HC Deb 03 July 1889 vol 337 cc1361-87

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee).

Clause 4, relating to the power of search,

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 19, to leave out the word "treated," and insert the word "ill-treated."—(The Attorney General.)

Question proposed, "That 'treated' stand part of the Clause."

In reply to Mr. J. KELLY (Camberwell, N.),

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

This is an Amendment which has been proposed by the Attorney General. I believe that its object is simply to place the clause on all fours with the clauses which have already been passed.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. J. KELLY moved to amend the words, "in a manner likely to cause" by omitting the word "likely."

Question proposed, "That the word 'likely' stand part of the Clause."

MR. MUNDELLA

The word objected to already appears in the first clause. These Amendments are Amendments for the Report stage of the Bill and ought not to be accepted here. I would therefore ask the hon. Member to postpone the Amendment until the Bill has been reprinted.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,) Sheffield, Hallam

The right hon. Member for the Brightside Division (Mr. Mundella) is right. The first clause does contain the word "likely;" but the Attorney General explained that if it had not been too late to make an Amendment he would have preferred other words.

MR. J. KELLY

I will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. KELLY

The clause says, "may issue a warrant authorizing any person named therein." I move to omit the words "named therein," for the purpose of substituting the words "being a superintendent, inspector, or other officer of police." As the clause stands it confers extraordinary powers upon irresponsible individuals.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

*MR. SYDNEY GEDGE (Stockport) moved, in lines 26 and 27, to leave out "as circumstances may permit and require," and insert— In the same manner as if the person having its custody or control had been convicted, committed for trial, or bound over under Clause 3.

Question proposed, "That the words 'as circumstances may permit and require,' stand part of the Clause."

MR. MUNDELLA

I do not think that I ought to accept the Amendment, seeing that the words of the clause are taken verbatim from the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

* SIR A. ROLLIT (Islington, S.)

As the Bill originally stood there may have been reason for the Amendment; but the Attorney General has intimated his intention of proposing a schedule, in which places of safety will be defined, and this will tend to meet the point under discussion.

* MR. GEDGE

The Amendment has nothing to do with places of safety. We are giving the Court power to deal with these children, and may order them to be handed over to the charge of their next friend. Certain things may be done by the person to whose care a child is committed, and the clause as it stands is drawn so very wide that it would include a number of things, such as whipping the child. Surely it is enough to give the person into whose custody the child is placed proper control over it. It seems to me that the Amendment is necessary, and I shall divide the Committee upon it.

* MR. STUART WORTLEY

Under Clause 3 there is the safeguard that the person who would naturally have the care and protection of the child should have been convicted, committed for trial, or bound over. That is quite enough latitude, even where such securities are provided; but under this clause there need be no conviction, nor any attempt to get one.

MR. MUNDELLA

If the hon. Member demands a Division, I am afraid that he must take one. The question appears to me to be a most important one. If a child is found in a state of starvation, the Court would at once give instructions to have it taken care of, and it must be taken charge of by the workhouse, or the Local Authorities, while evidence is being obtained to show that the person who had charge of the child was not fit to be entrusted with its care.

* MR. GEDGE

These matters are all dealt with by the 3rd clause. Everything the right hon. Gentleman asks for is given by the Amendment, but the clause as it stands gives further powers without defining them.

THE CHAIRMAN

I may point out to the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Gedge) that under Clause 3 power is given to make an order committing the child to the care of a parent or some other person capable of taking care of it until the child attain the age of 14 years.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,) Birmingham, E.

I have no desire to interpose any obstacle, but I confess that to my mind it is not clear what the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill proposes to do by the clause. Clause 3 enables the Court to appoint a guardian if a child is treated improperly by its parents. Clause 4 goes further, and enables the Court to protect a child in reference to whom there may be a reasonable suspicion that it has been subjected to maltreatment. If the object is to place the child under proper protection until the case can be investigated, the words of the clause will require a little revision. With regard to the Amendment of my hon. Friend behind me, it does, to a certain extent, limit the clause, but I hardly think that it limits it enough. What Clause 4 ought to say is that, in case of reasonable suspicion, the Court shall have power to put the child in a place of safety until the proceedings have been settled.

MR. MUNDELLA

The object of the clause is precisely what is stated in the Bill. Cases constantly occur in which, for instance, screams are heard, and everybody knows that cruelty has been practised, but there is no means of obtaining evidence. The object of the clause is to provide that in such cases where there is a reasonable ground of suspicion the Magistrates shall direct the police to enter the house to examine the condition of the child. The clause itself is taken from the Criminal Law Amendment Act, where it is aimed at the prevention of horrible crimes, such as incest.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

Not only is this the same clause as the one in the Criminal Law Amendment Act, but there has been no complaint of the excessive exercise of jurisdiction under that Act. Clause 3 deals with the permanent custody of the child, whereas Clause 4 only deals with the temporary custody of the child pending proceedings. Surely some latitude and discretion may be allowed to the Court as to the temporary custody.

