CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION BILL. (No. 87.)

HC Deb 19 June 1889 vol 337 cc227-66

Considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1.

* THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir RICHARD WEBSTER,) Isle of Wight

In moving the first Amendment which stands in my name, it is desirable I should say a word or two with reference to the Amendments which I have upon the Paper. I need scarcely say that not only I, but Her Majesty's Government, sympathise most warmly with any proposals for legislation which will put a stop to, and punish people for, inflicting any acts of cruelty upon children. In so far as this Bill does propose to deal with acts of cruelty committed upon children, we most warmly support the measure. At the same time, we have to be most careful that we do not interfere with the legitimate conduct of parents and guardians with regard to children. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella), who takes so much interest in the Bill, would be very sorry indeed, under cover of any Bill of the kind, to interfere with the proper and legitimate control of the parent over the child, and certainly to interfere with anything like the reasonable earnings of children assisting their parents. I have put upon the Paper such Amendments as I thought would prevent the Bill from operating in any way in a harsh manner. I do not pretend that the Amendments will satisfy every one, nor do they indicate that Her Majesty's Government in any way express a definite opinion with regard to the Bill, or that they either directly or indirectly seek to influence the judgment of any hon. Member in this matter. So far as this Bill seeks to prevent acts of cruelty upon children, I am as anxious as anyone to assist in that work, and Her Majesty's Government most heartily endorses any legislation in that direction. Some may say that I have not gone far enough, and others that I have gone too far, but I hope that there will be a fair discussion of any Amendments that may arise. I beg to move the first Amendment that stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, leave out from the beginning of line 5 to "sixteen years," in line 8, and insert— (1) "Any person who, having the custody, control, or charge of a child, being a boy under the age of fourteen years, or being a girl under the age of sixteen years, wilfully illtreats, neglects, abandons, or exposes such child."—(Mr. Attorney General.)

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

* MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield)

In rising to accept the Amendment of the Attorney General, I wish at the same time to make my acknowledgments to him in this House, as I have done elsewhere publicly, of the very considerable attention he has given to the whole question, and of his willingness to meet all the reasonable demands of those who desire to prevent cruelty to children and their excessive suffering and overwork. I can assure the hon. and learned Gen- tleman that I am as anxious as any Member of Her Majesty's Government not to make these provisions go beyond the reasonable requirements of the case. I feel that it is impossible by any Bills we pass in this House to cover all cases. It is impossible that we can meet every case that may arise of cruelty; but I believe the Attorney General has gone, I was going to say, to the extreme limit of making provisions against any such cases. I think by his Amendments he has taken very good care to protect what in this country we call parental rights. Children have very few rights in England, and by this Bill I am really only anxious that we should give them almost the same protection that we give under the Cruelty to Animals Act and the Contagious Diseases Act for domestic animals. I may be allowed to say, although we are in Committee, that the first promoter of this Bill was the late Lord Iddesleigh, who took intense interest in this subject, and who had a stronger measure in his pocket at the very moment of his death. The Bill has been watered down since that time, and I trust now that with the Amendments of the Attorney General, which the promoters are prepared to accept, we shall make a useful and working measure. I do not think the House has the smallest conception of the appalling cruelties that are practiced upon children, and the hardships they have to suffer. I do hope we shall discuss this matter in the spirit which the Attorney General has indicated. I trust the Amendment will be passed without debate.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. JOHN KELLY

, who had an Amendment on the Paper—Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "person" insert "of full age," said: I have not the least wish to see any children taken before the Magistrate. No doubt acts of cruelty will unfortunately occur among children; but if the words of the clause were adopted without any qualification, it would apply to the case of a child carrying another child and inflicting some cruelty upon it, for which act, under the terms of the Bill, it would be liable to be dragged before a Magistrate. I take it the object of the promoters is not to prevent cruelty by children, which, of course, is very wrong, but cruelty by parents and guardians and people who have charge and control of children. If the Amendment in my name is not accepted, at least that which is down in the name of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division of Cheshire might be adopted. The Bill has been badly drafted, and certainly could never have been intended to apply to such a case as a child carrying a child or persons guilty of innocent acts for which they would be liable to be brought before the Magistrate.

THE CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. Member move his Amendment?

MR. KELLY

I do not move my Amendment.

* MR. WALTER M'LAREN (Chester, Crewe)

submitted the following:—Clause 1, page 1, line 5, after "person," insert "over 16 years of age." I should have moved the Amendment over 18 years of age, but I understand my right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) prefers 16 years of age as the limit. I will not attempt unduly to press my view on the House, and, of course, I will gladly accept any modification that the right hon. Gentleman may personally think desirable. As a matter of form, I beg to move my Amendment, "over 16 years of age." I think it is desirable there should be some limit. As the Bill stands it is absolutely without any limit of age.

Amendment proposed, to amend the words proposed to be inserted by inserting the words, "any persons over 16 years of age."

Question proposed, "That those words be inserted in the proposed Amendment."

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I think it is not necessary for me to follow the hon. Member for Camberwell in his criticisms, and I do not think there is any great cause of complaint against the way in which the Bill has been drafted. But I think he touched the point when he says that the Bill would enable one child, say of 12 years of age, carrying another child, and inflicting some cruelty upon it to its injury, to be made the subject of a criminal prosecution. The real question to consider is, what is the proper age? No doubt a lad of 16 or 17 years is capable of inflicting cruelty. Well- grown girls also are constantly sent out in charge of other children; and it occurred to me that the age of 16 would be a fair compromise of the matter. I would suggest that the Amendment of the hon. Member for the Crewe Division should be accepted—"any person over 16 years of age."

* MR. MUNDELLA

I accept the Amendment, although there have been very serious cases of cruelty by persons under 16 years — such as burning a child against the bars of the fire, and conflicting unheard of cruelties.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

I should like to know whether any clause can be inserted by which the parent of the child could ultimately be made responsible?

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I think the hon. Member has not had time to look at the clause which provides for persons who ill-treat, neglect or abandon or expose a child. We could not go further than that we could not have constructive crime; there must be a criminal intention, that is to say, wilfully doing some act which will cause the child to be injured.

MR. BRUNNER (Northwich)

Are the cases of girls or boys under 16 years when guilty of cruelty provided for in any other way?

* SIR R. WEBSTER

Certainly; it would be an aggravated assault.

Question put, and agreed to.

Other Amendments made.

*MR. WALTER M'LAREN moved—Clause 1, page 1, leave out "in a manner likely to cause," and insert "in such a manner as to have caused." The reason I do this is that the subsection is the most vital part of the Bill. It is the one which inflicts the heaviest penalties—six months' imprisonment or a possible fine of £100. It is not merely the punishment that follows directly as the result of neglect; but I believe the Attorney General has an Amendment to Clause 3, which one must take in connection with this part of the Bill, Clause 3 giving the penalty attaching to Clause 1. It is to the effect that if any one over the age of 16 years wilfully exposes, neglects, or abandons a child in such a manner as is likely to cause unnecessary suffering, the child may be taken away from that person and handed over to some near relative, or whatever person the Court may think suitable. That person shall continue to have control over the child, notwithstanding it may be claimed by its parents. And having taken the child away from its parents, the Court may order the parents to maintain it, although the child is given to the charge by the Court to another person. These are most tremendous powers. They are powers only to be exercised when there is evidence of the injury actually having been done. I really think this House is not likely to agree to any such extreme breach of parental rights. We ought to have it perfectly established, not merely that there are some acts which "are likely to cause unnecessary suffering," but acts committed "in such a manner as to have caused." It is really too much to say that the child is to be taken away from the control of the parents, and given to some stranger, merely because some other person, some elder brother or sister over 16 years of age, treated it in such a way as likely to cause it unnecessary suffering. I cannot really conceive that the House desires to see such a law as that. I beg to move this Amendment, and I earnestly hope my right hon. Friend will see his way to accepting it.

