conceive of nothing more inconsistent on | proposition made in a very able speech the part of Ministers.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, it is not my intention to prolong the interesting discussion we have had upon the general question of the Law of Distress; but I wish, before we go to a Division, to say one or two words upon the view which Her Majesty's Government take of the question before us.

of considerable learning, which does great credit to the industry of the hon. Member who brought forward the subject (Mr. Blennerhassett). But, after all, it has been introduced by a Gentleman who represents an Irish constituency, and who speaks much more from an Irish than an English point of view. He makes this broad proposition, And I find it the more ne-and asks us at once to affirm that the cessary to do that because, in one or two Law of Distress ought to be abolished. of the later speeches which have been He is met by a counter-proposition from delivered, there has been a tendency to my hon. Friend the Member for South suggest false analogies. I entirely dis- Norfolk (Mr. Clare Read), who speaks sent from what has been said as to the upon a question of this sort with the analogy between this case and the vote very highest authority. And what does which was given some time ago upon my hon. Friend say in these very pithy the Bill relating to the Law of Hypo- and pertinent remarks with which he thec in Scotland. I have frequently favoured us in the beginning of the heard the question of the Law of Hypo- evening? He said "He approached thec in Scotland discussed in this House; this subject as one which required conbut I do not think that I have heard sideration, and one which was very intithe Law of Distress called in question mately connected with the welfare of in the same way, and certainly not un-agriculture. It was one of high imder the circumstances, in which the Law of Hypothec has been discussed in the form of Bills which have been presented, and with the discussion which has taken place in Scotland upon the subject. But I have observed that if any suggestion emanated from any English gentleman when the question of Hypothec was under discussion that an alteration of the Law of Hypothec would involve an alteration of the Law of Distress in England, we have been met with lectures and a torrent of eloquence to prove that we know nothing of that law at all if we supposed that there was any analogy whatever between it and the Law of Distress in England. But what I would say with regard to the Law of Hypothec is, that it is a matter which has been much discussed in Scotland by all classes. It was made the subject of various Bills introduced by hon. Members sitting in different parts of the House, and representing different interests; and ultimately a Bill was passed on the subject, not entirely by Her Majesty's Government, as some have assumed, because some Members of Her Majesty's Government abstained from voting on the Bill, and others voted against it. But, at all events, the Bill was passed after full discussion, and with reference to the circumstances and wishes of the people of Scotland. Now, however, we are not asked to consider a Bill at all, but a broad and startling

portance, and he thought the time had
come when they ought to have legislation
and amendment." But he went on to
say-" He could not recommend the
sweeping measure proposed by the hon.
Member for Kerry (Mr. Blennerhassett).
He must bear in mind that this system
of distress was one closely interwoven
with the agricultural system of the
country, and they should consider care-
fully the mode in which they were to deal
with it." I entirely agree, and the Govern-
ment entirely agree, with the view taken
by my hon. Friend. We regard this as a
subject that requires consideration; we
consider that there are points of the Law
of Distress which demand revision. But
we say that the question is one upon
which we cannot at the first blush
pro-
ceed to legislate, because it touches so
many interests and demands very care-
ful deliberation. We have no difficulty
in saying that we do recognize in
the views put forward by the hon.
Member matter which requires and
should have early consideration. I do
not enter into the question as to whe-
ther distress is to be limited to one year,
to a year and a-half, or to two years, or
any particular time, or whether it should
be somewhat restrained, and should be
qualified with reference to the distress
upon the goods of third persons.
hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Court-
ney) said-"You are bound to do what
I ask you to do." He challenged the

The

89

Summary

{MAY 9, 1879}

Bill in no way took away the discretion all trivial cases of the kind referred to;
of the magistrates; on the contrary, its the magistrate, however, if he really
object was to leave their hands much wanted to inflict costs could, of course,
He wished it to be distinctly
more unfettered than they were at do so.
present, in the belief that their powers understood that it was not obligatory
upon the magistrates that the fine should
would be wisely exercised.
be imposed without costs. In that way,
he trusted it would be seen that the dis-
cretion of the magistrates had been abso-
lutely preserved.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Sum recoverable by summary order to be recoverable as a civil debt) agreed to.

