"Give him a doing": the birching of young offenders in Scotland (1).
According to the Scottish Home Office regulations, a judicial birching was to be carried out in the police cells or courthouses, and it was to be "sufficiently severe to cause a repetition of it to be dreaded." The birch rod, which was to be applied "across the bare flesh of the buttocks," was not a rod, but a bundle of twigs resembling a gardener's broom. In preparation for its appearance in court, the birch was soaked in water (not brine as school children believed!) so that the brittle twigs would not break off during use. Every birch was made according to careful specifications laid out by the Home Office and was inspected and approved by the sheriff. The "normal procedure," regulated in Scotland under section seventy-four of the Prisons (Scotland) Act, 1860, was "for the boy to be laid flat on a form, [with] two police officers sitting astride ... one holding his elbows and the other his feet, while a third officer administers the punishment." In England, under conditions laid down in section ten of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879, "boys were bent over low benches and tables, or strapped to triangular apparatuses." (4) In all cases, the Home Office recommended that before being birched every boy be given a medical examination by a police surgeon. In the Airdrie and Falkirk cases, a medical doctor determined that nine-year old Sprot was too frail to withstand a whipping, and he was placed on one-year probation; (5) Ewart and Low, however, were deemed physically fit and were birched. The police surgeon who examined Hay also witnessed his birching and concluded that Willie had "suffered no ill effects." (6)
Birching, and its earlier incarnation as whipping or flogging, had been used as a form of punishment in Britain since the Middle Ages. It was usually administered in public, either at the cart's tail or at a public whipping post. Women received corporal punishment for the same offences as men until 1820, when the statutes permitting female offenders to be whipped, publicly or privately, were abolished. In the middle of the nineteenth century a series of criminal law commissions devoted to the rationalization of British law decided that whipping was also an unsuitable penalty for adult men because it inflicted "an ignominious and indelible disgrace on the offender ... rendered him callous," and greatly "obstructed his return to any honest course of life." By 1861, only a few exceptions remained in English law. In Scotland the Whipping Act (1862) provided that no person over sixteen could be whipped for theft or for crimes committed against a person or property. (7)
Beginning in 1850 a series of governmental commissions were struck to examine the position of children in relation to the law. The treatment of boy offenders was discussed in the House of Lords Committee on Juvenile Delinquency and Transportation (1847), the Select Committee on Prison Discipline (1850), the Select Committee on Criminal and Destitute Juveniles (1852-53), the Committee on Reformatories and Industrial Schools (1884), the Departmental Committee on Probation of Offenders (1907), the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Juvenile Offenders (1927), and the Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment (Cadogan) Committee (1938). Generally, the purpose of these commissions was to hear evidence from people experienced in child welfare work and prison reform, to examine alternatives to imprisonment, and to consider the role of judicial punishment as a form of deterrence, retribution, and rehabilitation in the treatment of juvenile delinquency. The deliberations of the early commissions, however, were complicated by the "discovery of adolescence" in the late nineteenth century by the new sciences of psychology, anthropology, and sociology, which decreed this period of life to be potentially perilous. It was asserted that "many adolescents ... failed during this period to make a proper adjustment to their surroundings as defined by home, school and work. The outcome could be the first steps in a criminal calling." (8)
The general view adopted from the mid-nineteenth century to the Young Offenders Committee (1927), which formed the basis of the Children and Young Persons Act (1933), reflected many elements of the late-Victorian conception of male-delinquency. The various acts regulating juvenile justice suggested that whipping was an unsuitable penalty for adults as well as for girls, for whom corporal punishment disappeared except in reformatories (9); however, whipping continued to be regarded as an ideal method of treating boy offenders. But by the early twentieth century whipping was falling out of favour in England and it began to be replaced by probation for first offenders under the Probation of Offenders Act (1907). In Scotland, however, despite opposition, birching continued to be used alongside probation. This article examines the battle over the birch in Scotland, where by the 1930s a coalition of anti-birching labour organizations, women's groups, rural and urban police, magistrates, and social workers were challenging the use of this time-honoured method of punishment.
In Britain in the mid-nineteenth century the royal commissions drew a portrait of the delinquent boy that resulted in the construction of a new boundary around the boy offender. This portrait, which was framed in the light of an offender's youth, recognized the emotional and physical changes at puberty and the need for age-appropriate forms of punishment. With a new emphasis on the influence of environmental circumstances such as poverty, the boy labour problem, and a "degenerate family-life" in causing juvenile crime and delinquency, talk of sin and retribution were replaced by a determination to employ a more scientific assessment of the offender's moral judgment, lack of discipline, self-control, and home environment. (10) Work among boys in the 1820s to 1840s had alerted many early child welfare workers like William Brebner, Governor of the Glasgow Bridewell, to two classes of young offender: the "offspring of ignorance, depravity and neglect" and the "desperately wicked" repeat offender, for whom prison, with all its privations, was a "comfortable asylum." Brebner believed that intervention at an early stage would prevent the former from moving from the "depraved and neglected" stage to the "desperately wicked stage." (11) Mary Carpenter, the famous English child-saver, who observed a similar phenomenon, applied her theory of child psychology to the sociological reality she observed in Bristol. (12) In 1852 a prison inspector described the "street children" of Liverpool, who lived under arches, in privies, and in low lodging-houses, as "all slaves of a certain condition ... Their parents have abandoned them, or they have abandoned their parents ... They do nothing but come in and out of prison." (13)
In view of this understanding of the environmental causes of juvenile delinquency various people who gave evidence at departmental commissions argued that, because of the "contaminating," "ruinous," and "most mischievous effect" that prison had on a boy offender's character, shorter methods of punishment should replace the long prison sentences commonly handed out to repeat offenders. (14) According to John Smith, Governor of the Edinburgh Gaol, "the fact that a boy has been imprisoned ruins him for life." (15) To many, an obvious alternative was the "sharp short punishment" (16) variously described as flogging, whipping, lashing, or birching. Corporal punishment was promising for a number of reasons: it was inexpensive; it made the reduced prison sentence more palatable to conservatives; and it treated one of the chief apparent causes of juvenile crime, which was described as boys' "ruling passion" to be "considered as men." (17)