Amendment proposed, in Clause 1, page 1, line 9, leave out "in a manner likely to cause," and insert "in such a manner as to be caused."

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

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I think it is not desirable on this clause to discuss the principle of how far the guardianship of the child should be interfered with. That is a matter, when we come to-the clause dealing with it, which will require very careful consideration on its merits. I agree that it is desirable that you should see there is substantial evidence of the offence before it is made the ground of a criminal prosecution. But I think the Amendment goes too far, because "in such a manner as to have caused," implies some injury to the child. I also think that word "likely" rather vague, and I would suggest "in such a manner as to cause." That would be a fair compromise.

* MR. MUNDELLA

I could not accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend because this Bill is one to prevent cruelty to children, whereas according to this Amendment the Act need not come into operation until the act of cruelty had been done. Now, the Attorney General suggests words which, he thinks, would meet the case. I have great respect for anything that comes from him on a legal question, but the clause was drawn having reference to the very words of our Act, the Act of 31st and 32nd Vic.

* MR. M'LAREN

I should be glad to accept the suggestion of the Attorney General. It is quite impossible to my mind to dissociate the proposed penalty from the proposed offence, and to say that the child shall be taken away from its parents altogether. I will therefore gladly accept the modification proposed by the Attorney General.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER (Wolverhampton)

According to the Amendment crime must be actually committed before any punishment can be imposed. The Bill contemplates prevention of the crime, and surely our desire should be to prevent the improper treatment of children without waiting first to see if the child will be injured by that treatment.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I do not think I can accept the Amendment. Possibly it would be better to leave the matter as it stands, and I will consider it between this and the Report stage; unless indeed some hon. Member is prepared at once to suggest a form of words which will meet the difficulty.

* MR. MUNDELLA

I am much obliged to the Attorney General for his suggestion, and I hope my hon. Friend will consent to let the matter stand over. I find in another Act the words used are "Likely to be permanently injured."

* MR. BRADLAUGH

But I think you will find in that case that there are some words preceding which limit the operation.

MR. M'LAREN

I withdraw the Amendment on the understanding that the matter will be considered between this and the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 10, leave out "unnecessary," and insert "unjustifiable."

MR. KELLY

I propose by this Amendment to alter the word "unnecessary." I cannot disguise from myself the fact that this Bill when it becomes law, as I hope it may do shortly, will have to be interpreted all over the country, and the interpretation in different parts will vary considerably Now I think it would be better to substitute the word "unjustifiable" for "unnecessary." Everybody would understand that word, and without further preface I will move the Amendment to that effect.

* MR. MUNDELLA

Surely the very-fact of showing that the suffering is unnecessary will make it unjustifiable.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I think the word "unjustifiable" would be an unfortunate one to introduce, and seeing that the clause is aimed at the offence of wilfully ill-treating and abandoning or exposing a child I think the insertion of the word "unjustifiable" would almost stultify it.

MR. KELLY

Although I shall not press my Amendment I hope the right hon. Gentleman will consider whether it is not possible to substitute some other word for "unnecessary," in order to ensure that the object of the section is carried out.

MR. BRUNNER (Cheshire, Northwich)

The use of the word "unnecessary" in the Cruelty to Animals Act is obviously proper, because we put animals to death for our own benefit. We do not do that with children.

MR. PICTON

When a child has a tooth pulled out that is necessary pain.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KELLY

I have next to move to insert in Clause 1, page 1, line 10, after "health," insert— or who, having the charge or care of a child and being in a state of intoxication, treats such child in a manner likely to cause such child grievous bodily harm, or confines or imprisons such child in a manner likely to injuriously affect the health of such child. Often a poor wretched woman is seen staggering along the street with a little child in her arms, and unless she is either hopelessly or helplessly intoxicated the position of the police is a difficult one. If he takes her into custody, and the act has a sobering effect upon her, he gets a rap over the knuckles from his inspector, whereas if she is drunk he probably gets a rap over the knuckles from the magistrate the next morning. It therefore is a most difficult thing for him to decide whether or not he should arrest a woman for being drunk and incapable. The cases in which women reel about the streets with children a few weeks or a few months old in their arms are very difficult to deal with, and I therefore urge on the Committee to accept the Amendment which stands in my name, and which, I think, will meet this difficulty. Again, there is also the case of shutting a child up in a room. It may be provided with plenty of food, and yet, I submit, that the very act of keeping it incarcerated for a lengthened period would be treating it in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering and injurious to its health. I do not think unnecessary suffering should refer only to physical suffering. A child incarcerated, as I have pointed out, would undergo considerable mental suffering, and therefore I propose to make such detention an offence under this clause.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I do not think I can accept the Amendment, at any sate as it is drawn. I cannot see, in fact, why the question of the father or mother being in a state of intoxication when in charge of a child should be introduced at all. I do not think that the fact of being intoxicated would be any answer to a charge, supposing it could be shown that the ill-treatment was wilful. Of course, there may be cases in which the unfortunate woman was in such an advanced state of intoxication that it would be impossible to prove wilful intention; but, at the same time, I think it is undesirable to make what I may call a separate offence dependent upon a state of intoxication. With regard to the second part, I admit that undue confinement is likely to injuriously affect the health of a child, but I think the words of the clause are already sufficiently wide to meet such a case.

MR. BRUNNER

Are we to understand that the case of intoxication is covered by the clause as it stands?

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I have no doubt of that. I do not think that a person guilty of cruelty under the earlier part of the section would not be able to escape punishment by pleading intoxication.

MR. H. S. CROSS (Bolton)

But supposing that the child actually died from the effects of ill-treatment, caused by a person while under the influence of drink, would not that person be chargeable with the offence of wilful murder?

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I should think that if it were proved the child had died, and there was evidence of wilful ill-treatment, intoxication would not be an answer. As I have said before, I can imagine such a case of intoxication as would make it difficult to prove wilful ill-treatment.

MR. KELLY

I think it would be better if the Amendment were accepted. I cannot see how wilful ill-treatment, including abandoning or exposing a child, can be wholly excluded from the clauses, and then there is the case of shutting up a child in a room although it may be properly supplied with food. What I believe to be a not uncommon case is for a stepmother or a person of that character to entertain particular dislike or hatred towards a particular child, and to shut it up week after week, and month after month, in a room entirely by itself. Now, I fear that this first sub-section would not touch such a case as that, and for that reason, therefore, I am exceedingly sorry that the hon. Gentleman does not see his way to accept it. Under the circumstances, I have no choice but to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I have to move, in Clause 1, page 1, lines 10 and 11, leave out "or who," and insert— Shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof on indictment shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to imprisonment with, or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding two years, or to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds, or to both; and being convicted thereof by a Court of summary jurisdiction, in manner provided by the Summary Jurisdiction Acts, shall be liable, at the discretion of the Court, to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding three months, or to both. Provided, That, if it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a person so convicted on indictment was interested in any sum of money accruable or payable in the event of the death of the child, the Court may, in their discretion, increase the amount of the said fine so that the fine shall not exceed two hundred pounds.

MR. KELLY

I wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that under this Amendment it will be possible to punish persons doubly, and therefore I intend to move the omission of the words "or to both." I invite the Attorney General to explain to the House why he proposes to take this course. I think that in the graver cases there should be no fine at all. If a man is fined £50, and also receives three months' imprisonment, surely it would be unreasonable to impose the fine and yet have no power of enforcing the payment of it. Yet the only means of enforcing it would be by prolonging the imprisonment.

