this country are particularly bloodthirsty. I imagine they would be chary of putting this power into operation. In any case, let us suppose for a moment that there is any doubt about it. The convicted person has the right of appeal, which is put into operation very speedily, and in all the circumstances of the case you make it almost impossible that an innocent man should be made to suffer. The third point which I would like to put is one that weighs strongly with me and my Friends. It is not easy to obtain convictions in these cases. On the contrary, it is very difficult. I am under the impression, and other people are also under the impression, that when persons are found guilty it is not the first case in which they have perpetrated the offence. I am certainly not in favour of giving these persons their "first bite." I think every possible deterrent should be used to prevent them from indulging in their loathsome operations. In my opinion the stronger the penalty that is imposed in these cases the better it will be for the interest of the community.
§ Sir RYLAND ADKINSI hope the Government will stand firm in their attitude to this Amendment for this reason. The House has already decided to take a 796 very novel and weighty course, and it is surely of the greatest importance that that should be taken with the maximum of support behind it, both in this House and outside. There are two arguments which should be put before the House. One is-that the tendency of modern legislation has been towards greater leniency of sentences generally, but it has also-been to mark most precisely the difference between first and subsequent offences, and to reserve for the subsequent offences the more extreme penalties. An Act was passed three or four years, ago which enables judges, in passing a sentence of two years, or, it may be, three years' penal servitude, to couple it with a period of preventive detention after the term of penal servitude. That was the most important amendment of the criminal law in recent years. I think hon. Members who have thought it their duty to become familiar with what occurs in the Courts of Criminal Justice will agree that the passing of that Act, and the knowledge of that being possible, has had a beneficial effect. In this case knowledge on the part of criminals that for the second offence they will run the risk of receiving the whip will have an effect on those who have not been convicted at all. To increase the punishment of flogging as proposed in the Amendment will greatly diminish the public support which is behind this Bill. It is of the greatest importance that the Bill should have-behind it not only those who are prepared to develop the penalty of flogging, but also those who are with the greatest reluctance willing to acquiesce in its being allowed by this Bill for the offence with which the measure deals.
§ Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINI rise to support the appeal by the hon. Baronet (Sir T. Esmonde) to the Government. The House has been discussing this question to-day in an entirely non-party spirit, and the Divisions have not run at all on party lines. There is such a Division on the subject now before us. I think it would be an advantage if the Government would leave the question to the free decision of the House. I make that appeal, and hope that it will be considered. I think that the House would like to express its opinion unhampered by any ether consideration whatsoever. I do not believe that there is a Member of this House who has a greater abhorrence of flogging or physical punishment of any kind than I have. I have never given a vote in this House in favour of flogging 797 until this day, and I hope that I may never have to give such a vote again. This class of offence is the only one in which I could bring myself to vote for it, but I do think that for this class of offence it is an apt and proper punishment. It is not one which a man commits in a moment of passion without premeditation. The class of man with whom we are dealing is a man who is trading on the shame and degradation of the weakest and most defenceless among us, who is doing it for profit. He must be a bully and a coward, and I think for such a man the best deterrent, perhaps the only deterrent, is the actual infliction of physical pain on himself; and if the infliction of that physical pain on a few of these men has, as I hope it must have, a deterrent effect on all of them, then the suffering, small in extent, though great in individual cases, thus caused, would be as nothing compared to the infinite misery that we shall have prevented.
§ Mr. BARNESAs one who voted in the minority the last time, I wish to say that in my judgment those who are responsible for this particular Amendment have all the logic upon their side. We heard before that the penalty of flogging was only to be imposed for the second offence. Now we are told that the second offence is very infrequently committed, and there are practically no second convictions. In the circumstances, if you are going to make anything at all of flogging, it seems to me that this Amendment must be carried. I am not going to vote for it, and I merely wish to point out the true position of the matter. A great deal has been said as to flogging being a deterrent for this particular offence, and this was said in such a way as to lead me to believe that those who said so were not at all particular as to discriminating between one offence and another, but that in future they would apply this penalty to other classes of offences. [HON. MEMBERS: "NO."] You all say "No" now. You all voted for the retention of the Clause on the plea that it would only be applied for the second offence, and therefore would not be applied at all. But you are already driven by the logic of events to go further than that, and apply it to the first offence. But I have the fear in my mind, which is intensified by what I have heard this afternoon, that having gone so far as to apply flogging to the first offence with regard to this particular crime, other crimes will be added, and it will be applied to those also.
