HC Deb 07 November 1912 vol 43 cc1469-70W
Sir WILLIAM BYLES

asked the Home Secretary whether Mr. Denman, on the 28th ultimo, at the Marlborough Street Police Court, committed to the Sessions a youth of sixteen, charged with improper conduct, as an incorrigible rogue and vagabond, expressing, with an oath, the hope that the sessional magistrates would order him to be flogged; whether it is the view of the Home Office that such a punishment is calculated to instil into the boy's mind ideas of purity and virtue; and what is the minimum age at which a boy may become incorrigible within the meaning of the legal term?

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

My right hon. Friend has inquired into this case and has received from the magistrate a report in which he says: "Having only too often of late been obliged to descant upon the appalling increase in this neighbourhood in crimes of this shocking character, I took this opportunity of pointing out how inadequate at present are the powers of the magistrates to suppress them; and I did (not with an oath as suggested, but with fervent and heartfelt emphasis) express the hope that the Sessions would inflict corporal punishment for second offences, stating it to be my firm conviction,, founded on many years' experience at this Court, that the power to inflict and in proper cases the infliction of that form of punishment for this class of crime has-become a great necessity in the public interest." In view of the evidence given in this case, it is not surprising that he should express himself strongly. The Vagrancy Act does not fix any age limit for the conviction of an offender as an incorrigible rogue.

Mr. WATT

asked the Home Secretary how many vagrants have been sentenced to flogging during each of the last three years; how many times such sentences have been carried out; and whether his Department has the vetoing or otherwise of this punishment before it is carried out?

Mr. ELLIS GRIFFITH

The calendars of prisoners for the years 1909-1911 show ten cases in which Orders have been made for the corporal punishment of men convicted as incorrigible rogues under the Vagrancy Act—one in 1909, five in 1910, and four in 1911. The execution of such a sentence is not subject to veto by the Home Office, but where sufficient ground' is shown for interference, the sentence may be remitted. The corporal punishment was wholly remitted in one and partially remitted in another of the cases above mentioned.