* MR. GEDGE

The clause imposes no limit. It says that the child having been taken care of for temporary purposes, and the parent having been convicted, the Court may deal with it as it likes.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

My sympathies are with my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield. All who are interested in the question of Local Government in towns know the evils that constantly occur in connection with cruelty to children, and the difficulty of providing a remedy. Therefore if the clause simply provided that the child should be pro- tected and placed in a place of safety until the Magistrates could deal with the case, I should not have the slightest objection to it. But the words of the clause are so vague and general that they would cover any extraordinary act on the part of the Court. As it is notorious in the history of England that Magistrates have constantly been guilty of an extraordinary excess of power. I shall feel it my duty, if the Amendment is pressed, to vote for it.

MR. MUNDELLA

Although, as I have said, the words of the clause are taken from the Criminal Law Amendment Act, I am willing, as there was no intention to make it a permanent custody of the child, to accept the Amendment.

Question put, and negatived.

Question, That the words 'in the same manner as if the person having its custody or control had been convicted, committed for trial, or bound over under Clause 3," be there inserted, put, and agreed to.

Question, "That Clause 4, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause 5.

* MR. PICKERSGILL (Bethnal Green, S.W.)

I have to move, in line 4, after the word "person," to insert, "and the wife or husband of such person." As the Bill is drawn the wife or husband of the person charged under the Act would not only be a competent, but a compellable witness. I maintain that that is altogether a new departure from the fundamental principles of English law In the older English law there were only two cases in which a wife could be compelled to give evidence against her husband, one of which was doubtful and the other well-established—the doubtful case being the case of high treason, and the well-established case that in which the offence charged was personal violence committed by the husband on the wife. If the Attorney General were in his place I would claim his support for my Amendment, seeing that he introduced last year, and has re-introduced this year, the Criminal Evidence Bill, which provides that the wife or husband of the person charged shall not be called as a witness without the consent of the person charged. Recent Statutes have only brought us to this point—that the wife may be admissible as a witness against her husband in some cases with her husband's consent, and in other cases with her own consent, but in no case can she be compelled to appear in the box and give evidence against her own will and the will of her husband. I protest against making, on the present occasion, a still further modification of the doctrine of Common Law. There has been too much dealing with the Common Law of the country piecemeal. It may be that there are doctrines of the Common Law which require to be modified and corrected by statute. I believe there are; but, at all events, let us correct and modify them in a general and systematic manner. Having made the wife an admissible witness with her own consent in some cases, and in others with the consent of her husband, we are now asked to compel her to give evidence against the consent of both. I submit that we should do well to follow in this respect the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Amendment moved, Clause 5, page 4, line 4, after "person," to insert "and the wife or husband of such person."

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

* MR. CHANNING (Northamptonshire, E.)

My hon. Friend, in moving his Amendment, has forgotten that in many of the worst cases with which the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children have had to deal, practically cases of manslaughter by the father and mother together, conviction would be impossible without the evidence of one or the other.

MR. J. KELLY

I have given Notice of an Amendment to the same effect as that of the hon. Member opposite. So far as the cases of manslaughter referred to by the hon. Member for Northamptonshire (Mr. Channing) are concerned, in almost every instance the guilty persons have been brought to justice under the existing law. The Committee are now asked, in cases of the most trivial character, where for instance a man allows a boy to sell from a barrow one minute after 10 o'clock at night, to force the poor wife into the witness box in order that she may send her husband to prison and break up her own home. The House shrank from taking that course in the Criminal Evidence Act. Is it to be taken now? I think we should pause before we place a poor woman in a position in which she must either commit perjury or convict her own husband. I trust that the hon. Member opposite will divide the Committee upon his Amendment.

MR. MUNDELLA

The hon. Member for Camberwell tells the Committee that this clause may be used as the case of a costermonger who keeps his child employed for a minute after 10 o'clock at night. If that were all there would be no necessity for the clause. What we desire to deal with are the cases in which a child is cruelly treated by one parent, and the other parent is willing to give evidence but dare not do so; and although willing to be compelled she cannot be compelled. This power is already given in the case of married womens' property. The clause of the Married Womens' Property Act, 1882, reads thus— Husband and wife respectively shall be competent and admissible witnesses, and in some cases compellable witnesses. Thus in the case of a woman's property she is to he a compellable witness; but in the case of the ill-treatment of her child we are asked to withhold the power. I hope that our sacred regard for the Common Law will not override the desire we ought to feel for the protection of children from inhuman treatment.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

The hon. Member for Camberwell seems to have great consideration for everything and everybody except the children. It seems to me that the case is a very exceptional one, and one in which the evidence is often necessarily limited to that of members of the family, and that we ought to extend every possible protection to children in order to prevent them from being cruelly treated. All we ask is that the Magistrate shall hear the evidence of every witness, and then make allowance for the circumstances under which that evidence is given.

