HL Deb 27 March 1900 vol 81 cc418-25

[THIRD READING.]

Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

My Lords, in asking your Lordships' assent to the Third Reading of this Bill I wish to mention that I have received a great many communications, nearly all of a favourable character, with respect to the details of the Bill. This morning I received a communication from a very influential body, the Chairmen and Deputy-Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, who have been good enough to consider the measure and to pass a resolution in favour of its provisions. They, however, suggested an Amendment, and, as it will doubtless appear in the press, I think it as well to state the reasons why I cannot agree to the Amendment they propose. The effect of the Amendment, getting rid of the technicality of it, would be that magistrates would have power, in any case they thought fit, not to impose a fine, but, in substitution of a fine, to direct that the youthful offender should be whipped. As your Lordships are aware, the Bill, as at present drawn, only gives the power of imposing the punishment of whipping in lieu of imprisonment, and in cases where a fine has been inflicted but not paid. To accept such an Amendment as the one proposed would be to go beyond the intentions of those who introduced the Bill, and certainly beyond its object. The only object of the Bill is to keep youthful offenders out of prison, and to substitute for imprisonment the minor punishment and lesser degradation of whipping. The desire of the influential body to whom I have referred is to substitute whipping for the lesser degradation of a fine. Take, for instance, an offence under a bye-law—a very venial offence such as obstructing the highway, or playing a boyish game in the highway and breaking a window. The proposed Amendment would give the magistrates the power of over-riding the intention of the Legislature, and of substituting whipping for an offence which the Legislature intended should be met by a fine. That will not result in keeping a child out of prison. I do not wish to call into existence the somewhat irate magistrate to whom the noble Earl opposite referred, who would impose a severe penalty out of prejudice, but I do conceive that there will be magistrates who will say, "We will take this matter into our own hands, and, instead of imposing a fine of one shilling or two shillings as the case may be, we will, without giving the offender a chance of paying a fine, impose the punishment of whipping." That would be going beyond the object of the Bill, and I think it would result in the Bill being regarded as so harsh that its passing would be imperilled. I have also consulted the Home Office, who advise that it would not be well to accept this Amendment. I am not, of course, going to refer to the general subject of the Bill, as that matter has been already discussed; but, as I have said, I have received a great many communications in support of the Bill, and only yesterday I received one which, with your Lordships' permission, I will read to the House. It is from the stipendiary magistrate of Manchester, who has had great experience in this matter, and who gives an instance of exactly the class of case with which this Bill will, I think, rightly deal. He says— I sincerely hope the Bill will pass. If those who oppose whipping for boys knew the impotency of magistrates who, like myself, will not send mere children to prison, to deal with numerous offences I think they would hesitate to oppose the Bill. May I, at the risk of wearying you, give one instance? This court deals with the suburbs of Manchester and Salford, parts of which consist of farms and market gardens. Every summer the farmers and others suffer hundreds of pounds worth of damage from boys from 10 to 16 years of age, who come out of the town, pull down their fences, uproot their turnips and potatoes, and play hide and seek with their standing crops, and they literally have no remedy. The boys have no money to pay fines, their parents will not pay a fine, and they are too young for prison. Extra police are drafted to protect the fields, and the farmer and his servants spend Sunday in watching them, but cannot protect them. The Bill will, I feel sure, put a stop to these practices. I have nothing more to say with reference to the provisions of the Bill. There is an Amendment standing in the name of Lord Monkswell, and if the noble Lord will move his Amendment after the Third Reading I will state the view we take with regard to it.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read the third time."—(Lord James of Hereford.)

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY

I entirely concur with the objection which the noble and learned Lord has raised to the proposed Amendment, which seems to me to be outside the scope of the Bill. As my noble friend has repeatedly explained, the object of the Bill is to prevent the sending of children to prison by substituting the punishment of whipping; and it would be going altogether beyond the intentions of the Bill to substitute whipping for fines in cases where children were not liable, under the existing law, to be sent to prison. The Amendment would, for that reason, be very objectionable, and I am glad the noble and learned Lord does not accept it.

THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (Viscount CROSS)

My Lords, I think, as Chairman of the Association of Chairmen and Deputy-Chairmen of Quarter Sessions, that there is a good deal to be said in favour of what has fallen from my noble and learned friend against the proposed Amendment; indeed, I believe that if the question had been thoroughly argued out at the meeting of the Association the Amendment would not have been pressed. I might, however, say, on behalf of the Association, that according to the Bill magistrates may whip instead of committing to prison for the non-payment of a fine; therefore, the Amendment does not seem to go very much further than the Bill. The Association is composed of persons who have been for a series of years engaged in the administration of the criminal law, and their absolutely unanimous opinion, after considerable discussion on the whole matter, was that it would be of the greatest possible advantage, not only to the community, but to youthful offenders themselves, that the latter should not be sent to prison if whipping would suffice.

*LORD NORTON

My Lords, it does seem strange to me that we should find any difficulty whatever in making use of the very ordinary and suitable punishment of whipping for youthful offenders. I am perfectly astonished at the objections which have been raised to it, and I should be very sorry if what the noble Earl opposite said the other day should have any weight in the country and lead the class on whose behalf he spoke to think that there was any degradation in such a punishment. They should be made to feel that the degradation lies in turning their children out into the streets to earn their livelihood by thieving, and in that way making castigation necessary. That constitutes the degradation, not the punishment; and I think the noble Lord's remarks upon the subject, so far as they will have any influence in the country, will be most injurious. I do not think anyone can doubt the efficacy of the punishment of whipping, and the suitability of it in the case of young children. When noble Lords speak of the degradation of whipping they remind me of a remark which Lord Beaconsfield made in this House when we were discussing the abolition of flogging in the Army. He said— The objections made to this punishment, that punishment, and every punishment amount to this, that crime has gradually vindicated its own impunity. I hope that feeling will not have any weight with your Lordships, and that you will not stand in the way of this Bill passing as it is. We all agree that young children should not be sent to prison, and if it is not possible to inflict the punishment of whipping, what other alternative is there? Whipping is the simplest, shortest, and, as we know by experience, the most effective punishment in suitable cases, and I fail to see that there is any degradation in whipping children guilty of the offences for which it is here intended. In fact, the punishment of whipping has really become the sole remaining privileges of the aristocracy. I am glad that the suggested Amendment finds no favour with your Lordships. There is no other punishment for boys who commit offences for which they are now liable to be sent to prison. We have, therefore, only to choose, if we object to sending them to prison, between the punishment of whipping and impunity, and I do not think anyone will say that the punishment of whipping is so unsuitable that it would be better that such child should go unpunished.

On Question agreed to; Bill read 3a, accordingly.

LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords, I moved in the Standing Committee a new clause at the end of Clause 7, with the object of correcting what seems to be an obvious and iniquitous blunder in the Industrial Schools Act Amendment Act, 1894. That Act gives the managers of industrial schools powers, which they are bound to exercise, of supervision over children from the ages of 16 to 18 after the term of detention has expired. In order that the managers may have a greater power over the child they are allowed, under certain conditions, if they consider it for the benefit of the child, to recall it to the school for a period of not more than three months, the period of detention having already expired. This clause is drafted in such an extraordinary way as to only give the power of recall to managers when the children happen to be out on licence. If a child is working on its own account, whether a boy or a girl, that child is not liable to be recalled. No doubt, in a roundabout way the child might be recalled, for if you find a child wandering about you could always go to some person and ask him to accept a licence formally, and having gone through that process you could, in the course of time, recall the child to the school. I know that the noble and learned Lord opposite is very sympathetic in regard to this Amendment, and when I stated the case to the Standing Committee as I have stated it to your Lordships there was not a dissentient voice as to the desirability and even the necessity of altering the law in the direction I have indicated. The noble and learned Lord took objection to my Amendment on two grounds: first, that it was not germane to the Bill, as industrial school children were not, technically speaking, youthful offenders. I will not argue that point, but this Bill does make certain amendments in the principal Act of 1866 which are absolutely on all fours with the proposal I have to submit. The proposal in Clause 5 of this Bill is that certain children who are not liable to be committed to an industrial school shall be liable in future to be so committed.

