PEEVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL—(No. 44.)

HC Deb 23 May 1894 vol 24 cc1085-121

COMMITTEE [Progress, 9th April.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committed)

Clause 1 agreed to.

clause 2.

* MR. HOPWOOD (Lancashire, S.E., Middleton)

said, he wished to move the omission of Sub-section 2, and his object in doing so was to secure something like uniformity of process in the Criminal Law, and to restrain the introduction into the Bill of principles which it ought not to embody. No alterations ought to be made in the Criminal Law of the country except under the close supervision of the Government, and hence it was he had felt it his duty to bring forward a number of Amendments, many of which he was glad to say had been accepted by Ministers. On others he would have to take the opinion of the House. Some proposals in the Bill were, in his view, altogether subversive of the plain and ordinary administration of justice in this country. Some of the objections he had to make were of a technical character, but surely the Law Officers of the Crown would agree with him in trying to secure simplicity in a law which was largely administered by unpaid Magistrates. Now, the sub-section of which he had to move the omission ran thus— A person may be convicted, either by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction or on indictment, of an offence under Section 1 of the principal Act, notwithstanding the death of the child in respect of whom the offence was committed. With such a proposal he could not agree. A prisoner ought, he contended, to he entitled to his clear acquittal, and ought not, upon an appeal to the sympathies of the jury, to be convicted on a minor offence upon indictment for a graver one, of which the jury declined to convict him. This sub-section might be erased from the Bill without substantially injuring other provisions contained in it.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 16, to leave out Sub-section (2).—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (2) stand part of the Clause."

SIR R. WEBSTER (Isle of Wight)

said, ho sincerely hoped that the Committee would not accept the Amendment. Let the Committee realise what it meant. Where most diabolical cruelty was, as in some cases, committed, and poor unfortunate children had died in consequence, technicalities ought to be, and he hoped would be, swept away. They were now dealing with cases where the Society, the object of which was the prevention of cruelty to children, had not been able to detect the criminal till after the death of the child who had been the subject of ill-treatment. Where a poor child had been done to death, the wrongdoer ought not, on that account, to escape punishment through a mere technicality, but the Criminal Law should be enforced against him.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he must dispute the view put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman, and he protested against the Bill being supported by constant reference to some Society. Presiding as he constantly did over Criminal Courts he would match his own personal experience against that of the hon. and learned Gentleman or of any Society. He also disputed the hon. and learned Gentleman's law when ho said that if a child who had been assaulted died the prisoner got off.

SIR R. WEBSTER,

interposing, said that several Magistrates had held that, in proceedings under the principal Act of 1889, where the child was no longer alive the proceedings wore barred.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, the sub-section went further than the hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested, and he suggested that instead of altering the law the Society to which reference had been made should have endeavoured to secure a reversal of the decision of these Magistrates.

THE SOLICITOR GENERAL (Mr. R. T. REID, Dumfries)

It may be that the Amendment is surplusage, but it cannot be held to be undesirable in the circumstances, especially if it be the case that Magistrates have held the view indicated by the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight. As far as the merits of this sub-section are concerned, it seems to me that if an assault has been committed, whether aggravated or not, and a person deserves punishment, and the evidence is sufficient on indictment, it would be outrageous if he escaped punishment because the child upon whom the assault was committed has happened to die in the interval. The section does not offend against common sense or justice, and it certainly does not offend against good law. I therefore intend to vote for it.

Question put, and agreed to.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, he next had to move the omission of Sub-section (3) as follows:— If upon the trial of any person for murder or manslaughter the jury are satisfied that the defendant is guilty of an offence under Section 1 of the principal Act, but are not satisfied that the defendant is guilty of the murder or manslaughter with which he is charged, the jury may acquit the defendant of the murder or manslaughter, and may find him guilty of an offence under Section 1 of the principal Act, and the defendant, on being so convicted, shall be liable to be punished as if he had been convicted of that offence on an indictment for the same. While he made no complaint against those who were in charge of the Bill, he did submit that this sub-section effected a very important and, in his opinion, very undesirable change in the Criminal Law. It seemed to him very poor policy to indict a man for murder or manslaughter, and then give him an additional chance of getting off by appealing to the sympathies of the jury to convict him of some minor offence. Further than that, the sub-section was calculated to jeopardise a man's right of acquittal, and that ought not to be allowed by any Government which felt the responsibility of properly maintaining the Criminal Law.

Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Clause."

* SIR R. WEBSTER

said, the sole object of the sub-section was to bring this branch of the Criminal Law into uniformity with that which prevailed in every other branch. If, in the course of a trial for murder, witnesses on oath proved that cruelty to a child had been practised, why should the Court he un able to deal with that offence without necessitating a new trial with all the consequent expense and inconvenience? Some learned Judges had indicated their view in the strongest possible manner that there ought to be such a power to convict, and with all due respect to the hon. Member for Middleton he must say he had put forward an argument which was not entitled to much consideration. He seemed to suggest that if the evidence of murder or manslaughter were defective the person charged should escape scot-free, even if there were abundant proof that he had been cruel to the child. But with such proof, why in the name of common sense should not the man be convicted of and punished for cruelty? Let the hon. Member himself, in the interests of that uniformity of which he was so strong an advocate, apply to this question of cruelty and assaults the principles which had prevailed so long in reference to minor offences.

* MR. HOPWOOD

said, he wished the hon. and learned Gentleman had made his references to the Judges a little less vague. Why had he not given them chapter and verse of the expressions of judicial opinion which he had alluded to? When he told the Committee that the object of the sub-section was to secure uniformity he could not agree with him. The law at present did not allow a man to be indicted for one offence and to be convicted of a different one, even if the two offences were part and parcel of the same proceeding. It seemed to him as if the Government had entered into a partnership with the hon. and learned Member opposite to pass the Bill.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.)

said, there was certainly no partnership with regard to the Bill between the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight and the Government, but the Government were satisfied that the amendment of the law proposed in this sub-section was entirely right. If forgery were found under a charge of assault, he could see the force of the objection raised by the hon. Member for Stockport; but were they to let a man off from a minor offence falling within the same class as a graver one merely because the evidence, while establishing the minor, was hardly sufficient to make good the graver charge?

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4.

Amendment proposed, in line 27, to leave out the word "able," and insert the word" liable."

Amendment agreed to.

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds.)

said, the hon. Member for the Middleton Division might be re-assured as to the partnership he suspected to exist between the Government and the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, as in regard to this clause they were of opinion that it ought to be omitted altogether. The subject ought to be dealt with in an Inebriates Bill, and such a Bill was at this moment being drafted. He submitted that the whole subject was outside the purview of the Bill, and he therefore moved its omission.

Moved, "To leave out the Clause."— (Mr. George Russell.)

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

MR. HOPWOOD

was glad to find he had the support of the Government in opposing the clause, which struck him as being a monstrous proposal.

* SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he would not comment on his hon. Friend's reference to a partnership between himself and the Government, but he did wish to thank right hon. Gentlemen opposite for giving a candid consideration to the provisions of the Bill, which there was a general desire to see passed. As to this particular question, he asked the House to consider the question on its merits. It was no answer to say that the subject ought to be dealt with in a Bill which had not even yet been introduced. Certainly they were told that a Bill was being drafted, but it might be that the drafting alone would occupy a couple of years. He had no desire to introduce anything of an acrimonious character into the Debate, but he would remind the Under Secretary to the Homo Office that last year he was induced by the Home Secretary to withdraw a similar clause on the same ground; but the Bill had not yet been produced—it had been found that one of the principal causes of cruelty had been occasioned by habitual drunkards; and the section gave Magistrates the power of sending such persons to an Inebriates' Home rather than damn them with the status of criminals by sending them to a prison. He did not know that a Home for Inebriates was morally much better than a prison, but still he thought that hon. Members would prefer to give Magistrates this power. Magistrates were unwilling to give long sentences in these cases, but they felt strongly the advantage that persons charged would derive from a lengthened period of control. He could give plenty of instances of persons acknowledging the benefit of lengthened confinement, if it were necessary. A Departmental Committee sat in 1893, and they recommended that power should be given to Magistrates to commit to a retreat persons coming within the definition of habitual drunkards, and that reformatory institutions should be provided for their reception. The general observation that the Government intended to bring in a general Bill dealing with the whole question was no answer. The proposed power of Magistrates would only be optional, and in many cases it would prevent persons from being sent to prison. He would be perfectly willing to insert an Amendment providing that the Magistrate should only exercise his option in cases where there were persons willing to pay the expense. He submitted that this was only a reasonable amendment of the law.

MR. R. T. REID (Dumfries, &c.)

said he would be very sorry to say a word which would take from the good effect of this Bill, which he believed was very much needed, but he wished to explain why he should vote against the clause. The proposal was that a person convicted of cruelty to children should, at the option of the Magistrate, be sent either into a retreat or the workhouse, if he was an habitual drunkard. These retreats had been established by Act of Parliament, the whole policy of which was to induce habitual drunkards to undergo a period of medical treatment, not by anybody's order, but of their own free will. The proposal was to send persons convicted of a criminal offence to associate with innocent persons, who were in retreat for purposes of reclamation only. Was it fair to treat people in that way? Would it be an inducement to innocent persons to go into a retreat? The same argument applied to the workhouse. Surely it was rather hard on the inmates that they should have these people sent amongst them. He did not think it was right that retreats and workhouses should be polluted by the presence of persons whose proper treatment was punishment.

SIR D. MACFARLANE (Argyll)

said, he felt very strongly on this subject, and sympathised very much with the object of the clause. With reference to the voluntary retirement of habitual inebriates into these retreats, it must be obvious to everybody that the worse they were the less likely they were to go voluntarily into such places. They must all in the course of their lives have seen painful cases in connection not only with the working classes, but the upper classes. The Under Secretary to the Home Office offered for this clause some Bill at a future time, but he thought that a bird in the hand was worth two in the bush. With regard to the question of the hardship to the poor in workhouses in thrusting these people upon them, he himself had had some experience of workhouses, and he was sorry to say that a large number of the inmates were there for the same cause, directly or indirectly, and, therefore, the punishment would not be so great.

DR. R. FARQUHARSON (Aberdeenshire, W.)

said, that if the hon. Member went to a Division he should certainly support him. It was all very well to say that a Bill was going to be introduced by the Government, but the business of the House was very much congested now, and there might be no opportunity of bringing the Bill before the House. In his opinion, there was no reason why this measure of relief should not be passed now.

* SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, that this was a clause substituting a retreat for a prison, and he should have thought the hon. and learned Member for Middleton would have welcomed such a proposal. The statement that the Government had a Bill in hand was really no argument against the present Bill. A Roman Catholic priest of some distinction in Liverpool, in recently opening a home, described it as a refuge for poor men and women who seemed to have a cross in their nature which prevented them from taking care of themselves. That description applied exactly to these asylums. If the Government did not fully approve of the Bill now before the House, it could subsequently be amended according to their view. The Government had the matter entirely in their own hands. He himself did not see any reason why this proposed improvement in the law should not be effected.

MR. R. T. REID

thought it would be very desirable if some means of coming to an arrangement on this matter, before the Report stage, could be devised. He would, therefore, suggest the withdrawal of the Amendment, and leave the matter open to be dealt with on Report.

* MR. HOPWOOD

said, the Bill required a considerable amount of amendment before it could be regarded as satisfactory. Under this clause a man might be hurried out of his liberty and out of his rights without a proper trial if, in the view of two Magistrates, he was an habitual drunkard. No evidence would be necessary on the point, although such a charge ought to be proved beyond doubt. If the Government attempted to alter the clause they must make the measure an Habitual Drunkards Bill, and it was absolutely necessary that proper time and attention should be devoted to the question before the House parted so cheerily as it frequently did with a matter which affected individual liberty.

THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. SHAW-LEFEVRE,) Bradford, Central

remarked, that the clause would convert the workhouse and the asylum into what would be practically prisons, and, that being so, he thought it would be almost impracticable to work it. A work house could not be really converted into a prison. There was also the argument of injus- tice to bear in mind. There was a very large number of persons in workhouses who had got there through misfortune, and it would not be fair to make them consort with persons who had been guilty of serious crimes, and also of habitual drunkenness. He hoped, therefore, that the promoters of the Bill would consent to modify this portion of the measure.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he accepted most gratefully the suggestion that the Amendment should be withdrawn. He must, however, point out that the Bill imposed no compulsion whatever with reference to sending offenders to workhouses, and that unless (he Local Government Board acted upon the subsection it would have no effect. The Government did not appear to be correctly informed as to what the practice' was. As a matter of fact, a considerable number of workhouses received habitual drunkards, and dealt with them especially. In some London workhouses habitual drunkards were treated either in the imbecile ward or in the infirmary. If the subject were, therefore, considered by the Government, they would see that the promoters of the Bill were not pro- posing any such drastic change as that of the intrusion among ordinary paupers of persons who were either criminals or were not fit to consort with the ordinary occupants of a workhouse. The President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre) would find, if he would look into the matter, that to a very large extent habitual drunkards were, under the existing law, kept actually under control, and could not leave the institutions in which they were confined without an order of the Justices. He entirely agreed, however, with the right hon. Gentleman that, if the subject appeared to need more careful consideration, an opportunity ought to be given for such consideration. He (Sir R. Webster) would be willing to add a proviso to the effect that the subsection should apply where a person came forward and offered to pay for the maintenance of an habitual drunkard in an imbecile ward. This would meet the case of a husband desiring his wife or a wife desiring her husband to be kept for a time under control.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

