Commons Sitting of 26 June 1889

NATIONAL SCHOOL TEACHERS.
Ordered—
"Return of the number of Teachers in Elementary Schools who entered the profession between the years 1846 and 1851, who are in receipt of Pensions; also of the number of Applications for Pensions from such Teachers during the last five years, the number of Pensions granted, and the number refused."—(Mr. J. Talbot.)

ORDERS OF THE DAY.

  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION BILL. (No. 87.)
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Clause 1 (Punishment for ill-treatment and neglect of children.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 24, to leave out "9" and insert "10."
  Question proposed, "That '9' stand part of the Clause."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  MR. J. KELLY: I understood that the desire of the hon. Member was to obtain some modification of the provisions of the Bill, but in this instance the proposal is to extend the hours during which children may be employed during the summer months from five in the morning until nine at night to ten at night. Therefore the Committee are now asked to sanction the employment of children for 17 hours a day. I main-
  798
  tain that this is a matter in which the House of Commons should not interfere. No limitation of any kind should be placed upon the necessary or beneficial employment of children. It is one thing to legislate for the prevention of cruelty to children, but it is a totally different thing to legislate against the beneficial employment of children. I think it is unfortunate that the 3rd sub-section should have been included in the clause, and I hold in my hand a petition from the Mayor, Aldermen, and Town Council of the Borough of Nottingham, generally supporting the Bill, but complaining of the provisions as to the employment of children in the public streets, and praying that the Town Councils should be empowered from time to time to make regulations with regard to the employment of children. I entirely agree with the prayer of the petitioners, and I think it is most desirable that those who know best the requirements of the different neighbourhoods should have the matter placed unreservedly in their hands. I should be quite prepared to place in the hands of every Town Council the duty of saying how many hours a day children shall be employed, and during what hours. The Committee are now asked to decide that the hours between which children may be employed shall be from 5 a.m. until 10 p.m. in the summer months. I am quite-aware that the Attorney General proposes to move a proviso which will enable the Local Authority to alter the hours by bye-law, but I think it would be better to put it in this form "not after 10 p.m." and leave out altogether any question with regard to the morning. That would be a reasonable and proper basis on which to invite the Local Authorities to work, but if you say

  799
  that children may be legally employed during all those long hours you will undoubtedly fetter the discretion of the Local Authorities. The matter should be left to the Local Bodies who know the circumstances of the poor people with whom they have to deal, and I think it would be unfortunate if the acceptance of this Amendment were to empower the Local Authority to allow children to work from early morning until a late hour at night.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir R. WEBSTER,): I will endeavour to keep the mind of the Committee to the real point which is before them. The hon. Member for Camberwell (Mr. J. Kelly) seems to forget the Committee are not now dealing with the number of hours children should be at work, and I hope there are few Members in the House who do not think that from seven o'clock in the morning until nine at night, as the Bill originally stood, is too long for a child to work. But the scope and scheme of the Bill are to prevent children from working at a time when the Committee are of opinion that it would be injurious to their health, education, and morals. I am not in the least degree wedded to any particular form of the clause, but the problem we have to consider is at what time, under ordinary circumstances, child labour should stop at night; at what hour it should commence in the morning, and with what authority discretionary powers for regulating it should rest.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I was glad to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Camberwell against the extension of the hours, but I think that the matter should be left entirely to the Local Authorities. We propose to accept the Amendments of the Attorney General as to the hours, and we hope that the hon. Member for Camberwell will support us in giving a free hand to the Local Authorities either to restrict or extend the hours according to local circumstances. There is no better corporate body than that which exists in the Borough of Nottingham, and the desire there is that the Bill should become law and that the hours should be adapted to the circumstances of the different localities. I trust that we shall be able to introduce Amendments after-
  800
  wards which will leave the fixing of the hours to the localities.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I hope that the Amendments proposed by the Attorney General will be agreed to, because there are many districts in the metropolis and in large towns where it is absolutely necessary in some part of the week to extend the hours. I have myself prepared an Amendment which I propose to move later on, to provide that any Local Authority may, if it shall consider it necessary or desirable, extend or restrict the hours.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Question, "That '(10)' be inserted," put, and agreed to.
  SIR. WEBSTER*SIR. WEBSTER moved, in line 26, to leave out "(7)" and insert "(8)."
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR R. WEBSTER*SIR R. WEBSTER moved, in line 26, to leave out "(7) "and insert "(5)."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. J. KELLY: The next Amendment which stands in my name is to provide that nothing in the subsection shall affect or relate to any case in which any child may be beneficially or necessarily employed. I do not propose to move the Amendment at this moment.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN, moved, in line 27, after "inclusive," to insert "excepting Saturday in cases of offering for sale."
  Amendment moved, Clause 1, page 1, line 27, after "inclusive," insert "excepting Saturday in cases of offering for sale."—(Sir W. Plowden.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I hope that the hon. Member will not press the Amendment. I have no information before me which induces me to believe that it is desirable to except Saturday by name, and there are some towns in which Friday is of equal importance as a business day. I think the best course will be to take the Amendment lower down, of my hon. Friend the Member for South Islington (Sir A. Rollit), which empowers the Local Authority to extend or restrict the hours, in conjunction with a further Amendment which I have myself placed on the Paper, to provide that the alteration shall be for the pur-

  801
  poses of carrying on any lawful trade or avocation, adding "on any specified day or days." Such an Amendment will enable the Local Authority to deal with the matter.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: Under these circumstances I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR A. ROLLIT*SIR A. ROLLIT moved, in line 27, after "inclusive," to insert—
  "Provided that any Local Authority may, if it shall consider it necessary or desirable so to do, extend or restrict the said hours by bye-law on one or more days in the week; as to the whole or any part of the area under its jurisdiction for the purposes of any lawful trade or avocation, and Section 184 of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply in the case of any such byelaw as if the Local Authority were a Local Authority under the Act."
  The Committee have now fixed the hours, but there is a general agreement that some latitude should be allowed to the Local Authority in regard to restriction or enlargement. If this is not done, there may be some hardship in applying the rule rigidly. Allusion has been made to the petition which has been presented from the city of Nottingham. The principles of the Bill have been applied in that city with the greatest possible advantage, but their application was found to be ultra vires, and was put an end to. The Town Clerk writes to say that the Town Council are strongly of opinion that the circumstances of some cities and towns are so different from those of others that the Town Council should have the power of fixing the hours. In several towns statutory powers have already been obtained, and I do not think the Committee desire to override those powers by a general Act, but the Local Authority should be empowered to lay down rules within a particular area, either for the extension or the restriction of the hours. The importance of this point is that the Local Authority—for instance, the County Council, in England—would cover a very wide area, and might be held to include in many cases boroughs which ought to have power to regulate their own action, or at least the Council should have power to define the area.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 1, page 1, line 27, after "inclusive," insert—
  "Provided that any Local Authority may, if it shall consider it necessary or desirable so to
  802
  do, extend or restrict the said hours by byelaw on one or more days in the week, as to the whole, or any part, of the area under its jurisdiction for the purposes of any lawful trade or avocation, and section 184 of the Public Health Act, 1875, shall apply in the case of any such bye-law, as if the Local Authority were a Local Authority under that Act."—(Sir A. Rollit.)
  Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the Amendment might be amended by the addition of the words, "on any specified day, or days, of the week, and in a specified area." Those words would be sufficient and more simple than those contained in the Amendment of my hon. Friend. I am quite prepared to consult my hon. Friend as to the language of the clause, in order to see whether it is necessary to make verbal alterations in other parts of the Bill.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member for South Islington withdraw his Amendment?
  SIR A. ROLLIT: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R. WEBSTER*SIR R. WEBSTER moved, in line 27, after the word "inclusive," to insert—
  "Provided that any Local Authority may, if it shall consider it necessary or desirable, extend or restrict the said hours on any specified day or days of the week, and in any specified area."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TOMLINSON: I think the Committee labour under some disadvantage in discussing the Amendment in the form in which it appears upon the paper, because the real effect of it depends upon the words "Local Authority." I would submit that the Local Authority should be one coterminous with the district affected. I cannot imagine, for instance, a body less qualified to deal with matters of this kind than a County Council. The Council for the County of Lancaster, for instance, would be of far too diverse an experience to be able to deal satisfactorily with the large villages or small towns where this clause would have to be dealt with.
  MR.H.H. FOWLER: I hope that the discussion will not be complicated by any attempt to define the Local Authority. I certainly think that the County Council would be an unsuitable authority. The Local Board

  803
  of Health, wherever there is a Local Board of Health, would be preferable; and even the Local Board of Guardians where there is no Local Board of Health. It is necessary, however, to put in the words "Local Authority" now.
  MR. WHARTON: I quite concur with the remarks of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. H. H. Fowler). I think that in Durham, for instance, the County Council, whose jurisdiction covers a very large area, would be an unsuitable Local Authority.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I hope the Attorney General will leave out the words which seem to govern the Local Authority which is to extend or restrict the time during which children may be employed.
  MR. J. KELLY: I think it is important that some definite understanding should be arrived at as to what is to constitute the Local Authority. As the provision now stands it seems to be a somewhat absurd one.
  MR. GEDGE: I am not quite clear what the intention and meaning of the clauses — whether it is to enable the Local Authority to give something similar to an off license, or whether they are to frame bye-laws for their district, dealing generally with the question.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I wish it to be fully understood that, as far as I am concerned, this is a perfectly open question. Personally I think we ought to unify rather than multiply our Local Authorities.
  SIR W. PLOWDEN: I would like to call the attention of the Attorney General to the fact that it seems necessary to add words such as I have proposed—namely, "in cases of offering for sale," or similar words, "any lawful employment." I take it only such cases are intended to be provided for by the Amendment. But if such words are not inserted the amending paragraph will govern not only the last part of the sentence but the entire sentence of the clause, and thus covers much more than is intended.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The hon. Baronet has referred to what I had in my mind in adding these words, but my reason for postponing the discussion, was that I thought the actual language of
  804
  the Amendment, including those words, would be better considered when we saw exactly how the Bill stood.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. J. KELLY: I would now ask the House to reject altogether this section which prohibits under any circumstances whatever, the employment of any child under 10 years of age in the street. I do not think the House will say there can be and ought to be no circumstances in which a child should do something to earn its living under 10 years of age. I ask the House to say that this clause goes too far in several ways. It is a regular trap—for a boy going across the street to deliver a bottle of medicine would come within the Act. I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will omit the words, "or any other purpose."
  MR. MUNDELLA: Certainly not.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I certainly proposed to omit "any other purpose."
  MR. KELLY: Is it really the opinion of this House, that no child under ten years of age, under any circumstances whatever, shall offer anything for sale? Is a child to be prohibited work which is light and pleasant to it, and so contribute its little mite towards keeping the house together? I ask the House to say, that the clause in its present form cannot possibly be accepted. I am most anxious not in any way to impede the progress of this Bill, and I therefore beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name—Clause 1, page 1, leave out sub-section (3).
  Question put, "That those words stand part of the Clause."
  MR. TOMLINSON: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I think it is a dangerous system of legislation which is proposed. Certain people will be excused from punishment on the ground that the action was innocent, and that will form a precedent for letting other people off.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The section which the hon. Gentleman moves to omit, is that which refers to the employment of children under ten years of age. Now, the Factories Act and Workshops Act totally prohibit the employment of children under ten years of age, and if they are to be employed at ten years, it is only half-time. And