Corporal punishment enabled court and prison workers to treat boys as boys. Therefore many Irish, English, and Scots authorities strongly recommended a moderate "schoolboy" flogging for young offenders. (18) "If you treat them as boys you have a very much better chance of doing well with them," said a Liverpool prison inspector. (19) An enthusiastic English chaplain regarded flogging as the "wholesome" alternative to a long term in prison. (20) The Surveyor-General of Prisons in England stressed that its promise lay in "the power that it exerts in deterring and acting upon a boy's fear," especially when it was combined "with a short period of solitary confinement." (21) In the words of the Liverpool inspector, it "acts in terrorem." (22) A Middlesex police sergeant testified that "boys who laugh at being put into a Dungeon, and doubly laugh at flogging with a Cat [o'nine-tails], are upon their Knees blubbering and praying not to be flogged with the Birch Rod, it deters them more than any thing else." (23) Even court workers who were reluctant to enforce it had misgivings about giving "up the power of inflicting it." (24) Boys "dread that Kind of Punishment much more than Imprisonment," the latter being seen to leave a "permanent mark or brand on a boy," said an Edinburgh sheriff. In his view, flogging did not leave an "indelible Mark on them throughout their after Life." (25) Despite the special care taken, reformatory staff and prison officials stressed that because of the laceration it frequently caused "it ought to be administered some days before the boys ... leave the prison" to prevent any boy going "through the country and make an exhibition of himself ... and obtaining pence in that way." (26)
By stressing the schoolboy nature of corporal punishment and the need for paternal surveillance and discipline, commissioners and court workers in the late nineteenth century focused upon the juvenile status of the boy offender rather than his social class background. (27) They also emphasized the responsibility of the entire community to oversee the preservation of this time-honoured method of literally whipping boys into shape. Armed with a birch rod and the loco parentis clauses of various nineteenth-century child welfare acts, court officials argued that judicial flogging could bestow tremendous benefits on the entire community by abolishing the problem of juvenile crime. (28) This was to be achieved by treating the adolescent boys committed to their attention to the same disciplinary measures they used on their own children. The governor of the Edinburgh gaol claimed "were any of my Children to become amenable to the Law ... I should certainly make Choice of sound Whipping ... In making this Choice I should have respect both to what I believed to be best for the Interest of my Child and the Community." (29) "I am certain," the Sheriff of the County of Edinburgh stated, "that many a Boy might have been saved if the Law had treated him as a wise Parent would treat his Child in such Circumstances ... [especially] if he is one of the poorer Class." (30) Historical studies of youth and family recognize that late-nineteenth-century fears about adolescent maladjustment in general, and the fate of working-class youth in particular, enabled middle-class alarmists to transform their "ageist and essentially class based views into what could pass for, indeed, did pass for, a scientific analysis of a new social problem." (31) The timelessness of this rite of patriarchal authority was expressed almost a century later during a House of Lords debate by the Earl of Glasgow, who told the House in 1944 that "he wanted to debunk the propaganda about caning being bad for people ... I know most of you have been caned in your youth for the good of your souls, and I cannot see any brutalizing signs on your faces. [Laughter.]" (32)
These campaigns designed to save convicted children and children at risk from the adult jails resulted in the expansion of the entire child welfare system, which began to include a greater age range of children and more types of offences. Mid-Victorian child-saving institutions included certified reformatories, industrial schools, industrial training ships for boys, special voluntary rescue homes for girls, and industrial day schools for truants. By the early twentieth century, the two main compilation acts that regulated the juvenile justice system culminated (in 1908) with the Children Act and (in 1933) with the Children and Young Person Act. The 1907 Probation of Offenders Act was incorporated into each of these. Once probation was added to the list of possible punishments for juvenile offenders, it was reported that probation had become the "first step" of the juvenile justice system. (33) Ideally the probation officer would be a Sunday school teacher, or someone connected with the Boy Scouts or some other youth club, "so that the officer may have his ward as much as possible under this care, and give him the best possible attention." Probation was praised as having "introduced a new era in penal treatment, because it recognizes man as an intelligence to be reformed by methods directed to the inner self, rather than a machine to be tinkered at externally." (34)
Every change in the developing juvenile court system re-opened the discussion about the place of corporal punishment in the rehabilitation of young offenders. The reformatory and industrial school commissions of the 1880s focused on its role in the regime of reform school discipline. In 1885 corporal punishment was included in section four of the Criminal Law Amendment Act as the penalty for a sexual assault on a girl under thirteen years of age. However by the early twentieth century the issue of birching was surrounded with mounting controversy as dissenting voices argued that it was a wholly unsatisfactory method of dealing with young people because it was a poor deterrent to law breaking. The chief official inquiry of the 1920s, the Departmental Committee on the Treatment of Young Offenders (1927), investigated every aspect of the juvenile courts from the age of criminal responsibility to the role of the reformatory, probation, and corporal punishment. Corporal punishment was the only issue on which the committee was not unanimous. Nevertheless, the authority of the court to issue birching orders was retained in the 1933 acts under various summary jurisdiction and common law acts in England, Wales, and Scotland, and boys could be whipped summarily for indictable offences, misdemeanor offences (such as throwing stones, malicious mischief, and playing football on Sunday), and common law offences, including lewd practices and indecent assault. (35)
By the 1920s the growing doubt about the effectiveness of corporal punishment led the great majority of magistrates to discontinue its use on juvenile offenders. This trend was reflected in the Cadogan Committee, which after reviewing the evidence from the preceding decade, determined that since 1932 probation had replaced birching in England, Ireland, and Wales; the only exceptions were a "few country districts or in the smaller towns." This was not the case in Scotland, however, even though comparisons were difficult because of differences in Scottish and English criminal law and procedures. The committee cited statistics for 1935 which indicated that the total number of juveniles found guilty of offences in juvenile courts in England and Wales was 145,215, of whom 192 were birched. In Scotland the corresponding number of offenders was 49,378, of whom 231 were birched. The majority of the 231 birching orders were in cities, not towns: seventy in Edinburgh, sixty-nine in Glasgow, and twenty-six in Aberdeen. The Cadogan Committee concluded that there was "little doubt that in the cases ... in which it is a possible penalty whipping is ordered more freely in Scotland than in England." (36)
