§ Mr. CassellsArising out of a supplementary question put by the hon. Member for Shettleston (Mr. McGovern) 1774 yesterday, when he asked whether I was the person who some short time ago requested a Scottish judge to pass a birching Order, I should welcome permission to make a personal statement in explanation. I was the solicitor concerned in the matter. When appearing in Court I was acting in an official capacity and on the express instructions of the mother of the boy concerned. I made the request to the Sheriff on her definite instructions and in her presence. The calling of the case was in public court and at the same time that I made the parent's request to the Court I stated emphatically that it was most distasteful to me, as I was completely opposed to birching in any circumstances. It was also explained to the Court that the request for birching as an alternative punishment to an industrial school was made at the instance of the parents. In view of the facts of the case I submit that the personal attack upon me yesterday was uncalled for, and wholly unjustified.
§ Mr. McGovernAs the person who put the supplementary question in the House I want to say that the facts as stated by the hon. Member for Dumbartonshire 1775 (Mr. Cassells) I accept, but I myself could not see why the hon. Member should ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in this House to use his powers to put an end to birching when he himself had requested in a Court that the Sheriff —
§ Mr. McGovernNo, I certainly will not withdraw. I only want to say that I am quite satisfied that the question I asked was in the public interest and a public duty. I could not see this dual role being played. Therefore, I accept the facts and say that, so far as I am concerned, I am satisfied that I performed that public duty and have nothing to withdraw.