wished to know how the question of an offender being an habitual drunkard was to be brought in? The question before the Court would be that of cruelty to a child. Was a charge of habitual drunkenness to be sprung upon a man or woman who was brought before the Court on the charge of cruelty, and what evidence was to be admitted? It was perfectly obvious that the prisoner was to be tried for one offence, and was not to be punished for that offence, as he ought to be, but was to be punished for an offence which was not an offence at all in the eyes of the law—namely, that of being an habitual drunkard. It seemed to him that the late Attorney General (Sir R. Webster) had been reading a book called Hereward, which explained that the proper treatment of criminals was to put them into a hospital, and that the proper treatment of persons who were ill was to send them to prison. He knew nothing so odious as the ill-treatment of children, especially by their parents; and he did not see why a person who was convicted of that odious crime should be allowed, because he or she happened to have some money, to escape the disgrace of being sent to prison in order that the credit of the family might be maintained. A working man, of course, or a working woman could not find the money to pay for the luxury of keeping the wife or husband in an asylum. It appeared that a sentence of 12 months' imprisonment might be inflicted upon a person who had been found guilty of perhaps a trifling case of cruelty to a child. It seemed to him that this would provide a most convenient way of getting rid of a husband or wife. Surely the common-sense way of dealing with cases in which husbands and wives found themselves unable to live with one another was to grant them a divorce, and not to give one of the two an opportunity of sending the other to prison for a year. He hoped that if the Government consented to a clause of this kind in any form whatever they would safeguard it with far more stringent provisions than the proposers of the Bill seemed disposed to adopt.

MR. SNAPE (Lancashire, S.E., Heywood)

said, the criticisms which had been passed upon the clause seemed to show that it needed remodelling, but he trusted that the promoters of the Bill would adhere to its main provisions. Under the principal Act the punishment that might be imposed was imprisonment with or without hard labour for two years, and this clause would afford an opportunity of diminishing the punishment if necessary. He did not agree with his hon. Friend in the view that the clause should be omitted altogether, and for the reason that injustice was safeguarded against in the clause itself. These safeguards also removed the objection of his hon. and learned Friend, that a person might be convicted of being an habitual drunkard without satisfactory evidence being laid before the Court. One word about the workhouses. He quite agreed that the workhouses should not be made prisons; but he was not sure that in the case of habitual inebriates they were not sometimes sent to lunatic asylums to remain there at the discretion of the superintendents of those asylums. They were driven by drink into acts of madness, and when sent to an asylum under a charge of insanity they were detained there for a length of time that was regulated by the circumstances of the case. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would press the clause in its main provisions; and instead of, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General supposed, the provision being beyond the scope of the Act, it appeared to him a provision absolutely essential to the completion of the provisions which the Act contained. The cause of cruelty to children was not because men and women were born without paternal and maternal instincts, but because those instincts were destroyed by drink. It was therefore desirable that any Act dealing with the prevention of cruelty to children should deal, as far as possible, with the prevention of the causes that led to cruelty.

COLONEL NOLAN (Galway, N.)

said that, as this Bill extended to Ireland, he wished to point out that if it was to be carried out the Government ought to vote £50,000 a year to the Irish workhouses, otherwise a very great increase would be added to the rates. What they would have to do would be to turn every workhouse into a prison, and let them see what the cost of that would be. They would have to have two special warders for the males, and if there were any female inebriates they would have two matrons, and the cost of these people and the other arrangements they would have to make would be at least £500 a year for each workhouse, and then the duties would not be properly done, for the workhouses were not suitable for what they were proposing to do. They were going to entirely change the character of every workhouse in the country, and in the course of doing so they would have to build fresh Avails, have separate wards, provide attendants, and lock all the doors; and if the Government consented to pass a Bill of that kind, they should be prepared to vote an extra £50,000 a year towards the increased cost that would be thrown upon the Irish workhouses.

* MR. CROSFIELD (Lincoln)

said, he wished to support this clause, and in what he had to say he desired to devote himself to Sub-section 2. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite had probably not spent so much of his time as some of the rest of them had done in workhouses, or else the hon. and learned Gentleman would, from the clearness of his intellect, have detected the weakness of the arguments he had offered to the Committee. From his experience of workhouses it appeared to him to be utterly impossible for the clause to work in the way in which it was presented to the Committee. Under existing arrangements they could not detain anyone in the workhouse unless suffering from delirium tremens, or so ill that the doctor prohibited removal from the hospital. He had had considerable experience of passing lunatics from hospitals to asylums, and he would venture to correct a remark made by the hon. Member for Hey wood (Mr. Snape), and he would say that those who were incarcerated in workhouses because of delirium tremens or any form of imbecility arising from drink could only be detained for a very limited period, they must be passed on to a certified lunatic asylum, or be discharged. The workhouse could not be dealt with as a lunatic asylum, and therefore, if Sub-section 2 was retained, he hoped it would be amended so as to make it applicable in the sense in which the Local Government Board would desire to have it.

MR. JOHN BURNS (Battersea)

said, he thought that every lover of children was indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had introduced the Bill, and he hoped that in its main features it would pass into law this Session. He trusted that in trying to pass it the main objects would be adhered to—namely, first, the prevention of cruelty, and then the punishment of those who were responsible for such cruelty. He thought the hon. and learned Gentleman would do well to take the advice of the Solicitor General and withdraw the clause, and between now and the Report stage consider if such a clause was necessary in face of the Bill they were promised. He wished to point out that the more educated the habitual drunkard was the more cruel his conduct was. [Cries of "No, no !"] It was so; and it was proved to be so in Ireland in a remarkable way some mouths ago. But let them take two cases: the case of a scavenger who had a drunken wife who illtreated her children. If she was taken to the Police Court the Magistrate would sentence her to imprisonment. If they bad a State retreat to which they could send both the rich and the poor, he would vote for this clause, but that was not the case, and, consequently, what would happen? Take the other case: that of a Vestry clerk, whose wife maltreated her children. When she was taken to the Police Court, she would have the best counsel to defend her, and the Magistrates—they were but human, and were open to local influence —would think she was too good, too respectable a person to be sent to prison, and they would give her the option of going to a retreat. Assuming the Magistrates gave the option of retreat to the poor woman, her husband would not be in a position to pay 30s., or what was more probable £3, a week to keep his wife in a retreat. They might be told the man had the choice of the workhouse. Any man who had considered the question knew that at the present moment every Board of Guardians throughout the country was considering the question of the classification of paupers as a means of keeping the honest poor from the criminal poor. But this proposition, what would it do? It would consign all criminals convicted of cruelty into the workhouse because they had not the means to go to a retreat. That was not fair. In the first place, they would be contaminating the other inmates. They might say they would be sent to the Workhouse infirmary. But that would be worse, because the infirm poor were in a more susceptible condition than the able-bodied and healthy poor, and under this clause they proposed to send them either to the workhouse or to the infirmary. Some said the prison was too severe. He was inclined to admit it, as all prisons were not administered in the best form. But, under present circumstances, what did they find? That the Home Office was considering the question of the classification of criminals so as to keep the utterly degraded from those less degraded with the view of deterring crime permanently, and it seemed to him there should be only one alternative to the prison—namely, the asylum; that they should not be sent either to the workhouse or the infirmary, but should have the option of going to prison or the ordinary lunatic asylum, where they could be isolated from other criminals or other lunatics. They might be kept apart in the dangerous wards, and consequently there would be no bad effect so far as contaminating others was concerned. Apart from that, he looked upon this clause as a middle - class habitual drunkard's relief clause, and he appealed to the hon. and learned Gentleman in this particular Bill not to press this particular clause. If he aid he would find he would get more opposition to it on the Report stage than he contemplated. In the interests of even-handed justice and equal treatment of rich and poor criminals alike let them have no option except as between the criminal prison and the lunatic asylum.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5.

