Commons Sitting of 30 May 1894

PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 242.)

  CONSIDERED.
  Bill, as amended considered.
  MR.J. WILSONmoved the following new clause:—
  (Where parent twice convicted.)
  "Where, upon the second conviction of the parents or parent of any child for any offence, such child has been admitted into any workhouse provided under any of the Acts relating to the relief of the poor, or has been handed over to the custody of the Parochial Authorities, such parent or parents shall not thereafter be entitled to apply to have the said child discharged or removed therefrom, nor in any way to interfere with the upbringing or education of the said child, until it has attained the age of 12 years."
  The hon. Gentleman said that, although he moved this new clause, he did not do so in any spirit of antagonism to the Bill, but desired rather to widen if possible the spirit and scope of the measure, and to bring within its compass what was considered by many Local Authorities to be a very hard case so far as the ratepayers were concerned. It was no kindness to the parents that children should be returned to them, and then perhaps after a short time handed back to the Parochial Authorities. The clause would be a protection to children in cases where the offence had been committed a second time, and altogether he thought it was a very admirable one to be added to the Bill.
  New Clause (Where parent twice convicted,)—(Mr. J. Wilson,) —(Lanark, Govan,)—brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause he read a second time."
  MR. HANBURYsaid, that, upon the whole, this clause struck him as a rather good one. There were portions of it, however, offering alternatives which he did not think were so good. He admitted that Parochial Authorities ought to have charge of the children of inebriates, and that the objections of the hon. Gentleman ought
  1638
  to be dealt with, but he confessed that there were words in the clause which he did not quite like. He felt that the detention of children in workhouses was by no means satisfactory, and that was just what this clause contemplated. It was bad that children should be kept under the surveillance of reprobate parents, but he thought it was quite as bad that they should be kept under workhouse surveillance. Where young children were brought up in workhouses the result was to leave upon them the taint of pauperism, and to start them upon their career with serious drawbacks. He thought the Parochial Authorities ought to provide for the children in some other manner than by putting them in a workhouse. There ought to be Poor Law schools for such children. In this respect a very good example was set by the Catholics of Preston, which he should like to sec adopted throughout the country.
  THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. B. BALFOUR, Clackmannan, &c.)said, that the proposals of the hon. Member for Preston could be met if the necessary machinery existed. Such machinery did not in fact exist; but the Amendment was directed to an existing state of things which might be improved, and he therefore hoped that the House would assent to the very useful proposal of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Govan. There was no doubt that the evil at which the hon. Gentleman wished to strike was a real and genuine one. The representative of the Barony Parochial Board of Glasgow had spoken strongly in favour of this clause, and had expressed the opinion that it would go very far to solve a difficult problem.
  SIR D. MACFARLANEsaid, he was in favour of the principle contained in the clause, but thought its application was a little too wide. It seemed to him to sweep away the rights of parents beyond the necessities of the case, and it was perfectly possible that the clause might offer an inducement to parents to commit acts of cruelty upon their children in order that they might be able to foist them upon the public funds in future. He had an experience of many years as a Visitor of the workhouse schools, and it was not his belief that the children were in the least degree contaminated by their associations.
  MR. CARSONsaid, that nothing could be more general than the statement in the clause that for "any offence" a child might be taken out of the custody of its parents. Did the hon. Gentleman in charge of the clause mean an offence against the child or an offence of any kind? If the words were used in the wider sense, they might have a case of a man being deprived of the custody of his child because he had been twice convicted of drunkenness, however well he behaved afterwards. He thought the clause was too drastic, and he submitted, in the first place, that the nature of these offences should be limited, and, in the second place, that some method should be provided by which, in the event of a parent turning over a new leaf, he might again be able to claim the custody of his child. He would suggest that a parent, in such an event, should be entitled to apply, with the consent of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction.
  MR. JACKSsaid, the Bill was introduced in defence of the rights of children, and he hoped that this clause would be accepted in some form or another.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he had abstained up till now from speaking on this clause, because it seemed to him to be eminently one upon which the House should come to a decision for itself. When the matter was mentioned in Committee the hon. Member for Govan only raised this matter in reference to the case of Scotland, and he understood that he only desired to have it applied to Scotland. He must say that he was not sure it would be wise to apply so drastic a clause to all parts of the Kingdom whatever the offence might be. The House had always been careful not to unduly interfere with the rights of parents, and it seemed to him a somewhat strong provision to say that in all cases where there was a second conviction, whatever the character of the offence, the parent should be deprived of the custody of his child. That clause only appeared upon the Paper to-day, and the discussion had assumed a wider aspect than he had imagined. Although he sympathised with the object of the hon. Gentleman, he did not find it possible to accept the clause in its present form.
  MR. RADCLIFFE COOKEsaid, that if the hon. Member would
  1640
  limit the operation of the clause to offences under this and the principal Act, and would insert a provision to the effect that a parent should not have the custody of his child without the order of a Court of competent jurisdiction, he might be able to support the clause. It must be remembered that the object of this Bill was to a great extent to reform the parent as well as to protect the child.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,)said, he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the clause in its present form should be withdrawn, and that the question should be left for consideration elsewhere. There was complete sympathy on all sides of the House with the hon. Gentleman's object, and all the objections that had been taken only referred to the form of the clause. He would also suggest that it might be desirable to confine the operation of the clause to cases in which the Court which convicted for the offence indicated an opinion that the parent ought to be deprived of the custody of his child.
  MR. J. WILSONsaid that, under the circumstances, he was willing to withdraw the clause.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he thought the clause contained a wider object than appeared in the Bill before the House. That proposal was one which required the careful consideration of the Government. As he read the clause there was no provision whatever which would prevent parents from shifting the burden of responsibility for the maintenance and care of their children on to the ratepayers. If it was said that the ratepayers were to assume a responsibility of this kind he must say that a mere academic discussion of the clause would be a farce. If parents forfeited their natural right in regard to the rearing and education of their offspring it ought to be distinctly laid down that the community should be able to recover from them any cost to which it became liable. He did not understand that there was any suggestion of the sort, but the matter was one that ought not to be lost sight of. Under this clause a parent would only have to be convicted twice of a trivial offence in order to render the State responsible for the future support of his offspring, which was putting a dangerous premium on misconduct which would