Amendment proposed, that the words "or to both" be omitted.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

Is it possible to limit the term of imprisonment in the event of the fine not being paid? Supposing you impose a fine of £50 in addition to a term of three months' imprisonment, it does seem hard that the man should be kept in prison another two years if he is unable to pay the fine.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I will consider that point.

MR. KELLY

As my hon. and learned Friend undertakes to do that, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question again proposed.

MR. BRUNNER

I wish, before coming to the point with which the hon. Member (Mr. Kelly) was dealing, to address a few words to the Committee with regard to the matter of punishment. I should like to convince the Committee, if I could, that the infliction of a punishment of two years' imprisonment with hard labour is about the most awful thing a Judge can do. My study of the matter has led me to the conclusion that two years' imprisonment with hard labour is a sentence which will break down the strongest man and permanently injure his health. It seems unwise of us to inflict a punishment which shall limit a man's or a woman's power of earning a living for the rest of his or her life; and in order to bring the matter directly under the notice of the Attorney General, I beg to move the omission of the words "two years" in line 4 of the proposed Amendment, and to substitute the words "one year."

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, line 4, leave out "two years" and insert "one year."—(Mr. Brunner.)

Question proposed, "That the words two years' stand part of the proposed Amendment."

MR. MATTHEWS

I apprehend that the punishment of two years' imprisonment with hard labour is only intended for offences on the verge of manslaughter But do not let the Committee suppose that the old impression with regard to two years' imprisonment is confirmed by modern experience. The hon. Gentleman will find from the last Report of the Prison Commissioners that it is quite a mistake to suppose that under modern prison discipline a sentence of two years' hard labour is dangerous to health and one under which prisoners break down.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

It is quite evident that such a sentence would only be inflicted in very extreme cases, and certainly in such cases there is very little room for consideration for the offender.

MR. BRUNNER

I know it requires a little courage to move such an Amendment as this, because it exposes one for the moment to the suspicion that he has some tender feeling for those who inflict punishment on children. Having heard from the Home Secretary that under the modern conditions of discipline the sentence of two years' imprisonment with hard labour is no longer so severe as to break down a man for life, I beg to withdraw the Amendment.

* MR. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)

Having had frequently to inflict the punishment in question, perhaps I may inform the hon. Member that whenever a man shows any sign whatever of breaking down under it, it is the duty of the prison authorities—of the surgeon of the gaol—to report that such is the case, and the man is immediately taken off hard labour. I quite agree that the sentence is very severe; it is one which very few can undergo. Yet I can conceive cases under this Bill where the treatment of a child would be most brutal, and where the man or woman inflicting the injury would be strong enough to bear this punishment. In such cases it would be a wrong if such sentences were not inflicted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, after the word "child," insert "and had knowledge that such money was accruing or becoming payable."—(Mr. Kelly.

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

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I think the matter might well be left to the discretion of the Committee; but if the Committee wish it, I will raise no objection to the insertion of those words.

* MR. MUNDELLA

How can knowledge be proved?

SIR A. ROLLIT

To prove the scienter, it might be necessary to produce deeds and other documents. To do that there might be great difficulty; indeed, proof of scienter is generally a difficult point.

* MR. W. M'LAREN

I think it is quite desirable in the interest of parents that there should be some limitation such as is proposed.

Question put, and agreed to.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

I beg to move the omission of the words "two hundred" in line 14 of the Amendment, in order to insert, "such sum proved to be so accruing and payable." I presume it is intended to take away from the person accused of the crime the pecuniary inducement which is supposed to lead to the crime, by holding out over his head a fear of having committed a crime. We had the other day before a Committee upstairs an alleged case of cruelty to a child in which the interest of the person accused on the death of the child was alleged to be the sum of £2,000. If it be wise to impose a fine at all, I cannot see the wisdom of limiting it to £200.

Amendment proposed, to omit the words "two hundred pounds," in order to substitute "such sum proved to be so accruing and payable."

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I must suggest to the Committee that they should not accept the Amendment. I have the authority of many of the Judges for saying that there is no matter which gives them greater anxiety than the decisions they have to come to as to the sentences to be inflicted. The case contemplated by the section is a case where the child is not dead. It seems to me that the Committee should make up its mind as to what is the proper maximum penalty for the Judge to inflict. I think it would be a very serious thing to leave this to the discretion of the Judge. It might possibly involve the taking of an account to see what interest was coming to the child.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

I do not quite understand a portion of the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer. He points out that this is a case in which the child has not died. That is so, but the proviso clearly is a proviso with reference to an attempt to cause the death of the child by a person interested in a sum of money accruing on the death of the child. The object of the proviso is to prevent crime by telling the intending criminal—"Although you are entitled, on the death of the child you are charged with ill-treating, to the sum of £2,000, you will gain nothing by your cruelty, because you may be fined the whole amount, and, therefore, honesty is the best policy."

* MR. M'LAREN

I would suggest that instead of leaving out £200, my hon. Friend should add "or such sum as may be proved to be accruing and payable, whichever is the greater."

* MR. BRADLAUGH

I will do that.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

I now move to insert after £200 "or such sum proved to be accruing and payable, whichever is the greater."

Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment, after "£200," to insert "or such sum proved to be accruing and payable, whichever is the greater."

* SIR R. WEBSTER

That cannot be accepted. It seems to me that we ought to make up our minds as to what is a sufficient amount, and not enter into this kind of discussion. The Committee ought to decide, in my opinion, what is the maximum penalty.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

Of course, if the Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill think that these words would cause embarrassment, I will not insist on them.

MR. DE LISLE (Leicestershire, Mid.)

Would it not be possible to insert words providing that in case of the child dying the fine should be imposed?

* SIR R. WEBSTER

In that case it might be a much more serious offence.

MR. KELLY

I think that a man who is interested in the death of a child and behaves cruelly in consequence ought to have some much more severe punishment.

* MR. WINTERBOTHAM (Gloucester, Cirencester)

It seems to me that a fixed money penalty would be very unequal in its operation. This maximum penalty of £200 would, no doubt, be sufficient to take away the temptation to poor people to insure their children's lives, and then treat them with such cruelty as to lead to their death, but it would be no deterrent at all to a person who had insured a child's life for, say, £2,000. Unless, therefore, you are going to say that this most unusual and most terrible crime is confined to the poor, this clause would not meet the case.

* MR. MUNDELLA

My hon. Friend seems to forget that in addition to the fine there is the imprisonment, and that the imprisonment marks the gravity of the offence as well as the fine. I wish at once to say, as the point has been raised, that these offences are not confined to the poor by any means. Some of the very worst cases which have been brought to light have been among the middle classes and among people of wealth.

* MR. M'LAREN

I think after the statement just made by my right hon. Friend we ought to press this matter. If rich people are trying to kill their children for the sake of the money, we had better fine them the whole amount, which they hope to receive on the desired death of their children.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

There is one ground which has not been alluded to and on which I hope this Amendment will not be pressed, and that is that too heavy penalties are apt to defeat their own purpose. If the penalty attaching to the offence were £2,000 in any case, I think the prisoner would too frequently get the benefit of a doubt, and there would consequently be fewer convictions.

MR. ROWNTREE (Scarborough)

I trust the view will not be taken that a fine of £200 is a sort of equivalent for a punishment of two years' imprisonment. That would certainly be a very wrong impression to convey to the country.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

There seems to be a strong feeling on the part of many hon. Members that the sense of the Committee should be taken on this Amendment, and I shall, therefore, go to a division upon it.

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

The Committee divided.