* MR. HOPWOOD

presumed the Government had made up their minds to give this additional power to the Magistrates to make it six months instead of three. He would recall the facts to the Committee. When the former Bill was passed, which was not so long since, three months was considered enough power to put into the hands of the Magistrates, but now it was to be increased to six months. By Sub-section 2 power was given to send to penal servitude for five years. There was an idea in some minds that the only way to put down crime was to pile up the punishment. He considered that was an erroneous idea, and he thought it was unnecessary to pile it up in this matter. Ho knew that some people looked on the question of cruelty to children as the justifying red-handed vengeance which was not punishment by law. Everyone agreed that the best mode of restricting crime was to detect it, and that this society thoroughly did, and they had rendered most admirable service in that way. He should be sorry to do anything to restrict that, and to-day he was not doing more than standing up for something like an adjustment of the Criminal Law as be understood it; therefore, he would not do more than move the rejection of

Clause 5.

Amendment proposed, page 2, to leave out Clause 5.—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That Clause 5 stand part of the Bill."

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that all he wished was for the Bill to pass and become law, and he therefore hoped that the discussion would be limited as much as possible. The hon. and learned Gentleman had dealt with the sub-section, and he (Sir R. Webster) would point out that now in the case of assaults upon children the punishment was six months. There would be this further advantage in making the law uniform: that there would be given the right of trial by jury, so that the case could be determined not by the Magistrate, but by a jury, as the accused person would have the right to claim a trial by jury if he considered he was otherwise likely to be prejudiced. The hon. and learned Gentleman had not dealt with the other sub-sections, his opposition being directed to the first subsection, and therefore he (Sir R. Webster) would not go into the other matters.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause 6.

* MR. HOPWOOD

said, this clause ran thus— If any person having the custody, charge, or care of a child allows that child to be in any street, premises, or place for any purpose which in reference to the street, premises, or place is forbidden by or in pursuance of section three of the principal Act as amended by the Act, that person shall be liable to the like penalties as if he had caused that child so to be in such street, premises, or place. Section 3 of the principal Act applied to light and petty offences, but what he objected to was the word "allow." The child might be allowed in the streets for a certain time, but if the child did something more then the mother or father would be liable. What he contended was that there should be proof that the mother and father so conducted themselves in regard to the child that there was an intention and wish that the child should offend in the manner pointed out by the Act. The mere "allowing" seemed to him to be the mildest form in which a criminal act had been allowed to be couched in any law. If a child was allowed to run the streets, from that might be interpreted a charge of some offence having been committed. In London and large towns the streets were the natural playgrounds of the children, the parents having to toil all day for their maintenance. He therefore beg to move the insertion of the word "knowingly" after the word" child."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 10, after the word" child," to insert the word"knowingly."—(Mr. Hopwood.)

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

SIR R. WEBSTER

thought the hon. and learned Gentleman had a little for-gotten the original provisions of Section 3; they were not directed against pre-venting the child selling in the streets or going out, but against begging on licensed premises, and the House passed that Act after full discussion. Some of the Magistrates had held that in order to be an offence under the section there must be proof of special command that the child was to go out and do the act arrived at by Section 3. Others had held that it was sufficient if the child was under the control of the parents and yet was found so committing the offence. The hon. and learned Gentleman sought to put in the word" knowingly, "but he (Sir R. Webster) should have thought the Magistrate would so construe the clause. It was not desirable to put in such words, as it raised the presumption that they had to have imperative evidence of a command or direction. Knowing how the Criminal Law was administered, he thought it was better to leave it to the discretion of the Magistrates, who were trained men.

MR. STOREY (Sunderland)

said, he was sorry to intervene for a moment in apparent opposition, but he shared to some degree the views of his hon. and learned Friend, and he wished to direct attention to the same point. Under this Bill the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was going" to subject a poor widow woman, for instance, to punishment if she allowed a boy under 14 or a girl under 16 years of age to sell in the streets for her profit. Under the original Act it provided that an outsider so acting should be liable to punishment; but the Bill of the hon. and learned Member went much further and absolutely said that a poor widow, striving to keep herself and her family out of the workhouse, if she sent her boy under 14 or her girl under 16—

SIR R. WEBSTER

That is an offence at the present moment.

MR. STOREY

For the woman?

SIR R. WEBSTER

May I point out that if the woman sends the child out to do one of the acts mentioned in the section it is an offence.

MR. STOREY

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed to go further, we cause if a widow woman, striving to keep herself and family off the rates, sent her child into the streets to sell, the hon. and learned Gentleman proposed that such a woman should be liable to punishment. He called that tyranny, and not legislation. If the woman sent out her child for any other purpose which the Act forbade he should be entirely at one with the hon. and learned Gentleman; if, for instance, she sent the child into licensed premises for the purpose of appearing at entertainments or playing after certain hours, he thought, in the interests of the child itself, it should be constrained; but the proposition went much further, and interfered with the liberty of the subject to too great an extent, and it was from that point of view that he protested against the clause. If a widow allowed her child to sell in the streets between the hours of 9 at night and 6 in the morning that woman was to be treated as a criminal. If they did this then they were going to subject a large number of persons to punishment. They would be surprised at the multitude of poor women who made a very decent living by the sale of newspapers. There was an absolute business in it, and to his knowledge in some of the large towns there were numerous families where the mother—a widow — and her children managed at certain hours to make enough to keep the family going and relieve themselves from the necessity of going to the workhouse.

SIR R. WEBSTER

What hours?

MR. STOREY

said, that those who sold newspapers must sell them when they were published.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that in the interest of time he would point out they were not really altering the law in that respect. The prohibition now was between 10 o'clock at night and 5 o'clock in the morning, and they proposed to make the hours between 9 and 6.

MR. STOREY

said, the Act fixed the hours between 10 and 5, but the Bill now proposed that a mother should be punished if she allowed the child to sell newspapers after 9 o'clock at night and before 6 in the morning. Thousands of persons—and he spoke of what he knew of his own knowledge—in various large towns, families with widows at the head, who managed to keep their families together and earn an honest and respectable livelihood by the sale of newspapers. Therefore, he said that to subject such women to the proof that they did not allow their children to sell at five minutes past 9 o'clock at night or five minutes before 6 o'clock in the morning was a most unreasonable way of dealing with the matter. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman they should prevent mothers from sending their children to do work that might injure or have a bad moral effect upon them, but he held they should not throw any unnecessary impediment in the way of poor people earning a decent and honest livelihood.