Clause 7 (Payment by instalments of or security taken for payment of money). SIR HENRY JAMES moved to insert, after Sub-section 3, the words—

"Impose such imprisonment if default be made in payment of the sum or instalment at the time fixed, as the person liable to pay the same may be liable to if default be made in payment of a fine of a like amount imposed under this Act or otherwise."

He was informed that the practice had
been in the case of time being given to
issue a fresh summons calling upon the
proceeding that was
person to pay, a
quite unnecessary, and which, moreover,
caused expense. He had also been in
formed that power of imprisonment
existed in the Act, although he had not
been able to find it.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, the

hon. and learned Gentleman had exactly
stated what had passed between them.
He (Mr. Assheton Cross) had shown the
Amendment to the draftsman of the Bill,
and was assured that ample care had
been taken that the magistrate should
have the power which his hon. and
learned Friend desired for him. Before
Report, he trusted to be able to satisfy
him that such was the case.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause agreed to.

Clause 8 (Including of costs in small fines).

SIR WALTER B. BARTTELOT inquired why the fine of 58. under this clause did not carry costs?

Clause agreed to.

Clause 9 (Enforcing of recognizances by court of summary jurisdiction).

SIR HENRY JAMES moved, in page 4, line 14, after the word "retainer," to insert "or not to do or commit some act or thing."

Amendment agreed to.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, he had a verbal Amendment to make at the end of Clause 9. It was entirely a draftsman's Amendment, and was as follows:In Clause 9, line 25, to leave out the words "in like manner as sums are paid," in order to insert "by such person by whom such sums are payable.'

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 10 (Summary trial of children, unless objected to by parent or guardian).

MR. P. A. TAYLOR moved, in page 5, to leave out Sub-section D, as follows:

"When the child is a male, the court may, either in addition to or instead of any other punishment, adjudge the child to be, as soon as practicable, privately whipped, with not more

than six strokes of a birch rod, by a constable, in the presence of an inspector or other officer of police; and also in the presence, if he desires to be present, of the parent or guardian of the child."

He hoped the House would hesitate before it endorsed this punishment of flogging for a child-he had almost said a baby-for it was to apply to In these days of children of seven. general scepticism it appeared that MR. ASSHETON CROSS said, that they believed in nothing so strongly every magistrate to whom he was speak- as in flogging-they flogged in their ing must have felt the desire to impose Army and Navy, they flogged their a small penalty, while, at the same time, criminals, and now they were going he knew that even if he imposed a to establish or to legalize flogging for penalty of 18. or 28. the costs might amount to perhaps 108., and that, therefore, he was really inflicting a greater fine than was necessary. The fine of 58., without costs, was intended to apply to

infants. The only argument that he
had ever heard offered in favour of this
That was very
was that it was better to flog children
than to imprison them.
much like recommending a small dose

of arsenic as being less poisonous than | had had the honour to serve on the Seprussic acid. He could scarcely bring lect Committee on this Bill, and this was himself to believe that England, with all one thing, and, he might say, the only its wealth, with all its learning, and thing, in which he stood alone on that with all its means of enlightenment, was Committee; and it was the only thing really obliged to have recourse to the in which one Member had failed to barbarous practice of flogging children, make an impression upon the others, simply because it did not know what or to induce them in many material rebetter to do with them. This Bill would spect to alter their views. His dislike do far greater evil in England than the to flogging remained deeply-rooted, and mere flogging by officials that would he intended to give his utmost oppositake place in prison. No doubt, ma- tion to it. His reasons for supporting gistrates would very often have their that Amendment were these. If they hearts softened by the piteous little were to have flogging, how were they to wretches with whom they had to deal, proportion it? One child under 12 might and would hesitate to sentence them be exceedingly hardy, and would not to these punishments. But the effect mind it; another might be very delicate, that this Act would have throughout and it would be a most cruel punishEngland would be very different. Peo- ment. There would also be this diffiple throughout the country, finding culty-that the flogging would be done flogging inflicted by the State, would go by the hands of a constable, and they home and inflict additional chastisement had already had various public scandals on their unfortunate children. Only with regard to flogging by the hands of recently a Question was asked in that a constable. House about a child of nine years of age who had been beaten, and then had salt rubbed into its wounds. The story was not true, perhaps. The right hon. Gentleman said it was not true, or that it had been greatly exaggerated, and that the magistrates had said more beating had not been given than a child of nine deserved! Than a child of nine deserved! If a clause like this became law, brutish, ignorant persons would take the infliction of flogging by it as an example to be followed. He believed that House prided itself upon being a Christian Assembly; but he must say that clause, if it should pass, would, so far from carrying out the words of One reverenced by millions of people, only in effect say-" Suffer little children to come unto us, that we may flog them."