Ayes 78; Noes 135.—(Div. List, No. 145.)

Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

MR. KELLY

I take it the object of this section is simply to meet the case of a man who sends his child out to beg, and I do not understand why you insert the words "actually or under pretence." I may point out that in every case a magistrate to convict must find there has been actual begging or receiving of alms. I cannot but think these words I desire to omit are wholly unnecessary. Even with the omission the sub-section may do an actual injustice, as, for instance, when a child sent out to sell flowers or what not may receive assistance from a person who will not take the article offered for sale. Is that to be an offence for which a parent is to be liable to be dragged through the streets by a policeman; is no consideration to be shown for such a case? As the clause stands no distinction is made between a casual action and conduct that may be considered habitually criminal. I therefore move the omission of the words from "either" to "pretence," and I am not at all certain that in this amended form the clause will not go a great deal further than hon. Members desire.

Amendment proposed, line 15, to leave out from "either" to "pretence," in line 16.

* MR. MUNDELLA

Nothing is more common in vagrancy that the taking of children into the streets for the purpose of singing, taking part in a performance, or selling some small article, but this being merely a cover for begging. Nothing is more deplorable than to see around railway stations, and other parts of our great towns, a number of young children kept out far into the night under the pretence of selling things, and those who have not paid attention to evidence on the point cannot conceive the cruelty with which these children are treated. Only last week, at Nottingham, the Town Clerk remarked how valuable such a measure of this kind would be to check the practice of sending children out begging under the pretence of selling matches and such things, and who are cruelly beaten if they do not bring home a certain amount of money. It is to meet such cases as these that the words are inserted. I hope the Committee will stand by the words as they are. In some boroughs there are special statutes to deal with these things, and Local Authorities are empowered to make regulations to prevent these things being done. Under the recommendations of the Committee of 1882 on Police and Sanitary Clauses this power was given, and every Session clauses carrying out this object are inserted in local Acts. There are such cases as this I heard of at Nottingham, where a brutal drunken father lived upon the money obtained by his three children in this way. Driven from one town—where a clause such as I speak of was in operation—the drunken, worthless father would proceed to another town where there was no such clause in operation, and continue to live on the proceeds of his children obtained under pretext of selling small articles. One of the boys was a cripple, and carried on the shoulders of the other two proved the most useful member of the family in procuring alms.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

I would submit to the Committee that though the Amendment cannot be accepted in this form there is a concession the right hon. Gentleman in charge might fairly make in relation to the age of the children. There are many lads of 12 or 13 who, by selling newspapers in the streets, are able to earn a livelihood, and the clause would stop that. But what I especially desire is to address a question to the Attorney General and the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella). In 1873 a law was passed by the Italian Parliament forbidding the employment of children in vagrant professions, and without troubling the Committee by reading a translation of this law, which I have in my hand, I would ask the Attorney General whether the words of this sub-section prohibiting the employment of any boy under 14 or girl under 16, would touch the case of the Italian padrones in this country? It is clear from the evidence taken last year—I am afraid I may not refer to this year's evidence—that a very large number of children are brought over here from Italy by the padrones. When the law was passed, the Italian Government suggested that if we would co-operate with them they would be able to stop this white slave traffic, as it has been called. They say it is most mischievous to their country, and I have no doubt it is. The Attorney General, no doubt, is aware that some little time after the passing of the law of 1873, there was a correspondence between the Foreign Office and the Italian Government, and the Italian Government made a suggestion that a similar law should be passed here.. The evidence is that these unfortunates, if they do not get ruined entirely, which very often happens, never settle down to any industrial occupation; but when they become sufficiently well off, those who were themselves stolen set themselves to steal other children. I would suggest to the Attorney General that he should look at this Italian Law, and consider how far it is possible to avail ourselves of this Bill, and to introduce a clause to meet the case. The difficulty I suggest is this. First, there is the probability of the procuring being provable against the padrone in this country. I am not sure how far evidence of acts done in Italy could be gone into, but it is certain that it would be difficult to get evidence. It might be difficult to touch the padrone who reaps the profit under the words as they stand; but if the Attorney General thinks them sufficient, I would not suggest an Amendment that would impede the Bill, but would suggest to the right hon. Member for Sheffield and the Attorney General that now we have a Bill of this character before us, it would be well to meet an evil which has been recognized by both the Government of Italy and the Government of this country, and which is the cause of many crimes and of much demoralization. I would press on the Attorney General not to accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, as it would take away the only part of the Bill of service; and next I would press on him whether the whole question could not be considered between this and Report.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

The question raised by the hon. Member for Northampton affords a strong argument against the acceptance of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Camberwell; but before I deal with that I would say that the hon. Member seems to have overlooked the words "causes and procures." If the padrone remained in Italy and merely sent the children over here, he would not come under the English Criminal Law at all.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

I refer to the padrone resident sent here.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

He may have procured the children in Italy; but the word "causes" would cover the continuous act of obtaining the child in Italy and sending him into the street in this country. If there are cases such as those the hon. Member speaks of there is a strong argument for keeping the words in the Bill. If a man procures children for money from their parents and sends them out under colourable employment begging the words should remain as they are. If they are still considered insufficient I will look into the matter before Report.

* MR. BRADLAUGH

The children are collected not by the padrone but by others, and the padrone lodges them and provides them with instruments, which are falsely called "musical," which they use in the streets. But there is no evidence to be obtained from any one but the children to prove that the padrone induces them to go into the streets. The children seem to like this life, as they obtain money more easily than they do in their own country. It is a little doubtful whether it comes within the clause at all.

* MR. WHARTON

Might not the words be so construed by a well-intentioned magistrate as really to defeat some of the principal objects that the framers of the Bill have in view? It appears to me that the words of the section are dangerous. A child may go into the street with newspapers or something else to sell with the most honest intention. If it become a misdemeanour on the part of the parent to allow such a thing it may be a great hardship. I know that such is not the intention of the framers of the Bill, and I want the hon. and learned Attorney General to see that the words are so altered as to prevent this injustice.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

If I thought the clause open to the construction put upon it by the hon. Member for Ripon I should oppose it as strongly as possible. I have already expressed an opinion very strongly on the question of children being allowed to sell, and I did not expect the present question to be raised at this point. I knew that a substantial discussion on the subject would arise on the next sub-section. I understand the clause to deal with the case of a child in the street actually begging or receiving alms, and doing so under the pretence of selling things. The cases put by the right hon. Gentleman ought to be considered, such as those of children outside stations pretending to sell matches, or something else, but begging all the time. Of course, if hon. Members can suggest any phrase that will make the matter clearer I shall be glad.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I put the same construction on the subsection as the hon. and learned Attorney General. The evil which the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Wharton) wants to guard against seems to me to be entirely dealt with under Sub-section 3. I am not prepared to say that artistically the words are very happily chosen, but I take it that begging or receiving alms governs the whole thing. The hon. Member asks what was the meaning of begging or gathering alms. He is a very experienced magistrate, and I am sure that for many years he has been administering the Vagrancy Act, which contains these words.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I think we shall be able to make some improvement in the wording of the clause even before Report. The words "either actually or" seem to me to be awkward, and I would suggest that the clause should be amended so as to read "causes or procures any child, &., to be in any street for the purpose of begging or receiving alms whether under the pretence of singing," &c.

* MR. MUNDELLA

I at once accept the suggestion of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

* MR. WHARTON

I do not think you will find that in the Vagrancy Act begging or receiving alms is coupled with actually offering for sale. What I call attention to is that here we have offering for sale, which is a legal act, made a penal act.