The Cadogan Committee attributed Scotland's retention of the birch to the juvenile court's reluctance to use trained probation officers, as the English-justices did, when dealing with young offenders. It should not be implied, however, that Scots failed to see the value of probation. The Criminal Returns for Glasgow for the year 1910 reveal that of possible penalties that were available for the 634 boys who appeared in court, 134 boys were put on probation, 31 were sent to industrial schools, 54 were sent to reformatories, 30 proceedings were dropped, 36 boys were acquitted, 36 sentences were delayed, 114 boys were fined, 7 were whipped, and 192 boys were admonished. (37) Early in the twentieth century, Scottish probation officers announced that probation had become a major scheme for diverting young offenders from the reform school system. (38) It was recommended by child welfare workers in place of the reformatory and as a penalty for boys who violated their probation orders. According to the chief constable of Edinburgh, birching should be an extension of the probation officer's role as surrogate parent. Drawing upon forty years of service in England and Scotland, he clarified, for the Young Offenders (Scotland) Committee in 1925, that the probation officer's obligation was to "perform the duties which really belong to the parents or guardians." In cases where boys on probation were neglected by their parents "whipping should also be ordered as an additional penalty in cases of serious misbehavior or repeated convictions." (39) So it is inaccurate to say that Scots neglected to see the value of probation. Rather, it was incorporated into the range of options available in the juvenile court. Probation was generally offered to a first offender who "has a good record for school attendance, a good home and respectable parents"; however, "if the offender has been previously in trouble he is sometimes whipped, sometimes sent to an industrial school, or reformatory, depending on the nature of the crime." (40)
In the nineteenth century Scottish child-welfare legislation, juvenile reformatories, and industrial schools for children at risk had been regarded as some of the most progressive child-welfare achievements of the century. (41) Historians support the contemporary view that Scottish child welfare was innovative; (42) however, although the sources available to the historian do not fully reveal to what extent or why the Scots retained the birch, the twentieth-century anti-birching lobby accepted the statistics that suggested that the birch was used excessively, and they regarded it as a national shame. By the early twentieth century talking about the youth problem became another way of talking about a wide range of new and pressing social problems including unemployment, poverty, and the impact of war-strain, on the formative development of all children. In cases of boys who were raised without strong male role models, the alarm of social workers was added to fears about juvenile-gang violence, addictions to comic books and trashy crime stories, the invasion of American "blood and thunder" movies, cigarette smoking, billiard saloons, suburban-style housing estates and venereal disease. (43)
Concerns about child welfare and, by extension, the treatment of juvenile delinquents--particularly the use of corporal punishment--were expressed across the social and political spectrum. Victor Bailey has divided the struggle over corporal punishment in England into two camps: retributive "proponents" who favoured the birch, and reformative "opponents" who deplored it. (44) The same terminology can be applied to Scotland in the early twentieth century, where the anti-birching lobby was led by a loose coalition of social workers, child psychologists, trade and labour organizations, and women's groups. This lobby, which reached its peak in 1937, created a public outcry on behalf of the boys who were birched by three Airdrie and Falkirk magistrates.
From the early 1920s to the final years of the Second World War, the office of the Secretary of State for Scotland, which dealt with Home Office affairs, including education, local government, Scots law, prisons, and courts, repeatedly received protest letters with thousands of signatures from citizens' groups and trade union organizations demanding that the statutes permitting corporal punishment be repealed. In 1923 the Perth Trades and Industrial Council sent a resolution stating: "We believe that it is inhumane, and that it tends to brutalize not only the person who receives that punishment, but also the person who inflicts the punishment." (45) In 1924 the Falkirk and District Trades and Labour Council called the birch "a relic of a barbarous time." (46) In 1925 the Paisley Co-operative Defense Committee warned, "the use of the birch rod for young boys in our district is causing great resentment amongst the majority of the people." (47) During the war years, the chairman of the Birching Protest Committee of Brechin produced 2,182 signatures on petitions circulated by "busy people" in "war factories and homes." Defining the birch as a class-based form of punishment, he told the Secretary of State, "we have yet to hear of a wealthy child being so treated." (48) The Home Office's response to public pressure was to open various departmental files on issues pertaining to the courts use of the birch and to attempt to keep track of information about the cases that reached their attention, but it was concluded at the time that "no action seems necessary." (49)
In the House of Commons, a number of attempts were made between 1930 and 1936 to have the question put before Parliament. Under pressure from their constituents, Labour MPs introduced private member's bills to repeal corporal punishment legislation, but without success. Despite objections from child-welfare experts, the Howard League, the Society of Friends, and magistrates' associations that the corporal punishment of young offenders was ineffective, the general public was of the opinion that crime was rising and conservatives concluded that the solution was a tougher attitude toward treatment of young offenders. In March 1937, however, the Home Secretary Sir John Simon at last yielded to pressure from the Howard League and announced the appointment of the Departmental (Cadogan) Committee on Corporal Punishment. (50) Seven months later the Scottish press reported the Falkirk and Airdrie birching cases. In response, a large and vocal section of the public, including the Scottish Women's Co-operative Guild, the Scottish Labour Party, police and magistrates' associations, and leaders of the youth movement, jumped to the defence of these working-class lads. Expressing "horror and abhorrence of such brutality," (51) they sent copies of the letter they wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland to press, and sent deputations to the Home Office, while thousands signed petitions against the practice of sheriffs ordering the birch for small boys who were charged with first offences. Together, these groups produced evidence that Britain was "the only one of the so-called civilized countries which retains whipping as part of its penal machinery." (52) They claimed that Scotland stood out even more because it had the highest frequency of birching in Britain. They demanded that all birching cease until the question of the corporal punishment of juvenile offenders could be put before the House of Commons.