* SIR F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

said, he quite agreed with his hon. and learned Friend that great care had been taken in passing this clause. He could inform him that the question of selling newspapers by children was year after year before the Police and Sanitary Committee, on which he was then taking an active part, and it was then stated that it was a flagrant evil. The clause of 1889 was, in effect, simply placing in the general Statute what was placed year after year in local Acts. He was aware of the arguments as to virtuous parents, but they unfortunately had parents who were not virtuous. Then there was the further consideration that great demoralisation arose from girls being in the streets for any purpose whatever at a late hour.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said, that whenever there was an attempt to impose upon parents parental responsibility there was always one creature introduced to evoke public sympathy and sentiment, and that was the poor lone widow who was supporting children of immature years and uncertain habits. He trusted the House would not be influenced by the sentimental appeal that had been made. What did this Bill say? That between 9 o'clock at night and 6 in the morning people should be prohibited from doing certain things approved by the House on a former occasion. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) seemed to imply that a crowd of children, most of them barefooted, which he saw with sorrow collected at many newspaper offices, were little angels. That was not so, he was convinced. At Victoria and other London railway stations they would see scores of little fellows at 9, 10, and 11 o'clock at night asking them to buy a last copy of the paper they might have in their hands, and possibly the money so earned went in drink—or worse. It seemed to him they had no right to affirm the principle the hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Storey) wanted them to affirm —namely, to spoil the child for the purpose of saving the rates. If these mothers could not live without debauching their children, both morally and physically, it was better they should have outdoor relief. Was it not hypocrisy for them to pass Factory Acts restricting the labour of adults to eight hours; was it not mere cant to press upon the Government the necessity of reducing the hours worked in Government workshops to eight per day, and yet to give a drunken mother the right to send her child on to the streets of any large town to hawk papers at 9 and 10 o'clock at night, when the child and its mother ought to be in bed? He hoped the Government would respond to the appeal of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and prevent children from being so treated.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he was going to vote for this clause as it stood. So far as this point was concerned, it had been provided for already by previous Acts, and the same penalty was imposed upon the person who allowed, as upon the person who caused, the child to do these things. What he was about to say now was a matter that would be better considered on Report, but it arose on this clause. He understood his hon. and learned Friend meant that the ages to be dealt with in this section should correspond with the ages dealt with in the principal Act. [Sir R. WEBSTER: Certainly.] He doubted whether that was so; but if anything was wrong it could be put right on Report.

MR. HUNTER (Aberdeen, N.)

said, he would like to ask one question as to the construction of the section. He ventured to think there was great danger in introducing the word "allow" instead of "cause," and that in doing so they were altering the law in this way: If a parent caused his child to be out at night, surely the child was breaking the law with the intention of the parent; but assuming the child to be sent out with directions to be home by 9 o'clock, and that child remained out in the streets after 9 o'clock, the crime was committed, but there could be no intention on the part of the parents. As the clause stood, unless they inserted the word "knowingly" or the word "willingly," it was obvious that the parent who let the child go out wound be convicted, though he was entirely innocent of any offence.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.)

said, the idea, as he understood the clause, was that they were dealing with the case of children who were or ought to be under control. He disagreed with those who thought the onus was on the parent; it must be proved that the child was there with the allowance of the parent; and, therefore, he could not see that the case suggested by the hon. and learned Member would arise.

* MR. HOPWOOD

said, it was the duty of the House of Commons to place legislation on the Statute Book which should not be capable of misconstruction. If it was liable to misconstruction, the attention of the Law Officers ought to be called to it and the matter made plain. What could be the objection to putting in the word "knowingly"? By the word "allowing," however innocent a mother might be, and her child had gone and done something in the street which was prohibited by this Bill, the mother would be held to have brought herself within the scope of the measure, and would be liable to punishment. It seemed to him that the advocates of improvement in the law relating to this subject would bring such law into discredit if they forced it to these extraordinary lengths.

* MR. BYLES (York, W.R., Shipley)

said, he entirely supported the view of this clause that was taken by the Member for Middleton (Mr. Hopwood). It seemed to him a matter for rejoicing that they had got in the House of Commons in these degenerate days one or two Members who stood up for personal liberty. The tendency of modern legislation seemed to him to be somewhat to restrict liberty; and when they found a Member like the Member for Battersea (Mr. J. Burns) joining with what he might call the more reactionary Members in grandmotherly legislation, he felt a little satisfaction in relying on the strong common sense and individualism of his hon. Friend (Mr. Hopwood). The hon. Member for Battersea had referred to the Factory Acts, but this was surely not a case on all-fours with the Factory Acts.

MR. JOHN BURNS

I wish it was.

MR. BYLES

A father or mother (who allowed a child to sell newspapers on the street after 9 o'clock was not at all in the position of an employer who forced a person to do work after 6 o'clock. If anybody should be punished for the selling of newspapers it should not be the parent who allowed the child to sell, but the newspaper proprietor or the agent who employed the child, or the consumer who purchased the paper. That, he believed, was adequately provided for by the existing legislation. What was now professed was that a poor woman who was earning a miserable pittance should be punished for sending her children into the streets to sell articles if they sold them after 9 o'clock. How could her children be prevented from straying on the streets? and if they did, why should the onus or proof be thrown on the parent? If she could not give proof of the express command that she told her child to come home at night she was to be made a criminal. He thought they were going a very long way in this House when they attempted to restrict the liberty of people to this extent. It was a bad thing that poor children should sell on the street. He agreed that their mothers or fathers should be able to earn sufficient wages and get a sufficient portion of the wealth which their labour created to make it unnecessary that they should send their children into the streets or anywhere else to earn money. But that was not the case now, and in the meantime his experience tallied with his hon. Friend (Mr. Hop-wood). He agreed that in the North of England there were many parents whose income was small and perhaps was badly spent, but that was no justification for this House to interfere. He knew very many cases where it was almost necessary—in fact, perhaps, absolutely necessary—in order to keep starvation away from the door to send children to sell newspapers or other articles on the street. To propose to extend the restriction which already existed and make the hours include the hours from 9 to 10, and the hours from 5 to 6, was certainly, in his judgment, an unwarrantable interference with personal liberty.

MR. SNAPE

said, in his opinion the Bill would be incomplete unless the hon. and learned Gentleman adhered to this portion of the clause. It was obvious that if the word" knowingly" or "wilfully" were introduced, as suggested by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hop-wood), it would make the clause altogether null and void, because it would be absolutely impossible to prove that any mother" wilfully" or knowingly" had permitted her child to be out at those hours. The Bill was intended to prevent cruelty to children, and some of the most painful and demoralising forms of cruelty to children were those which took the shape of permitting them to be out after 9 in the evening, professedly selling matches, newspapers, and other things. He could speak from his own experience that going home late at night, when snow covered the ground, he had seen barefooted children huddled in doors and corners professedly out selling papers. If mothers and parents could not make a living without inflicting such cruelty on their children as that, it was time that such a form of making a livelihood should be prevented.