* MR. M'LAREN

There is this further difficulty—that even under the Amendment of the Attorney General it does not follow that the child would be begging. The child might be bonâ fide offering things for sale, and yet it might be the opinion of the magistrates that it was sent out with the intention of begging. We ought, I think, to guard against leaving it to the magistrates to say what the intention of the parents was, and merely let them decide what the child was actually doing. It would be well to insert after the word sale, the words "while actually begging." This would protect children really selling.

MR. KELLY

I withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I move to leave out "either actually or" and to insert "whether."

Amendment to leave out "either actually or," in page 1, line 16, and insert "whether," put, and agreed to.

* MR. M'LAREN

I beg to move the omission of the words "offering anything for sale." As the clause at present stands a policeman might say that although the child was merely offering for sale, he was convinced from what he knew of its parents that it was sent out for the purpose of begging.

Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 16, leave out "offering for sale."

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I think we ought not to anticipate the discussion of Subsection 3. I do not think the hon. Member need be under any misapprehension on this point.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section 2, to insert the words "or otherwise," instead of" or other pretence."

Amendment put, and agreed to.

MR. KELLY

I beg to move to leave out from "or offering," in line 23, to "profit," in line 24. Unless it was intended to drive hundreds of poor people into the workhouse or the gaol I cannot understand how this sub-section was framed in this way. It provides that any person or persons who procures or procure a child to be in any street between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., during the six winter months, for the purpose of offering anything for sale or for any other purpose, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour. I cannot help remarking that those who framed this sub-section can know very little of the poor. To prohibit children between 9 p.m. and 7 a.m. in summer, and between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m. in winter, from offering things for sale would be a cruel blow to the honest poor and an advantage to the bad poor. The sub-section would prevent poor people from getting a drop of milk for their breakfasts. The milkman has to send his boys out as early as 5.30 for delivery to his customers, and it would be monstrous to send the father or mother of such boys to prison for six months for doing what the necessities of the business requires. It is hard on a father or on a poor widow who has made every sacrifice for her boy till he is 13, to be deprived of his help in eking out a scanty livelihood. A boy would not be able to sell newspapers in the streets after 7 o'clock under this Bill. I will read you part of a letter written to a Member of this House by a woman who, I am sorry to say, is a bitter Radical, but who, at any rate, has some knowledge of this sort of thing. This is what the writer says:— I am 31 years of age, and commenced to work on September 9, 1868, being in the streets to fetch the papers I sold as often as early as 5.30, and as late as 10 p.m. But it was necessary I should so work; for although, like thousands of poor women, my mother herself worked 15, 16, and sometimes 18 hours daily, her earnings were not sufficient to keep our home together, and so far from feeling I was hardly dealt with, I felt very proud when on Saturday evenings I used to stand in front of our little four-roomed cottage and know that it was my earnings that made it our home. This is no uncommon case. In the poorer districts of Walworth and the East of London there are scores of cases in which boys, by their work in the streets in the mornings and evenings, are keeping their homes together. There is in this neighbourhood a poor little cripple who is a shoe-black. It is about the only occupation the poor lad could follow. On what principle is he and are others like him to be prevented from working? I hesitate to believe that the House can ever think of passing a clause of this character, which would be of the greatest possible advantage to the bad poor and of the greatest disadvantage to the honest poor. Let me give another instance. I will take the case of a costermonger. I know a good many costermongers—in fact, I represent them. It is true that they have no homes, but they have votes. I know something of their habits; they may be rough and sometimes drunken fellows, but they are not bad on the whole, and I would ask how does this clause affect the man who writes:— My boy has passed the Sixth Standard; I want nothing of him except one night in the week, when it is necessary that I should have him. Does any hon. Member here know the habits of the costermonger, the better class of whom is the man who sells flowers and fruit in a cart or barrow, and who has an animal—perhaps a donkey, or, it may be a pony—to draw it about, it being necessary that there should be some one to look after the animal while he is selling his wares. It is requisite that he should have a boy to lead the animal about, and for this purpose he only needs assistance one or two days in the week. Again, let us take the case of the lower class of costermongers—the man who does not hawk his goods about, but has a stationary barrow. This man cannot get on without help, and it may be that while his boy of 13 is selling papers, his girl stands and solicits passers by to purchase vegetables, and the mother is at the back preparing the vegetables for sale. Why should it be assumed that this sort of light labour does so much harm to the children? Can it be such a terrible thing for a boy to be kept up until 11 or 12 for one night in the week? If this were habitual, it would doubtless be worse for young people and their morals; but I venture to think that a girl of 15 might be out in the streets at night under more dangerous circumstances than when assisting her parents to earn the family living. Indeed, so far from its being any hardship for the children to help their parents on a Saturday night up to a late hour, it is one of the greatest pleasures of their lives. I do not wish to overload the case I have made out on behalf of my Amendment, which is that the words "offering anything for sale, or any other purpose of profit," be omitted from the clause. Hon. Members will notice that the clause refers to "any street," and there is a definition of the word "street" in the 8th clause, so that it is obvious that by keeping out of any street a man may keep his children out selling goods to a very late hour. Therefore, if any one will let a boy or girl stand inside any place along the street the clause may be easily evaded. To my mind there is no question that under this clause as it stands the greatest injustice would be done to the honest and hard-working poor, the meaning of the words I propose to omit being that not only will a boy under 14 be prevented from selling anything in the streets before seven, but according to the phrase, "or any other purpose of profit," he would not be allowed even to black a pair of boots where payment was involved. I beg, Mr. Courtney, to move the Amendment which stands in my name.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 23, to leave out the words from the word "profit" to the word "between," in line 24.—(Mr. John Kelly.)

Question proposed, "That the words 'or offering anything' stand part of the clause."

* MR. MUNDELLA

After the speech just made by the hon. and learned Gentleman, I will only detain the House for two or three minutes by the reply I shall offer. The hon. and learned Gentleman has talked about the position of the poor, and has insinuated that if I and other hon. Members of this House were better acquainted with the habits and occupations of the poor we should have more sympathy with them, and, therefore, would not support this clause, Now, although I do not like to obtrude my own experiences too much upon the House, I very much doubt whether there is any hon. Member who began work as early as I did, my labour having been commenced at the age of nine and a half years; consequently, I think, there are very few who can have the same acquaintance with the necessities of the poor in regard to the employment of their children. I may also say that I should be the very last Member of this House to put any limitation on the training of the children of the poor to habits of industry, and the duty of assisting their parents to the utmost of their power; but when the hon. and learned Gentleman objects to this clause and says it will drive boys from their employment, and fill the workhouses, and prevent milk being delivered before seven o'clock in the morning, I am surprised that a Member of the learned profession should have made such a mistake. The clause will not prevent the delivery of any article before seven in the morning; but it will prevent hawking and offering for sale before that hour.

MR. KELLY

Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to say that the poor order their milk?

* MR. MUNDELLA

The milk is delivered. I would point out that the Attorney General proposes to extend the hours in which children may be employed, and I am to some extent prepared to meet him. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman know that there are local Acts authorizing the very same powers as are here proposed in various boroughs throughout the country. In the year 1882 a Committee of this House presided over by Lord Basing—then Mr. Sclater-Booth—considered the matter, and reported that the clause for the protection of children against being sent out to hawk newspapers and other things in the streets was taken from the Scotch Education Act, and was working well in Scotland, where it is in operation now, and the Committee drew a model clause which they recommended should be inserted in the Bills applicable to the different boroughs throughout the country. The result has been that during this Session, Swansea, Norwich, Stockton-on-Tees, Cheltenham, and other boroughs have adopted these powers. In the Swansea Bill it is enacted that no child of the age of 13 shall be employed in any casual employment before eight in the morning and after six at night in the summer, or between eight at night and six in the morning in the winter months, casual employment being defined as "any purpose of gain, or vending or exposing for sale any article." It also defines employment by enacting that parents sending children into the streets for purposes of gain shall be deemed to have taken such children into their employment. I would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman how does he account for the fact that 86 of the principal boroughs in the United Kingdom have petitioned in favour of this Bill, and that a number of Corporations, that of my own constituency included, are most anxious that it should be passed? The hon. and learned Gentleman seems to think that children under 14 would be deprived of employment——

MR. KELLY

I would begin at 12.