  1641
  operate in a very unfair manner towards the ratepayers and against the interests of the general community. Any interference with the ordinary rights of parents had always been very jealously guarded by that House, so that he thought these points ought to be carefully considered.
  COLONEL WARING)said, the right hon. Gentleman had indicated a serious blot upon the Amendment, but one which it would not be difficult to meet. Under the Industrial Schools Acts it was possible to charge parents with such portion of the expense of maintaining a child as might seem fit to the Magistrate making an order. The system that had been largely adopted in the North of Ireland, of boarding out orphan children in the houses of farmers, had been most successful and most satisfactory in every way. In the Union with which he was connected, the Guardians who had adopted this system had never had a single child returned to their charge for bad conduct or for any other cause, except one unfortunate girl, who turned out to be an idiot. All the others had lost the workhouse taint, and in almost every case the children had been adopted by the family to which they had been sent to be nursed. He believed the system was also adopted to some extent in Scotland, but was not aware whether it was in force in England. Since it had been introduced into Ireland it had largely spread, and he believed it had now been adopted by most of the Unions in the North of Ireland.
  SIR F. S. POWELLremarked, that the age of 12 years is about the worst age that could have been selected. So far as he had heard, vicious parents are quite willing that others should take care of their children up to the age of 11 or 12, but after that period the earnings of the children become valuable, and such parents then wish to recover possession of their unfortunate offspring in order that they may live upon their earnings. The age of 12 was about the age at which judicious Guardians board out their children. They place them in charge of those whom they trust, who often become foster parents, and in many cases, to his knowledge, permanently adopt the children. Under the clause as it stood, the children would be left in the hands of their parents at the most critical and dangerous period—namely, between the ages of 12 and 16.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)remarked that, under Section 5 of the principal Act, it was provided that in the event of persons being prosecuted for offences committed in respect of children the Court should have power to commit such children to the care and custody of some fit person until the age of 14 in the case of a boy and 16 in the case of a girl. He imagined that the workhouse authorities would be regarded as fit persons under the Act; and if this measure were limited to offences against children there would be no further protection given than was already given under the principal Act.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, he understood that, although the clause was now to be withdrawn, it was to be reinserted at some subsequent stage of the Bill. It appeared to him that the clause would do a very great deal of harm. It provided that, if a parent had been convicted twice, not necessarily of an offence against the child, he should not have the opportunity of removing the child from the workhouse, and not of keeping it himself, but of making provision for having it brought up somewhere else. He could not see why a man should be considered, because he had been guilty of some offence, to take no further interest in his child. It might be very proper to deprive him of the right of keeping the child in his own home; but he did not see why he should be deprived of the right of arranging that it should not be brought up among paupers.
  MR. T. M. HEALY)said, he would put it to the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down whether they were not carrying their present tactics a little too far? There might be such a thing as killing this Bill with kindness. Some time ago the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. J. Wilson) had offered to withdraw the clause, and yet a number of hon. Members had since delivered speeches. It seemed to him that Unionist Members might be going too far in their efforts to prevent the Bill for the Repeal of the Coercion Act coming on. He would suggest to them that it might be possible, even with a less opulent display of eloquence, to achieve their purpose. He would point out to them that unless they were careful they might prevent the Bill making any progress at all.
  MR. HANBURYrising to Order, asked whether the hon. and learned Member was speaking to the Question before the House?
  MR. SPEAKER: It is legitimate to object to any undue discussion of this Bill, but I cannot take into account a Bill which stands third on the Paper. To discuss that Bill now would be out of Order.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he wished merely to suggest that if the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster) wished to get his Bill through he had better arrange with his friends that they should indulge in a less extended series of observations.
  Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Amendment standing next in his name was one for which he assumed entire responsibility. He laboured under a great disadvantage in approaching the consideration of a Bill which did not contain within its four corners the legislation to which Parliament was invited to commit itself, but which referred him continually to a previous Statute. This section bad reference to the principal Act, Section 1 of which dealt with the punishment for illtreating and neglecting children. Without having any claim to speak as an expert, he fancied he was not far wrong when be said that the Criminal Law of the land as it stood at present provided for matters like this on a general basis, and the introduction into a measure like this of exceptional and special provisions ought to be viewed very closely, for when Parliament approached a subject with a special feeling raised as regarded the admission of any category of crime there was a natural disposition to set aside the general recognised safeguards. He dared say it was possible that in many respects the ordinary Criminal Procedure of this country might with advantage be amended. He was not saying whether that was so or not, but in any serious departure it was intended to take with regard to the Criminal Procedure of the country they should proceed upon a uniform basis. It was necessary for his hon. and learned Friend, or any Member who invited Parliament to depart from the general recognised principles in matters of this kind, to show some reason
  1644
  why Parliament should so depart, why Parliament as in this case should make a wholesale departure from the general principles which applied to Statute Law. What was the occasion for this exception? It was proposed that upon a trial for murder—he assumed that it meant the murder of a child, though there was nothing in the clause to show that—in the event of a conviction failing to be obtained for the specific crime of murder, consequences might follow of a conviction of the accused party, not on the charge for which he was arraigned before the Court, not upon the charge to meet which he had been put to great expense and considerable difficulty, but for another charge, which he (Mr. Lowther) ventured to say ought to be the subject of a different indictment. The Statute had made provision for cases of the kind. If a person was charged with an offence it had always been held that he should have an opportunity of knowing with what he was charged. If an accused person was charged with murder—his hon. and learned Friend did not say of a child; be might be charged with murdering his grandmother, and incidentally it turned out that he had illtreated his child—the law did not bold that be might be convicted of quite a different offence. If the Bill was to be amended, now was the only time that would be afforded to this House for bringing about amendment, which he felt sure was desirable. But, assuming the trial was for the alleged murder or manslaughter of one of the children of the accused, or of a child within the control of the accused, he said it was going dangerously near to lay down the doctrine that the accused person having been charged with a specific crime, which was a felony, should be convicted upon what he thought his hon. and learned Friend would admit to be a comparatively trivial charge, and which was one of misdemeanour only. He thought it was a serious departure from the recognised principles guiding the Statute Law of the realm, and he hoped the House would not lightly assent to any such proposition. Of course, his hon. and learned Friend would tell them whether the construction he had attributed to the wording of the clause was correct; but he thought his hon. and learned Friend would admit that the construction he had placed upon the words was the natural construction that would be placed