  805
  the Elementary Education Act prohibits the taking of any child under ten years of age for any employment whatsoever. I have no objection to accept the Amendment of the Attorney General, which is a legal Amendment, though I do not see what effect it will have. I cannot consent to accept the present Amendment.
  SIR. R. WEBSTER: The Bill is for the prevention of cruelty, and it is suggested that there are some acts which may be lawful in themselves under colour of which children may be ill-treated. The question is whether it is necessary that children under ten years shall be employed in the streets or not, or whether there should be an express prohibition against the employment of children under ten years of age in circumstances such as are contemplated by the section.
  MR. L. H. ISAACS: The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) has referred to factories and workshops, but circumstances are not analogous. The atmosphere of the factory is totally unsuited to children, and there is the danger of accident. I quite agree with the hon. Member (Mr. Kelly) that a child with its father and mother ought not to be prohibited from offering any article for sale. I think the clause should not contain the words "playing or performing in public," but it is going too far to say that children under ten years of ago shall not be employed for any purpose.
  MR. MUNDELLA: It is stopped already.
  MR. ISAACS: We know what the effect of the clause will be if passed. It will become inoperative, and will only bring ridicule on the whole thing. Whilst trying to put down the evil you deprecate, be sure you do not create another in its place.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I am afraid the speech of the hon Member has been made three years too late, because the prohibition of labour by children under ten years, is not confined to factories but is extended to the wholesome pursuit of agriculture. What we propose is that the prohibition should be extended to singing and performing in public-houses, and offering things for sale in the streets of London and our large towns by little children under 10 years
  806
  of age. I think it positively brutal and cruel to little children under 10 years of age, and almost in a state of infancy, should be allowed to go into these public-houses and places of entertainment. I think it is discreditable to those who employ them and to those who witness it and support it. In the interests of the children, in the interests of their education, physical and moral, the employment of children under 10 years of age ought to be prohibited. You have on the Statute Book an absolute prohibition, and in other employments between the ages of 10 and 14 they can only work half-time and an educational standard is required. By carrying this proposal the House would be preventing the carrying out of a principle which is already embodied in legislation.
  MR. TOMLINSON: If the general law prohibits this kind of employment, why enact a fresh prohibition? If it does not, then I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that it should be prohibited. I do not wish to allow these things to go on.
  MR. ISAACS: I, too, wish to set myself right. I object as much as anyone to children singing in public-houses.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I am unwilling to detain the Committee further than to say that the judgment of the Elementary Education Authorities is in favour of the clause as drafted. According to the clause as it stands, children will not be allowed to sing or perform in public-houses or in the streets under 10 years of age. I gather that an Amendment is to be inserted permitting their employment in theatres, and all I can say is, that any Act of that kind will be heard of with great regret by the Educational Authorities of the Metropolis at least.
  MR. J. KELLY: My objection is to the concluding words of the section, and I must say that I am in sympathy with those who discourage children going to public-houses.
  THE CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Member withdraw his Amendment?
  MR. J. KELLY: Yes.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  SIR R.WEBSTER: In moving the next Amendment which stands in my name

  807
  hon. Members know that it is one of very great importance. I, for one, shall never prevent children who have particular talents from having them developed in the best way possible, and I think in protecting children in singing, or dancing, or acting, we should do it by proper precautions, and not by a side wind. I do not believe the House is in a position to say that on the present occasion, with the information before them, children are never to be employed under 10 in a theatre. I have known myself instances of children of remarkable precocity; and in the development of the great gift of singing, it would probably be detrimental to their education if they were not able to train at an early age. I admit those instances are rare. I think the question of the employment of theatre children ought to be dealt with by itself. It appears to me this is a question on which conflicting views will be expressed. It is alleged by those who are interested, that they can bring forward statistics to show that the children are not injured; and I would remind my hon. Friend behind me that this really does not touch the question to which he directly refers. I have thought it right to move the following Amendment:—Clause 1, page 1, line 30, after "liquor" insert "other than premises licensed according to law for public entertainments."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MUNDELLA: Many of my hon. Friends around me are opposed to this Amendment; nevertheless I am prepared myself to reccommend its acceptance, agreeing with the Attorney General that this is a matter that ought to be dealt with after full inquiry. This Bill is to prevent cruelty, and I do not want to lose the major in attempting to secure the minor. But I think that whenever an inquiry is held, it will be found that there ought to be such a prohibition as exists in other countries—in Germany, for instance,—where artists never dream of training a child under 10 years of age. Whenver they want to do that they come to England. They cannot do it in Germany. While that is the case, I am quite willing to abandon that part of the Bill, and to accept the Attorney General's. Amendment. I ask my Friends to do so
  808
  in order to pass the Bill. We must bear in mind that the Royal Commission on Education have recommended unanimously that children employed in theatres shall be under the same conditions as are imposed by the Factory Acts, which absolutely prohibit children and 10 years of age being employed in any occupation whatever, and that the Government will have to deal with the Report of the Commission in its entirety.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: Of course, if there is a strong feeling in favour of the Attorney General's Amendment, then I think my right hon. Friend's course is the wisest in deferring to that opposition. But I think it well to hear a little on the other side first. The Attorney General practically proposes to legalize the employment of children under 10 years of age in theatres and circuses. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: To leave the law as it now is.] And my right hon. Friend says, let us wait until we have full investigation. The question has been fully investigated by the Royal, Commission on Education, and in their-Report they say:—
  "In connection with school attendance, some very important evidence was given by us wits respect to the employment in theatres usually selected for their prettiness and intelligence—an employment which materially interferes with their education, and is said to be generally-demoralizing both at the time and by unfitting them for ordinary work, when they get too old to appear on the boards. Mrs. Fawcett, who has given great attention to this matter, states, that the children are apprenticed to the stage when under 5 years of age, sometimes at a years of age, for a term of seven or nine years; that they are employed for a considerable period during the day until a late hour at night, and having often to return home long distances alone. We agree with Mrs. Fawcett in thinking that it is the duty of the State to step in between these children and their employers, where parents or others, whose stupidity seeks to make profit out of their work, especially as we are told that it is not the poorest parents who seek to make profit out of their children on the stage. Certain provisions of the Act of 1870 bear on this case, but they do not stop the employment of children of between 5 and 14, and they do not apply to children under 5 years of age. We are informed that the London School Board has been most anxious to deal with this matter, but has for that its legal powers were insufficient."
  This Amendment is going to strengthen that legal insufficiency.
  "The law on this subject is stated to be defective, and we recommend that it be strengthened. We are of opinion from considerations of health as well as of morality and education,

  809
  that one remedy for a state of things which affects a large number of young children (about 1,000 in London alone) would be to bring theatrical employment under the Factory Acts."
  Now that is a very strong expression of opinion from men of all shades of political creed, and of great educational experience—men of great experience as statesmen, and we ought not lightly to put it on one side. We have already discussed what the state of the law is with reference to the employment of children under ten years of age; we have agreed to extend the prohibition under ten years of age to children generally in streets and public-houses, and now we are asked to qualify that provision by saying that children may be employed in premises licensed for public entertainment. Why should we allow that? In whose interest is it? Is it in the interest of the child? Is it in the interest of the parent? Is it in the interest of the public? You cannot say that it is in the interest of the child. I am not going to raise the question as to the propriety, or otherwise, of theatrical entertainment, but I wish to ask is the training children get in theatres an advantage to them, educational or moral? I should like to hear any hon. Member maintain that it is. Then is it an advantage to the parent? I ventured to say last week, and I repeat again to day, that it is the duty of a parent to support his children, and it is not the duty of children to support their parents. Last Wednesday we were dealing with the case of children up to 16 years of age; to-day we have to do with children under 10 years of age, and I again say that no parent has any right to live on the earnings of a child under 10 years of age. Now, let us look at the actual facts. I have seen some of the evidence brought before the London School Board. Here is one of the cases. Just before the pantomime season in the year before last a father applied to the Committee for a half-time certificate for three children, in order to enable them to accept a theatrical engagement. One of these three children was under 10 years of age. The character of the father was well-known; he was a West-end tailor and could earn good wages if he chose—as much as £2 or £3 weekly. The application was refused. The children were at once removed from the Board School and
  810
  sent to a private school, and they were engaged in a certain theatre at a salary of 35s. a week. While the children were earning that amount the father, in order to make the comedy complete, applied for alms to the Mansion House Committee as one of the unemployed. I think this is about as startling an illustration as it is possible to have of these honest, industrious, hard-working parents whom the House carefully guards lest they should be deprived of the invaluable earnings of little children under 10 years of age. Another case, described by Mrs. Fawcett, is that of a girl who, when she first visited her, was ill from over-work. When she recovered, she was engaged for the open-air ballet at the Crystal Palace—having to go through six months' rehearsals and to perform for four months; in fact, these children had to perform in the open air in low dresses and elbow sleeves until November. The child (says Mrs. Fawcett) was sometimes extremely fatigued when she arrived at Ludgate Hill on her journey home, and her legs and ankles swelled. One night a man followed her and asked her to go with him, but she ran away as fast as her tired legs would carry her, and she stated that after this, on her way home she tried to keep behind a gentleman in a high hat, as she thought he would protect her if any one molested her. I think there is something touching in the child's belief that a gentleman in a high hat would protect her. Now I should like to say a word on the educational aspect of the question. The Attorney General seemed to think—and I quite agree with him—that it would be wrong to deprive exceptionally clever children of opportunities of being trained, and of having their special talents developed. But I say that we cannot legislate for exceptional cases; we must legislate for majorities, and it would be far better to leave one exceptionally clever child to begin her special education after she is ten years of age, than that thousands of other children should be subjected to all the disadvantages and dangers which may arise if this proposal is agreed to. Now, information and opinions on this subject have been obtained by Mrs. Fawcett from those engaged in the education of children, and upwards of one hundred replies have been received.