Amendment proposed,

In page 5, line 10, to leave out from the word "shillings," to the word "child," in line 17, inclusive.-(Mr. P. A. Taylor.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause.'

MR. HOPWOOD thought it right that he should make the observations he intended at that time, in order to enable the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to follow him. He most cordially supported the Amendment. He

Mr. P. A. Taylor

He did think that if all they could do to a little child was first to ascertain if it were fit to bear it, and then to submit it to the punishment of six strokes with a birch rod, it would be better to have no punishment at all. Hon. Members on the other side did not appear to sympathize with this view. They were very superior to those on that side, and looked down upon them from a lofty eminence as on foolish persons opposing a humane substitute for the prison. Some people seemed to think that six strokes with a birch rod were a better alternative than imprisonment. He did not think so, nor did he admit that imprisonment was the alternative. Would it not be much better to send a child home to its parent or guardian, and trust to the correction it would receive from them, rather than to sentence it to six strokes with the birch rod from the hands of a constable? It seemed to him to be much better to secure the correction of the child by the alternative of a fine, which would fall upon the parent or guardian, and make him more attentive to the child in the future, or, at all events, preserve it from indulging in those acts which would bring it within the Criminal Law.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS hoped the Committee would leave the clause as it stood in the Bill. In the first place, many parents took no heed of their children, and allowed them to run wild about the streets; and a good many

parents, if they were fined for the the only civilized country in Europe acts of their children, would inflict a which inflicted such punishments as much more severe penalty upon them these, he begged to propose as an than was provided by this clause. Look- Amendment in page 6, line 10, after the ing at the whole scope of this clause word "months" to leave out everything from the beginning to the end, its object to the end of line 17. was to keep a child from becoming a Amendment proposed, in page 6, criminal, and he did hope that the Com-line 10, to leave out from the word mittee would pass the clause. If the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. P. A. Taylor) would look at the Bill again, he would find that no child could come

under the exceedingly mild correction sanctioned by the clause unless he was seven years of age. He must also add that they had a very large Committee when the clause was under discussion, and that they all agreed to it except the hon. and learned Member for Stockport (Mr. Hopwood).

MR. JACOB BRIGHT thought that if the treatment proposed was desirable for some children it ought to be applied to all. He did not see why female children should be exempted, for what was good for a male child must also be good for a female.

COLONEL MAKINS observed, that that was the first time he had heard a champion of women's rights get up and claim for them a right to be flogged.

MR. HOPWOOD thought the Committee had just been favoured with an exhibition which he felt inclined to comment on, but on reflection he would let it pass.

months," to the word "police," in line 17, inclusive.-(Mr. P. A. Taylor.)

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the

Clause."

MR. ASSHETON CROSS trusted the Committee would keep the words.

SIR HENRY JAMES said, the clause provided for the punishment of children who, in the opinion of the Court, were not 14. Surely there ought to be some better mode of ascertaining the age than by merely looking.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. GIBSON) observed, that these words were quite familiar. They enabled the Court to ascertain the age of the child by any means it pleased.

Question put.

The Committee divided:-Ayes 100; Noes 19 Majority 81. (Div. List, No. 86.)

SIR HENRY JAMES suggested that further words should be inserted at the end of the 1st sub-section of the clause similar to the provision at the end of Subsection D, Clause 10, for the presence at the whipping of the parent or guardian of the child.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS observed, that the hon. and learned Member would find at the end of the Bill that by "child" was always intended a child under 12. This clause only referred to young persons," and the introduction of the words suggested would only lead to confusion.

SIR HENRY JAMES asked if there would be any objection to the insertion of the proviso with the alteration of "young person" for child?

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 (Summary conviction with consent of adult).

MR. GREGORY moved, in page 6, line 36, after the word "do," to insert