  1645
  upon them by the average ignorant layman like himself. But did not his hon. and learned Friend see that provisions of this kind, if they were desirable additions to the Criminal Law of this country, ought to be a general application and not inserted here and there in the Statutes dealing with only a fragmentary portion of the law; that any such provision, which it would not be denied was a provision of very great importance, was a serious departure from the general recognised principles of the law of the country? He, therefore, begged to move that Subsection (8) be omitted from the Bill.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, line 20, to leave out Sub-section (3).—(Mr. Mr. Lowther.)
  Question proposed, "That Sub-section (3) stand part of the Bill."
  SIR R. WEBSTERasked to be permitted to say one word with reference to the discussion that arose on the consideration of the last clause. No one could doubt that very important questions were raised, and he could only say that his desire was to get this Bill through and to get it properly discussed. It was obvious that the point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite was one that necessarily required to be discussed. With regard to the Amendment of his right hon. Friend, he had very carefully considered this point. He could not accept the criticism of the language of Sub-section (3), for he thought it was quite clear that the words "on the trial of any person for murder or manslaughter" would be construed to apply to the particular indictment under which a person was on his trial. Ho would not characterise his right hon. Friend as an ignorant layman, but he could not agree that either the draftsman or himself had been guilty of the absurdity of allowing a person to be tried for an offence to one person and convicted of an offence to another. But he was bound to say that, having looked at this clause carefully, he was not able to insist upon its retention, but for a totally different reason to that given by his right hon. Friend he was extremely anxious when the discussion took place in the Committee to maintain the clause, and the Committee then was satisfied, with reference to the objections then raised, with the reasons given. But it had been pointed out to him that as
  1646
  he had drawn the clause he could not retain it for this reason. Assuming a man was indicted for murder or manslaughter, by the law of the land he could not give evidence, whereas, according to the provisions of the principal Act, if indicted with injury or cruelty to a child he could give evidence; and the result of this Sub-section (3), if it stood as it was, would be that a jury might find him guilty of an offence without his having had the opportunity of giving his explanation of the charge of cruelty. Therefore, it seemed to him it would not be just to give the option to the jury to find a man guilty of an offence in respect to which he might have given evidence if tried for that offence. That difficulty had been pointed out to him by a learned Friend of his who was a warm supporter of the Bill; but he thought he should be able to devise words to amend the sub-section which would get rid of the difficulty. However, he did not think he should be justified in asking the House upon Report to assist him in solving a difficult matter of drafting; and, therefore, while he desired to express his distinct opinion that some amendment of the law was desirable and necessary, he should prefer to consider the language carefully, and insert in another place, if he could, a provision that would get over the difficulty. It might be done by making it optional on the Magistrate, to give him power to allow the prisoner to give his explanation before he received any such verdict from the jury; but, as he thought the sub-section was open to objection, in the interests of the Bill, he preferred it should not be so open to objection. Consequently, subject to anything that might be said by hon. Members, he proposed to accept the Amendment of his right hon. Friend.
  MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk)said, that, though he was unable to be present at the discussion of this Bill last Wednesday, he felt strongly upon it, and hoped that it would not be weakened in any manner. It appeared to him that the Bill gave to children the very minimum of security, and the House ought not in any way to reduce that security. He was sorry to differ from his hon. and learned Friend who had just sat down, but it seemed to him to raise another question—namely, whether, if death ensued to the child, that the