  811
  rom School Board teachers. There is a remarkable unanimity of feeling among them. They say, first, that the moral evil is indescribable; secondly, that the education of the children practically comes to an end—and, I think, I need hardly point out to the House that children working until midnight are not likely to be fit for school work the next day—and finally the teachers agree that there is no doubt whatever that the health children suffers from this class of work. The head teachers of many of the schools in districts peculiarly affected by children being engaged in theatrical work, have concurred in these views, and have allowed their names to be attached to the Report. I think we should be unwise on this occasion to raise the question of the desirability of allowing young people of any age to be employed in these entertainments. The point we must confine ourselves to to-day is, whether little girls under ten years of age are to be allowed to be trained by singers or actors, or even acrobats, and we shall be allowing that if we accept the Amendment of the Attorney General. Unless I hear reasons which will induce me to alter my mind, I think it will be my duty to divide the Committee on this particular Amendment.
  MR. J. G. TALBOT: I had no idea that this point was to be raised to-day, and, therefore, I have come down to the House entirely unprepared to deal with it. Although I was a Member of the Royal Commission on Education what I say now must be accepted with some reserve, and must not be taken as expressing the views of the Commissioners. Having listened to the very temperate and at the same time eloquent speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton I must say I think that the balance of the argument is against the views of the right hon. Gentleman, because the Bill before the Committee is a Cruelty Bill and not an Educational Bill. I quite agree with much that he said, and if the matter were entirely connected with education there would be great reason, probably, for further restrictions. But it cannot be distinctly proved that theatrical employment is a cruelty to children. Some say it is and some say it is not. The Commission have only heard one side of the case they have not heard the evidence of
  812
  theatrical managers and those in favour of the employment of children in pantomimes. A friend of mine, a student of Christ Church, Oxford, who has taken a great interest in this question, told me that the children who took part in the representation of "Alice in Wonderland" a few years ago evinced the greatest interest and delight in their performances, and, therefore, it does not appear that there could be any cruelty in allowing them to participate in them. Indeed, I believe that the children's vote would be on the side of the Attorney General and against the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton. I think the Committee would be wise to accept the Amendment and reserve the further consideration of the question until the matter can be considered on general educational grounds in this House.
  MR. S. SMITH: I hope that the Committee will reject the Amendment of the Attorney General. I think the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton is perfectly unanswerable, and I do not believe there can be a single hon. Member who thinks that the employment of children under 10 in theatres is wholesome, or who would allow his own children to be so employed. The utterly unwholesome atmosphere of a theatre simply ruins the nervous system of a child under 10 years of age, and, as a matter of fact, only a small proportion of the children employed early in theatres come to any good; for the great bulk of the little girls it means hopeless ruin. It has been argued that employment in theatres simply comes under the head of education, and that it is not competent for the Committee to consider this question in connection with this particular Bill. But if singing in public-houses and selling apples in the streets is to be prohibited as cruel, why should the employment of children up to midnight in the heated atmosphere of a theatre be permitted. Take, for instance, the case of children employed as acrobats. Did not we read a horrible story the other day of a murder committed because a little girl employed as an acrobat had her health destroyed and died of consumption? I do not think there is any class of children more cruelly treated than those trained as acrobats. In

  813
  America this kind of employment for children is universally prohibited under severe penalties, but we are miles and miles behind America in all that relates to the protection of children. I hope that the Committee will not stultify the Bill by excluding from its scope one of the most permanent sources of evil that exists. It is monstrous that children should be prohibited from honest employment by the Factory Acts and yet be allowed to perform at theatres and walk through the streets late at night exposed to every kind of insult and outrage. I believe that in the country there is an overwhelming opinion against the employment of these young children. I do not wish to have the Bill killed, but I think it would be a shameful thing to introduce this Amendment, and I hope the country will take notice of those who are seeking to destroy one of the most salutary provisions of the Bill.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think it is a great pity that in such a difficult question as this, any hon. Member should endeavour to gain personal popularity for himself by imputing to those who wish to see the matter fairly discussed a lack of desire to protect young children. This was very unlike the manner of the hon. Member for Flintshire, whose schemes have often received the cordial support of the Government. I must say that as I stated my reasons for proposing that the law should not be altered in this respect, I protest against speeches from hon. Members — however well - intentioned they might be—imputing motives to those opposed to them. The right hon. Gentleman opposite spoke of the "invaluable earnings" of these children. I never said a single word in favour of a parent being allowed to draw 35s. a week as his children's wages, and then getting relief at the same time from the Mansion House Committee. It would be far better to discuss this matter without imputing motives either to one side or to the other.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I did not impute motives.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: We did not hear any suggestion of names from the right hon. Gentleman, but the hon. Member for Flintshire used very strong language, and spoke of the country being told who were in favour of this Amendment. I ask, is it just to impute to those who
  814
  support the Amendment because they have not sufficient evidence on the other side, that they desire to expose little children to horror and outrage in the streets? I yield to none in my desire to improve the condition of children and to prevent every injurious employment of them. But the arguments of the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton were founded on the Report of the Education Commission, which only include the evidence on one side. I highly respect Mrs. Fawcett, but I have seen categorical denials of some ' of the cases she has brought forward; and many of the opinions quoted are the opinions of those who are opposed to theatrical performance of any kind. I do not wish to legislate for exceptional cases, but I wish to keep my judgment open. There are in many cases educational establishments carried on in the theatres; and it would be unwise for the House of Commons to interfere with what may be called a technical kind of education without a full consideration of the features of the case. Employment in theatres is entirely different from sending children to sell things in the streets late at night. With young singers and children who play musical instruments, it may be all-important that their particular talent should be cultivated pari passu with their education. There are not the materials before us to arrive at a final decision on the matter. Therefore, I wish to suspend my judgment. But because I do that it should not be said I am in favour of the atrocities referred to by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire.
  MR. S. SMITH: May I be allowed to explain that I had not the slightest intention of imputing to the right hon. Gentleman a desire to leave children unprotected. There is no man in the House more interested than the right hon. Gentleman in the promotion of all moral measures for the benefit of children, and I am greatly indebted for the right hon. Gentleman's support on many occasions. I was thinking of other people. I am quite aware he speaks on behalf of the Government that has to consider the prospect of carrying the Bill through; but I repeat that, in saying what I did, I was thinking of other people altogether. I hope he will accent my explanation.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I was not defending myself, but I was thinking of those on this side of the House who think it their duty to support the Amendment. I wish to say a word in reference to the miserable and horrible case of murder the other day. As a matter of fact, the girl whose death is said to have caused the father to kill the acrobat, was 15 years of age, and apparently she had of her own desire chosen that course of life. Now, in conclusion, I repeat that the House of Commons has not the information on which to exclude all performances of children under ten in bonâ fide legitimate theatrical engagements. I believe that the children performing in "Alice in Wonderland" greatly enjoyed the performance; and every hon. Member must constantly have seen in private life little children performing on musical instruments, and in private theatricals. I ask the House to believe that those who support the Amendment do not do so because they desire to perpetuate the abuses which have been referred to.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I think it is to be very much regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield should have yielded to this Amendment. After giving the matter careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the introduction of the Amendment is of such vital importance as to make it necessary for us to divide the Committee upon it. We are seeking to protect these little children, and I am quite willing to admit that hon. Members on the other side of the House are equally as anxious as ourselves to do that, but I doubt if the adoption of this Amendment will tend to give that protection. I believe, in regard to the performances of "Alice in Wonderland," to which reference has been made, that the piece could have been performed quite as well without the engagement of children under ten years of age, and I therefore hope that the Committee will reject this Amendment.
  SIR R. TEMPLE: I am sure that the Attorney General will acquit me of any desire to be captious or sensational in what I am about to say, and I can quite understand the desire of the right hon. Member for Sheffield to secure the passing of this Bill, and to defer the discussion on the principle involved in
  816
  this Amendment, which virtually legalises the employment of children under ten years of age in theatres and music halls. But I confess I think the arguments used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton have not been answered, and, as a member of a great educational body, I feel bound to support the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman. I have no option in the matter. To be consistent with my own conduct on the School Board, and in justice to my colleagues on that Board, I am bound to advise the Committee that according to our experience which is neither short nor small this Amendment is wrong. I say that without the slightest imputation of motive. We in the London School Board have heard everything to be said on both sides, we have had the advantage of holding communication with theatrical managers, and therefore I am in a position to feel certain I am right in opposing this Amendment. We have a principle, which is this—We maintain that children of a tender age ought not to be injured intellectually, morally, and physically, for the entertainment or amusement of adults. The Attorney General must excuse me for saying that not only does this Amendment diverge in the direction of wrong, but that it is diametrically the opposite to what is right. For where it ought to include it specifically excludes. The Amendment says "other than," which means that it excludes theatres. Instead of the words "other than" I should like the words "including theatres and other places of public entertainment." The Attorney General alludes to us educationists. I apprehend that his view is somewhat narrower than ours upon that point. By education we elementary educationists mean not only instruction in class-rooms but proper attention to the health, morals, discipline, and physique of the child, and against all these matters this Amendment sins. The action of the School Board for London in this behalf has been referred to by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton. The School Board is composed of men of mixed opinions and varied experience, but upon this question we are agreed. I. entreat the House to reflect upon the various establishments under the Board—the Teachers, the Visitors, the In-

