(NO. 84.) SECOND READING. (Hansard, 15 July 1869)

THE MARQUESS TOWNSHEND

, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that although the previous Bills he had had the honour to submit to their Lordships during the Session had met with an unfavourable reception, he nevertheless thought it his duty to attempt, as far as possible, to mitigate the sufferings to which many helpless classes were exposed. He had often been struck by cases brought before the magistrates in which children, pupils, and servants had been treated with inexcusable severity, but which the magistrates were frequently obliged to dismiss, owing to the difficulty of drawing the line between punishment and cruel treatment. He thought the best way of putting an end to this difficulty was to make the infliction of personal 1865 punishment on these classes altogether illegal, and for this purpose he had introduced this Bill. The 1st clause provided that the birch rod should be the only instrument used in punishing persons under sixteen; the 2nd, that no schoolmaster should inflict corporal punishment on any pupil under sixteen for inattention to his studies; the 3rd, that no child under sixteen should be struck on the head or face; and the 4th prohibited any master or mistress from striking or inflicting any corporal punishment whatever on any apprentice or servant; the penalty for any of these offences was a penalty not exceeding £5 or two calendar months.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

said, this was one of the most extraordinary Bills that had ever been presented to Parliament. Clause 1 declared it to be unlawful for anyone but a parent to inflict corporal punishment on a child except with a birch rod. This absurd enactment would debar an uncle or aunt with whom a child might be staying from giving it a "smack" with the palm of the hand on the face or the use of anything other than a birch rod. He objected to the application of the Bill to Scotland. In that country the birch rod was unknown as an instrument of chastisement, and the youth of Scotland would probably object to its introduction. He thought their Lordships had some ground of complaint against the noble Marquess for the perpetual introduction of crude and useless measures, and raising discussion upon them. It might be a harmless amusement when their Lordships had nothing to do; but it was not becoming that their time should be occupied by Bills of this kind when there was important business on the Paper. He moved that the second reading be deferred for three months.