798 I am afraid of that. It is going back on the best traditions of this House, and against the lessons of experience. Have you ever found that brutalising a man has in any way cured him? I do not believe you can cure or reform a man by flogging him. Would anyone say that you could convert a man by throwing a hatchet at him? The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Crooks) said we must keep our women-folk pure. Do not we all want to keep our women-folk pure? Is not that a mere platitude? I do not think this method of punishment is going to make anybody purer; you are not going to achieve anything by further brutalising persons already brutalised. Therefore I object to the whole thing. It has been said that these men prey upon and make profit out of unfortunate women. There are other men who prey upon women and children—men who sweat pool-innocent women and children; and the economic position has to be dealt with before you can cure this evil which: we are now discussing. I do not at all say that a man who sweats women and children is as bad, according to the moral code, as a man who commits this particular offence, but I do say that our system at present leads to the sweating of women and children, and therefore hands them over as more or less unwilling victims to-the evil with which we are now dealing. I am going to vote against the Amendment if I vote at all. I do not believe any good can be done by it. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite that flogging is about the worst thing you can do to a man. It revolts me. I only once saw a prize fight, thirty years ago, and the sight of it made me sick. I can imagine that seeing a man flogged would also make me sick, and I cannot think that anything which: raises these feelings in a sensitive man, is going to do any good either to the criminal or to the person who is going to inflict the punishment. Therefore, I shall vote against the Amendment or anything which, to my mind, would tend to spread what I cannot help but think is something which would degrade everybody all round, from the criminal at the bottom right up to this House at the top.
§ 5.0 P.M.
Captain MORRISON-BELLI gather from what I heard from the Front Bench opposite, that the Government are endeavouring to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds; at all events we have been told by the hon. Gentleman now in charge of the Bill that it is quite- 799 unlikely that this offence will occur a second time. By a huge majority we have voted in favour of flogging. Are we going to make an absolute farce of that particular Vote, because it is perfectly obvious that this filthy crime ought to be dealt with in a manner no other crime can be dealt with? Yet the Government are now going to vote against this Amendment, when they know perfectly well that these cowards—for they are cowards—adopt this trade for profit, knowing they have a chance of getting off the first time. The whole attitude of those men is loathsome and cowardly. There is talk of flogging for other crimes, but the men who commit other crimes, such as burglary, are not cowards, and in a great many cases they are far from being so. Flogging would not deter them, but in this case the men are cowards. If you are going to make this a real Bill and get at the bottom of things, better do away with what I consider to be a great deal of sickly sentiment and face the facts. You do not catch these men the first time, and when you do they ought to be well marked for what they do. I am surprised at the attitude of the Government, and I hope even now they will change their minds and allow this Amendment to be put in.
§ Mr. LAMBI desire to support the appeal made by the right lion. Gentleman the Member for East Worcestershire (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) and the hon. Baronet from the Irish Benches, and to point out that while it was a consistent position for the Government to say that flogging should be inserted for the second offence, whan the House has shown by an overwhelming majority that they are in favour of that, surely it is fair to appeal from these benches to the Government to leave this question open as regards the first offence. Some of us feel very strongly on this Bill, and public opinion has manifested itself on this question as it has seldom been manifested. We think that the crime is sufficient to justify flogging for a first offence because we believe it would be a deterrent. For that reason I appeal to the Government not to put on the Government Whips, but to leave it an open question to the House, which surely can be trusted to come to an unbiassed decision.