  1647
  father should be able to give evidence. He thought that if death occurred that the father or mother, as the case might be, ought not to be allowed to give evidence. This sub-section had received support from the other side of the House, because he saw that last Wednesday the Lord Advocate said the Government were satisfied the amendment of the law proposed in this sub-section was entirely right, so that evidently the Government had considered the matter, and were prepared to support the sub-section. If the sub-section was not carried what would happen? A man who had been guilty of cruelty to a child that resulted in the death of the child might be tried for murder or manslaughter, and get off on a mere technicality, because there could not be an indictment charging: him with cruelty to the child, for the miserable technical reason that one was a misdemeanour and the other was a felony. He quite understood the objection to putting a man upon his trial for anything of which he had not had notice. If it appeared during the case that a man had been guilty of some other crime, he did not think it was right he should then and there be charged and put upon his trial for an offence of which he had had no notice. For instance, if a man was being tried and two women came to give evidence against him, but could not because it was then discovered they had both been married to him, it would not be right then and there that he should be convicted of bigamy. But in this case a man was charged with assaults upon the child that had resulted in the death of the child; that was the charge he had come prepared to meet, and if the charge of murder or manslaughter broke down, he had had all the evidence given before him that he ought to have of attacking and assaulting the child, and if the Court was satisfied from the evidence heard that the man was guilty of an offence against the child he ought not to escape upon a technicality. He hoped the subsection would be maintained, otherwise the man would have to be put upon his trial again, and the same evidence given over again. It appeared to him it would be well to avoid that expense.
  MR. COHEN)said, that as his name was on the back of the Bill, he might be allowed to say he earnestly hoped that his hon. and learned Friend would be able, if this sub-section was
  1648
  withdrawn, to ensure in another place, and before the Bill became law, that some provision might be imported into it that would secure the same result which, in his judgment, was indispensable to the success of any such reform as that now before the House. The hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. J. Lowther), in a very closely argued speech in support of his views, said the House ought to be very careful not to depart from the recognised procedure of our Criminal Law, and the House must be very jealous how it, interfered with what he called having authority over the child. If there was to be all this resistance to altering the law, he wished to know why they were engaged on a Wednesday afternoon upon a Bill for the prevention of cruelty to children? It was because the law did not secure what they required; that, therefore, they wished to alter the law, and he earnestly hoped it would be possible for the hon. and learned Member for. the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster) to get a clause inserted in another place that would not be open to the legal, the almost subtle objection of the right hon. Gentleman.
  MR. DARLINGsaid, it appeared to him that this clause really introduced a most monstrous novelty into their Criminal Procedure. Here it was proposed that if a man was indicted for murder, and it turned out the person to whom the indictment related was not dead at all, but was alive, that person should not thereupon have the right of being acquitted, but that he should be convicted of an offence under an Act of Parliament which related to something that did not necessitate the death of the victim at all. Here a man who had been guilty of such an assault, or assaults, that exposed him to proceedings under the original Act, might be indicted for murder, though the child was ascertained not to be dead. [Cries of "No, no!"] Section 1 of the principal Act defined the offence clearly, and if a person was guilty of the offence there defined he ought to be indicted for it; but this clause said that if he was guilty of cruelty he might, nevertheless, be indicted for murder or manslaughter, and that if it turned out the person was not dead he should be convicted of an offence under the section of the principal Act. See the injustice of it! If a person was indicted for the offence of cruelty he