* MR. MATTHEWS

No one has more respect for the doctrines of Common Law than I have; but the old principles of Common Law as to evidence have long ago been changed. The old principle of Common Law was that untrustworthy evidence should not be laid before a jury who were not skilled in weighing evidence, and, therefore, everybody was excluded who had an interest in the case, even to the extent of a pecuniary interest. A husband since then has been enabled to give evidence both in civil and criminal cases, but at a heavy price, as the result has been to encourage perjury. Evidence given by persons who have a direct interest in a case is regarded as eminently untrustworthy. If you put a wife into the box to give evidence against her husband she will, in all probability, prevaricate and deny; and it is extremely unlikely that she will give trustworthy evidence. But, on the whole, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that, having once embarked on the course of endeavouring to get evidence from those who know the facts, although they may have every possible motive for concealing them, it is most important that the chief object of making them competent witnesses should not fail. But I believe that the proposal is a novel and a dangerous one; and although it is suggested that in many cases the wife would. be willing to give evidence if compelled, yet the putting of her in the box might expose her to maltreatment at the hands of the most guilty party, and to place her in a position of divided duty.

* MR. PICKERSGILL

The hon. Member for Northamptonshire referred to cases where the charge is one of manslaughter; but, in such cases, I apprehend that no difficulty has been found in bringing the offenders to justice. The right hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench has relied on the Married Womens' Property Act. Well, I would suggest that this Act is not at all analogous to that. In that case, the wife herself is the prosecutrix, and it is quite within her power to say whether she will prosecute or not. It is almost impossible under that Act to force a woman to give evidence if she is unwilling to do so. If she is desirous to prosecute, she will be a. willing witness. My hon. and learned. Friend opposite urged that Magistrates should be allowed to hear all evidence; but he himself will see what extraordinary latitude an argument of that kind gives. I object very much to the discretion already given to Magistrates, and I hope that this Amendment will receive due considera- tion at the hands of the Committee, having regard to its importance. I think it might very well be left to the general law, which we all understand. The right hon. Gentleman seems to think I have an undue sense of importance of the doctrines of the Common Law. What I am now protesting against is the slashing and mutilation of those doctrines, by piecemeal legislation, into shreds and patches without coherence or consistency.

MR. C. DARLING (Deptford)

I hope the Committee will reject the Amendment. I cannot help thinking it would procure the giving of evidence by those particular witnesses who are most unfit to give it. In the case of a husband charged with cruelty to a child, the wife would be a competent but not a compellable witness, and the result would be that the wife might have an interest in putting the blame on her husband. Supposing, for instance, they were on bad terms, she would willingly go into the witness box to do so. If, on the other hand, she were a compellable witness, who desired to shield the husband—and often, in these cases, the husband and wife are almost equally guilty—I think it would be a great advantage to the administration of justice if persons in that position were made to go into the witness-box and tell all they knew. My hon. and learned Friend says that if the question is put the witness could say—"I object to give evidence, because it would incriminate me." I can only suppose that the hon. Member contemplates that the question would be inartistically put; and I would venture to observe that it is possible to so conduct an examination as not to give the witness an opportunity of stating that the question put is an incriminating one. I think, also, if the husband and wife are made compellable witnesses, the effect would be very considerable in preventing children from being ill-used. My hon. Friend sitting near me never seems to lose sight of the supposed case of the child of a costermonger being out after dark, and he talks as if such cases are mainly those dealt with in the Bill. Let me remind him that the Bill deals with much more serious offences.

* MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

It is quite true that this Bill deals with serious offences; but we ought not to forget that there are also the class of cases alluded to by the hon. Member for Camberwell in which there might be great hardship inflicted in applying the provisions of this clause. It might be worth consideration whether the operation of this clause should not be limited to offences coming under the operation of Sub-section 1.

* MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

I agree with the argument used by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Deptford, that the fact of the husband or wife being compellable witnesses will have good effect in preventing cruelty to children. What we want is not to make it more difficult to obtain evidence, and I am afraid the Amendment would defeat this object. I have no respect or veneration for the old Common Law, as such. The object we have in view being to protect children, I must say I think that many of the Amendments which have been pro posed by well-meaning Members would, in effect, cripple the Act and make it ineffectual. We want to get the most useful evidence of all—namely, the evidence of the parents; and if you prevent that being given, or make them only optional witnesses, I think the operation of the Bill will be very seriously interfered with.

MR. KELLY

I may point out that this section applies to even the most venial offences under the Bill, and I have very great doubt whether it would not be wise that this clause should apply only to offences under Section 1. I could conceive circumstances under which an affectionate father might have sent his child out, or sanctioned its going out, late in the evening in order to earn a few pence; and I doubt very much if that is a case in which this House ought to say that the wife should be a compellable as well as a competent witness. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield will consider the desirability of limiting the operation of this clause to cases arising under Section 1, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green will force this matter to a Division.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 13; Noes 191—(Division List, No. 171.)

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6.

* MR. PICKERSGILL

The object of the next Amendment in my name is to prevent the failure of justice in the most serious cases—that is to say, in cases which end fatally. As the Committee is no doubt aware, if between the committal for trial and the trial itself a witness should die, the depositions of that witness can be read upon the trial. But the statutes which make that provision in England and in Ireland limit it to the cases in which the original evidence was given upon oath or affirmation, and it would not therefore apply to the evidence of a child given before the magistrates in connection with offences under this Act. The difficulty has actually arisen under the corresponding section of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. In a recent case, where an important witness died between the committal for trial and the trial itself, the learned Judge who presided at the trial ruled that the depositions could not be put in evidence. It is therefore clear, as the matter stands, that in the most serious cases of all the offender might escape owing to the fact that the evidence of the principal witness would not be admissible on the trial. The Amendment which I have put on the Paper covers the case of England and Wales on the one hand, and of Ireland on the other. So far as Scotland is concerned the difficulty does not arise, because in that country it is not usual to put children of tender years upon their oath. I think the ends of justice will be materially assisted if the Amendment is accepted.

Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 4, line 15, insert— And the evidence of such child, though not given on oath or affirmation, but otherwise taken and reduced into writing, in accordance with the provisions of section seventeen of the Act of the eleventh and twelfth Victoria, chapter forty-two, intituled 'An Act to facilitate the performance of the duties of Justices of the Peace out of Sessions within England and Wales with respect to persons charged with Indictable Offences,' or of section fourteen of 'The Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851,' shall be deemed to be a deposition within the meaning of those sections."—(Mr. Pickersgill.)

Question proposed "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MUNDELLA

I confess that the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman seems to me to be a useful one, and would be of great service in cases in which, in the absence through illness or death of the child, the contributory evidence proved insufficient. Therefore, unless the Government see some reason why the words should not be inserted, I propose to accept the Amendment.

MR. MATTHEWS

I have not had time to consider the Amendment, but I will do so between this and the Report stage. It seems to me that Clause 6 deals only with evidence actually before the Court, and I have some little doubt whether it would enable Magistrates taking depositions to take the evidence of a child not upon oath. If Clause 6 does enable that to be done on the preliminary inquiry with a view to future trial, and to take the evidence of a child of tender years not upon oath, then the words will be useful. But if it only enables a child to be heard as a witness at the actual trial of the indictment, then the words would be inoperative.

MR. MUNDELLA

I think the words of this clause are identical with those in the corresponding clause of the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

* MR. GEDGE

I now propose to omit Sub-section B of Clause 6, which runs as follows:— Any witness whose evidence has been admitted under this section shall be liable to indictment and punishment for perjury in all respects as if he had been sworn. I think it is absurd to expose a child of tender years, who may not understand the nature of an oath, to a prosecution for perjury. I would rather suggest that a child who lies should have a good whipping. If a Magistrate has told a child its duty is to tell the truth, then all we can do is to take the evidence for what it is worth. The subsection will practically encourage prosecutions for perjury which can only end in acquittal, for no court would convict a child of tender years who did not know the nature of an oath. I hope that the Act will not be spoiled by the retention of these words.

Amendment proposed, Clause 6, page 4, leave out sub-section (B).

MR. MUNDELLA

My hon. Friend must remember there will be other witnesses to whom this sub-section will apply. The words are taken from the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bury insisted on their insertion in that Act in order to have the strongest safeguards possible against perjury. In the case of a child of tender years the Magistrates surely could judge of the credibility of its evidence.

* MR. GEDGE

You are dealing simply in this clause with children of tender years. I have great respect for the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury; but he is not here to support his opinion, and I take it for granted he does not think it necessary.

* MR. TOMLINSON

Are we to understand that statements made by a child, without fear of punishment for not telling the truth, are to be accepted in the same way as depositions? I cannot think that that would be right. Surely some penalty should be attached to the making of false statements by a child. Unless something is suggested as a substitute for indictment as for perjury by a child, I shall oppose the omission of the sub-section.

* MR. SWETENHAM (Carnarvon)

Perjury, as we all know, is a serious offence, because it is committed under the sanction of an oath, and it presupposes that a person fully understands the nature of that to which he deposes. Now, a child is to be exempted for taking an oath because he may not understand its nature; and therefore to subject a child to penalties for perjury when it does not understand what the meaning of perjury is, appears to be absolutely inconsistent with the rest of the clause. I cannot help thinking the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bury could never have intended his observations to apply in cases covered by this subsection. I join in supporting the Amendment.

MR. C. DARLING

The hon. and learned Member who has just spoken did not put the matter so clearly as he might have done. A child may well not understand the nature of an oath; but it could be made to understand that if it did not tell the truth it would be punished by the law. In these cases, a child is not to be allowed to give evidence unless the Magistrate is satisfied that, although it does not understand the nature of an oath, it under- stands the duty of speaking the truth, and possesses sufficient intelligence to justify the reception of its evidence. What does it mean when it is said that a child understands the duty of speaking the truth? It means it understands it will be punished if it does not speak the truth. Therefore, if a child is intelligent enough to know its duty is to speak the truth, the Magistrate can say to it—"If you do not speak the truth you will be punished." That is a thing which a child can perfectly well understand. Nobody who has practised in a Court of Justice can say that a child understands the nature of an oath. What usually occurs is, that the Magistrate asks—"Do you know it is wrong to tell a lie?" and the child says "Yes." Then the Magistrate will ask—"Do you know what will happen to you if you tell a lie?" and the child, as a rule, says "No." I remember one case in which the learned Judge rejoined—"And I am sure I cannot tell you." It is a very difficult matter indeed for a child of tender years to understand the nature of an oath; but if you tell it that its duty is to speak the truth, and that it will be liable to be punished if it does not, I think that would be sufficient. I hope that my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment I may point out that in some cases persons are liable to indictment for perjury without having taken an oath—such as in cases of statutory declaration.

