1899.] Youthful Offenders BUI. [125
in favour of the motion, which was then negatived by 293 to 152 votes.
A well-meaning measure dealing with the criminal classes was the Youthful Offenders Bill introduced by Lord James of Hereford ; who, on the motion for the second reading, explained its aim, which seemed to be the substitution of home discipline in the place of prison treatment. He proposed that when a youthful offender was convicted of any offence other than homicide the court should have the power to substitute (in the case of male offenders) private whipping with a birch rod for any other punishment. The whipping was to be graduated, and administered by a constable in the presence of an officer of police of higher rank, and of the parent or guardian of the child if he desired. Clause 3 provided that a child or young person might be sent to a reformatory after being whipped, and under clause 5 the magistrates had power to select some outside place of detention for a child during remand or committal for trial For instance, he might be placed under the care of a married constable, and thus saved the contamination of a jail. Under clause 6 a youthful offender could be sent direct to a reformatory. There was one clause which he was afraid would prove somewhat controversial — namely, clause 4, which threw obligations upon the parent or guardian of the child convicted. He believed that would be found to be a very beneficial clause, inasmuch as its provisions would tend to make parents more careful of their children. General approval of the bill was expressed by Lord Leigh and Lord Norton, and it was read a second time (June 19), and subsequently passed through its various stages. The Commons, however, either from want of leisure or of inclination, treated the bill with scant courtesy; and, in common with other useful proposals originating in the Upper House, it was put aside without any discussion.
The House of Lords, on the other hand, addressed itself seriously to the London Government Bill, as soon as it had been piloted through the Lower House. On the motion for the second "reading (June 20), its provisions having been ex- plained by the Duke of Devonshire, Lord Tweedmouth while not contesting the principle of the bill insisted that the first consideration should be the unity of London, and said that it was deplorable that the opportunity of dealing with the City had been lost. He believed that any other party, had it been in power, would have dealt with the question in a much more thorough manner, and he found serious fault with many of the details of the schema Lord Onslow, whilst generally defending the bill, said that there was nothing in the bill to prevent Parliament from dealing with the City of London on a subse- quent occasion, but Lord Bussell feared that the bill would lessen any such chance. Lord Kimberley trusted that it would be possible to establish some central body charged with the power of compelling, in case of default, the new municipalities to