MR. STOREY

wished to reiterate that there were in this country families not to be numbered by thousands, nor by tens of thousands, of decent women who did not send their children into the street to work for them, but who, in the legitimate way of trade, took a certain area in the town for the supply of newspapers, but personally, for want of strength or want of time, could not cover the district themselves. He was taking the hours from 5 to 6 and from 9 to 10. They were not drunken people or people who made their children work for them, but women, such as he had instanced, who, with the aid of their children—boys of 14 and girls of 16, say—took an area of a town and distributed papers within the hours when they must be delivered to be of use to the people who bought them. These children got home after their work at a decent time; they were under good care, and lived respectably and comfortably without their parents going for outdoor relief or asking for any assistance. Why should they make it criminal for the people to do this, because that was what they were invited to do. But what was more, they might say it was not criminal between 8 and 9—for the last editions were published at 8—at 5 minutes to 9 it was not criminal, but at 5 minutes past 9 it became criminal. Why should they make it criminal? The fact of the matter was, that in the desire to be kindly they sometimes fell into the fault of being tyrannical; and the great misfortune of the original Act was that it coupled together things which were so dissimilar. If a parent sent his or her children into the streets for the purpose of begging or receiving alms, punish that; or if he sent them into the street under the pretence of singing and playing and performing, punish that; but to go and couple with these things the persons who were legitimately doing their little best to keep a house over their heads by offering anything for sale was no sufficient justification to say there were certain persons who abused it. He said, punish those guilty of such abuses, but do not interfere with the people who honestly wanted to make a living. He should support the proposal of his hon. Friend.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 27; Noes 130.—(Division List, No. 49.)

MR. SNAPE

said, that in Section 6, page 3, line 12, he desired to move to insert after the word "Act" the words— But not excepting premises licensed for public entertainments according to law. The words of the principal Act exempted premises licensed according to law for entertainments, and the effect of that exemption was that a large number of public houses which had obtained licenses could employ children in entertainments. These were premises of the very character it was sought to deal with. He had no desire to prejudicially affect theatres, and the fact that the Amendment would apply to them was the difficulty he had to contend with. He thought, however, that even in theatres care should be taken that young children should be employed, if employed at all, before the prohibited hour of 9 o'clock. If words were suggested to protect theatres he should not object to their insertion in the Amendment. His object was to prevent the employment of children of tender years in low class public-houses licensed for entertainments where such employment was often of a most demoralising character.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 12, after the word "Act," to insert the words— But not excepting premises licensed for public entertainments according to law."—(Mr. Snape.)

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

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, the Amendment as it was proposed would not affect the object the hon. Member had in view; therefore, it would seem desirable that it should be withdrawn and brought up again on Report. The effect of it would be that only the person allowing the child to appear would be affected and not the person causing the offence. It would be necessary to have a new clause amending the sub-section in the original Act; and he should be happy to consider such a clause if it were brought up on the Report stage.

MR. SNAPE

said, he would adopt the hon. and learned Gentleman's suggestion. He had made the proposal last year, and the hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted it, though, he admitted, it was then submitted in a different form.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SNAPE

said, be would move to add at the end of Sub-section 1 the words— The principal Act shall be amended, by the substitution of the word 'twelve' for the word 'ten' in the first line of Clause 3. The words of the principal Act which this would amend were— Causing or procuring any child of the age of ten years to be at any time in any street for purposes prohibited by this Act. The age of 10 appeared to him to be too young, and he would propose that the same age should be adopted as was suggested with reference to children in ordinary employments which did not expose them to cruelty.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 17, after the word "accordingly," to insert the words— The principal Act shall be amended by the substitution of the word 'twelve' for the word 'ten' in the first line of Sub-section (c) Clause 3.

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

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he would ask the hon. Member to pursue the same bourse in regard to this Amendment as he had done in regard to the last. Ho had not had an opportunity of considering the proposal. He should agree to any reasonable suggestion for raising the age if, after consideration, it seemed to him necessary.

MR. JOHN BURNS

asked whether the Amendment would have the sympathetic concurrence of the hon. and learned Gentleman if it were postponed until the Report stage?

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he could not commit himself to a specific pledge; but he would consider the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. SNARE

said, he desired to move an Amendment to Sub-section 6, which stood as follows:— Section 3 of the principal Act shall not apply in the case of any occasional sale or entertainment the net proceeds of which are wholly applied for the benefit of any school or to any charitable object. He proposed to insert after the word "entertainment" the words— Not held on any premises or place licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors.

Amendment proposed, to insert after the word "entertainment," the words, Not held on any premises or place licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors."—(Mr. Snape.)

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

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he agreed with the purport of the Amendment, but if the words now proposed were adopted they might have to be amended on Report. It might have a wider effect than was intended. For instance, such concerts or entertainments might take place in theatres which were licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors. It would be advisable, therefore, to postpone the Amendment until the Report.

MR. R. T. REID

said, he also would urge the hon. Member to postpone the matter, as the words of the Amendment were not on the Paper, and they required to be considered.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)

said, the hon. Member was between the upper and nether mill-stone of the two Front Benches. If he intended to make a stand at all he (Mr. Russell) would advise him to do it now.

* MR. STUART-WORTLEY (Sheffield, Hallam)

said, he would remind the hon. Member (Mr. Russell) of the acute controversy they had in 1889 on the questions surrounding the employment of children in the theatres. He thought that to introduce this Amendment without notice, or even on short notice, would be unfair to managers of theatres.

MR. SNAPE

said, that under the circumstances he was disposed to accept the counsel of his hon. Friend the Member for South Tyrone. The case would be different if his proposal required careful consideration; but it was so simple that he could not see why it should not be adopted at once.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, that Subsection 6 only applied to occasional sales or entertainments. In villages the room attached to the public-house might be the only place where such a sale or entertainment could be held. If the Amendment were adopted it would have to be amended on Report, in order that the exceptions which might arise should be dealt with.

MR. SNAPE

said, he knew that the sub-section only applied to occasional entertainments, but they knew that Magistrates were often so ill-advised as to grant licences for professedly charitable objects under circumstances that must be contrary to the intentions of the Act.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 7.

* MR. HOPWOOD

said, that Sub-section I was a step in advance towards interference with personal liberty which had never been taken before. A constable or any subject of Her Majesty could arrest a person who had committed a felony, but for a constable to arrest a person for a misdemeanour he must be himself a witness of the offence or be assured that its commission was immediately recent. This sub-section, however, went beyond that. Under the Act as it at present existed, and which one would have thought strong enough, a constable might take into custody without warrant any person who within view of such constable committed any offence under the Act when the name and residence of such person were unknown. The law required that when the offence had not been witnessed by the constable or had not been committed recently a warrant for arrest should be obtained from a Magistrate or a summons should be issued. The present clause, however, proposed to leave the matter absolutely in the hands of the police constable. He was to be the judge the moment he was called upon to act as to whether an offence had been committed, and could arrest if he thought he had" reason to believe" that a person had been guilty of cruelty. That, he submitted, was a very strong order indeed. He did not want to say anything against the Police Force in general, but there were men in it whom it would be dangerous to trust with such powers as were now asked for. The law had never been shaped in this way before, and he objected to the precautions of the past being altered in order to meet peculiar feelings which existed with regard to special crimes and misdemeanours. He did not believe that the House was less desirous of preventing cruelty to children in 1889 than it was to-day. It was anxious to render the law efficient, but was not regardless of the preservation of personal liberty. That liberty should not be placed arbitrarily in the hands of police constables. He begged to move the omission of Subsection 1 of Clause 7.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section 1.—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That Sub-section I stand part of the Clause."