MR. KELLY

I am of opinion either that this clause must be given up altogether or the whole of it must be retained. I quite agree with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Deptford that if a child understands the duty of speaking the truth it ought to be punished if it does not tell the truth in a Court of Justice, and I am, therefore, unable to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Stockport. Unfortunately, throughout this clause, the cases of cruelty to children have been treated on exactly the same footing as offences under the Criminal Law Amendment Act. Under the latter Act, however, in cases of brutality to children, the child's evidence is often the only available evidence, and, therefore, it was necessary that some such provision as this should be inserted in that Act. But I think it most unfortunate that, in a Bill which only professes to deal with the employment of children, you should insert provisions analagous to those contained in a measure affecting the fearful class of offences dealt with under the Criminal Law Amendment Act.

* MR. SWETENHAM

Would it not meet the difficulty if we inserted a provision that children might be whipped for perjury instead of being sent to a place from which they are liable to come out worse than when they went in? Will the right hon. Gentleman agree to add the words "liable to punishment for perjury by whipping?" I think that that would be sufficient.

MR. MUNDELLA

I am afraid I cannot, offhand, consent to an alteration of that nature. Perhaps the hon. Member will defer that point until the Report stage.

* MR. STUART WORTLEY

I think the clause ought to stand as it is. The Committee must remember that the Government have submitted to the other House proposals for providing the alternative of corporal punishment in all cases of indictable offences by children. We must not look only at maximum punishments. I would draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the value of the subsection will be found in its preventing unscrupulous parents from inducing their children to make false charges.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7.

MR. KELLY

I think that in ordinary cases the onus of proving the age of a child is often cast on an offender, and I therefore propose to substitute the word "parent" for "person," so that only a parent who contravenes the Act in respect of a child under the specified age should be obliged to prove that the child was over the age. A stranger might have no possible means of verifying a statement as to a child's age; and is it fair he should have cast on him the onus of proving the child's age? Possibly the right hon. Gentleman will say the section is limited by the words "appears to be under the age." It is difficult to tell the age of some poor children owing to the conditions of life to which they have been accustomed. Those who are entrusted with the care and custody of children may be strangers in blood to the children; and, therefore, it seems to me it would be very hard if, when any question of age arose, the onus of proof should be cast entirely upon them.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 7, page 4, line 25, leave out "person" and insert "parent."—(Mr. Kelly.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'person' stand part of the Clause."

MR. MUNDELLA

Surely this is a case where, if a child, as defined in the clause, appears to be under age, the benefit of the doubt should be with the child.

Question put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 7, page 4, line 27, after "appears," insert "to the Court."—(Mr. Sydney Gedge.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. MUNDELLA

I should be glad if the hon. Gentleman will defer this matter until the Report stage.

* MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

I would rather do all the good I can now, than leave an Amendment until Report.

MR. MUNDELLA

I will accept the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 38, after "district," insert "or of the police for that district."—(Mr. Stuart Wortley.)

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and agreed to.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, at end, add— The expression 'Local Authority' means, as regards any borough in England, the Council of the borough; as regards the City of London, the Common Council; and as regards any other place in England, the County Council; as regards Ireland, the Sanitary Authority within the meaning of 'The Public Health (Ireland) Act, 1878.'"—(Mr. Stuart Wortley.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. KELLY

With this authority will lie the duty of arranging, limiting, or extending the hours during which children may be employed, and I can conceive no more unsuitable body to have that duty cast upon them in many cases than the County Council. London is not the strongest case by any means. The other day I mentioned the case of Stourbridge, where Town Commissioners constitute the Local Authority. It seems to me the people of Stourbridge would not be very fairly treated if it were left to the County Council of Worcestershire to settle the hours during which the children should sell in the streets of Stourbridge. I am quite aware objection will be taken to the substitution of the words "vestry or local sanitary authority of the district." It may be argued that the substitution of such words might, in the case of London, lead to the different vestries adopting different hours. But I am persuaded that all Representatives of the divisions of South London will agree that the vestries, if this power is placed in their hands, will act upon some uniform system.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, in line 4, leave out "County Council," and insert "vestry or local sanitary authority of the district."—(Mr. Kelly.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'County Council' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

* MR. J. E. ELLIS (Nottingham, Rushcliffe)

I agree with the hon. Member to a certain extent. "County Council" certainly embraces too large an area; and, therefore, I venture to suggest that we should insert the words "as regards urban sanitary districts, the local boards." While I cannot support the insertion of the word "vestry," I think we might very properly insert the words I mention.

MR. KELLY

What I am particularly anxious to do is to preserve this power to the bodies who will be subsequently displaced by the District Councils. I am quite willing that the power should be given to Local Sanitary Authorities wherever they exist.

* MR. TOMLINSON

Consider what would happen in large counties such as Lancashire. All the county boroughs and municipal boroughs will be outside the jurisdiction of the County Council separately; and, therefore, we shall have a body sitting in one particular part of the country trying to exercise these powers in respect to little detached places spread over a widely extended area. How is a County Council to judge of the circumstances of isolated localities? Surely the Local Board or the Sanitary Authority would be the most suitable body to be intrusted with these powers.