  1649
  could plead guilty, and would probably not go to any expense to get himself defended, but if he was indicted for murder he would have to go to all the expense of a defence for what might: turn out to be the comparatively minor offence under Section 1 of the principal Act. It appeared to him the Criminal Law was right when it demanded a man should be tried and indicted for all the offences he had committed; it was also right, in order to guard against abuse by technicalities, to make the alterations in the law which had been made up to the present. They had never yet gone the length of saying they might bring against a man a criminal charge; and when it turned out that the first element of a criminal charge was not proved against him—that was to say, that the victim was not dead— he was to be liable to conviction for another offence. He hoped that would not be permitted in any shape or form.
  MR. MATTHEWS)said, he was not sure the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just sat down was right in his suggestion that a man could be indicted for the murder of a child who was alive; and that the case might proceed, and evidence be given of acts of cruelty which would enable a conviction to take place under the principal Act. That seemed to him a very far-fetched proposition. But at the same time he thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster) was perfectly right in amending this sub-section. He assumed they were dealing with the case of the death of a child, and he thought it was a very wise principle that where death had occurred it should be put to the jury, ay or no, to say whether there had been murder. Primâ facie, in the eye of the law, the death of one person caused by another was murder, and the responsibility of that death was fixed by the law, and must be, if evaded at all, evaded only by showing that the circumstances did not amount to criminal homicide. There was one exception, and that was the murder of an infant by a mother. As the House was aware, if on the trial of a woman for murder of an infant it should appear that the child was recently born, and that she endeavoured to conceal the birth, the jury could find a verdict of concealment of birth instead of one of murder. Those were cases in which there was very much sympathy for
  1650
  the woman charged and which had led to the enactment. Anyone who had watched these charges would know that this loophole very often led to an evasion of justice, and he should be very sorry to see this loophole given in cases of cruelty to children. Where the death of a child had ensued after cruelty practised upon the child he thought it was proper and desirable it should be put to the jury to say "ay" or "no" whether that death was criminally caused. Another reason for omitting the sub-section was that it would deprive the accused of the right to give evidence to rebut the charge of cruelty. There were few cases in which it was more important that the accused person should be able to give evidence than in these cases of cruelty to children. The shades of distinction between necessary correction of a perverse and forward child and cruelty to an innocent child were very fine. The distinctions might run into matters of considerable delicacy and difficulty. Almost always it would happen that the parent was the only person who could explain the circumstances, and his evidence was most important in order to show whether his conduct amounted to cruel treatment or whether it was possibly harsh or just correction by a parent to an ill-conducted child. Then the sub-section would also deprive the accused person of the right of appeal, which under the principal Act he now enjoyed. Upon these grounds he thought his hon. and learned Friend had exercised a wise discretion in withdrawing the subsection.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. ASQUITH,)thought it was reasonable that the Debate upon this particular Amendment should now be brought to a close. Some reference had been made to the position taken up by the Government in this matter. They were in entire sympathy with the object of the clause as drawn by his hon. and learned Friend. He did not think these were cases in which juries were in the least degree likely to be in danger of being misled by sympathy into finding a verdict of guilty of cruelty merely, if the facts would substantiate the larger and graver verdict of manslaughter or murder. On the other hand, he thought it was a grave scandal in the administration of justice that where a clear case of cruelty