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he could assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that this alteration in the law had not been proposed without considerable thought. He was prepared to accept an Amendment to be moved later on by the Lord Advocate, which, he thought, would remove any objection which might be fairly entertained to the clause. It was true the subject was a great deal discussed in 1889, when for the first time the offences dealt with by this legislation were made offences against the law. If the House of Commons had had the experience and knowledge in 1889 which was available to-day, he had no hesitation in saying the House would have made the existing Act stronger. It was the rarest possible thing for these offences to be committed in view of the constable. It was a domestic offence. The cruelty that took place, the beating and starving of the child, did not and could not, in the nature of the case, take place in view of the constable. The cruelty frequently consisted of a series of acts covering a considerable space of time, and if the person guilty of the offence had any inkling that he was likely to be proceeded against, he would not be present when he was wanted. This was exemplified in the case of one of the most notorious baby-farmers of whom there was any record. In this case eight children died in one year, probably all of them from starvation, but, certainly, four of them died from that cause. The children who died were too young for any graver charge to be made. There was no power of arrest under the principal Act. The case was reported to the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and a man was ultimately tried before Mr. Justice Hawkins and sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude, but one of the offenders actually got away in the interval. It was by the merest chance that the person convicted did not also get away. If he had had the slightest inkling of what was taking place he would have done so. In another case, where persons were arrested for cruelty to children by neglecting to provide them with sufficient clothing, it was held by the Magistrates that the offence not having been committed in view of the constable, the accused ought not to have been arrested. It could not be denied that in most of the serious cases the offence could not have been committed in view of the constable. All of them who had had experience of practice in the Courts knew that at times policemen did appear to have overstepped their duty, but looking at the large number of police and the thousands of instances in which their conduct was brought in question both before the Judges and the Magistrates who were always ready, even eager, to take note of any overstepping of duty on the part of the force, he thought the conduct of the police commended itself to the approval of the public.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had given them two instances where he thought justice had been defeated in the absence of this clause, but in the cases he had referred to could he say that the names and addresses of the offenders were unknown? A summons against them could have been obtained from the nearest Magistrate.

* THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.)

said, that no doubt cruelty to children was committed out of the sight of the police. He had had occasion to direct trials in cases of this kind, and in nearly every one of them he had found that the worst cruelties were perpetrated without witnesses, the principal evidence in many cases being the marks on the bodies of the children. There was a class of case in which the remedy provided by this clause should certainly be given, and that was where there was reason to believe that the offenders were likely to abscond.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 4, line 11, after "if," insert" he has reasonable ground for believing that such person will abscond, or."

MR. J. WILSON (Govan)

said, he thought it a hardship that children who were taken from their parents and sent to poorhouses should be given up to those parents again after being cleaned and clothed. Yet that occurred over and over again to the great cost of the ratepayers and injury of the children. He would appeal to the hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill if he could not see his way to put an end to this hardship.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8.

Amendment proposed, in page 5, line 12, to leave out from the word "be," to end of sub-section, and insert the words, proved in such manner as the Court may think sufficient to bind him.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that the fourth sub-section contained these words— and if a person fails to, or has failed to, pay any sum payable by him in pursuance of an Order under that sub-section, he may be dealt with in like manner as if the sum were due from him in pursuance of an Order under the Bastardy Law Amendment Act, 1872. Surely every Magistrate who had the power to inflict a fine had full power to enforce the penalty. He, therefore, moved the omission of the words he had quoted.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the words, "and if a person fails to, or has failed to, pay any sum payable by him in pursuance of an Order under that sub-section, he may be dealt with in like manner as if the sum were due from him in pursuance of an Order under the Bastardy Law Amendment Act, 1872."—(Mr.Hopwood.)

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

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, the Magistrates, rightly or wrongly, thought that the Order to contribute towards the maintenance of children could not be legally enforced.

* MR. HOPWOOD

said, the Magistrates were in error. He failed to see what the Law of Bastardy had to do with the matter, and he objected to this tesselated pavement sort of legislation. This was a law which passed alio intuitu, and the proposed enactment recalled the case of the man whom the jury could not find guilty of "murder," but found a verdict for "sheep-stealing," because it carried with it the capital penalty. If the man was not hit one way he would be the other. He considered it was wrong for the Government to deal with the matter in such a way in reference to these orders.

Question put, and agreed to.

On Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 5, line 26, after"1872,"insert"or in Scotland were a sum decerned for aliment."

THE UNDER SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GEORGE RUSSELL, North Beds.)

said, he was glad to hear so general an expression of sympathy from all parts of the House not only with regard to the object, but the methods of the Bill. He hoped there would be no objection offered, however, to this clause being made a little clearer. A certain amount of elasticity had been introduced in other portions, and with regard to enforcing money payments he understood the Solicitor General to be of the same opinion as himself. That matter ought to be made a little clearer than it was at present, and if that were done he thought no objection would be offered.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, if the hon. Member would allow him, he would consider it before the Report stage. He was not aware of any real objection, but he would see if any alteration was required.

Amendment proposed, in line 34, Subsection 6, page 5, to insert the words" brought up in accordance with."—(Sir R. Webster.)

Amendment agreed to.

Chaise, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10.

MR. GEORGE RUSSELL

said, he had not had the advantage of consulting the Secretary of State on this point, but the clause seemed to be objectionable as far as it made any material alteration of the existing Industrial Schools Act, in reference to the substitution in some cases of committal of the child to an independent person for retention in an industrial school. Where such Orders were granted, it would be necessary that some provision should be made afterwards for the children while remaining in the custody of such persons. So far there seemed to be a prima facie objection to the proposed alteration with regard to committing children to the custody of private persons. If this was to be allowed, it should only be upon some provision being made for the child to be looked after while in the custody of a philanthropist or any other independent individual. He formally moved to omit the clause.

Amendment proposed, to leave out the Clause.—(Mr. George Russell.)

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

SIR R. WEBSTER

hoped that the clause would be allowed to stand, at any rate until the Home Secretary had been consulted. There were clearly cases in which it was desirable to have the power to give the custody to independent persons who were willing and able to take charge of them. He had a number of cases which he might quote of children requiring such provision even among people well connected, where the Industrial Schools Act would not operate, Offences were often committed, un-fortunately by persons who, from their position and training, would not be thought capable of them. He hoped that the hon. Member would rest satisfied for the present with having called attention to the matter, leaving it to the Home Secretary to tell the House on the Report stage whether he insisted on the clause.

* MR. STUART - WORTLEY

said, boarding-out powers, such as those now proposed, were very valuable. It was often more conducive to the interests of the children in industrial school cases that they should receive the benefits of home and family life; but the boarding-out powers now possessed by Boards of Guardians, and proposed to be further extended in the late Home Secretary's Industrial Schools Bills of 1888–90, were carefully safeguarded by provisions as to Government inspection, and so on. That should be insisted upon when Magisterial orders were made depriving parents of the control of their children.