In 1937 the anti-birching lobby produced its own medical and political arguments and statistics that challenged the right of the court to use corporal punishment. Whereas the proponents had argued that the impartial and clinical nature of birching administered according to Home Office rules under the surveillance of professionals made it a highly effective and safe method of punishment, anti-birching doctors in the 1930s argued that these were exactly the features that made it destructive and dangerous. Notable among the professionals involved were the doctors who played an important part both in the acceptance of birching as a rational form of punishment and in its rejection as psychologically dangerous and socially destructive. In 1937, for example, the British Medical Journal stated that a judicial birching could cause harm to both the body and mind of the "growing human being," but what was truly serious was that it "might well confirm the offender in his potentially criminal ways ... [;] to tie him hand and foot to a tripod and flog him with a brine-soaked birch seems the best way to make a boy of 8 years look upon society as his natural enemy." In this physician's view the aim of the juvenile court should be not to "punish the delinquent but to discover what social, familial, and personal factors are responsible for his `anti-social tendencies.'" (53)
Supporting the anti-birching medical view were psychologists and psychoanalysts who claimed that there were critical differences between corporal punishment administered in the police offices and the same punishment administered at home or school. At home "there was a relation of mutual affection between the child and the parent. In school the boy felt at least respect and often affection for the schoolmaster. But in a court case the boy was birched by a policeman who he had never seen before." (54) Being birched by a stranger would result in bitterness and not rehabilitation. Two leading child psychologists, W. Clarke Hall and Cyril Burt, decreed it to have little deterrent value. Burt, a recognized authority on the psychology of the juvenile delinquent, concluded that "when all is said, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred corporal punishment is likely to make the incipient transgressor not more penitent, but more furtive and defiant." (55) He considered it the lazy magistrate's way out because it did nothing to address the causes of juvenile crime. (56)
By the 1930s, discussions of the physical effects of birching began also to incorporate the psychoanalytic ideas widely popular at the time. In 1937, readers of the Edinburgh Evening News could come across alarming accounts of the psychosexual dangers of caning. Under the psychiatric gaze birching was revealed as a reflection not of the youthful offender's depravity but of that of its practitioners in the justice system. "The strongest argument against corporal punishment," a psychologist wrote:
is that it is liable to set up sexual perversion either in the administrator, the victim, or the onlooker. Every psychologist knows the misery suffered by and caused by, the sadist, a pervert in whom sexual excitement is caused by inflicting corporal punishment, and by the masochist, in whom sex excitement is caused by suffering corporal punishment. In those who look on, either sadism or masochism may be set up ... I can say definitely that again and again these abnormalities can be traced to occasions in the patient's life when he has received a thrashing, watched a thrashing, or given a thrashing to someone else ... Where it is still regarded as essential, at least the following points should be watched: (a) It should never of administered by a person of the opposite sex. This is bad for the sex health of both ... (b) It should be done in absolute privacy with no one looking on. (c) It should only be on the hand. (d) It should never be inflicted in temper. (57)
Added to the opponents' evidence that birching was a legacy of another age and was likely to result in lifelong bitterness, cynicism, or sexual fetishism, were arguments that drew attention to unequal class and gendered power relations of the juvenile justice system. Mark Liddle has recently argued that changes in legal administration and political relations occur where "patterns of censure and idealization take shape as part of a process of `boundary-policing,' which are articulated ... as part of the (gendered) struggle for hegemony." This process has been studied most notably between aristocratic and bourgeoisie masculinities during the rise of capitalism, but he argues that it also occurred with the "rise of the English working class during the 1800s" when "clearer definitions of bourgeois masculinity" developed alongside "the rise of new forms of masculinity among working men." (58) The birching debate in Scotland also suggests a re-examination of class and gender boundaries and an acknowledgement of the potential political power of youth.
The Scots' pro-birching lobby cloaked their paternalism in a rhetoric of universal masculinity which saw the youth problem in terms of a timeless boy culture; this enabled them to construct crimes as pranks and to see corporal punishment as a means of taming wild boys, rough lads, and the sons of war widows--regardless of social status. In contrast, one of the many of the abolitionists who linked birching to his criticism of the time-honoured traditions of the upper class was John Parker, a Labour MP whose speech in the House of Commons was widely reported in the Scottish press in April 1936. He pointed out that corporal punishment was still a "custom" in elite educational institutions, "particularly Eton,"
but we should not allow the fact that we have so many representatives of that school in this House to prejudice our judgment on this subject. To-day, only the very rich still feel a strong desire to preserve the right of buying the very doubtful privilege of birching for their offspring ... The ordinary decent Englishman's view ... is that birching should be abolished. (59)
The Scottish Labour Party supported his view. Fredrick Pethick-Lawrence, MP for Edinburgh East, said it was "quite wrong to argue, as some English members were inclined to do, that the practice was no worse than that which is obtained in certain English public schools." (60) In 1942 the delegates at the Scottish Conference of the Women's Labour Party announced, "We working women regard this as serious ... since it is the sons of our class who are birched." (61)
To Scottish Labour Party activists in the 1930s and 1940s the public outcry over the Airdrie and Falkirk birchings expressed their own abhorrence of the abuse of power by state authorities. Labour groups across Scotland lobbied their local MPs and sent petitions to the Secretary of State and the Home Office. Peter Wilson, Secretary for the Grangemouth Trades Council and the local Labour Party, expressed his organization's "emphatic protest against these brutal sentences." (62) Reacting to a separate birching order issued by Sheriff Hendry in Stirling in a case where two lads aged eleven and thirteen had stolen five apples from a garden, the Labour Party protested most strongly that "this was more a boyish prank than a crime ... This type of punishment ... rather degrades young lads ... in no way does it help the lad to learn to become a better citizen." (63)
In the 1930s the largest body of organized working-class women in Britain, the Co-operative Women's Guild, joined in the anti-birching protest. Formed in 1892 with 22 branches, by 1913 it had grown to 157 branches and 12,420 members; (64) by 1930 it boasted 80,000 members nation wide and had become an influential wing of the labour and feminist movements. In the 1930s, Scottish Cooperative Women's Guilds from small towns across the country expressed outrage at judicial birching. The Greenock Central Co-op Women's Guild urged, "that Probation Officers, in view of their knowledge of child psychology be consulted before sentence is passed." In its view "the birching of juveniles defeats its own purpose by inflicting a storm on the child mind." (65) In 1937 a resolution was supported by 32,000 women delegates at the annual congress of the Scottish Cooperative Women's Guild (66) that called for the "necessary legislation passed which will prohibit this barbarous form of punishment from the Statute Book." (67) In December, 6,892 people signed a petition organized by the Scottish Co-operative Women's Guild stated that birching would "embitter the offender without producing an active restraint [on] ill doing." (68)
