The Times, London, 13 March 1900,

LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which is to substitute whipping for imprisonment as a punishment for children and young persons. Various causes had contributed to reduce the number of convictions for indictable offences in recent years, yet still there was opportunity for doing more to check the supply of habitual offenders, and for that purpose the Bill was designed. Legislation in recent years had recognized the importance of keeping young persons from prison and substituting some other punishment, but the law was in the anomalous position that, while a magistrate could inflict the punishment of whipping in lieu of imprisonment on young offenders convicted of indictable offences, he had not the power of so dealing with summary convictions. The Legislature had of recent years extended the power of local authorities to make by-laws and infringements of these by children could not be called crimes; yet in default of payment of fines such children had been sent to prison for days and weeks. The Bill, which was identical with that which passed the House last Session, provided that a child or young person being a male convicted by indictment or summarily of any offence other than homicide may be adjudged to be privately whipped with a birch rod by a constable in the presence of an inspector, to the extent of six strokes for a child of six, 12 for a boy under 14, and 18 in other cases. A young offender being remanded might, under the 4th clause, instead of being sent to prison, be placed in the custody of any fit person willing to receive him, and should the boy escape he might be arrested without warrant. […] The 5th clause gave powers to Courts of assize and quarter sessions to commit to an industrial school. EARL CARRINGTON said he was glad to find by Clause 1 of the Bill a child under 12 was not to receive more than 12 strokes with the birch rod. Eighteen strokes was the maximum number which could be inflicted on a boy of any age. That was rather too high, for noble Lords would remember that when they were at school they never received more than 12. (Laughter.) LORD NORTON expressed his gratitude to Lord James for introducing this Bill. His noble friend had hit two or three important points where the law was most defective. Sending children to prison was most cruel. Corporal punishment had a much more deterrent effect. In 99 cases out of every 100 the parents were the really guilty persons. In recent years the State had placed itself far too much in loco parentis towards children, thus relieving parents of their proper responsibility. […] The EARL of KIMBERLEY said he did not view the Bill with unqualified dissatisfaction. There was a good deal to be said both ways. There was a strong argument in favour of a Bill of this kind from the desire that children should not be sent to prison. He entirely sympathized with that desire; but they must not shut their eyes to the disadvantages of and objections to a system of whipping. His noble friend had told them it would be seldom that a boy who had been whipped once would come back again. He could tell their lordships on excellent authority that, at the school where he was, a boy, not unconnected with that assembly, though not a member of it, came back 18 times. (Laughter.) He knew boys personally who did not care in the slightest degree how often they were whipped, and he could mention a very distinguished person who was not present who did not care a fig about it. (Laughter.) Therefore he did not suppose that whipping was a perfectly efficacious remedy. He somewhat questioned the wisdom of a maximum of 18 strokes, because they were going to entrust the administration of this Bill to every justice throughout the country sitting in petty sessions, and any offence, however small, might be punished by whipping. He did not wish to decry his brother justices, but in so large a body there were men who took a wrong view of punishment, and there might be an outcry against whipping. He welcomed the provision by which boys who were going to reformatories would not be sent to prison, and he hoped the Bill would work well. The BISHOP of WINCHESTER thanked the noble lord for introducing this Bill. Though it was a small measure it might be far-reaching in its consequences. With regard to the remarks of the noble earl as to the danger of entrusting these powers to unwise or over-severe justices, he thought that if in after life a boy would be the worse for a mistaken whipping he would be ten thousand times worse for six months’ imprisonment, which was the alternative. […] He believed that if this Bill became law it would effect an untold amount of good.