  1651
  was proved, and where death was shown to have followed—that where the connecting link between cruelty on the one side and death on the other might be too weak, the jury not saying that one was cause and the other effect, the whole trial should be thrown away and that the accused should escape scot-free because of the technical difficulty which at present existed. He very much desired to see the law changed in the sense the hon. and learned Gentleman had suggested, but, as the hon. and learned Gentleman himself admitted, this clause in its present form was an unmanageable clause. They could not possibly have an accused person a competent witness if be was indicted under this Act. But not being a competent witness if he was indicted for murder or manslaughter they could not find him guilty of an offence under this Act. The moral he drew from this was that they ought not in dealing with the admissibility of evidence or the competency of witnesses to make inroads into the law they had been perpetually making in recent years, but they should adopt the only logical and reasonable solution and make an accused person a competent witness in all cases. He hoped the House would consider the matter had been sufficiently discussed and, his hon. and learned Friend having withdrawn the sub-section, would proceed with other Amendments.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, that it was to be desired to be understood that if the Amendment in its present shape was not agreed to, the means should be afforded, on some subsequent stage of the Bill, for bringing up other provisions to meet the case. He suggested that they required something more than a subsection dealing with the machinery. They required to alter and extend the scope of Sub-section 1 of this clause of the principal Act so as to bring within its purview cases where death had been the result of ill-treatment.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR R. WEBSTERmoved, in page 2, line 9, to leave out "any punishment under that section," and insert "imprisonment." He said, that as the Bill was originally framed and brought in he proposed by Clause 4 that in cases where there was any conviction under the principal Act, and it appeared the person charged was an habitual drunkard
  1652
  within the meaning of the Inebriates Acts of 1879 and 1888, the Court should have power to order the convicted person to he sent to one of the retreats under that Act. By Sub-section 2 of the clause as it stood he had also provided, in cases in which the Local Government Board approved, that an arrangement might be made for dealing with persons at workhouses or special places provided under the Acts for the relief of the poor. That Sub-section 2 was met with strong objection by the Local Government Board. He regretted that objection, though he failed to see any real substantial ground for it. It was a purely permissive section. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board suggested to him that a permissive clause of this kind would be regarded as a direction. But there were numbers of cases in which the Local Government Board had had permissive powers entrusted to them which they had never put in force, and he did not believe any such objection could be taken to Sub-section 2. But he was much more anxious to pass the main clauses of this Bill than to enter into a controversy with the right hon. Gentleman, even though he might demonstrate to him that he was wrong. The right hon. Gentleman, however, indicated to him that he must strenuously oppose Sub-section 2 of Clause 4 if it was moved, and whilst he (Sir R. Webster) protested most strongly against the action of the Local Government Board, as not being warranted by any sound reason or experience, he must accept the inevitable, and with reference to Sub-section 2 must agree to that being withdrawn from the Bill. He reserved to himself the right of bringing up this matter on a future occasion, because he could not but think that upon investigation the right hon. Gentleman would find his fears ground-less and that the sub-section might have proved of great benefit. He passed now to the objections taken to the first subsection by the Home Office. It was said that they were thrusting against their will upon inebriates who were in asylums persons who were of the criminal class, and further that they were subjecting a person to a punishment against his will. With regard to the thrusting of the persons who were convicted of crime upon the inebriate class, he thought the

  1653
  answer was sufficiently given to that by hon. Members who sat below the Gangway upon the last occasion, inasmuch as it could only be done with the consent of the person who had charge of the retreat, and who would be careful not to allow persons to be sent there who would in any way injure the conduct of the business of his house. He had endeavoured to meet the objections of the Home Office, not under the same kind of protest that he had ventured to make with regard to the objections of the Local Government Board, because he was assured by the Home Secretary that this question of habitual drunkards or habitual drunkenness was under his consideration, and possibly some part of that which he (Sir R. Webster) desired ultimately to see in the law might form part of the right hon. Gentleman's scheme. He had, therefore, endeavoured to frame this section so as to provide the minimum, and a minimum to which no reasonable objection could be taken. He had, in the first place, in the Amendment he should move after the present one, provided that the Magistrate should only have the power of sending a person, who was going to be sent to prison, to a retreat, in cases in which he would be otherwise imprisoned. That was the object of the first Amendment—namely, to send to a retreat instead of sending persons to prison. He had next provided that any order for the detention of a person in a retreat should not be made under this section unless that person, having had such notice as the Court might deem sufficient of the alleged drunkenness, should consent to the order being made. That met the two objections taken by the Home Office. He had further provided that if the wife or husband of such person, being present at the hearing of the charge, objected to the order being made, the Court should take into consideration any representation made to it by the wife or husband; and lastly, before making the order, the Court should, to such extent as it might deem reasonably sufficient, be satisfied that provision would be made for defraying the expenses of such person during detention in a retreat. To sum up the effect of the Amendments was to give an option to the accused to go to a retreat, that he should have notice given that he was going to be charged with being an habitual drunkard, and that the order was only to be made where there was proper
  1654
  provision for meeting the expenses. He submitted this moderate alteration of the law to the approval of the House. Magistrates under the present Act were sending men and women to long terms of imprisonment not only with the hope, but with the knowledge that by such a course cures had been effected in many cases. By being kept in confinement for such a time persons had had their unfortunate drinking habits not only checked, but cured. It was obvious that there should be some less drastic method of arriving at such a desirable object, and he hoped this moderate amendment of the law would be accepted by the House.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, to leave out the words "any punishment under that section," and insert the word"imprisonment."—(Sir R. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, his hon. and learned Friend had very fairly met the objections of the Home Office in the Amendment he now proposed, and he, therefore, on the part of the Government, would accept it.
  Question put, and negatived.
  SIR R. WEBSTERmoved, in page 2, line 20, to leave out from the word "that," to the word "husband," inclusive, in line 24, and insert the words—