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

You are referring to Clause 6.

LORD MONKSWELL

No, I am referring to Clause 5, which is as follows— A Court of Assize or Quarter Sessions may exercise the like power of committing a child to an industrial school as may be exercised by two justices under Section 15 of the Industrial Schools Act, 1866, and the provisions of that Act shall be construed accordingly. Clause 6, no doubt, also deals with matters connected with reformatories and industrial schools. I do not propose to interfere in any way with the internal management of industrial schools. All my clause proposes is to make children liable to be recalled to the school who are not now liable to be recalled. It has been suggested that the clause in the Act of 1894 was carefully considered at the time, and was not a blunder; but let us consider what may happen under the clause as it at present stands. I admit that on this point my reading of the law is different from that of the noble and learned Lord, and I daresay it is not the reading of the law which will commend itself to this House, but, at all events, I will submit my argument. I say that, under this clause of the Act of 1894, if a girl is licensed out—and the license must be to some person, and not to a particular employment—and if the mistress of that girl dies, there is, at all events, very great doubt whether she can be recalled to the school without undergoing the cumbersome process to which I have alluded, and if it is necessary to recall a girl at all it would be in such a case as that. It is monstrous and intolerable that where a child is particularly liable to be led astray, having no one to look after her, the power of recall vested in the managers should cease. I believe the only objection to my Amendment is that it may lead to further Amendments and may wreck the Bill when it gets to another place; but I should have thought that it would be clear that the object of my Amendment was to correct what was an absolnte blunder in the Act of 1894, and that it could not lead to any Amendments which would deal with the internal management of industrial schools. It would appear to me that the noble and learned Lord, though he accepted my Amendment, would be perfectly justified in refusing to accept any Amendment which would deal with the internal management of industrial schools. I will not press my Amendment if the noble Lord will give me, as I believe he will, an undertaking that the matter shall be very carefully considered when the Bill goes down to another place.

Amendment moved— In page 4, at the end of Clause 7, to insert, as a new clause, 'The power of recalling a child to an industrial school while under the supervision of the managers conferred by the Industrial Schools Act Amendment Act, 1894, shall be exerciseable in respect of every such child, whether licensed to employment or not.'"—(Lord Monkswell.)

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD

My noble friend, I am sure, has convinced your Lordships that this is a very technical point, and, as he says, there is a difference of opinion as to the construction of the Act of 1894. Personally, I think that the blot which he says exists in the Act of 1894 does not exist, and that there is this power to recall a child if the licence passes away from circumstances such as the death of the person to whom the child has been entrusted. No doubt the object of my noble friend is a very good one— namely, to continue some control over the child; but I have considered this matter and have come to the conclusion that his Amendment does deal with the management of the child after it has entered the school. Therefore, I fear that if we allowed this Amendment it would be an admission that that subject could be dealt upon in another place, and it would be sought, under the cloak of this Amendment, to reopen the question of industrial schools. I am sure that such a course would hinder and endanger the progress of the Bill. I am able to give my noble friend the assurance, which I hope will satisfy him, that the Bill will be in charge of the Secretary of State for the Home Department in the House of Commons, and I am also in a position to inform him that the question will be considered without starting with any hostile feeling towards the Amendment, and that if effect can be given to his object without interfering in any way with the Bill's prospects of success that will be done. I hope the limited assurance I have given my noble friend will be accepted by him.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.