MR. JOHN BURNS

said, that of all people in the world, the greatest fraud was the professional cheap philanthropist who with smug hypocrisy went to Police Courts and expressed their willingness to take care of children. Such persons had been convicted again and again of cruelty to the unfortunate children committed to their charge until they were old enough to work—if girls, in laundries; or, if boys, in wood-chopping. With the case of the Zierenbergs, which had been journalistically exposed by the hon. Member for Northampton, before their eyes, he appealed to the hon. and learned Member in charge of the Bill to put restrictions and provisions into the clause, before the Report stage was reached, to protect children from "philanthropic" persons who used children as a source of profit, and cruelly ill-treated them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Formal Amendment.

Clause, as amended, agreed to,.

Clause 11.

* MR. HOPWOOD

asked how the necessity for altering the provisions as to the issuing of warrants had arisen? The Act of 1889 was very cautiously framed in this as in other respects, and provided that the powers conferred on two Justices might be exercised by one in case of urgency upon the information laid. Was not that power ample? He thought that this was a useless and un-necessary alteration of the law. He moved to leave out Sub-section (1), providing that The power of issuing a warrant under Section 6 of the principal Act may be exercised by any Justice in the same manner as under that section that power may be exercised by a Stipendiary Magistrate or any two Justices of the Peace, and the words 'if upon the information it appears to him to be a case of urgency' are hereby repealed.

Amendment proposed, to leave out Sub-section (1).—(Mr. Hopwood.)

Question proposed, "That Subsection (1) stand part of the Clause."

SIR R. WEBSTER

pointed out that the clause was only operative where there was reason to suspect, on information laid, that a child was being ill-treated or neglected. In the towns there was no difficulty in getting two Justices, but in the rural districts, where these offences of cruelty to children were much more common than was sup- posed, it was not easy always to get two Magistrates. There could be no objection to giving to one Magistrate the authority to order an investigation in necessary cases.

MR. T. W. RUSSELL

said, that nowadays the only question was who was not a Magistrate — they were accessible enough. A good many parts of the Bill were of a suspicious character, extending the powers of the police and the Magistrates far too much, and he, for one, was not prepared to go much further.

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

said, this section made no alteration, for the present law gave power to one Justice to act in cases of emergency, and the object of the section might be defeated if it were necessary to incur delay by getting the concurrence of two Justices. The warrant could only be issued upon a sworn information showing an actual case of urgency.

Question put, and negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, in reference to the Home Secretary's Amendment to leave out this clause, that its object was only to extend to offences against children the 27th, 43rd, and 56th sections of the Offences Against the Person Act, 1861, and the Dangerous Performances Act, 1879. Where offences were committed involving bodily injury to children there seemed no reason why the provisions of those two special Acts should not be applied. He could not see any objection to the procedure clauses.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 13.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

* MR. HOPWOOD

objected that a very wide and sweeping change of the law was proposed by this clause. It was provided that, where a person was charged with committing an offence in respect of two or more children— The same information, summons, or indictment may charge the offence in respect of all or any of them, but the person charged shall not be liable to a separate penalty for each child unless upon separate informations. The law had always insisted upon the single offence being described in a single indictment, with very few and guarded exceptions. It would be unfair to put a man on his trial for two or three cases, each to be tried separately and demanding separate evidence. He should like to know what special reason there was for the alteration of a practice that had existed hitherto to the benefit those concerned? Hitherto a singleness of object had been manifested on the part of the framers of the law, and he did not think it desirable to introduce changes which he did not think would work well. The second section of the clause was equally objectionable. It ran as follows:— The same information, summons, or indictment may also charge the offences of assault, ill-treatment, neglect, abandonment, or exposure, together or separately, but when charged together the person charged shall not be liable to a separate penalty for each. Here, again, there was confusion thrown around the defendant, because he was presented with more charges than he ought to be called upon to meet. As the clause stood it was a most dangerous one, and effected a most undesirable change in the Criminal Law of the land. With regard to the provision that where the offence was continuous the dates need not be specified, he recognised that as perhaps the most inoffensive portion of the clause. As to the other parts of the clause, he should contend that no case whatever had been made out for them.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he thought the Government would agree with him that the change in the law effected by the clause was a desirable one, notwithstanding the objections made by the hon. and learned Gentleman in the long speech which he had just delivered. The clause was proposed because in many instances Magistrates had decided that where there were several children in a family a separate summons must be taken out in respect of any proceedings entered upon under the Act in regard to each one of them. This provision was the cause of unnecessary expense, and it seemed to him that there was no reason whatever for maintaining the present complicated form of procedure. The hon. and learned Gentleman also took objec- tion to the giving of evidence indicating previous acts of cruelty, but he (Sir R. Webster) suggested that the alteration in the law brought about by this clause was a desirable one both in regard to this matter and the other subjects with which it dealt.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 138; Noes 21.—(Division List, No. 49.)

Clause 14.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, this clause was one which altered the whole law of England with regard to the examination of a husband and wife on behalf of or against either. He should think that this clause would be withdrawn.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he thought this was a very desirable amendment of the law, having regard to the great difficulty which at present existed in the way of obtaining evidence where husband and wife were both involved. However, rather than there should be any long Debate upon the matter, he would withdraw the clause.

Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, this clause was! a very remarkable one.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would bear with him while he explained the meaning of the clause. The Bill provided that the evidence of children might be taken without the necessity of administering the oath. It had been the experience of the Judges that evidence given by children who were not sworn was perfectly trustworthy; but there were cases in which the child was so badly injured that he could not be brought into Court at all, and this clause would permit the dying deposition of a child to be taken without the oath.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, that as the law stood, an accused person could cross-examine a complainant, which privilege would be sacrificed if such complainant did not give evidence on oath.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, the clause would only apply to cases in which the child could not be brought into Court.

MR. HOPWOOD

said, the difficulty was that the clause did not provide for the presence of the accused person at the inquiry.

* MR. T. H. BOLTON (St. Pancras, N.)

asked whether this clause would apply only to children whose dying depositions were being taken?

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he would not undertake to say that the clause would apply to these cases only. The fact was that, unless there was this alteration of the law, the dying depositions of children could not be taken at all.

* MR. T. H. BOLTON

said, he noticed in the clause the words" injurious to health. These words appeared to him to have a very elastic character.

SIR R. WEBSTER

said, he had no objection to amending the clause upon the Report stage.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clauses agreed to.

On Motion of Mr. J. MORLEY, the following new clause was agreed to:—

(Application to Ireland.) In the application of this Act to Ireland the Local Government Board for Ireland shall be substituted for the Local Government Board, the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant shall be substituted for a Secretary of State, and, 'The Indictable Offences (Ireland) Act, 1849,' shall be substituted for 'The Indictable Offences Act, 1848.'

On Motion of the LORD ADVOCATE, the following new clause was agreed to:—

(Application to Scotland.) In the application of this Act to Scotland the Board of Supervision shall be substituted for the Local Government Board; the Secretary for Scotland shall be substituted for a Secretary of State; manslaughter shall mean culpable homicide; and defendant shall include panel, respondent, or person charged.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 242.]