By the 1930s a number of professionals associated with the children's court were defying the law and refusing to carry out their duties in the administration of corporal punishment. This was not the first or last time that at least some magistrates and police officials objected to their part in judicial child birching. The minutes of an 1893 meeting of the Chief Constables Club on the "subject of whipping of juvenile offenders" report that the Greenock Chief Constable wanted a clause removed from the 1860 and 1886 statutes which stated that once a constable was named a "whipper" by the Sheriff, "it was binding." In his view, "no punishment can be lawfully imposed on a constable for refusing to whip an offender." He instructed constables to refuse "because of the employment of police constables for the infliction of corporal punishment of juveniles ... is calculated to lessen the usefulness and efficiency of officers charged with the preservation of the peace, and is therefore, a mistake." (69) In November 1937, a letter to the Secretary of State copied to the sheriff and the Lord Advocate announced that the magistrates at Kilmarnoch had joined the anti-birching protest. They objected to the assignment of chief constables to whip young offenders and they had voted, with the unanimous support of the Kilmarnoch Town Council, to refuse to permit birching in buildings and offices under their control. (70)
In November 1937, the Scottish Justices and Magistrates Association also distanced itself from those in the profession who continued to issue birching orders by publishing an announcement in local Scottish newspapers that "we in this country have not yet made such extensive use of the probation system." (71) Similar action was taken by the Ayr Town Council, which on 21 December 1937 resolved to forward to the Secretary of State for Scotland a finding by the Police and Law Committee with regard to whipping. The council reported that it had been ten years since a child in that area had been birched and it wanted to formally discontinue the practice. It acknowledged its responsibility under the 1860 Act to nominate a court whipper but the committee elected not to do so: the "question of birching juveniles has caused consternation among people of all classes, and it cried for redress." (72) Town councilors were quoted in the local press as describing the birching act as a "monstrous scheme," a "hideous brutality," and an "obnoxious duty ... A storm of criticism is at present raging in Scotland over the question of ... whipping ... [I]t may not be improbable that as an instrument of punishment ... the birch rod will soon be relegated to the realm of the stocks and pillory." (73) When it was suggested that the Ayr birching cases be sent to the near by town of Cummock, the Cummock Town Council objected. R.D. Hunter, the town clerk, told the Secretary of State "this form of punishment is at present the subject of a Government inquiry my Council strongly object to the proposed arrangements and will exert their influence to have this form of punishment abolished by Parliament." (74)
The issue was raised again during the Second World War when the Chief Constable of the Glasgow Police informed the Secretary of State's office that their associate whipper was not in fact a constable but a retired messenger employed by the force and that the chief whipper was "a Waiter attached to this Department." The sheriff requested that he find "a middle-aged family man" to take the post, but no constable was "prepared to take this duty which is regarded with considerable distaste, particularly by family men." The chief constable informed the Secretary of State both of his reluctance to name a new whipper and of his preference for probation. (75)
The Secretary of State also received protest letters from private citizens such as Fredrick Drennan who, exercising his "right as a citizen," wrote: "It seems absurd ... that a father should be asked to go to the Polling booth to vote in order that his 9 year old children should be birched." (76) Protests also came from citizen's groups like the Howard League for Prison Reform. In October 1937 the Glasgow Herald reported that anti-whipping advocate Winifred Elkin of the League, considered the most appropriate replacement for the whip to be the system of probation. Her letter was fueled by outrage over the October 1937 birching of Low and Sprot:
A boy gets into trouble because he has not learnt to adapt himself to the life of the community. What is needed is that he should be re-educated, and the probation system was devised for this purpose. A brief experience of pain cannot alter a boy's point of view of teach him how to direct this energy or control his impulses. All it can do, and unfortunately often does, is to make the boy a `swank' and prove to his friends that he is a `tough'. Vanity makes him repeat his offence. (77)
During the war, the Bretchen Anti-Birching Committee reminded the public, "It has been a criminal offense to inflict corporal punishment [in the USSR] since the Russian Revolution. The children of twenty-five years ago are today the Red Army, the Red Navy, and the Red Air force and the answer is Moscow, Sevastopol and Stalingrad." (78)
The reaction to these anti-birching arguments from twentieth-century Scottish child welfare workers and parents who favored judicial flogging must be understood in the context of the Children and Young Persons Act of 1933. Since that bill had made its way through parliament in 1932, juvenile delinquency was considered to be rising throughout Britain. Whereas those who supported the act argued that it dealt with all aspects of child welfare, including rehabilitation and prevention, those opposed to it claimed that juvenile lawlessness had increased because the act relieved parents of their responsibilities, robbed the juvenile court of the power to punish, and put excessive power in the hands of social workers. The response of the pro-birching lobby in Scotland to the criticism of birching was to update the ideas of their Victorian predecessors in their assessment of birching as an age-appropriate method of punishing the young delinquent. They argued that flogging played an important part in tailoring the punishment to fit the age and physical stature of the individual. Whether it was combined with probation, the reform school, a fine, of a care order, birching permitted the court to take into account reports submitted by "Parents, Probation Officers, Teachers and Police Officers that the lad is a fit subject, mentally and physically to undergo punishment." Frequently the age of the offender was a determining factor; however, the fact that "[s]ome boys are more sturdily built than others of the same age" was recognized by magistrates and supported their proposal that the age could be raised to seventeen or eighteen for undersized boys and lowered to six or seven for huskier little boys. Court officials noted too that boys were aware that their ages were considered significant in the court's determination of sentence. "Learned Sheriffs have told me" said the Chairman of the Scottish Juvenile Courts, that the idea "prevails in the minds of lads who are inclined to indulge in crime ... that they are safe from corporal punishment after they had passed the age of fourteen, and that in practice nothing more serious than a period of probation will be imposed upon them." Some court officials maintained "so long as corporal punishment is permitted in Schools for offences of a less serious character than those with which the courts are concerned it seems inappropriate to abolish [it]." (79)
In 1937, in his statement before the Cadogan Committee, the procurator fiscal at Glasgow, J. Drummond Strathern, stated that birching was necessary because "by many juvenile offenders and their adult friends a sentence of probation is regarded as a `let-off' and is openly scoffed." He claimed to have overheard parents of juvenile offenders say "they can do nothing with him; he has never been here before; `he'll get off.'" (80) In 1944 a solicitor informed the readers of the letters to the editor's page of the Edinburgh Evening Dispatch that the demeanor of many children outside the Juvenile Court was one of "such hilarity as to show that ... they regarded their having to appear there as nothing other than an awkward interruption to their Saturday morning plans." His concern was that the admonitions frequently handed to boys were interpreted as: "I got aff." A child under ten could not understand legal terms like "admonition or probation ... [but] he would understand that a good licking from a policeman in uniform before he left the court was highly unpleasant.... At present he goes away quite gaily, and from my own observations, [telling] his friends, `Och, it's naething.'" (81)
Clearly a vocal group of Scots magistrates and child-welfare workers did not see probation as a severe enough penalty for the hard boys from tough families stereotypically associated with Scottish working-class family culture. They repeated the Victorians' stock complaint that the alarming increases in juvenile crime were due to the incompetence of parents to train their children. These were problems that could easily be solved via the birch rod, which suited the naturally inferior state of boyhood." (82) In a Scotsman articled entitled "Too Sparing with the Rod?" an anonymous clergyman wrote: "we must admit that modern methods of child psychology, &c. have hopelessly failed and that reversion to well-tried, time-honoured methods is urgently required." (83)