§ Lord ROBERT CECILI certainly hope that the Government will see their way not 800 to put on the Government Whips. This seems to me to be a question which the House might be allowed to decide without any Government or party pressure. While I say that, personally I shall vote against the Amendment. I voted in the majority last time. I think it was right to provide that flogging might be inflicted for this shocking crime if it is quite clear that nothing else will deter a man. That seems to me a sound principle. But may I remind the House of the great importance of preserving due proportion in punishment. If you take almost any crime and consider the worst form it can take, you may say that it is almost as bad as anything can be, and therefore a very severe penalty must be inflicted. After all, you have to consider what is the actual state of your jurisprudence now. Consider the crimes upon women and children for which you cannot flog. I agree that a determined bad case of this kind of crime is so bad that it is worse than any other crime on women and children. But it is only in an aggravated case of this kind that that can truly be said. Can you say that a first offence of this kind is necessarily, or even probably, of a more serious character than a rape on a child? I think it is going very far to say that. But you cannot flog for a rape on a child. You must consider carefully not only what your moral indignation would prompt you to exact, but what is in accordance with the general system of legislation that you have. Speaking as a great friend of this Bill, and as one who voted against the excision of this Clause, I think the House will make a mistake if they come to what will probably be regarded as a somewhat emotional decision in favour of allowing flogging for a first offence of this kind.[An HON. MEMBER: "A first conviction."]I am not one of those who think that flogging is necessarily a terrible and outrageous form of punishment. A good deal of nonsense is talked about torture and that kind of thing. All punishment is torture. Imprisonment with hard labour is in some cases a very severe form of torture. We do torture prisoners in the sense that we inflict pain upon them by way of punishment. Flogging is a very severe punishment, and is so regarded by the public. I have seen criminals in the dock burst into tears when sentenced to be flogged. They regard it as a severe punishment, and that is why I think it is a very valuable weapon in the hands of justice as a last or almost last resort. But to enact it for anything except the most serious form 801 of crime seems to me to be a thoroughly bad piece of legislation. If a man after having been convicted and punished for a crime of this kind again commits it, he is a very bad criminal indeed, and flogging is a legitimate and proper punishment, which is likely to act as a deterrent. But to enact it for a first offence will be a mistake, and I shall vote against the Amendment.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHI have seen no reason to depart from the conclusion I arrived at when I last spoke on this Bill. I entirely agree with what the Noble Lord opposite has just said. Without going into the merits of the controversy, an appeal has been made to me by hon. Gentlemen opposite and behind me as to the way this question ought to be left to the House. The object of the last Division was to establish flogging as a punishment for offences of this character. The Government took the view that that was an important principle; that these were offences where flogging should be a punishment under certain circumstances. The House, by a very great majority, agreed with the Government in that view. Now there seems to be a feeling that the House should declare its own view as to whether that punishment is to be admitted in the first or second cases. After consideration we have come to the conclusion that this is a matter, non-controversial, and a question on which the House should be allowed to declare itself free and unfettered. I am sure that announcement will be welcomed by the House. I agree with the Noble Lord that it is a very severe punishment; and that it should not be included in the first offence, but in the second. At any rate, the course the
§ Government propose to take is to leave the matter to the decision of the House.
§ Mr. G. GREENWOODI am not in the least surprised at the course taken by the Government. The appetite grows by what it feeds on. Now that we have admitted this form of punishment into our criminal code I have not the slightest doubt that we shall be asked again and again to extend its use to other offences. Many of the hon. Members who have spoken against our position seem to be unable to comprehend what that position is. The hon. Member for Woolwich thundered, I might almost say roared, against the horrible nature of this offence. His observations and those of other Members might imply that we do not appreciate the horrible nature of this offence. They say we sympathise with the man who is to be flogged and so on. But put out of consideration if you like the man who is to be flogged. It is in the interests of the community that we object to this punishment. We must punish a man rationally and within the bounds of reason and common sense. We object to this form of punishment altogether. The Noble Lord the Member for Hitchin has said that a great deal of nonsense is talked about, torture. The term torture is well understood. When we speak of torture we are not alluding to mental torture, but to physical pain inflicted. We know what we mean by torture—the rack, the thumbscrew, the boot, the slit nose, cutting off the ears, and so forth. We shall carry our opposition further until we abolish this disgraceful punishment of flogging.
§ Question put, "That those words stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 136.
803| Division No. 288.] | AVES. | [5.15 p.m. |
| Addison, Dr. C. | Clough, William | Greig, Colonel James William |
| Allen, A. A. (Dumbartonshire) | Cory, Sir Clifford John | Griffith, Ellis Jones |