* MR. MUNDELLA

It would be better to begin at 13. Under the Workshops and Factories Act the employment of children is limited, and if this is so in workshops and factories why is it that the hours from six in the morning till 9 or 10 at night are not sufficient for children selling articles in the streets. I am certain of this—that there is not a shadow of pretence for what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said about interference with the poor. In Newcastle there are more than 700 children employed in the streets, every one of whom has been traced to his home, the result being to prove that it is not poverty—not honest poverty—which exposes them from five in the morning till 10 or 11 o'clock at night, but in 99 cases out of 100 rather the drunkenness and depravity of the parents. It is to save these children from the cruel consequences of moral evil and physical disease, and from, being brought up in a weak and miserable condition, because cruel and unnatural parents are allowed to live by their exposure, that we ask for this Bill. Is there any reason why children should be kept up selling daily papers in the streets after nine at night? Is not that hour late enough? But the Attorney General proposes that it should be 10 o'clock; and I put it to the House, do hon. Members think that children of tender age should be exposed in the streets after 10 at night? I do not care so much about the morning; if seven is not early enough in winter begin at six, and if six is not early enough in summer make it five; but with regard to the night time, it is not only the evil done to the boys, but it is the temptation to the girls that has to be guarded against. It is strange, ii the hon. and learned Gentleman is right that so many boroughs should be asking for these powers and obtaining them it special improvement Acts. What is wanted is uniformity of the law. Why should these powers be given in some cases and not in others? As it is, there is an inducement for parents to take their children from towns where these powers exist to others where they are not in force, and therefore it would be for the general benefit of the country to make them uniform. They have been in operation throughout Scotland for the last 10 or 11 years, and every year lately we have passed a number of Acts conferring such powers on different localities; and I trust that in consequence of the fervid and imaginative appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, who has not had the experience I have had, this House will not hesitate in endorsing what this Bill proposes for the benefit of the rising generation. I constantly hear both from foreigners and Englishmen who have been travelling abroad that they are utterly ashamed of the exceptional degradation of children to be witnessed in the large towns of England; and I could, if necessary, quote statutes which are in force in all parts of Europe, under the operation of which anything so bad as is to be found in our English towns is entirely prevented.

MR. GEDGE (Stockport)

I am not in favour of the Amendment before the Committee, and I hope the clause will be passed with the Attorney General's Amendments. I think the Committee has been unintentionally misled as to the effect of the model orders referred to and the Act already in operation, for these make exceptions in favour of children under 14 who have obtained certificates that they can read and write and have an elementary knowledge of arithmetic.

* MR. MUNDELLA

The model clauses which were at first drawn restricted the employment of children to those under 14 or who had passed the 5th Standard, and the Scotch law provides that no child shall be employed at the hours named until he has passed that standard, or attained the age of 14; but the model clauses have since been amended.

* MR. H. J. WILSON (Holmfirth)

I should like to point out that the enactments to which the right hon. Member (Mr. Mundella) has referred, deal with casual employment only, and apply to much younger children. But we are now asked to forbid regular work, if in the street, for any purpose of profit. The definition clause says a "street" is a highway. This strikes at vary many proper employments. For instance, it will prevent a farmer's boy from driving a cow on the road before seven in the morning. I should be glad of some explanation on this subject, as I think there must be some misunderstanding upon it, or I have entirely misread the clause.

* MR. PICTON

I think there must be some misunderstanding as to the precise meaning of this clause. We are not now discussing any matter of detail, but the omission of a whole passage, and I hope the Committee will not agree to so sweeping an Amendment as this. I hope, however, the clause may be amended by provisions as to particular times of the day, and also with regard to public streets. In ten of our largest towns of England—namely, Manchester, Bristol, Birmingham, Leicester, Nottingham, Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle-on-Tyne, Hull, and Swansea, there were recently in operation bylaws containing powers very similar to those provided by this clause. It is true the ages are slightly different, but the general scope of the by-laws is precisely similar to what is here proposed. In Liverpool no child under the age of nine years might sell or offer for sale any article whatever in any of the streets or other places, and no child under 13 might offer goods for sale between nine in the evening and sunrise of the following day. There was a case raised in the higher Courts of Law in 1887, in which it was ruled that the powers given to these boroughs of which I have spoken were conferred only for the regulation of the street traffic, and that these by-laws were therefore ultra vires. But the existence of these by-laws for some time showed that they were supported by public opinion. I believe that the only inconvenience created by the exercise of such powers is that which is felt by those who ought to suffer inconvenience,—namely, the dissolute parents who seek to live by the work of their children. This House ought to be careful not to encourage such a subversion of the relations between parents and children as this. We continually hear of appeals made to magistrates to allow men and women thus to take advantage of the labour of their children; and although there may be differences of opinion as to the age at which children may be employed, this House ought, at all events, to lay down the rule that it is the parents who should maintain their children, and not the children who should maintain the parents.

* MR. J. MACLEAN (Oldham)