  817
  spectors, the Divisional Committees, and the Local Managers. See what a mass of expert opinion here exists; and it is all against the employment of very young children in theatres. Unfortunately the London School Board is having its Whitsuntide recess, and it is difficult to get any corporate action on its part on this subject; but I am sure that if we had had notice we could have produced a mass of statistics and other information which would have conclusively supported the view I am now advocating. No doubt there are some children with a peculiar gift or talent for these entertainments; but if ever they are to become consummate actors or artists they ought not to be worked at too tender an age. They ought to have a general training in, so as to secure the mens sana in corpore sano. That is required in the interest of the child itself; while, assuming that the parent has an interest in the training of his child to become a master or mistress of its profession, it is for his interest that his child should not be prematurely worn out and exhausted. The hon. Member for the Oxford University has asked whether that is a question of cruelty or of education. I say it is a question of the better protection of children. According to the clause already passed the child may not sing in premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating drink. Then by parity of reasoning it should not sing in a music hall. And the same argument will apply to a theatre also. In justice to the managers of theatres, I am bound to admit that since the School Board have taken so much interest in the matter and have had rather a severe correspondence with them, they certainly seem to have increased their efforts for the benefit of theatrical children. I do not say at all that these efforts were not put forward before, but, at all events, they have been intensified later. Care may have been always taken by them in some degree, but it has recently been redoubled. Still, no care can possibly obviate the evils of late hours and over-excitement for very young children. I should like to know whether it is possible to propose an Amendment to this Amendment, to substitute for the words "other than" the word "including."
  Mr. WALTER M 'LARENrose in his place, and claimed to move "That the Question be now put."
  But the CHAIRMAN withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.
  MR. CHANNING: The Attorney General has argued throughout as if his Amendment only referred to first-class theatres where children could be educated and trained under something like proper supervision. What I wish to point out, and' what every Member should bear in mind in voting on the division, is, that the Amendment covers all licensed places of amusement, and the very lowest music-halls and dens of the worst character, where it would be a monstrous absurdity to talk of any desirable education being given to the children.
  THE UNDER SECRETARY FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. STUART WORTLEY,): A clause has already been passed which imposes a penalty in case of treatment of children in any way injurious to health. As to the provision of proper instruction it is the duty of the School Boards to put the enactments on that point in force. The only question to be dealt with is the question of hours. A deputation of managers came before me a short time ago and informed me that they did not want the children after 10 o'clock, and they alleged that they never employed them after that hour. I beg to point out to the Committee that the question of cruelty is already met by the Bill, and the case of education by the existing law, and there only remains the question of hours, which is a matter for compromise. The present purpose of hon. Gentlemen opposite is under the guise of an enactment against cruelty to children, and in a clause directed apparently against public houses alone to deal with the employment of children in theatres. I entreat the House not in this way, by a side wind, and without notice to the public, to endeavour to deal with the matter in this way. If these children were not in the theatres where would they be? [An hon. MEMBER: In bed.] Is leaving the children of the poor alone to roam about the streets and forbidding them to be employed in what may be a

  819
  healthy employment in theatres, treating them as we should treat our own children?
  MR. WILSON NOBLE: With reference to the performances of acrobats, there is a great difference between preventing children from performing and prosecuting their employer for any injuries which might be sustained by them in consequence of such performances. I would like to ask the Attorney General whether power might not be asked to prevent the performance of children as acrobats. I would like also to ascertain whether children will be allowed to perform in travelling circuses. The Bill alluded to performances in "any street," but on turning to the definition of the word "street" I find that it includes any highway or other public place, whether a thoroughfare or not. I cannot help believing that under those circumstances the Bill will not prohibit the performances of children in circuses. Whatever may be said as to the employment of children in well managed theatres and places of that kind, there surely cannot be any doubt that it is undesirable to allow children to perform as acrobats in travelling circuses. If the Committee should decide to adopt the hon. and learned Attorney General's Amendment, I think some provision should at all events be made for the prevention of acrobatic performances by children at circuses or similar places.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I venture to suggest that the Committee should give heed to the observations of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. We are indebted to him for a large amount of work, and for having secured recognition of principles which will be of the greatest practical value in the effort to improve the lives of our children. It is quite clear that there is a large amount of opposition to the principle of this Amendment, and the consequence may be that it will be delayed or prevented from passing altogether. I hope, therefore, the Amendment will not be pressed on the ground, not of its own merits or demerits, but because it may jeopardize the passing of a useful Bill. Beyond this I express no opinion on the Amendment itself.
  MR. GEDGE: We cannot have our own way on all points, and, for may part, if I were defeated on an
  820
  Amendment, I should vote for the Bill with or without that Amendment. I hope, therefore, the Committee will not listen to the argument which has just been adduced. As to the contention that the clause respecting cruelty excludes the necessity for this clause, that would mean that we ought to strike out everything in the Bill except that clause. It is, of course, necessary that we should go into detail. I would point out that the London School Board has done all it could to stop the employment of children in entertainments; but they have been prevented by the clause in the Act which provides that the children may be taken into employment provided that the employment does not interfere with their effective education. The result is that the employers in some cases profess to give education to the children, and in the others the children are sent to the Board Schools. But though they attend school they get no education because they are asleep all the time. No fine is inflicted because the Magistrates generally take a sympathetic view of the case. I do not complain of the Magistrates because they act according to their lights, but I do point out that the present clause in the Education Act has little effect, and that we need something else.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I would appeal to the Committee to allow a division to be now taken. I shall support the Attorney General, who has given so much time and labour to the Bill. I have consulted the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Rev. Henry White, formerly chaplain to the Speaker, who takes great interest in the question; and I am assured that it would be a mistake to interfere with this employment, and that no case of cruelty has ever arisen. Under these circumstances, I do not think it would be right to imperil the Bill by weighting it with this clause, and I, therefore, cannot accept the Amendment, but shall loyally stand by the Attorney General.
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 80 Noes 129.—(Div. List, No. 158.)
  MR. GEDGE: The opinion of the Committee having been manifested in an unmistakable manner I now propose to give full effect to the decision arrived at by adding after the word "liquor" the words, "or premises

  821
  licensed according to law for public entertainments." It is clear that the sale of liquor has nothing to do with the decision at which we have just arrived, our intention is to prevent the employment of young children in public entertainments. The question is not of alcohol, but cruelty. We have determined that it is cruel so to employ a child of tender age, and to give effect to this I move the Amendment, which needs no further discussion.
  Amendment proposed, line 30, after the word "liquor," insert "or premises licensed according to law for public entertainments."
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Of course it is our duty to accept the decision of the Committee and to give effect to it. Clearly the principle upon which the decision has just been taken had not reference simply to premises in which liquor is sold, but all places of entertainment. This Amendment will cover the case of travelling shows and circuses. I think it right to accept the Amendment, looking to the decision already arrived at.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. KELLY: It is unnecessary for me to delay the Committee with an explanation of the Amendment which is consequential on what has gone before.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the words, "Or any other purposes of profit."
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. WALTER M'LAREN: I have withdrawn a number of Amendments, sharing in the anxiety that the Bill should get through Committee to-day, and I will say but a few words with reference to this Amendment I now propose to move. The limitation is one I think we really ought to insert in the interest of a poor parent who really has no home where he or she can leave the child. I design to meet such a case as you may often see, and especially in towns in the North of England in the manufacturing districts, where a mother may have a child or two under ten years of age with her while she goes about the street singing. My Amendment is limited to the parent or the proper
  822
  guardian of the children. Of course if the mother is begging she comes under the ordinary law, but if she is not begging but singing then the clause as it stands would subject the mother, under the circumstances I have mentioned, to a punishment of six months' imprisonment. That, I think, would be hard treatment. We have by Sub-section 1 amply provided against any case of cruel exposure of a child to unnecessary suffering or treatment likely to be injurious to health, but in the case I wish to meet I assume the parent has no place to leave the child and no one to leave it in charge of. It may be that the parent has only the share of a room for shelter at night and no place to leave her child while she is out. The Amendment would meet the case of many deserving but very poor persons who do not wish to go into the workhouse. It seems to me reasonable, and I hope it will be accepted by the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, to add after the words last inserted—
  "Unless it be proved, in the case of a child in a street, that such person is the parent or proper guardian of such child, and has no suitable place in which, or no suitable person with whom, he or she could leave such child at the time in question.''
  MR. MUNDELLA: I really cannot accept the Amendment. It strikes at the very root of the Bill. The parent, or the person who occupies the position of parent, would be allowed to do the very things that, by the other part of the clause, we have prohibited. If a parent is in the houseless, homeless condition referred to by my hon. Friend, then I think it is that parent's duty to take the child to the proper place where shelter and food is provided. We have, by the Poor Law, made provision for such cases, and private charity has supplemented the provision thus made. The Amendment would leave open the door to the very evils we desire to put an end to.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I would just point out to the hon. Member for Crewe that the language of his Amendment scarcely seems to carry out his intention. The mere fact of the parent or guardian not having a place of abode should not be a sufficient defence in the case of a child assisting the parent in singing, performing, or selling. It requires a