* MR. SYDNEY GEDGE

I am sorry the Attorney General is not here to defend his Amendment, because I prefer it to the proposal of the hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. Kelly.) If you want a representative body the County Council is a typical one. Although I admit this is a duty which should be imposed on District Councils when they are established, in the meantime the County Council is the best body to be entrusted with it. The County Council will not be influenced by mere local prejudices, but will look at the matter all round, and no doubt come to a just decision.

MR. MALLOCK (Devon, Torquay)

I hope this power will be given to Urban Sanitary Authorities, if not to Rural Sanitary Authorities. There is a town in my Division with 27,000 inhabitants, and the Local Board is the Sanitary Authority. The County Council sitting in Exeter cannot possibly know what is best for such a district.

MR. MUNDELLA

I feel we ought not to interfere with the Sanitary Authority. I would suggest that the Amendment should read—"and as regards any other place any Urban Sanitary Authority." That would meet the whole case, and would place the power in the right hands.

MR. KELLY

What I wished principally to raise was the question whether the County Councils were the proper authorities to deal with the question, and I am glad to find there is a general opinion that the County Council would not be the proper body for that purpose. I am sorry to differ with the right hon. Gentleman on the subject of London; but if he likes I will withdraw my Amendment now in favour of his, reserving the right, after consideration, if it should be deemed necessary on Report, of moving an Amendment to place the power in the hands of the Vestries of London, not of the County Council.

Amendment to Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment to Amendment proposed, in line 3, to insert, "as regards the County of London the County Council."—(Mr. Mundella.)

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment to Amendment proposed, after "England," insert "the Urban Sanitary Authority."—(Mr. Mundella)

MR. KELLY

I do not think this will meet the case. If it were left local—"Sanitary Authority of the district"—that would include both Urban and Rural Authorities, and if there is any alteration of this found to be required we could put it right on Report. I am most anxious not to impede the progress of the Bill; but there are already many matters left over for Report, and I think it is better to settle the matter so far as we can at this stage.

MR. MUNDELLA

I am willing to insert "Urban and Rural Sanitary Authority."

MR. STUART WORTLEY

Those words can go in, on the understanding that between now and Report stage I will confer with the President of the Local Government Board on the point.

Amendment to Amendment withdrawn.

Amendment to Amendment proposed, after "England" to leave out "County Council," and insert "Urban or Rural Sanitary Authority."—(Mr. Mundella.)

Amendment agreed to

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, added to Bill.

Clause 9 agreed to.

New clauses.

New clause proposed:— (Saving for proceedings under other laws.) Where an offence against this Act is also punishable under any other Act, or at common law, it may be prosecuted and punished either under this Act, or under the other Act, or at common law, so that no person be punished twice for the same offence."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.

* SIR R. TEMPLE (Worcester, Evesham)

(on behalf of Mr. WILLIAM CROSS), after clause just added, insert the following clause:— (Appeal from summary conviction to general or quarter sessions.) When, in pursuance of this Act, any person is convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction of an offence, and such person did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information or complaint, he may appeal to a court of general or quarter sessions against such conviction. Such appeal shall be subject to the conditions and regulations as to procedure contained in section thirty-one of 'The Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879.

MR. KELLY

It is right, I think, to mention that this is a considerable extension of the power of appeal under the existing law.

* MR. TOMLINSON

Of course, this power of appeal has reference to convictions; it may be desirable there should be power of appeal against orders relating to the custody of a child. I do not know whether this point has been considered.

MR. MUNDELLA

That is already provided for in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman will find it elsewhere.

Clause read a second time and added to the Bill.

* SIR R. TEMPLE

On behalf of my hon. Friend (Mr. W. Cross) I beg to move the next clause as it appears on the Paper, and I earnestly hope it will find acceptance from the right hon. Gentleman. If that is the case, I need not trouble the Committee with any reasons in support of it.

Motion made, after Clause last inserted, to insert the following Clause:— (Act not to affect punishment of children by teachers.) Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to affect or relate to the administering of punishment by a teacher under his or her charge.

Question proposed, "That this Clause stand part of the Bill."

MR. MUNDELLA

I am sure my hon. Friend is aware there is no intention whatever by this Bill to restrict action necessary for the maintenance of discipline in a school. But this clause is a great deal too narrow in its terms. It confers no right a teacher does not already possess, and if the hon. Baronet will look at the next clause of which notice has been given by the hon. Member (Mr. W. Cross), he will see that it covers everything that is required— Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to take away or affect the right of any parent or person having the lawful control of a child to administer reasonable and moderate punishment to such child. The words "other person" covers the teacher, as having legal control for the time being, and exempts such person from any liability for the administration of reasonable and moderate punishment.

* SIR R. TEMPLE

But the second Amendment is not considered by the teachers to be sufficient, because there may be a doubt whether the expression "person having the lawful control" includes a teacher. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it does, but others may have a different impression. Would the right hon. Gentleman mind adding the word "teacher" to the next Amendment?

MR. MUNDELLA

Yes; I would accept that.