  "(a) An order for the detention of a person in a retreat shall not be made under this section unless that person, having had such notice as the Court deems sufficient of the intention to allege habitual drunkenness, consents to the order being made; and

  "(b) if the wife or husband of such person, being present at the hearing of the charge, objects to the order being made, the Court shall, before making the order, take into consideration any representation made to it by the wife or husband; and

  "(c) before making the order the Court shall, to such extent as it may deem reasonably sufficient, be satisfied that provision will be made for defraying the expenses of such person during detention in a retreat."

  Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. GRANT LAWSON (York, N.R., Thirsk),whilst agreeing with the other parts of the Amendment, objected

  1655
  to Sub-section (a), which would render this most valuable clause of the Bill, passed without division, absolutely nugatory. The sub-section only provided that the clause should come into force when a man consented to go into a retreat. But a man could now, under the Habitual Drunkards Act, consent to go into a retreat, and by providing here that he was only to go in under these conditions with his own consent they were not advancing one step. The proposal against which he protested was making the action of the whole clause permissive. This clause was of the utmost value, and removed a nuisance to the public and danger to the child. He had frequently advocated that habitual drunkards should be put out of the way of harm to themselves, their neighbours and families, and he hoped that other Members who had advocated the same thing would support him in endeavouring to secure that this clause should be made as forcible and as far-reaching as possible, and not reduced to the minimum, as his hon. and learned Friend said he intended to reduce it. It might be said they should leave this matter for another place, but it was their duty to make measures good in this House and not leave it to another place to do this. He suggested that this clause should be made compulsory and not permissive. It effected a very valuable alteration in the law. It gave protection to the child for 12 months, the father or mother being removed for that period into a retreat. It was surely better to send them to a retreat than to send them to prison. Before a man could be sent to a retreat the clause provided that he should be an habitual drunkard within the meaning of the Habitual Drunkards Act, and surely a man who came under the definition of an habitual drunkard given in that Act. was not a man who was competent to have charge of children. It would be better to remove such persons from the charge or trust they had showed themselves so absolutely incompetent to perform. It was proposed under this clause to take the evil out of the home instead of taking the child out of the home. There were other provisions for taking the children away and putting them in a place of safety. That would protect the individual child, but this proposal to put the drunken father into a retreat protected the wife and the whole family. Instead
  1656
  of taking the child it took the evil which would ruin the home out of the home. It might be said that they were taking the bread-winner away, but he would ask how much did the habitual drunkard earn for himself or his family? He was far more likely to take the bread out of his children's mouths in order to obtain intoxicating liquors for himself, his conduct driving away the very trade by which his children were earning a living, and it was far better to remove him to some place where he, possibly, might be converted. He hoped the House would support him in endeavouring to remove the provision from this clause which made it necessary to obtain the consent of the person before he could be sent to a retreat, otherwise they would make the whole thing a farce, and be merely encumbering the Statute Book and rendering nugatory a valuable provision in this part of the Bill. He moved to omit Sub-section (a) from the Bill.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out paragraph (a.) —(Mr. Grant Lawson.)
  Question proposed, "That paragraph (a) stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR R. WEBSTERdid not deny that the main spoke of the clause was considerably weakened by the consent of the accused person being required. But this argument seemed to him, to a certain extent, to be answered when they were dealing with the case of a man who had got to go to prison. That was to say, the Magistrates, having indicated to the person that the offence was proved, he must either go to prison or consent to go to a retreat, and having present to his mind the fact that some stain might attach to his character if sent to prison, he would then be the more likely to consent to go to a retreat for habitual drunkards. The fact that he might be sent to prison for three or four months, or even longer, would exercise a certain amount of influence which would induce him to avail himself of the provisions of this section. He should be thankful if the Home Secretary would agree to the omission from Sub-section (a) of the words "Consents to the order being made," and probably that would satisfy his hon. and learned Friend. He should not be sorry to see the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment carried,