  823
  little more consideration. The provision does not seem to meet the case as the hon. Member, I think, desires.
  MR. M'LAREN: The offence under Sub-section 4 is what I mean the Amendment to apply to. I think some words might be framed to meet the case, and I was under the impression these words did so. I will not, however, persist in the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments proposed, line 3, leave out "on indictment or;" line 6, leave out "one hundred," and insert "fifty;" line 8, leave out "six," and insert "three;" line 9, leave out from "Provided" to end of clause.—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Amendment agreed to. Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  MR. KELLY: I have an Amendment to move to the effect that a person shall only be taken into custody in any case in which the constable is unable to ascertain his true address or may be given a false address. Under the clause a constable may, without warrant, arrest any person who commits any offence under the Act. That may or may not be necessary, but I think it must be obvious that where a constable has every facility for ascertaining the address of the alleged defendant, where the latter has not given a false address, that there is no need for such a power. It cannot be desirable that it should be in the power of a constable to drag an unfortunate person charged with an offence under this Act through the public streets, and that nobody should be responsible for it. I, therefore, ask the Committee to accept a very simple limitation of this power.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 2, page 2, line 18, after "this Act" insert "in any case in which such constable is unable to ascertain the true address of such person, and may be given a false address by such person."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  MR. MUNDELLA: There is nothing more embarrassing to a constable than to have to decide whether a person has given a proper address or not, and the chances are that in a case of this kind a proper address will not be given. How is the constable to know whether
  824
  the address is a true one, unless he takes the offender to the station? The adoption of this Amendment would really render a conviction exceedingly difficult in many cases.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: What my hon. and learned Friend desires apparently to prevent is the taking of a man into custody improperly. I have put an Amendment on the Paper to provide that the person charged shall be immediately released on bail, and it seems to me that that will be a far better provision than one which would place difficulties in the way of the constable in bringing an offender to justice. I think it would not be wise to interfere with the right of a constable to take a man into custody in the first instance where he has seen the offence actually committed.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I should like to know why this clause is necessary at all. What is there in these offences that requires a special mode of treatment?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think my hon. and learned Friend has not noticed that these offences may be tried on summary conviction, as well as on indictment. The principle he has in his mind probably is that a constable may arrest a person found attempting to commit a felony; where an offence comes under the rule relating to summary conviction by no means the same law applies. I think the clause is necessary.
  MR. KELLY: I would ask the hon. and learned Attorney General whether he thinks it necessary for a constable to take a person into custody whether he knows the person's address or not? I cannot believe the Committee will allow every inexperienced constable to arrest for perhaps the very venial offence of causing a child to sing a few words in the street, although he knows the person's address.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: I did not hear the earlier part of this discussion, but I quite agree with what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Kelly.) I have been resident in London for a great many years and have the greatest possible respect for the police force, but I have seen instances of very considerable indiscretion on their part. There was a case of most distinct perjury committed with regard to persons in my

  825
  employment. I endeavoured as far as I could to have justice done. The police brought one witness after another to try and prove their case, but they broke down before the Police Magistrate, who dismissed the summons on account of insufficient evidence. That case has occurred within my own knowledge and may occur again. I quite agree, therefore, that those unlimited powers ought not to be given to the police.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS,): I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General will consent to modify the clause in accordance with the wishes of hon. Members, or to make it the same as a clause in the Metropolitan Police Act, which provides that a constable may take into custody a person committing au offence in view of the constable where the name or residence of the person may be unknown to the constable and cannot be ascertained by him.
  MR. BARTLEY: I think this is too great a power to give to a policeman, under circumstances in which the person accused is usually known to live in the district, so that his address can be easily ascertained. I, therefore, hope the clause will be modified.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think it would be desirable to insert the words suggested by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. GEDGE: I now move the omission of the words — "or any such Act or enactment, as aforesaid." It may be desirable, though it must be fenced in with safeguards, to allow a constable to take into custody a person who, in his view, has committed an offence under this Act. That seems to be a strong measure under this Act, but, to extend it to other Acts, goes beyond what I think the Committee will assent to. Unless the clause be modified, it will be possible to arrest a man who employs a shoe-black in the street under the prohibited age.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 2, page 2, lines 20 and 22, to leave out "or any such Act or enactment, as afore-said."—(Mr. Gedge.)
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think that if there be any Act necessary to be included it had better be specially named. Certainly it would not be wise to put in these general words, because they might cover some future Act.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The reason why other Acts are referred to is that the Dangerous Performances Act, the Offences Against the Person Act, and the Criminal Law Amendment Act are very largely frustrated by these conditions as to arrest, the custody of the child, or the action of the parents, and we thought that those Acts should be put into line with this one. I will, however, omit the words and will specify those three Acts.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I am quite unable to conceive why the Criminal Law Amendment Act should be included.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think it would be a little dangerous to insert the Acts without examination, because some of them may contain provisions that would need modification. I think the better plan will be for the right hon. Gentleman to give me the names of the Acts, and I will endeavour to get them inserted before the Report stage.
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The next Amendment is, in Clause 2, page 2, line 19, after "Act" to insert—
  "Where the name or the evidence of such persons shall be unknown to such constable and cannot be ascertained by such constable."
  Amendment put, and agreed to.
  MR. M'LAREN: I trust my right hon. Friend will be able to assent to the Amendment standing in my name—namely, to insert—
  "If he be convinced that such a course is necessary in the interest of justice, or to prevent immediate injury to the health of the child."
  It seems to me to be absolutely necessary to put some restriction on the unlimited power of constables to take people up for the mere technical violation of this Act. In many parts of the country the Courts of Summary Jurisdiction meet only once a fortnight, and it might be a very serious thing to detain a child for safe custody for that length of time. The main object of the clause will, however, be met if my Amendment is adopted.
  Amendment moved, Clause 2, page 2, line 27, after "may," insert—
  "If he is convinced that such a course is necessary, in the interest of justice, or to prevent immediate, injury to the health of the child."
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think my hon. Friend has rather misunderstood the meaning of this clause. It has nothing to do with the arrest of persons committing au offence, but simply relates to the safe custody of the child. My hon. Friend objects to the constable being invested with discretion, but he proposes to invest him with the discretion of deciding whether a certain course is necessary in the interest of justice or to prevent injure to the child. It must be remembered that policemen are under rules and regulations, and are not allowed to run riot in dealing with the liberty of the subject. A constable would have to justify to his superior officers whatever course he took under this clause. I think the clause is meant to deal with a case where some brutal injury has been inflicted on a child, and the police dare not intrust the child to the custody and control of the person who has committed the outrage. I think the Committee had better not adopt the Amendment.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: As the clause now stands it applies only to cases where offences have been committed in view of the constable, and it seems to me that if there is any reason to apprehend further injury being inflicted on the child means ought to be taken for placing it in safe custody. It is only a case of temporary guardianship of the child. The effect of this proposed addition to the clause would be rather to hamper the constable in cases where it is desirable that he should exercise his authority, and at the same time it would provide no corresponding safeguard.
  SIR A. ROLLIT: I would point out that we have already imposed on the constable the duty of finding out the address, and if we adopt this Amendment we shall be placing too much work and responsibility, in my opinion, upon his shoulders.
  MR. M'LAREN: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wolverhampton says that this part of the Bill has reference to brutal assaults and the prevention of further cruelty to children. That may be, but the clause is actually
  828
  without limit, and deals with offences of the very slightest description—such as a child singing in the street or begging, where there is every kindness on the part of the parent, or being employed after a certain hour at night. If the constable chooses he may at once take the child away. I am quite ready to give the constable the right to take the child away where it is in the interests of justice, but I confess I am not willing to give him unlimited power, in the cases of trumpery breaches of this Act, to take away a child from its parents for possibly a whole fortnight.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The power is actually already given under the Vagrancy Act, and under the Industrial Schools Act. I would remind my hon. Friend that the greatest acts of cruelty are often committed under the pretence of begging in the streets, and that no greater misery can be inflicted on children than is imposed by tramps who take them about, and who obtain alms by exposing them, often not oily in a state of destitution but absolute disease. The cases which occur are absolutely appalling.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The argument based upon the Vagrancy Act does not apply in this instance inasmuch as the child is the offender. This clause only applies to cases in which the constable takes away by force of law a child from its guardian, keeping temporary possession of it, until a Magistrate has dealt with the case. It would only come into operation when serious offences had been committed under this Act.
  MR. BARTLEY: As regards cases of cruelty, this is, no doubt, a very proper power to give; but in simple offences, such as employment after hours, it is a very strong power to confer on the police. A policeman who had a spite against some parents might be tempted to inflict considerable hardship on them under this law.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned one particular and extreme case, and overlooks the fact that the clause covers a vast number of other cases. Take an extreme case the other way. A girl verging on 16 years of age might be taken out of the street

  829
  by a constable, to a place of safety, though I know of no such places. Is he to go to the house of a married friend and ask them to take the girl in until the Magistrate has dealt with the case? I can understand some provision of this sort being necessary for little children, but not that a girl of 16 years should be walked off without her friends or relations knowing where she is. There are no "places of safety" in the country, so far as I know, to which the constable could take girls in this way.
  MR. MUNDELLA: The Home Secretary has taken an extreme case, and one which probably will never occur. He says he knows of no places of safety to which a child could be taken. There are several such places in the Metropolis, and the Chief of the Police knows them and has recommended that children shall be taken to them. But the right hon. Gentleman has not said one word about the great mass of children on whom the offence of cruelty is committed. Within the last two or three weeks there was an appalling case in my own constituency, in which three children were taken to the workhouse. No words can describe to the House the condition of the children—starving, eaten up with vermin, the oldest child almost demented, and the three of them eating raw fish, refuse of the fish market, while at their home was an uncooked joint of mutton, which the mother had allowed to go putrid while she was drunk. The children were cleaned and washed, and put in a place of safety, the police could not do anything for them; the parents were sent to prison for six months. I hope the Home Secretary will not exercise his legal mind to so refine the Bill that we shall really not be able to accomplish the end we have in view.
  MR. J. M MACLEAN: The right hon. Gentleman has now frankly explained that children who are the victims of acts of cruelty are
  830
  to be taken to the workhouse. What is the meaning of cruelty under this Bill? Apparently, it is to be considered cruelty to employ a child in a theatre, and children of tender years are to be deprived of useful and regular employment. If this employment in theatres is to be interpreted as cruelty, the constable has power to search the house and take the child away to the workhouse.
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSON: I consider the words of the Amendment are mere surplusage, because they only enact that the constable may take a certain course if he is convinced that it is necessary in the interest of justice. I do not see that that constitutes any safeguard to the child, as my hon. Friend wishes to do, and it is left just as much as before to the common sense and judgment of the constable, which are in most cases considerable. I most certainly think we are wasting time by any further discussion.
  MR. J. KELLY: I cannot agree with my hon. Friend, and I think we may fairly demand that some limitations should be given to this power, and that the constable shall not take up any person without a warrant, or take children to some indefinite place. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Mundella) has referred to places of safety in the Metropolis; but where are there such places in remote country towns, and what are the offences for which a person is to be deprived of the society of his child? I am not inclined to give the police unnecessary discretion, and I venture to think that this power must be absolutely limited to offences under the section.
  MR. HENEAGE: The words of the Amendment simply restrict the power of the constable, who might otherwise take a child before his superior officer, and allow him to judge, whether it should be taken to a place of safety. The hon. Member for Crewe