In reply to anti-birching arguments put forward by the groups like the Bretchen Anti-Birching Committee that these children--the offspring of the "heroes of the Battle of Britain, of the Mediterranean, of Egypt," must have "elementary protection," (84) John Robertson, the Chief Constable of Greenock, replied that he had the impression that it was not "possible to draw blood in with the average birch in use. If I had my choice I would use a green birch and I would cut them with it." In a speech that was widely reported in the Scottish press, Robertson stated "Birching as it is done to-day does not seem to be a good method ... because it is not harsh enough. I have never seen a child benefit from birching because he found it was not half so bad as he expected it to be. His attitude was--I could take that standin' on ma heid." (85)
By the 1930s whipping was ordered for boys whose parents were considered to have neglected their responsibilities and for boys with histories of family violence and brutality. A judicial birching was presented as the rational opposite of the violent and impassioned whipping by a brutal parent. (86) The state-sanctioned violence of the sheriff's birch was contrasted with the cuffing, cussing, and brutality that were considered to be a daily part of Scottish working-class family discipline (and traditionally the father's domain). (87) The sheriff's birching was not done in anger, the supporters argued, but under the watchful eye of the physician. In this the medical profession played a prominent role and the law incorporated medical expertise. The birch was recognized as an ideal form of punishment "in the case of weak parents of a widow, where the son had got out of hand through not being punished." Dr. Douglas Kerr, Police Surgeon to the City of Edinburgh, thought that "a birching in such a case often cures the offender, whilst sending him to an approved school ... would deprive his widowed mother or ill-to-do parents of his assistance in maintaining the home." (88)
The physician's role in the birching procedure was described in the report of the Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment in 1938. The fees were set and paid for by the Home Office and he witnessed the birching, kept detailed case notes, and counted the careful applications of the birch rod. The physician also had the power to intervene at any point, whether to re-examine the offender or to modify or terminate the punishment as he saw fit. This description of the birching of a fifteen-year old Glaswegian watch-thief in 1937 illustrates the medico-scientific nature of rationally calculated punishment:
The boy was medically examined ... particular attention was paid to the condition of the heart, the stomach and the pelvis ... While the doctor recorded his findings in a book ... noting the exact time, the boy, already stripped to his undervest and trousers, was made to lie face downwards on a table similar to the couch in a doctor's surgery, but slightly shaped to receive comfortably the shape of the body. Stretched out to the fullest, held by two men, one grasping his hands, the other his feet, the boy was about 3 feet from the floor. The last action of the executioner before administering the rod was to bare the buttocks. The vest was raised to just below the kidneys, the trousers pulled down to the thighs. Standing at a distance of about 4 feet from the table, the bircher ... raised the rod just beyond his head, administered the punishment in a slow measured fashion, allowing about 2 seconds between each blow ... The rod ... raised no welts and it was noted that the boy, until the fourth blow gave but little gasps after each stroke and squirmed, but from then onwards he howled. (89)
There appears to be evidence that some working-class parents also supported the birching of sons for misdemeanor offences, or that at least they preferred it to having their privacy invaded and their lives interrupted by the probation officers or agents of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the police. Well into the 1940s the Scottish press followed with interest the trials and treatment of young offenders who appeared in juvenile court. Court reporters regularly repeated the opinions expressed by parents regarding their children's sentences. It was reported that parents urged magistrates to issue whippings and that sheriffs were applauded for doing so. In the case of one unsuccessful bid for his son to be birched, a father announced that he would give his boy a "good hiding when he got home." (90) The boy was one of seven young offenders between twelve- and sixteen-years old involved in a series of housebreakings in central Edinburgh. In an article entitled "Parents' Pleas for Thrashing: Bad Boys before the Sheriff in Edinburgh," the reporter wrote, "Pleas that their boys should be given a thrashing were made by parents when Sheriff Jameson dealt with a number of Juvenile Court cases at Edinburgh Sheriff Court." In the first case a fifteen-year old boy was charged with the theft of a railway telephone and batteries valued at 4 [pounds sterling] 10s 6d and was ordered to receive fifteen strokes. His widowed mother was reported to have approved of the sentence: "I think he needs a thrashing ... and had I the strength I would have given it to him long ago." She did, however, ask the judge to reduce the number of strokes. The magistrate replied that the lad had "got off pretty well." He charged the boy: "What do you mean bringing distress upon your mother? You ought to be ashamed." In another case, the father of a sixteen-year-old housebreaker addressed an Edinburgh magistrate: "I would thank you very much if you gave him a doing ... a hiding ... a whipping." The boy was ordered to receive twelve strokes of the birch. (91) When another boy confessed to ten acts of housebreaking, his sister who appeared with him in court asked: "Can't he have the birch as well sir?" (92) But the boy was over seventeen and too old to be birched.
In 1941, when a thirteen-year old boy pleaded guilty to three charges of stealing bicycles, his mother asked Sheriff Robertson in Edinburgh Sheriff Court to birch him. In this case the sheriff ordered six stripes. (93) On 30 March 1943 "another batch of young offenders," described by the Sheriff as "a gang of experienced and expert boy-burglars," appeared in Edinburgh Juvenile Court to answer various charges, including the theft of "bottles of gin and whiskey, 12,000 cigarettes (which the seven boys claimed to have smoked themselves, and not passed on to resellers) ... sums of money and other articles" valued at eighty-four pounds. Since these young "gang members" had committed these thefts in the black-out conditions of the Second World War, Sheriff Jameson ordered that two boys receive twelve stripes of the birch, three were given nine stripes, and the remaining boys were given six stripes. One boy's father praised the sheriff: "A jolly good spanking would help them," he said. To this, the Sheriff replied, "You are a very sensible father, but your opinion is not shared by a large and very vocal section of the public, for they think it is the last thing that should be done to any boy, no matter how much burglary and crime he commits." (94)
In 1937 Sir John Simon yielded to mounting public pressure and appointed a Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment (Cadogan Committee) to investigate the uses of corporal punishment by the juvenile court. After twenty meetings and seventy-two interviews with witnesses, the committee unanimously recommended the repeal of the powers of courts to pass corporal punishment sentences for boys under sixteen in Scotland, England, and Wales. Sir Samuel Hoare, Secretary of State for the Home Department, was appointed to introduce this clause, which was inserted in the Criminal Justice Bill that was being prepared for presentation and debate in the House of Commons. Just when it appeared that cabinet would vote to abolish corporal punishment, Britain entered the Second World War. Because of a wartime ban on controversial legislation, this "rather controversial" (95) bill could not be fully considered until after the war, and the battle over the birch continued throughout the early 1940s. The Criminal Justice Bill with its clauses to abolish corporal punishment was re-introduced in 1945, and passed with little controversy, but not until 1948. However, by March 1950 a new repeal movement was forming, and in both houses of parliament members were calling for the re-introduction of the birch rod. (96) The controversy continues today, with calls to bring back the birch currently considered by many as an age-appropriate punishment for everything from minor schoolyard pranks to extreme acts of juvenile violence. To the modern pro-birching lobby the promise of the birch is that, by literally whipping boys (and also girls) into shape, corporal punishment should remain a just measure of pain.