* SIR R. TEMPLE

Then I will ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed after clause last inserted, insert— (Act not to take away right of parent, &c., to administer reasonable and moderate punishment.) Nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to take away or affect the right of any parent, teacher, or other person having the lawful control of a child to administer reasonable and moderate punishment to such child."— (Sir R. Temple, on behalf of Mr. W. Cross).

Question proposed, "That this Clause be read a second time."

MR. KELLY

I think it rather unfortunate the last Amendment was withdrawn. I venture to think the word "teacher" presents a difficulty. It is not such a simple word as may be supposed, and there is no definition of it in the Bill. I also think the words "having lawful control" are somewhat vague in this connection, and in reference to children at day-schools may be rather troublesome. I may say it is a matter of importance to teachers, having in view the action taken by a certain society. I have been told with exultation that the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children will avail themselves of this Act to prevent corporal punishment. I believe since the passing of the Elementary Education Act there have been only 172 cases in which teachers have been brought before any Court in reference to punishment of children, and I believe I am correct in saying that in only 32 cases have there been convictions for cruelty. School teachers have responsible positions; they must maintain discipline in their schools, or they lose their grant, and it must be obvious that to maintain discipline there must be a power of administering corporal punishment. The efforts of the Society I refer to are directed against the administration of corporal punishment. I have here a copy of a notice in which the Society invite information to be sent to the local secretary by parents and others of all cases of cruelty to children, and the Society undertakes the cost of further inquiry and proceedings. To this is added the postscript: "N.B. 'The name of informant kept strictly private.'" All over the country the Society are trying to get up these hole-and-corner inquiries, and to induce people, under the promise that the names of informers shall be kept private, to bring all sorts of charges against a most deserving class of persons—the masters and teachers in our schools. These are absolutely persecuted by the Society. I gave the House an example the other day; here is another. A boy named Stephen Martin, in the Board School at Rye, was punished by the head master. The mother of the child threatened to "make it hot" for the master, and she communicated with the local agent of the Society. An inquiry was held of the most extraordinary character. In the first place, it turned out that the Chairman of the School Board, who was a doctor, had examined the child soon after the punishment was inflicted, and ho declared it must have been very light. The Vice-Chairman did the same thing and expressed the same opinion. This was made known to the Society; but they went to the Superintendent of Police, who made inquiries on their behalf, inquiries of which the unfortunate master had no notice until the Society's agent came to him and tried to entrap him into admission. Perhaps they acted in the belief that they were doing right; but having found that their case had altogether broken down, they forwarded a communication to the poor schoolmaster in a large envelope with the name of the Society advertised on the outside. They knowing, on the evidence of Dr. Addison and the Vice-Chairman, that the schoolmaster had not exceeded his duty, sent this envelope which, of course, people seeing would understand to be a minatory notice. I understand they have altered the form lately——

THE CHAIRMAN

I do not see how the action of the Society affects this question at all. The hon. Member must speak to the clause.

MR. KELLY

Under this Bill there will be power of dealing with cases of assaults on school children by masters and teachers, and what I wish to point out is how they are dealt with at present. On previous occasions this Bill has been promoted by different Members on behalf of this Society——

THE CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member's remarks are not relevant to the clause.

MR. MUNDELLA

I will not detain the Committee many moments, if I may be allowed to explain, in reference to the hon. Member's allusion——

THE CHAIRMAN

It will be quite irregular to enter into these matters.

* SIR R. TEMPLE

I would only ask the right hon. Gentleman to say whether he will agree to the words "parent, teacher, or other person having lawful control."

MR. MUNDELLA

If it would strengthen the protection to the teachers, I have not the least objection. I am the last man in the House who would wish to do anything contrary to the interests of the teachers. I must, if I may be allowed, just say this—that not one single summons has been taken out by the Society against a teacher, and in only one instance was a scholar's expenses paid by the Society. I am anxious to give the teachers an assurance that all reasonable moderate punishment they may have to administer as discipline will not subject them to any liability under the Act.

* SIR R. TEMPLE

With that expression of opinion I hope the clause will be agreed to.

MR. KELLY

Quite appreciating the hon. Baronet's intention, and with every desire to aid him, I would point out there are many cases the clause would not include. Take an ordinary case. In almost every village in the country there is a school conducted by the schoolmaster and his pupil teacher. If the master should be ill or absent, it devolves on some gentleman, generally the vicar, to come and maintain order in the school.

An hon. MEMBER

That is being in charge.

MR. KELLY

No, not in charge, but exercising a temporary control. It is a matter to consider how far the delegation of authority includes the right to administer punishment. I have in mind a case in a private school where the master was seriously ill, and his brother took charge of the school. He was not a teacher in any sense, and had no charge or control of the boys as a teacher; he was rather there for the purpose of keeping the establishment going, and seeing that the boarders were properly looked after. There is a difficulty at once to determine who has the lawful control. My child goes to a day school. I have lawful control over him, and exercise it—not by corporal punishment—but I venture to think that in such cases only the parent has lawful control, and in the immense number of cases children attend day schools. It is a great question in these cases whether the schoolmaster would be protected at all. Should not the clause run something in this way?— That nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to affect the administration of any punishment on any child in any school. I only seek to secure that the Act shall not interfere in such cases. You can still punish a man who administers corporal punishment where he has no right to do so. I would leave protection where it is now.