  831
  says that in most places the Magistrates do not sit more than once a fortnight. But these acts are likely to take place in a town, and I do not think there is a single town in which the Magistrate does not sit every day. I agree with my hon. Friend that the words are pure surplusage, or that they would be extremely mischievous.
  MR. C. DARLING: This Amendment must be entirely illusory if passed, and would unduly cripple the police in the exercise of their duty, or would lead to absolutely nothing at all. Because if the police were proceeded against for taking away a child he would say, "I was convinced it was in the interests of justice," or that he had done so to prevent further cruelty to the child. There are no means of finding out whether he was convinced or not; it is quite enough for him to say he was. If he did not say so he would expose himself to an action for false imprisonment. That is the position you put the policeman in. If an action for false imprisonment were brought against him he would have to prove that his act was necessary in the interests of justice, or to prevent injury to the child. I should like to point out that there is no such thing known to the law as "a place of safety" to which a child could be taken. A policeman might take a child to his own house, and might have an action for false imprisonment brought against him, because it was not a place of safety. And suppose he took the children to some public institution—the workhouse or an hospital—I am not aware that there is any obligation imposed to receive the child. If you pass the Act with such words as "taken to a place of safety," within a month you will have a whole crop of actions to decide what are places of safety. I think the police should not be left in the difficulty of having to decide what is a place of safety.
  MR. M'LAREN: I do not wish to press the matter further. The sense of the Committee is against me, and to go to a division would be simply to resister a foregone conclusion. Still,
  832
  I protest against the clause, and the unfettered discretion which is given the constable. I beg to withdraw the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I wish to move an Amendment to insert after the word "to" the words "workhouse or some other place authorized for the purpose by the Secretary of State." The words "place of safety" are admittedly too vague, and ought to be defined in some way.
  Question put, "That those words be inserted."
  MR. MUNDELLA: Provided the hon. Gentleman is ready to agree to it, I am quite willing to accept that Amendment.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have only heard the Amendment this moment, and I should want to advise with the Home Secretary as to whether there would be any difficulty in providing such places. Still, it seems to me that the "place of safety" should be defined very carefully, and I should be disposed to accept the Amendment.
  MR. MUNDELLA: If the hon. Member will withdraw his Amendment now, it could be considered on the Report stage after the Attorney General had advised with the Home Secretary. These refuges are springing up not only in London but all over the country, and I think we might between this and the Report stage decide upon a form of words which will meet the case.
  MR. M'LAREN: May I ask whether it is intended to give voluntary societies the power to keep a child in custody in one of their homes, or places of safety, for a fortnight? If so, I think it is a. most monstrous proposition.
  MR. TOMLINSON: On the understanding that the mode of defining the place of safety is to be fully considered on Report, and that a definition is to be inserted at that stage, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  MR. LEES: Instead of the hon. Member's Amendment I would suggest that the Local Authority should

  833
  be required to provide the place of safety.
  MR. H. H. FOWLER: I think the suggestion of the hon. Member for Oldham a good one, that the Local Authority should be left to define the place of safety.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Before we part with this Bill, I want to know what position we stand in; and before we part with the Amendment of the hon. Member for Preston, I should like to know whether it is intended that private places are to be considered "places of safety?" I hope the right hon. Gentleman will, if possible give us a definition of this clause. I presume that in the Definition Clause there will be a definition of the term "place of safety." Does the Attorney General intend to include under that head private institutions? I think that is a point which may be fairly put to the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: In reply to the right hon. Gentleman, I may say that my own view is this—that it would be desirable to define a place of safety in the Interpretation Clause. If the Local Authority thought that a home for outcast children in Birmingham or London was properly managed, surely there would be nothing improper or unwise in allowing that Local Authority to certify that the place was a proper one for the reception of children. I never intended that a child should be handed over for any indefinite length of time to a voluntary institution; but it was contemplated that there should be some means by which such institutions should be allowed to take charge of these children. What is desired is that they should be allowed temporarily to take charge of a child.
  MR. H. L. W. LAWSON: Might I point out that in the Metropolis it will be advisable to give this power to the County Council. I know that the
  834
  London County Council has, and exercises, certain functions in regard to the custody of children with a staff of inspectors.
  MR. BRUNNER: I should like the Committee to realize what it is about. It seems to me, Sir, that we are on the point of creating a new class of prison all over the country. Licensed places of safety for the detention of children—whether it be for a week or a fortnight—are really nothing but another class of prison. Now, Sir, I cannot see the necessity for a definition of the term "place of safety." We know that all over the country there are Committees of the National Society, and ladies and gentlemen have taken upon themselves the responsibility of rescuing children. I hope to God that they will continue to do so, and I have very little fear that any action against them for false imprisonment—in connection with their action in rescuing children—would have serious results.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. KELLY: I now rise to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will limit the clause so as to provide that removal to a place of safety shall only take place in connection with the more serious offences under this Act. I think that the cases in which a costermonger has kept his child at work for a few minutes after 10 o'clock on Saturday night are not those in which these clauses should operate; and therefore I venture to ask the right hon. Gentleman if he is willing to accept an Amendment and omit such cases?
  Amendment proposed, Clause 2, page 2, line 28, insert the words "oases under Sub-section 7, Section 1, of this Act."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I do not wish to fetter the judgment of my right hon. Friend; but I think the Amendment which has been proposed will meet a good many of the objections which have been urged. If it appear on the face of the Bill that the power of

  835
  the constable is limited to offences under Sub-section 1, Clause 1, I think it is worth while considering whether it would be desirable to limit the power of the constable to offences committed under this sub-section.
  MR. HENEAGE: Would the right hon. Gentleman object to including Sub-section 2 in this Amendment? I think it would be a fair compromise.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am willing to accept the Amendment and to make it apply to Sub-sections 1 and 2. Our desire is that the omission shall not affect cases of begging.
  Question, "That the words such offence' stand part of the Clause," put, and agreed to.
  Further Amendment proposed, "That the following words be inserted, 'all offences under Section 1, Sub-sections A and B, of this Act.'"
  Amendment agreed to.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I have now to propose the insertion of the following words at the end of Clause 2, page 2:—
  "Where a constable arrests any person without warrant in pursuance of this section, the inspector or constable in charge of the station t o which such person shall be conveyed, shall, unless in his belief the release of such person on bail would tend to defeat the ends of justice, or to cause injury or danger to the child against whom the offence is alleged to have been committed, release the person arrested on his entering into a recognizance, with or without sureties, as may in his judgment be required to secure the attendance of such person upon the hearing of the charge for his appearance at the time and place mentioned in the recognizance."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 3.
  MR. M'LAREN: I am sorry to have to move another Amendment; but I think the words "a person having custody of a child" are excessively vague, and I, therefore propose to substitute the words "lawful parent or guardian." As the clause stands at the present moment, taken in conjunction with the last line of Clause
  836
  1, I am sure I am correct in saying that any person under sixteen years of age, who has the custody or control of a child for the moment, comes under this clause, because the same words are used here as in Clause 1. Therefore, if an elder brother, or sister, or any person under the age of sixteen years, is found committing an offence under this Act, it might lead to that child being taken away from its parents and handed over to the control of another person. I am sure that that is not the desire of my right hon. Friend. What he seeks is to take away the control of a child from bad parents or bad guardians, and therefore I would suggest that the Amendment should be accepted.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 2, line 38, leave out "a person," and insert "the parent or lawful guardian."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think that the Amendment of my hon. Friend will leave out the very worst cases of offences committed against a child. Supposing the child is in the custody of a brother or sister, the Court will only see that the child is returned to its proper guardians, and should its proper guardians be the parents they will have the custody of it. What we want to cover is cases of children whose parents or whose guardians are not properly fulfilling the duties of guardianship, and in those cases we want to secure that the child shall be handed over to the custody of some proper person.
  MR. M'LAREN: If the child were in the custody of an elder brother or sister who was treating it badly, then the magistrates would simply take it out of the hands of that brother or sister, and hand it back to the parent in whose custody the child had been the same morning. Now, I want to safeguard the child against improper treatment, and I am quite willing to accept any words which will do that, so long as the persons who practically hire a child and then illtreat it shall be brought under the operation of the section.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It seems to me that this matter requires consideration. I do not think that we need trouble ourselves with the case of a brother or sister taking out a child and illtreating it. That would be simply a case of misconduct on the part of a particular individual towards a particular child; but it does seem to me, as the hon. Member points out, that this clause does not apply to the case of a person having the mere custody or control of a child for a temporary period, and I think it ought to be amended in order to include such cases. I would suggest the Amendment should be altered so as to cover the case of a person who is entitled to the custody or control of a child. What we want to get at is the case of persons who act in loco parentis, who are in the position of guardians, and who may commit offences which come under this clause.
  MR. SAMUEL SMITH: I should like to ask the Attorney General if this form will include the case of the Italian padrone? I am aware that there are cases of men in this country who import as many as 50 children from Italy, and send them about the country with musical instruments. Many of these children are purchased from their parents in Italy; and I wish to know whether such a person would be regarded as a person entitled to the custody of such children, and whether he would come under the operation of this clause?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I should think that the clause would cover all such cases. If the padrone is in charge of little children, it may be assumed that under his contract he is in lawful custody of them, and he will be held to be the person entitled to the custody and control of the children.
  MR. BARTLEY: I wish to raise another point. There are a great many children who are simply in the possession of other persons for a temporary period, and I wish to know whether those persons will come under the operation of this Act?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think it may fairly be assumed that persons who are in temporary charge of children will come under the operation of this section.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I also think it may fairly be assumed that cases such as that of an Italian padrone having charge of children will come under the operation of this section; but I do not think the hon. Member has strengthened his case by suggesting that if an elder brother or sister is found illtreating a child, that child may be taken out of the custody of its parent or lawful guardian by the police. I cannot imagine such a case occurring, because I believe the natural action of the magistrate before whom the case comes would be to hand over the child to its parents.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think we can best deal with this matter in the Definition Clause.
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. TOMLINSON: My object in moving the next Amendment is to secure that care is taken before allowing irresponsible people to undertake these cases. I am one of those who do not place unlimited confidence in the discretion of people who take up cases from philanthrophic motives. I prefer to make the Court responsible for carrying out the proceedings it initiates.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 2, line 39, leave out from "any" to "and," in line 40.
  MR. WHARTON: May I point cut to my hon Friend who has just spoken that the words which are contained in the Industrial School Act are "any person may bring before the Justices or Magistrates." In this clause we are only following the language of the Industrial School Act.
  MR. TOMLINSON: What I want to secure is that there shall be some proper person to take up these cases. It ought not to be a matter of chance whether a person shall come forward to undertake