(1) This paper originated as part of a panel at the Child Welfare Conference at Liverpool University in 1998. It has greatly benefited from the suggestions of the three CJH referees. Financial support of the SSHRC is gratefully acknowledged as is assistance with research and editing from Stephanie Mill, Dr. Vic Satzewich, Dr. Elizabeth Ewan, Freya Godard, and members of the Scottish Studies community at the University of Guelph.
(2) Scotsman, 20 Oct. 1937; Glasgow Herald, 20 Oct. 1937; articles found in Secretary of State for Scotland file series: HH/60, National Archive of Scotland, Edinburgh [hereafter cited as NAS].
(3) NAS, HH 60/352, Lindsay to Secretary of State, 9 Nov. 1937; ibid, Sheriff Clerk Depute to Hume, 4 Nov. 1937; Scottish Daily Express, 3 Nov. 1937.
(4) NAS, HH 60/98, Report of the Departmental Committee on Corporal Punishment, 1938, [hereafter cited as DCCP] p. 19.
(5) NAS, HH 60/352, Home Office File Minutes, 28 Oct. 1937; Glasgow Herald, 22 Oct. 1937, p. 13.
(6) NAS, HH 60/354, Sheriff Clerk Depute to Hume, 4 Nov. 1937.
(7) DCCP, pp. 1-3.
(8) Victor Bailey, Delinquency and Citizenship: Reclaiming the Young Offender, 1914-1948 (Oxford, 1987), p.8.
(9) Linda Mahood, Policing Gender, Class and Family, Britain, 1850-1940 (London, 1995).
(10) Peter Boss, Social Policy and the Young Delinquent (London, 1967), pp. 11-12.
(11) W. Brebner, Letter to the Lord Provost on the Expediency of a House of Refuge for Juvenile Offenders (Glasgow, 1829), pp. 6, 10-12.
(12) E.A.G. Clark, "The Superiority of the `Scotch System': Scottish Ragged Schools and their Influence," Scottish Education Studies, 9 (1977), 30; M. Carpenter, Reformatory Schools, 1851 (New York, 1869).
(13) "Report of the Select Committee on Criminal and Destitute Children," British Parliamentary Papers, (Galway, Ireland, 1967) [hereafter cited as P.P.], volume 2, 1852, Williams, 11 May 1852, Q: 208.
(14) "Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords on Juvenile Offenders and Transportation," P.P., volume 1, 1847, Hunt, 30 Mar. 1847, Q: 3149; Mack 18 Apr. 1847, Q: 3767; Smith 19 Apr. 1847, Q:3591; Laurie, 19 Apr. 1847, Q: 3591.
(15) Ibid, Smith, 19 Apr. 1847, Q: 3681.
(16) "Report of from the Select Committee on Criminal and Destitute Children," P.P., volume 3, 1852-53, Turner, 18 Mar. 1853, Q: 2789.
(17) "Report of the Select Committee on Prison Discipline," P.P., volume 5, 1850, Williams, 8 Mar. 1850, Q: 771..
(18) P.P., volume 1, 1847, D'Arcy, 22 Apr. 1847, Q: 4132-4140.
(19) P.P., volume 5, 1850, Williams, 8 Mar. 1950, Q: 771.
(20) P.P., volume 3, 1852-53, Turner, 18 Mar. 1853, Q: 2790.
(21) Ibid., Jebb, 22 Jun. 1852, Q: 4148-4150
(22) Emphasis added. Ibid, Williams, 11 May 1852, Q: 207.
(23) P.P., volume 1, 1847, Adams, 12 Mar. 1847, Q:116.
(24) P.P., volume 3, 1852-53 Turner, 11 May 1852, Q: 274.
(25) P.P., volume 1, 1847, Russel, 16 Mar. 1847, Q: 3760.
(26) P.P., volume5, 1850, Williams, 8 Mar. 1850, Q: 822.
(27) H. Hendrick, "Personality and Psychology: Defining Edwardian Boys," Youth and Policy, 18 (1986), 33.
(28) M. May, "Innocence and Experience: The Evolution of the Concept of Juvenile Delinquency in the Mid-nineteenth Century," Victorian Studies, 17 (1973-74), 7-29.
(29) P.P., volume 1, 1847, Smith, 19 April 1847, Q: 3682.
(30) Ibid, Speirs, 19 April 1847, Q:3760.
(31) Hendrick, "Personality and Psychology," p. 33; J. Gillis, "The Evolution of Juvenile Delinquency in England, 1890-1914," Past and Present, 67 (1975), 96-126; J. Gillis, Youth and History (New York, 1974), chapters 3 and 4.
(32) NAS, HH 60 [20531/414], Earl of Glasgow, House of Lords Speech, Daily Herald, 30 Mar. 1944.
(33) Report of the Departmental Committee on Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Scotland, Young Offenders (Scotland) Committee, Minutes of Evidence, 1925, Q: 2535.
(34) M. Hill, Report of the Glasgow Conference, Reformatory and Refuge Union, 1924, pp. 86-87.
(35) DCCP, p. 143.
(36) Ibid, pp. 20-21.
(37) Strathclyde Regional Archives, Glasgow, City of Glasgow, Criminal Returns, 1910, pp. 4, 30.
(38) Mahood, Policing Gender, p. 60.
(39) Report of the Departmental Committee on Young Offenders (Scotland), 15 Dec. 1925, Roderick Ross, p. 3.
(40) Ibid., J. D. Strathern, p. 2.
(41) Reformatory and Refuge Union (London), Seeking and Saving, Jan. 1917, p. 394.
(42) Clark, "Superiority of the `Scotch System'"; A. Ralston, "The Development of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in Scotland, 1832-1972," Scottish Economic and Social History, 8 (1988), 40-50.