| Arnold, Sydney | Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemnuth) | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Atherley-Jones, Liewellyn A. | Crawshay-Williams, Eliot | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Cullinan, John | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Davies, Timothy (Lines., Louth) | Hayden, John Patrick |
| Barnes, G. N. | Dawes, J. A. | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) |
| Beale, Sir William Phipson | Denman, Hon. R. D. | Higham, John Sharp |
| Beck, Arthur Cecil | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Hodge, John |
| Benn, Ion Hamilton (Greenwich) | Edwards, John Hugh (Glamorgan, Mid) | Holmes, Daniel Turner |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. | Elverston, Sir Harold | Horne, Charles Silvester (Ipswich) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Essex, Richard Walter | Hudson, Walter |
| Boland, John Plus | Esslemont, George Birnle | Illingworth, Percy H. |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Field, William | Jardine, Sir J. (Roxburgh) |
| Buckmaster, Stanley O. | Fitzgibbon, John | Jones, Rt.Hon.Sir D.Brynmor (Sw'nsea) |
| Burke, E. Haviland- | Flavin, Michael Joseph | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) |
| Byles, Sir William Pollard | George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd | Jones, Leif Stratten (Notts, Rushcliffe) |
| Cassel, Fellx | Gladstone, W. G. C. | Jones, W. S. Glyn- (Stepney) |
| Cawley, Harold T. (Lanes., Heywood) | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Jowett, Frederick William |
| Chancellor, Henry George | Goldstone, Frank | Keating, Matthew |
| Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. | Greenwood, Granville G. (Peterborough) | King, Joseph |
| Lambert, Rt. Hon. G. (Devon.S.Molton) | O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny) | Rowntree, Arnold |
| Lansbury, George | O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.) | Russell, Rt. Hon. Thomas W. |
| Lardner, James Carrige Rushe | O'Grady, James | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Larmor, Sir J. | O'Kelly, Edward P. (Wicklow, W.) | Schwann, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles E. |
| Lough, Rt. Hon. Thomas | O'Shee, James John | Shortt, Edward |
| Lynch, Arthur Alfred | O'Sullivan, Timothy | Sutherland, John E. |
| Macdonald, J. M. (Falkirk Burghs) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Thorne, William (West Ham) |
| McGhee, Richard | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Wadsworth, J. |
| Macmaster, Donald | Philipps, Col. Ivor (Southampton) | Ward, W. Dudley (Southampton) |
| Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Pirie, Duncan Vernon | Wardle, George J. |
| Macpherson, James Ian | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) | Wason, Rt. Hon. E. (Clackmannan) |
| M'Laren, Hon. F.W.S. (Lincs.,Spalding) | Priestley, Sir Arthur (Grantham) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| M'Micking, Major Gilbert | Pringle, William M. R. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Marks, Sir George Croydon | Radford, George Heynes | Webb, H. |
| Mason, David M. (Coventry) | Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel | White, Patrick (Meath, North) |
| Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) | Whitehouse, John Howard |
| Menzies, Sir Walter | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone.E.) | Whyte, A. F. |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Mooney, John J. | Robertson, Sir G. Scott (Bradford) | Wilson, A. Stanley (Yorks, E.R.) |
| Morgan, George Hay | Robertson, John M. (Tyneside) | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Muldoon, John | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Young, William (Perth, East) |
| Nolan, Joseph | Roche, Augustine (Louth) | |
| Norton, Captain Cecil W. | Roe, Sir Thomas | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Lord |
| Nugent, Sir Walter Richard | Rowlands, James | Robert Cecil and Sir Ryland Adkins. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Fletcher, John Samuel | Nield, Herbert |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Gastrell, Major W. Houghton | O'Dowd, John |
| Balfour, Sir Robert (Lanark) | Gibbs, G. A. | O'Malley, William |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Ginnell, Laurence | O'Neill, Hon. A. E. B. (Antrim, Midi |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Gordon, John (Londonderry, South) | Palmer, Godfrey Mark |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Gordon, Hon. John Edward (Brighton) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Gulland, John William | Perkins, Walter Frank |
| Bonn, W. W. (T. Hints, St. George) | Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | Pollock, Ernest Murray |
| Beresford, Lord Charles | Hackett, John | Power, Patrick Joseph |
| Bowerman, C. W. | Hamersley, Alfred St. George | Reddy, Michael |
| Boyton, James | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | Richardson, Albion (Peckham) |
| Brady, Patrick Joseph | Healy, Timothy Michael (Cork, N.E.) | Roberts, Sir J. H. (Denbighs) |
| Bridgeman, William Clive | Henry, Sir Charles | Roche, John (Galway, E.) |
| Brocklehurst, William B. | Hill, Sir Clement L. | Rolleston, Sir John |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Rutherford, John (Lanes., Darwen) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hope, Major J. A. (Midlothian) | Samuel, Rt. Hon. H. L. (Cleveland) |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Samuel, Sir Stuart M. (Whitechapel) |
| Butcher, John George | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Sanders, Robert Arthur |
| Campbell, Capt. Duncan F. (Ayr, N.) | Joyce, Michael | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Kelly, Edward | Sheehy, David |
| Cator, John | Kennedy, Vincent Paul | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) | Kerr-Smiley, Peter Kerr | Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.) |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Worc'r.) | Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Spear, Sir John Ward |