I think there is a danger which this House incurs—namely that out of mere tenderheartedness, when measures of this kind are brought before us by well meaning Members, we may be induced to agree to legislation which will inflict greater cruelty on children than the legislation is intended to suppress. It has struck me as singular that no one—not even the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill—has suggested what is to become of the children now employed in the streets when they are cleared out of the public thoroughfares and prevented from earning what little money they now obtain. Suppose the parents are frightened by this Bill, if it become law, and should not send their children into the streets during the prohibited hours, the result will be that the children will be kept at home, and the idle and dissolute parents who will not be receiving money from them will treat them more cruelly than is the case now. It is, generally speaking, only on account of the money they earn that they receive any kind treatment at all, and as a rule the children are much better off in the streets, where many of them show that they are honestly disposed by the diligence with which they try to earn money, than they would be in the wretchedness and squalor of their parents' home. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) has told us that he himself began to work very early as a child and that he worked very hard, and the right hon. Gentleman is not a bad example of the results of such a training; but it is impossible to disguise the fact that there is a great deal of danger to be apprehended from the overstrain- ing of philanthropic sentiment which we see in so many measures that are brought before this House. For my part, I shall vote not only for the Amendment of my hon. and learned Friend, but against the clause altogether, as it seems to me to be a perfectly unnecessary interference with freedom of trade and with individualism in this country.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I only rise to point out that the Amendment is unfortunately framed. I think, however, that this clause requires careful consideration, because as it stands it would not effect the object desired. The words "or for any other purpose of profit" ought to be considered separately. At present I do not see what useful purpose those words can serve. With regard to offering for sale, we ought to consider whether there is a necessity for children being employed between 10 at night and 5 in the morning. If there is a necessity, I do not think we ought to take away the power at present possessed by parents. My own opinion is that there is no such necessity. It might be, however, that this matter is one which must be considered locally.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I think that this Amendment raises a question of principle as well as a question of detail, and we must not confuse one with the other. We must not mix up our objections to the principle by looking into the details of the proposal. The Attorney General asked us whether there was any grave necessity for prohibiting children selling at this time of night. I think the best proof we have of this is that a large number of the principal towns of England have passed bye-laws prohibiting sales by children in the streets during certain hours. These bye-laws were held to be ultra vires, and then, when various municipalities came to Parliament to ask for powers to enforce them a Committee, under the presidency of a gentleman who would not be led away by sentimental opinions, and who is, a thoroughly sound and practical statesman, of great experience in the administration of the Poor Law—I refer to Mr. Sclater-Booth, now Lord Basing—recommended that towns should be allowed to insert prohibitory clauses against the casual employment of children. As a rule, the casual employ- ment of children is prohibited between the hours of ten at night and six in the morning in summer, and eight at night and six in the morning in winter. Now, I should like at once to point out the question of principle which is involved in this matter. I deny the right of any parent to live upon his child. I deny the right of any father or mother to live upon the earnings of a little child, whatever the consequences to the individual or to the community, and that the community has a higher interest to be gained by putting down the existing system. It is not the industrious parent who will be affected by this Bill, it is the worthless, drunken, dissolute parents who live upon the earnings of their little children. Some people object to the ages which it is proposed to fix. Now that is a question of detail, and I am not prepared to express any opinion upon details. But the principle is that no parent should be allowed to live on the earnings of his child. I say that this House has for a long succession of years claimed for itself the right to limit the hours of labour of children. I do not know whether hon. Members have read their newspapers this morning, but if they will look at them they will find a letter written by a distinguished Member of the Government, in which he claims for the party to which he belongs that they advocated restrictions in regard to the labour of children which were embodied in the Factory Acts. If you limit the labour of children in factories to 10 hours why should not you also limit the labour of children hawking in the streets to 14 hours? My right hon. Friend tells us he is prepared to accept the Amendment that a child shall not work more than 14 hours a day in one portion of the year and more than 12 during another portion. If you admit the principle—a principle which I hope you never will admit—that parents have a right to live upon the earnings of their children, surely 12 hours a day is ample for the children to labour. I hope my hon. Friends who especially represent the interest of labour in this House will defend the interest of the labour of little children. The hon. Member who spoke just now drew a delightful picture of a family party working in the streets; of the children cutting up the greens at the back of the stall and the parents selling them, and he told us that these little children found these Saturday night sales of vegetables to be the happiest periods of their lives. There may be some truth in that, but it is an exceptional case. What we really want to deal with is the case of those wretched little children who are sent out into the streets in rain, snow, and cold, at late hours of night, to sell newspapers and matches, and, in fact, to appeal to the humanity of the passersby, who buy of the children because they are fearful that they will be subject to brutal punishment if they go home without having earned a sufficient amount of money to satisfy their dishonest and brutal parents. The thing is how to put a stop to these practices; the hon. Member opposite says it is better for these children to take something home than to be subjected to the cruelty to which they are liable. Perhaps in individual cases that is so; but what we want to do is to strike at the root of the evil, and to put it out of the power of parents to be able to send their children out in order to obtain this money. I reserve entirely my opinion as to details, but I do appeal to the House to lay down the sound principle in this matter, and I quite agree with the suggestion of the Attorney General that it would be unwise to make this a matter of local legislation. Remember that 86 boroughs have petitioned in favour of this legislation. There is no case in which any municipality has petitioned against. If a child is to be protected in Birmingham it should also be protected in Manchester, and if it is to be protected in Manchester it has an equal right to be protected in Sheffield.

* MR. MUNDELLA

I may say at once that I shall be prepared to omit the words "or for any other purpose of profit," as they seem to have a rather ambiguous meaning. When we come to the question of ages and hours I shall be quite prepared to discuss the Amendment of the Attorney General and to debate the point as to whether there should be any prohibition of employment other than the restriction preventing children from working between the hours of ten at night and five in the morning. What we desire is that children should not be allowed to work during late hours of night.

MR. LEES (Oldham)

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton tells us that we are going to divide on a question of principle. Now let us understand what that question of principle is. I believe here presents a great industrial constituency and that thousands of his constituents send little children out to work half time. Are we going to stop this being done? That is exactly the principle involved.

* MR. H. H. FOWLER

I said that the principle upon which we were going to divide was that of the restriction of the hours of labour for children.

MR. LEES

I think that the right hon. Gentleman distinctly denied that any parent had the right to live on the earnings of his children. If the right hon. Gentleman means that no parent has the right, providing he is in good health, to be entirely sustained by his child I heartily agree with him. But that is not the principle which the right hon. Gentleman is laying down. If the parent be a drunken dissolute man, he should certainly be prevented from sending out his child in order to obtain money on which the family may live. But I think a great hardship would be inflicted in the case of a man who is doing his best to maintain his family if he is prevented sending out, say a strapping lad of 13 who has passed the School Board Standard, to help to contribute to the weekly wages.

* SIR. R. TEMPLE (Worcester, Evesham)

I think I ought to say a word or two on this subject of street sales by children. The House may be aware that the children of London are now earning thousands, aye, tens of thousands of pounds every year by a little work done out of school hours, and the School Board of London is now encouraging these children to put their earnings into savings banks. Indeed, these banks have some tens of thousands of pounds earned by children and deposited in this way. The real question is that they should not pursue this calling too late at night or too early in the morning. I submit to the House that under the clause of the Bill now under discussion a fair allowance of that kind is given. Under this clause a child may, on leaving school, take his little tea— though I fear he seldom gets such refreshment—and then work for two or three hours, and then take supper before he goes to bed. Again, he may work for two or three hours in the morning before going to school at nine. That is as much as a child ought to do out of school hours consistently with a fair share of rest at night. And therefore the only question is whether the hours of restriction should be, say from eight at night to five in the morning, or nine at night to six in the morning, with an average of nine hours for rest. I must say I think there is great force in what has been said by the right hon. Mover of the Bill (Mr. Mundella). He said these children had better work early 'in the morning than late at night. If it is thought desirable that children should be up between 5 and 6 o'clock in the morning, then the hours beyond which they should be restricted from selling in the streets should be from 7 to 8 in the evening. These are, of course, matters more or less of detail, and I do not for my own part see why such matters should not be settled by bye-laws fixed by the localities in which the law will operate. At the same time, with due regard to what has fallen from the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton on the one hand, and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham on the other hand, I desire to give a general support to the principles so ably explained and so eloquently enforced by the right hon. Gentleman the Mover of the Bill.

MR. WALTER JAMES (Gateshead)

I should like to ask why premises licensed according to law for public entertainments have been omitted from the operation of the clause. For unless children——

THE CHAIRMAN

Order, order!

MR. W. A. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

I wish to raise the question already alluded to by my right bon. Friend the Member for Sheffield with reference to the law as it now exists in Scotland. The existing law in Scotland was settled very carefully after much consideration in the year 1878; and, I believe, the public will be surprised to learn that acts which are expressly authorized by the Scotch Act of 1878 would, if committed under this Bill, constitute misdemeanour, punishable by six months' imprisonment. The Scotch Act differs in several important particulars from this Bill, and I shall have great difficulty in voting with the right hon. Gentleman unless I receive an assurance that he will limit the application of the Bill within the four corners of the Act of 1878. Now, this Act places absolute limitation on the employment of children under 10 years of age; between the ages of 10 and 14 there is no limitation with respect to the occasional employment of children who hold the certificate of elementary education. The Bill of my right hon. Friend entirely does away with that most important provision, and I cannot vote for it, unless I receive an assurance that he will be prepared to limit the operation of the Bill in a manner consistently with the Act of 1878. If he is not prepared to do that, I am afraid the Scotch Members will be obliged to oppose the Bill. There is another point to which I should like to draw the attention of the right hon. Gentleman. In the Scotch Bill there is no provision made with regard to the hour of labour in the morning, and I think it is quite sufficient that the provision should be confined to fixing the hour, after which children shall not be allowed to labour at night.