  839
  the responsibility of dealing with such cases.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press this Amendment. I trust he will bear in mind that societies are formed in nearly every town in England which are only waiting for the passing of this Bill in order to take proceedings under it, and I am sure we ought to be thankful that there are societies which are willing to take these steps.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I do not propose to prevent any one taking up these cases; but I want to ensure that they are always taken up.
  Amendment negatived.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I now beg to move the insertion of the words "taken out of the custody of its parent," after the word "be" in line 41. If the person inflicting the cruelty is the parent, and the magistrate thinks it is expedient to take the child out of the parent's custody, he will so order. Of course, if the words I propose do not constitute a sufficient safeguard, a proviso can be inserted to the effect that no child shall be taken out of the custody of the parent or guardian unless the parent or guardian has been a party to the offence.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 2, line 41, after "be," insert "taken out of the custody of its parent."—(Sir R. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. W. M'LAREN: I think it will be necessary to add words to those mentioned by the Attorney General. We must deal with the verbal meaning of the words of the clause. A child might be taken out of the custody of its parents and handed over to anyone else.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I cannot think that the words suggested by the Attorney General are the best words that could be found. What I had in my mind was that the Court should take the child from the
  840
  actual custody of the person committing the offence.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: My proposition is that the section should only be applied where the parent or guardian—and I mean by that the person defined in Section 8 as being the person liable to maintain the child—has been accessory to the offence.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 2, line 42, leave out "for any period."—(Sir R. Webster.)
  Question, "That those words stand part of the clause," put, and negatived.
  MR. WHARTON: I desire to suggest an Amendment in line 42. It is to insert after "to" the words "an industrial school in other proper place of detention for such time as the Court may think fit, or." It appears to me that the children contemplated by this clause would be exactly in the condition of children who are now committed, with good effect, to industrial schools, and that an industrial school is the right place to send them. If they cannot be sent to an industrial school, I am willing they should go to the next friend, or any other fit person named by the Court.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 2, line 42, after "to" insert "an industrial school or other proper place of detention for such time as the Court may think fit, or."—(Mr. Wharton.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I think an industrial school is covered by the words "or any other fit person named by the Court;" but that an industrial school should, in all cases, be the first place to which children should be sent I think is a mistake. Experience has shown that there are cases constantly arising where children, instead of being sent to industrial schools at the expense of the public, are taken care of by their next friend—by an aunt, grandmother,

  841
  sister, or some other relative in the neighbourhood. If these children are committed to industrial schools, they will have to associate with children who have come to the verge of crime. They may be delicate and refined children, and well brought up otherwise, and to be committed to an industrial school, through no fault of their own, would, I think, be a misfortune to them.
  MR. WHARTON: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will pardon my interrupting him. It is not my intention to make it obligatory on the Court to commit a child to an industrial school. All I want to do is to give the Court the choice between an industrial school and the next friend, or any other person it may think fit.
  MR. MUNDELLA: If there is not a next friend the Court may commit to an industrial school. Experience of the cases of 330 children shows that 180 children were restored to their homes under supervision; 40, with the offender's consent, were placed in the custody of the child's relatives; six, belonging to superior families, were placed in new custody, under orders of the High Court; 70 were received in charitable institutions; 20 were adopted by strangers and only 14 were committed to industrial schools. There was thus a saving tc the public purse of £6,000 per annum.
  MR. PICTON: I do not think that preference ought to be given to industrial schools; but it ought to be made clear that the words of the clause covered committal to industrial schools.
  MR. HENEAGE: Words might be inserted providing that in case of the Court being unable to find any friend to whom to send the child, they might send it to an industrial school.
  MR. MATTHEWS: The whole of the industrial school system rests upon the theory that the children committed there are probable criminals. Some children coming under this Bill may belong to that class; but I think they would be a rather small minority.
  MR. WHARTON: I will not press the Amendment. I do not recognise the children committed to industrial
  842
  schools as probable criminals, although no doubt many of them are taken out of the atmosphere of crime. The industrial schools with which I have to do are always open. If the boys choose to run away they can; but we find that boys prefer to feel that trust is placed in them rather than that they are treated in any way as criminals. It might be inferred from the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill that industrial school boys are not happy boys. I never saw a happier set of boys than I saw at the industrial schools which I visited last week.
  MR. MILVAIN: What is to be done with a child in the event of there being no next Friend?
  MR. MUNDELLA: I have stated that of 330 children only 14 were committed to industrial schools.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 2, line 42, leave out from "of" to "fit," and insert "some proper person to be."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)
  Question proposed, "That the words 'of its next friend, or any other fit' stand part of the clause."
  MR. MUNDELLA: The next friend is sometimes the mother of the child. If the father has been guilty of cruelty, the guardianship of the child may be assigned to the mother or to the next nearest relative. I think, in practice, that will be found to be the case; but I will not undertake to say what the legal definition of "next friend" is.
  MR. BARTLEY: I think we should heep up the idea that these children should go to their next friend.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I have proposed this Amendment owing to the difficulty of defining the legal meaning of "next friend." The "next friend" may be an entire outsider.
  MR. D. CRAWFORD: I am inclined to agree with my hon. Friend that "next friend" is strictly a legal term. This Bill applies to Scotland, where "next friend" has no meaning whatever; no magistrate in Scotland knows what "next friend" means, and I do not. I

  843
  would much prefer some popularly understood phrase.
  MR. MATTHEWS: I am sorry the Attorney General is not present to state his view as to the legal aspect of the question. Personally, I fancy that in law there is no "next friend" until the Court has appointed one.
  MR. S. GEDGE: I do not think the words "next friend" are the best. "Any proper person" conveys the whole meaning.
  MR. MUNDELLA: There can be no harm in the words remaining in the clause, because they indicate that the child shall go to the nearest relative, or if not to him or her then to some other suitable person.
  MR. TOMLINSON: But they do not indicate that.
  MR. CHANNING: Surely on Report the Attorney General can introduce words which will meet the point.
  MR. BRUNNER: Would the right hon. Gentleman consent to "a relative" being put in instead of "next friend?" The clause would then read "the child be committed to the charge of a relative or any other fit person."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I will undertake to confer with the Attorney General between now and Report. If it is found that any better words than "next friend" can be inserted I will take care they are used.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 3, line 1, after "Court," insert "until it attains the age of fourteen years, or in the case of a girl sixteen years, or in either case for any shorter period."—(Sir R. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. TOMLINSON: Why is the age fixed at 16 in the case of girls?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: The Court has, of course, discretion; but it seemed to us
  844
  strange to insert one age for the offence and another age for the custody of the child.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. KELLY: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name, and I think that, in common fairness, the parent should receive notice as to where the child has gone. We are surely not to suppose that a bad person cannot improve, or that a parent who has once been cruel to a child can have no affection for it afterwards. It may be that a parent has been cruel to a child in a drunken fit. I certainly think parents should have some opportunity of knowing what order has been made with reference to their children.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, page 3, line 2, after "order," insert "but notice of such renewal, variation, or revocation, shall be given to the person convicted of committing an offence against such child."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think the Amendment would go beyond what is necessary. Take the case of a padrone or of a gipsy. Is it necessary to send about the country to give such persons notice of the safe-keeping of the child? Is it not sufficient that notice is given to the parent?
  MR. KELLY: I am afraid that would not go far enough; there are cases in which others than parents are concerned.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Sufficient defence is given by the words, "every person by law liable for the maintenance of the child." If the hon. Member does not wish that notice should be given to the gipsy or the padrone, as I have mentioned, perhaps he can suggest some form of words that will meet what he desires. Say, notice of such renewal, &c., to the parent of the child.
  MR. KELLY: My meaning is person having lawful custody. However, I will not press the Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR M'LAREN: I understand no objection is made to the Amendment coming next. I need, therefore, say nothing in support of it.
  Amendment proposed, page 3, line 2, at end, add "for the purposes of this Act a child's mother may be held to be its next friend."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
  MR. PICTON: Is it necessary, and may it not lead to difficulties, to introduce a definition in this particular case?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I was going to point out it is very undesirable to give a definition or quasi-definition of the expression "best friend" here. If the hon. Member will trust my experience of the working of Acts of Parliament, I can see that the insertion of the definition here may land us in complications in reference to other relationships. It should be dealt with as a substantive proposition. It may be that the definition "next friend" may disappear from the Interpretation Clause. I should like to consider this before accepting the Amendment.
  MR. M'LAREN: I had in view the case where, father and mother having equal claims, the father turns out to be a ruffian, the custody should then be taken from the father and given to the mother.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in line 3, after "shall," insert "whilst the order is in force."—(Mr. Attorney General.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. TOMLINSON: I believe it is the intention in the Bill that the person put in loco parentis should be responsible for the maintenance; but it is doubtful whether that would be the effect of this clause. At all events, it is desirable to call the person's attention to the fact that he does undertake this responsibility, and this is done by the Amendment I propose.
  Amendment proposed, in line 4, after "parent," insert "and shall he responsible for its maintenance."
  MR. MUNDELLA: I do not see any objection to this. Of course it is intended
  846
  that the parent shall be responsible. Does the Attorney General see any objection to the insertion of the words?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: So far as they go they seem quite right. The only point I was considering was whether they go far enough—whether the definition of the responsibilities of the parent is wide enough.
  MR. M'LAREN: Will it not interfere with the latter part of the clause that provides that a parent may be compelled to contribute to the maintenance?
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. GEDGE: The next Amendment in my name is, I think, necessary in order to govern and limit the application of the clause.
  Amendment proposed, in line 5, after "person," insert "during such period as aforesaid."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I thought my hon. and learned Friend was referring to the next paragraph, "any Court having power to do so to commit, &c." I scarcely think it is necessary to insert the words here; the meaning is governed by the paragraph ending with the semi-colon. The words would come in on line 6.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in line 9, leave out "in a certified industrial school," and insert "under the Industrial Schools Act."—(Mr. M'Laren.)
  MR. STUART WORTLEY: The title should read, "Certified Industrial Schools Act, 1866."
  Amendment proposed to the Amendment, to add the word "certified" before "Industrial," and "1866" after Act.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  MR. W. REDMOND: I move the Amendment of which I have given notice. It agrees with that given notice of by my hon. Friend the Member for Donegal (Mr. A. O'Connor), with the exception that he adds two words, "if possible." I understand that the right hon. Gentleman agrees to my hon. Friend's Amendment, and the