| Chappie, Dr. William Allen | Leach, Charles | Starkey, John Ralph |
| Coates, Major Sir Edward Feetham | Lee, Arthur Hamilton | Steel-Maitland, A. D. |
| Condon, Thomas Joseph | Lewisham, Viscount | Sykes, Mark (Hull, Central) |
| Cotton, William Francis | Locker-Lampson, G. (Salisbury) | Talbot, Lord Edmund |
| Craig, Norman (Kent, Thanet) | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Terrell, Henry (Gloucester) |
| Cralk, Sir Henry | Low, Sir Frederick (Norwich) | Thompson, Robert (Belfast, North) |
| Crean, Eugene | Lundon, Thomas | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton) |
| Crichton-Stuart, Lord Ninian | Lyell, Charles Henry | Touche, George Alexander |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lyttelton, Rt Hon. A. (S. Geo.,Han. S.) | Ure, Rt. Hon. Alexander |
| Dalziel, Davison (Brixton) | MacCaw, Wm J. MacGeagh | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Davics, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | White, J. Dundas (Glasgow, Tradeston) |
| Delany, William | M'Callum, Sir John M. | Wood. Hon. E. F. L. (Yorks, Ripon) |
| Denniss, E. R. B. | Mechan, Francis E. (Leitrim, N.) | Wood, Rt. Hon. T. McKinnon (Glasgow) |
| Doris, William | Millar, James Duncan | Wortley, Rt. Hon. c B. Stuart- |
| Duffy, William J. | Mond, Sir Alfred M. | Yate, Colonel C. E. |
| Esmonde, Dr. John (Tipperary, N.) | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Young, Samuel (Cavan, East) |
| Esmonde, Sir Thomas (Wexford, N.) | Morrison-Bell, Capt. E. F. (Ashburton) | Younger, Sir George |
| Faber, George D. (Clapham) | Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton) | Yoxall, Sir James Henry |
| Falconer, James | Morton, Aloheus Cleophas | |
| Falle, Bertram Godlray | Munro, Robert | |
| Fell, Arthur | Murray, Captain Hon. Arthur C. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Stewart and Mr. Lamb. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Neville, Reginald J. N. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. MUNROI beg to move after the word "which" ["instrument with which"], to insert the words "and the time when."
This Amendment raises a point with regard to the administration of this par- 804 ticular Section of the Bill. If the Amendment is carried the effect will be that the-Court which is already enjoined by the Bill to direct the number of lashes to be imposed and the instrument with which they 805 are to be imposed should also direct the time at which they are to be imposed. The House will see the question at once arises, When shall this punishment be inflicted and who shall determine the time? A sentence of two years may be imposed under this Bill, and the only result of the Bill passing as it stands would be that some person unknown would have the determination as to when the punishment, should be inflicted. It might be inflicted on the first day or the last day of the sentence, and I think the House would hesitate to leave a free hand in that matter to some individual unknown. I have framed the Amendment in general terms, because it seems to me it is better to leave the Court, which is thoroughly familiar with all the circumstances of the case, with the determination of this matter rather than to have it hard and fast in the way suggested in the Amendment which immediately follows.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHI think on re flection my hon. Friend will see it is quite impossible to accept these words or to say when the punishment shall be in-flicted. There are obvious cases in which an appeal which may be pending may not be heard for a considerable time. It is the universal rule of prison discipline that the punishment shall be inflicted within a reasonable time of a man's admission to prison, subject, of course, to a pending appeal and the doctor's orders. I hope my hon. Friend will not press the Amendment.
§ Question, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ Mr. E. WOODI beg to move, at the end of the Clause, to add the words,
"Provided that in no case shall such whipping take place after the expiration of six months from the passing of the sentence; provided also, that every such whipping to be inflicted on any person sentenced to a term of imprisonment under this Act shall be inflicted on him before he shall be removed to a prison with a view to his undergoing such sentence.
I only desire to move this as a suggestion to the right hon. Gentleman. The words appeared in the Act of 1863, and, although I do not pretend to be a lawyer, 806 if they have any value in that Act it occurs to me whether it would not be worth while introducing them in this Bill.
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHWith regard to the latter part of the Amendment, I think the hon. Gentleman on reflection will see that it is quite impracticable; and with regard to the first two lines, it is very difficult to define the exact time. Punishment of this kind is always inflicted within a reasonable time of a man's admission to prison. It is always done after the period of appeal has passed and subject to the doctor's orders, and I think the hon. Memmber may be quite comfortable in his mind that the prison regulations provide for the substance of his Amendment as far as it is possible to be carried out.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI beg to move, "That the further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
§ Mr. RAWLINSONWhen is the Bill likely to be taken again?
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHI am not now in a position to say.
§ Mr. RAWLINSONIs Clause 2 finished?
§ Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITHYes.
§ Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee) to be further considered upon Monday next, 4th November.
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of 14th October, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine minutes before Six o'clock, till Monday next, 4th November.