SIR W. HARCOURT (Derby)

I understand that the Amendment of the hon. Member opposite raises the question of whether there shall be any restriction at all, and that is a point on which we are about to divide. Now I am strongly in favour of making a restriction within certain degrees upon hours, therefore I shall vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member. It is very difficult indeed to fix hours which are suitable for all places, and I would ask the right bon. Gentleman and the Attorney General to consider whether it might not be possible having determined that the sales shall be limited to certain hours to give the Local Authorities power to fix the hours within their respective districts. It would be possible to introduce into the clause such a provision, and to add a definition clause describing what the Local Authority is to be in particular places.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I may point out that it would be somewhat difficult to insert in this Bill a provision giving Local Authorities such powers as are suggested by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby, for it would require that the Bill should be re-cast and that might endanger its being carried into law this Session. But if the House agree that the hours of labour should be restricted and that children should not be allowed to work between the hours of 10 at night and five in the morning it might be possible to insert in the Bill a proviso to enable the Local Authorities to extend these words if necessary, and that would meet exceptional cases.

* MR. BARTLEY (Islington, N.)

The right hon. Gentleman said that we were going to divide on the Question whether or not we shall restrict the hours of labour which children may work in the streets. I venture to say that this is not the case. The real fact is, that the children assist their parents in the streets of an evening, and especially on Saturday nights during the few hours when the poorer classes especially do their trade. If you restrict them to any particular hour you do away with a source of employment to the parents in the street during the only time when they can earn money. I quite agree with the right hon. Member for Sheffield that the early morning is a better time for working than the evening. But we find unfortunately that the poorer classes do their shopping in the evening, and if we prevent children from being employed after 10 on Saturday night, I fear you will inflict a great hardship on the poorer parents. The evil is shopping at late hours; but still the fact remains, however much it is to be regretted. And I repeat that, if you suddenly or unreasonably interfere with the habits of the people, you will lay a great hardship on a number of them.

MR. AMBROSE (Middlesex, Harrow)

I think the issue before the House is not so much whether or not restrictions should be placed on the employment of children, but whether the parents of the children, who might be employed during prohibited hours, are to be converted into criminals; because offences against the Act will be punishable with a heavy fine or long imprisonment. I accept the view of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton that no man has a right to live on his child; but on the other hand, if the child is able to earn a little money he should have the right to do so if he chose.

MR. W. H. JAMES

I think it is exceedingly difficult to define the principle on which we are going to vote. You have excluded from the operation of this clause children not employed in the streets, but, for my part, I think there are many painful exhibitions in which children are engaged in places of public amusement in our large towns, and I think their case requires dealing with. Now, I represent one of the most prolific boroughs in the North of England. You find philanthropic and kindly people are horrified by these poor children scantily clad selling in the streets these small articles. I think it is better that these mothers should be dealt with by local legislation rather than by one general statute.

* MR. W. M'LAREN

The prohibition which the Committee is about to pass will be a total prohibition of children offering things for sale during certain hours.

* MR. MUNDELLA

During the night.

* MR. W. M'LAREN

But there are many cases in which a child's labour is really necessary for the support of the family. It is not a question, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton says, whether the child is to support the parent, but whether the work of the child in selling in the street is necessary to help the father in case, for instance, of sickness. What I wish to see done is to stop dissolute parents from using their children to beg and sell for them, but not to interfere with those genuine cases where a child's labour in the streets is really needed to keep up a home.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 214; Noes 79.—(Div. List, No. 146.)

* SIR R. WEBSTER

The object of the Amendment I now move is to fix the prohibited hours at from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. in the summer and 8 p.m. to 5 a.m. in winter, instead of 9 p.m. to 7 a.m. in summer and 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. in winter as they stand in the Bill. Assuming that the Committee are disposed to accept the Amendment, I will undertake that there shall be a proviso inserted, giving power to Local Authorities to alter the hours within those limits

Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 24, leave out 9, and insert 10.—(Sir R. Webster.)

Question proposed, "That '9' stand part of the Bill."

* MR. MUNDELLA

I readily assent to the Amendment on the understanding that some proviso is drawn up subsequently which shall allow the Local Authorities to work within the limits specified.

MR. KELLY

Do I understand that we shall have clauses inserted in the Bill which will give Local Authorities absolute power to work within the limits of these hours or to work irrespective of these hours? Ten o'clock in London on a Saturday night, for instance, is not sufficiently late. If it is a wet night, I venture to say that children sell far more after 10 o'clock than before. We have no wish that the poor children should work a long number of hours. We should be very glad if you limited the number of hours worked to four or five, but we think children should have liberty to work at the particular time when their work is most profitable. If I am to understand that a hard-and-fast limit is to be made, my only course will be to move the rejection of the clause. It is not for me to say what is the utmost the poor people require; I do not profess to have exact knowledge of the poor; but I want the Local Authorities to have power to vary the hours according to the varying circumstances of localities, and nothing more nor less will satisfy the requirements of the poor. It is most lamentable that the people of London have got in the habit that they cannot go out and buy their goods at a reasonable hour. In such neighbourhoods as Walworth and Old Kent Road the main part of the buying and selling by the poor people is unfortunately done on a Saturday night after 10 o'clock, and therefore do not let us have a cast-iron rule which will prevent a child working one minute after that particular hour.

* MR. ISAACS (Walworth)

Following up the argument of my hon. Friend, I would suggest the desirability of postponing the further consideration of this clause until we see the proviso it is proposed to insert. I cannot help thinking that if the Bill passes without some reference to the special localities in which these trades are carried on, a large amount of hardship will be inflicted. It is only due to the Committee they should have all the facts in their possession before they are asked to legislate. I regard this clause as the crux of the Bill, and accordingly I beg to move that the Chairman do report Progress.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."

* MR. MUNDELLA

At this hour (5.20) I cannot oppose the Motion to report Progress, but I think we might put in the hours and bring up the proviso afterwards.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

As the Amendments I have proposed are in favour of limiting the hours, we could not do any harm by accepting them. Certainly the discussion on the proviso would not be prejudiced by the acceptance of the Amendment.

SIR R. LETHBRIDGE (Kensington, N.)

Before we proceed to decide this point I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether, if the hours he has proposed be adopted, it would be possible to extend the hours on a Saturday, for instance, from 10 o'clock to 12 o'clock, in any given locality. In my own borough there is a considerable market held in a very important street till 12 o'clock every Saturday night. A great deal of selling and buying goes on between the hours of 10 and 12. I am undoubtedly in favour generally of the opinions that have been expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). I think restrictions are necessary, but there are exceptional cases in which I should like to see exceptional rules laid down.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

I am in favour of the general principle of this Bill, but I feel there is considerable force in the suggestions that have been made with reference to some extension of the hours. I would urge upon the Attorney General that power should be taken to extend the hours on Saturday in London, and on market days in provincial towns.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

I desire that ample opportunity should be afforded for the discussion of the proposed proviso. All we are doing at the present time is to limit the hours in favour of the views of hon. Gentlemen. It could not affect the discussion of the proviso to accept these amendments.

* MR. ISAACS

The explanation of my hon. and learned Friend does not satisfy me, and I am sure it will not be regarded as satisfactory by the Representatives of Metropolitan constituencies. I, therefore, regret I am not in a position to withdraw the Motion to report Progress.

* SIR A. ROLLIT

On one point I particularly wish to have a clear understanding with the Attorney General. Would it be possible, if we agree how to fix the hours as a general rule, to insert a proviso to the effect that the hours may be extended on any particular day?

* SIR R. WEBSTER

Certainly.

Question put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday next.