  847
  alteration in it I propose is, I think, a slight improvement.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 3, at end, to insert—
  "In determining on the person to whom the child shall be so committed, the Court shall endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion to which the child belongs, and shall select a person of the same religious persuasion, and such religious persuasion shall be specified in the order."—(Mr. W. Redmond.)
  Question proposed," That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: There is an objection to leaving out the words "if possible," for there may be doubt in some cases as to what religious persuasion the child does belong to, and in some cases it may not be possible to resolve that doubt, and so the provision would be of no effect. This, I am sure, the hon. Member does not wish. If the hon. Member for Donegal had been here to move his Amendment, I think he would have allowed the words "if possible" to meet a possible difficulty.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I agreed with the hon. Member for Donegal to accept the Amendment which, including the words "if possible," is taken from the Industrial Schools Act. This Amendment in the form I accepted it has stood on the Paper for the last two months, and this is the first intimation I have had of any desire to make any change in the wording. I think the hon. Member will see that the words "if possible" are necessary.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Of course, I defer to the wish of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. MATTHEWS: No doubt the words "if possible" occur in the Industrial Schools Act, and there you have security for preventing a departure from the intention of the Statute, and means are provided for transferring a child from the teaching of one religious persuasion to another. A great deal of trouble is taken to find out the religious persuasion to which the child belongs, but the possibility may not exist. The
  848
  Bill does not provide any machinery for correcting any errors that may be made. It is for the hon. Member to consider whether the words "if possible" are necessary.
  MR. W. REDMOND: Of course I accept the suggestion; but, at the same time, I think my proposal is more likely to secure the carrying out of the intention of the Amendment, and the words "if possible" leave a loophole for evasion. I do not anticipate there would be any difficulty in ascertaining the religion to which a child belonged. I consent, however, to move the Amendment in the form in which it stands on the Paper.
  Amendment amended by the addition of the words, "if possible," before "select"; and, as amended, agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, at end of Clause, to insert—
  "Provided that if any person committed for trial for an offence, as specified in Sub-section (1) (b) of this Section, be afterwards acquitted of such charge, or if such charge be afterwards dismissed for want of prosecution, then any order that may have been made under this Section, committing such child to the custody of any other person, shall forthwith be cancelled."
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 4.
  MR. KELLY: This clause deals with the power of search, and the powers given are very strong. But the clause provides that the Justice of the Peace shall only act on the information of statements made on oath before him, or where, in his opinion, the person making the statement is actuated by motives in the bonâ fide interest of the child. I do not see why we should cast upon the Justice any such duty. Let the Justice be satisfied on the information made on oath; but why should he be led into consideration of outside questions as to motives actuating the person making the statement, and whether they are in the bonâ fide interest of the child? Let it be sufficient that there is reasonable cause for suspecting that such a child is being treated or neglected in a place

  849
  within the jurisdiction of the Justice in a manner likely to cause the child injury or suffering. If the Justice is satisfied with the information given by a responsible person, why open the door by mischievous words to a long preliminary inquiry into tittle-tattle to ascertain motives? Why not follow the practice of the ordinary law?
  Amendment proposed, in line 15, to leave out the words "who, in the opinion of the Justice, is bonâ, fide acting in the interest of any child."—(Mr. Kelly.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I think my hon. Friend must have forgotten that similar words were inserted in the "Criminal Law Amendment Act," after careful discussion, When we considered that the Magistrate is likely to look at the matter from a reasonable point of view, there is no straining of the law to suggest that on receiving information he should have regard to the motives actuating the informant. We are not now dealing with strict legal evidence. I do not suppose any Magistrate would act unless he had ground for believing that the person giving information was acting bonâ fide in the interest of the child. It seems to me the words provide a safeguard and preventive against reckless action, and in no way endanger the right and liberties of any person. It is desirable to leave the words in the clause.
  MR. KELLY: I decline to admit that the Criminal Law Amendment Act affords a sufficient precedent for inserting the words here. The point raised will have to be discussed later on in connection with Clause 8. I am not quite so satisfied of the wisdom of Magistrates as the Attorney General appears to be. Only a small portion of such cases will come before Stipendiary Magistrates. I have no wish to say anything against the great body of Magistrates who administer the law equally and fairly,
  850
  without fear or favour; but I do not wish to put an unnecessary difficulty in their way with an advantage to the public. I must press my Amendment.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  Amendment proposed (Sir R. Webster), line 19, leave out "treated," and insert "ill-treated."
  MR. WHARTON: I would suggest to the Attorney General that he should insert the word "wilfully" before "ill-treated." It might be that the ill-treatment or neglect was inadvertent and with no intention of doing any possible harm to the child.
  MR. MUNDELLA: I am afraid that would be to throw a difficulty in the way of conviction. Suppose a child——
  It being half-past 5, the Chairman left his seat to report Progress.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Wednesday, 3rd July.

  INTERMEDIATE EDUCATION (WALES) BILL. (No. 4.)
  COMMITTEE. [Progress, 3rd June.]
  MR. OSBORNE MORGAN: Might I ask when the Government Amendments will be put formally on the Paper?
  THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION (Sir W. HART DYKE,): I hope by Friday morning.
  Committee deferred till Wednesday, 3rd July.

MOTION.

  EDUCATIONAL ENDOWMENTS (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1882 (JOHN GRANT TRUST, IN THE PARISH OF ROTHES, IN THE COUNTY OF ELGIN.)
  MR. DUFF: I beg to move
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the Scheme for the Management of the Endowment of John Grant's Trust, in the parish of Rothes, in the county of Elgin, approved by the Scotch Education Department (by Act), and now lying upon the Table of the

  851
  House, in so far as regards the provision for the annual payment to the School Board of the parish of Rothes."
  This is one of the most extraordinary schemes that the Scotch Education Department ever prepared. The late Mr. John Grant left £1,600 to five parishes; but it is proposed to give £40 a year to one of them—namely, the parish of Rothes, and, of course, the effect will be to deprive the other parishes of the endowment they ought to have. The other parishes will only get £3 or £4 amongst them. The Endowment Commissions cannot, I think, have been aware of all the circumstances of the case when they proposed this scheme. The scheme will give the greatest dissatisfaction in the neighbourhood. It would have been better if the Endowed Schools Commissioners had said that the whole of the money should go to the parish of Rothes, and allowed students from the other parishes to have benefitted from higher education in the Rothes parish school. That would have done some good; but at present, instead of doing substantial good, the scheme will only give a small relief to the ratepayers. I would ask the House to postpone its assent to the scheme.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty to withhold Her consent from the Scheme for the Managemont of the Endowment of John Grant's Trust, in the parish of Rothes, in the county of Elgin, approved by the Scotch Education Department (by Act), and now lying upon the Table of the House, in so far as regards the provision for the annual payment to the School Board of the parish of Rothes."—(Mr. Duff)
  MR. ESSLEMONT: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member has taken exception to this scheme. On behalf of the hon. Member for Morayshire, I desire to say that from advice which has reached me this is a very good scheme. The amount of money is very small, and as the Commissioners have given the matter their full consideration, I hardly expect the hon. Member will think it worth while to divide the House. I do hope that, having made his protest on behalf, I think, of only a section of those interested—and that not the largest section—he will allow the scheme to pass.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. P. B. ROBERTSON,): I have no doubt the hon. Member has found certain persons opposed to these schemes; but, at the same time, he will agree with me that in a matter of this kind and also when the fund is extremely small, it is inevitable that the Commissioners should tread on the toes of somebody or other interested. The Commissioners, however, have taken ample opportunity to inform themselves, having brought all. persons concerned before them to state their views. The smallness of the sum does not affect the interest the people take in the matter; still, looking at the smallness of the amount and the inquiry the Commissioners have made, the matter is, I hope, not one on which the hon. Member will think it necessary to challenge a Division.
  MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. Member withdraw the Motion?
  MR. DUFF: I desire to say, by way of explanation, that I do not think the hon. Member for East Aberdeen is correct in the statement he has made as to the view of the hon. Member for Morayshire; and if that hon. Member had been in his place, I do not, think he would have spoken in the sense of my hon. Friend. I do not wish to trouble the House with a Division, but I must enter a protest against taking an endowment intended for the benefit of a district and giving it to relieve parish rates.
  MR. ESSLEMONT: The hon. Member for Morayshire, who is absent, requested all communications to be sent to me. All I can say is, that his clients sent me a communication in favour of the scheme.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

  ADVERTISEMENT RATING BILL(No. 35.)
  Considered in Committee and reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.