MR. MATTHEWS

I would suggest that the words "reasonable and moderate" should be omitted. It is intended that the schoolmaster should be left to the Common Law right to administer punishment according to the character of the offence, whether grave or trivial.

MR. MUNDELLA

The words follow the very language used in a Judgment delivered by Chief Justice Cockburn.

* MR. GEDGE

That is all very well; but the objection is that the existing law deals with the case if the punishment inflicted is of an unreasonable and immoderate character. To the existing law we would leave it, and not bring it under this Act with the remarkable consequences that follow.

* SIR R. TEMPLE

After hearing what has been said by the Home Secretary and the hon. and learned Member I am quite ready to omit the words.

MR. CHANNING

It seems to me the words represent the practical and common sense view of our intention, and I hope the Amendment will not be made.

MR. ELTON (Somerset, Wellington)

I must say that I think this clause would be a great boon to schoolmasters; but if I thought it would give any particular rights to persons having the control of children—as the hon. Member seems to suppose—I should vote against it.

MR. C. DARLING

I trust the right hon. Gentleman will not think of adopting the suggestion of the hon. Member for Camberwell as to enlarging the definition in the clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

* MR. TOMLINSON

To render the clause more specific, I would move to insert after the word "parent" the word "schoolmaster." The word "teacher" might, in certain cases, he held to apply only to the person actually engaged in teaching the child, and not to the person higher in authority. In many schools the person to inflict the punishment would be the head schoolmaster, not the actual teacher.

Amendment proposed to the proposed new Clause, line 2, after "parent," insert "schoolmaster."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'schoolmaster' be there inserted."

MR. MUNDELLA

I must say I think the word "teacher" is wider than "schoolmaster." The teacher will stand towards the child under his tuition in loco parentis, and under that description the schoolmaster or schoolmistress would be included. I am anxious to make the clause as comprehensive as possible. As for the Amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Camberwell, I never yet heard a more unreasonable—

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

The Committee divided:—Ayes 72; Noes 152.—(Div. List, No. 172).

Amendment to the proposed new Clause line 2, after "control," insert "or charge."—(Mr. Mundella.)

Amendment agreed to.

* SIR R. TEMPLE

I move, in line 3, to leave out the words, "reasonable and moderate," before the word "punishment."

Amendment moved to the proposed new Clause, line 3, leave out "reasonable and moderate."—(Sir R. Temple.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

I have the authority of Chief Justice Cockburn for the words as they stand; however, I accept the Amendment, which will make no practical difference, because only "reasonable and moderate" punishment is lawful.

Question put, and negatived.

New Clause read a Second Time, and added to the Bill: The enactments specified in the Schedule to this Act are hereby repealed to the extent in the third column of that Schedule mentioned. Provided that such appeal shall not affect—

  1. (a.) Anything duly done or suffered under any enactment hereby repealed; or
  2. (b.) Any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment incurred under any offence committed against any enactment hereby repealed; or
  3. (c.) Any legal proceeding in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment;and any such legal proceeding may be instituted and carried on, and the penalty, forfeiture, or punishment enforced, in like manner, as if this Act had not passed."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

MR. MUNDELLA

I beg to move the following new Clause, which I have been requested by the Local Government Board to insert:— The guardians of any union or parish may, out of the funds under their control, pay the reasonable costs and expenses of any proceedings which they have directed to be taken under this Act in regard to the ill-treatment, neglect, abandonment, or exposure of any child, and in the case of a union shall charge such costs and expenses to the common fund.

Question proposed, "That this Clause be read a Second Time."

* MR. TOMLINSON

I should like to have some explanation of the necessity for inserting this Clause.

MR. MUNDELLA

The explanation is a very simple one. As I have said, I have been requested by the Local Government Board to insert it. It is their own drafting, and they say it is necessary. The Guardians have to pay the expenses, and the Board says they should have this power.

MR. ELTON

Suppose the Guardians delegate the matter to some philanthropic or other society, it might be a little hard on the ratepayers. How does the right hon. Gentleman propose to guard against such a thing?

MR. MUNDELLA

Such a society would not be acting under the direction of the Board of Guardians. The clause says— Pay the reasonable costs and expenses of any proceedings which they have directed to be taken under this Act. Those words cover the objection.

Question put, and agreed to.

* MR. TOMLINSON

I move to leave out the words "directed to be."

Amendment moved to the proposed new Clause, line 3, leave out "directed to be."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

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

MR. MUNDELLA

I cannot accept the Amendment. The clause comes from a Government Department, and there is no one here at this moment to represent that Department. Perhaps it would be as well to leave the question over until the Report.

MR. STUART WORTLEY

I have the authority of the Local Government Board for saying that they agree to this clause. It is clear that a Board of Guardians could not "direct" anyone who is not their servant to take action under this measure.

Question put, and agreed to.

Question, "That this Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

MR. JOHN KELLY

Will it be convenient to have the Bill reprinted?

MR. MUNDELLA

I understand that it will be forthwith reprinted, and, if necessary, I will make a Motion to that effect.

Bill reported; amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 308.]