(43) Edinburgh Public Library, Edinburgh and District Juvenile Organization Committee, press cuttings, 1931-1938 [qYHV756] [hereafter cited as EDJO], 11 Mar. 1932; Evening Dispatch, 5 Mar. 1936; Evening News, 24 Mar. 1938; Scotsman, 22 Oct. 1942.
(44) Bailey, Delinquency and Citizenship, pp. 129-46.
(45) NAS, HH 57/53, to Secretary of State for Scotland from Gunn and Semple, 10 Sept. 1923.
(46) NAS, HH 57/53, to Secretary of State for Scotland from Spirer, 6 Feb. 1924.
(47) NAS, HH 57/53, to Secretary of State for Scotland from Pirrie, 15 Sept. 1925.
(48) NAS, HH 60, to Secretary of State for Scotland form Young, 23 Oct. 1942.
(49) HH60/353, Children and Young Persons Acts, Birching, Protest File, 11 Nov. 1929.
(50) Bailey, Delinquency and Citizenship, pp. 132-33.
(51) NAS, HH 60, to Secretary of State for Scotland from Virtue, 12 Nov. 1937; to Secretary of State for Scotland from Thomson, 22 Nov. 1937.
(52) NAS, HH 60, Scotsman, 2 Nov. 1937; Glasgow Herald, 2 November 1937.
(53) British Medical Journal, 20 Mar. 1937, p. 619.
(54) NAS, HH 60, Glasgow Herald, 18 Mar. 1938, p. 14.
(55) Burt quoted in the Scotsman, 2 Nov. 1937; Glasgow Herald, 2 Nov. 1937.
(56) Bailey, Delinquency and Citizenship, p. 108.
(57) EDJO, Evening News, 26 Mar. 1937.
(58) Mark Liddle, "State, Masculinities and Law: Some Comments on Gender and English State Formation," British Journal of Criminology, 36 (1996), 362.
(59) NAS, HH 60, House of Commons, 7 Apr. 1936; EDJO, Bulletin, 8 Apr. 1936.
(60) NAS, HH 60/53, to Secretary of State of Scotland from Cunningham, 26 Nov. 1937.
(61) NAS, HH 60/353, to Secretary of State for Scotland from Bartholomen, 25 Oct. 1937.
(62) Ibid., to Secretary of State for Home Affairs from Wilson, 22 Nov. 1937.
(63) Ibid., to Secretary of State for Scotland from Bartholomen, 25 Oct. 1937.
(64) J. Smyth, "Rents, Peace, Votes: Working-Class Women and Political Activity In the First World War," in E. Breitenbach and E. Gordon (eds.), Out of Bounds, Women In Scottish Society, 1800-1945 (Edinburgh, 1992), p.184.
(65) NAS, HH 60/353, to Gibson from Greenock Central Co-operative Society, 31 Mar. 1937; to Secretary of State for Scotland from Virtue, 12 Nov. 1937.
(66) NAS HH 60, to Collins from Scottish Co-operative Women's Guild, 27 Jun. 1937; to Elliot (House of Commons) from Edinburgh and South-East of Scotland Labour Women's Advisory Council, 30 Nov. 1937.
(67) NAS, HH 60/353, to Secretary of State for Scotland from Callum, 17 Nov. 1937.
(68) Ibid., To Secretary of State for Scotland from Jackson, 18 Dec. 1937. See, from Jameston, 31 Dec. 1937; Partick Women's Guild, 4 Jan. 1938; Dumbarton Cooperative Society, 21 Jan. 1938.
(69) NAS, HH 57/52, Minutes of Chief Constables Club, 3 Mar. 1898.
(70) NAS, HH 60, to Secretary of State for Scotland from Campbell, 11 Nov. 1937.
(71) Ibid., Glasgow Herald, 2 November 1937; Scotsman, 2 Nov. 1937.
(72) NAS HH 60 [20531/414], to Under Secretary of State, Scottish Office from Ayr County Council, 22 Dec. 1937; Scotsman, 22 Dec. 1937.
(73) Ibid., Police Chronicle, 3 Dec. 1937.
(74) NAS HH 60 [20531/401], to Under Secretary of State for Scotland from Hunter, 6 November 1937.
(75) HH/60, to Scottish Home Office from City of Glasgow Police, 6 Jan. 1943; to Undersecretary of State Scottish Home Department from Assistant Chief Constable of the City of Glasgow Police, 9 Feb. 1943
(76) NAS, HH60/353, to Secretary of State for Scotland from Drennan, 26 Oct. 1937.
(77) EDJO, Glasgow Herald, 28 Oct. 1937.
(78) NAS, HH 60, to Secretary of State for Scotland from Young, 23 Oct. 1942.
(79) DCCP, p. 147.
(80) Ibid., p. 164.
(81) Emphasis added. NAS, HH 60 [20531/414], Evening Dispatch, 1 Mar. 1944.
(82) EDJO, Scotsman, 2 Nov. 1937.
(83) Ibid., Scotsman, 6 Mar. 1937.
(84) NAS, HH 60, to Secretary of State for Scotland from Young, 23 Oct. 1942.
(85) NAS, HH 60 [20531/414], Glasgow Herald, 11 Nov. 1943, p.8; Scotsman, 11 Nov. 1943.
(86) DCCP, pp. 226-28.
(87) Lynn Abrams, "`There was Nobody like my Daddy': Father, the Family and the Marginalization of Men in Modern Scotland," The Scottish Historical Review, 78 (1999), 229.
(88) DCCP, p. 127.
(89) DCCP, p. 215.
(90) EDJO, Evening Dispatch, Apr. 1936.
(91) Ibid., Evening Dispatch, 23 May 1936.
(93) NAS, HH60 [20531/414], Evening Dispatch, 13 Dec. 1941.
(94) NAS, HH60, Evening Dispatch, 30 Mar. 1943.
(95) NAS, HH 60/299. House of Commons Debate, 18 Jan. 1937.
(96) Times (London), 16 Mar. 1950; 20 Dec. 1949; 14 Mar., 1950; 20 Mar. 1950; 22 Mar. 1950.
University of Guelph
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Canadian Journal of History|
|Date:||Dec 1, 2002|
|Previous Article:||Le prix Hilda Neatby prize *. (Notes & Advertisements).|
|Next Article:||"The highest type of Englishman": gender, war, and the Alfred the Great millenary commemoration of 1901.|