  1657
  and be would ask the Home Secretary if the Amendment, to the extent of providing that the consent should not be necessary, could be agreed to. If, however, the right hon. Gentleman was of opinion he could not accept it even to that limited extent, he (Sir R. Webster) should not feel it in his power to support the hon. Member for Thirsk if he pressed this matter, having regard to the way in which he had been met on this Bill by the Home Office.
  MR. ASQUITH: I cannot consent to the Amendment of the hon. Member, which would introduce into a Bill of this kind so large a change in the general law of the laud as to allow a person to be sent, against his will, to one of those retreats kept by private persons, though open to inspection. If any such change of the law is to be made it ought to be made a part of the general law. The question has been carefully investigated by a Departmental Committee of the Home Office, and I have undertaken to introduce special legislation on the subject.
  MR. WHARTON (York, W.R., Ripon)said, that a practical difficulty in this matter was the restricted number of retreats and the danger of far exceeding the capacity of the institutions to receive patients. He believed there was not more than five of those institutions in the whole Kingdom, and the accommodation they afforded, pretty well filled as they were at present, would be found totally inadequate to carry out the intention of the Amendment. His hon. Friend must wait for the legislation on the subject which had been promised.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the only justification for putting a clause of this kind into the Bill was that it would prevent cruelty to children, and undoubtedly the Amendment would have the effect of keeping children free for a longer period from the presence of the person who perpetrated the cruelty.
  Question put, and agreed to.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, he understood the proposal to which the House was just asked to assent provided that a prisoner could against his wishes be removed to one of those so-called retreats. The Home Secretary had laid down the sound proposition that if any alteration in the law was to be made, in connection with a matter of such great importance,
  1658
  it should be done deliberately by Parliament having its attention directed to the subject as a whole. Therefore, he would like an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman, before the Amendment were adopted, that it did not introduce any new principle into the law.
  MR. ASQUITH: In my judgment the clause does not introduce any novel principle into the law, except that it provides machinery which has not hitherto existed. It would be impossible, as the clause now stands, for a man to be sent to one of these institutions against his will.
  Words inserted.
  On Motion of Sir R. WEBSTER, the following Amendment was agreed to:—Page 2, line 25, leave out Sub-section (2).
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being found present,
  MR. SNAPE (Lancashire, S.E., Heywood)rose to move the following as a new Sub-section to Clause 6:—
  "(3) The third section of the principal Act shall be amended by the substitution, in Section 3, paragraph (b), of the words other than theatres' for the words 'other than premises licensed according to law for public entertainments'; and by the substitution in Section 3, paragraph (c), of the word 'twelve' for 'ten.'"
  His object was to exclude the employment of children on any premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors excepting theatres. He contended that there were a considerable number of public-houses, the proprietors of which had taken out licences, not so much for the purpose of providing entertainments for the public as for increasing the sale of drink, and it was to provide against the employment of children in such houses that the first part of his Amendment aimed. The second part of the Amendment proposed to raise the age at which children might be employed in places where alcoholic liquor was sold from 10 to 12 years. In all other employments the law laid down that no child should be engaged under the age of 11. At the late Berlin Conference the age was recommended to be 12 years, and in many Continental cities children were not allowed to be employed under that age. If there was any employment more dangerous than another in its tendencies to children, it was employment in places were alcoholic liquor was sold. There-

  1659
  fore, there were many strong reasons why the new sub-section should be introduced into the Act.
  SIR R. WEBSTERasked that the two parts of the Amendment should be put from the Chair separately.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 18, to insert as a new sub-section, the words—
  "(3) The third section of the principal Act shall be amended by the substitution, in Section 3, paragraph (b), of the words 'other than theatres' for the words 'other than premises licensed according to law for public entertainments."—(Mr. Snape.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he sympathised with the desire of the hon. Member to keep children out of premises licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors. The present proposal, however, went rather too far, and he did not think it would be possible to exclude children from all premises except theatres. The effect of the acceptance of the sub-section would be to exclude a number of places other than theatres in which alcoholic liquors were sold, against which there ought to be no objection. If any hon. Member could suggest a form of clause which they might properly accept, he would be happy to incorporate it in the Bill. He suggested that the Amendment should be withdrawn and the question raised in a more acceptable form in another place, or else that the Amendment should be taken in two parts, and that they should first dispose of the earlier part, leaving the question as to raising the limit of age to be dealt with afterwards. He could not accept the first part of the Amendment, and hoped it would not be pressed.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONhoped that the House would not accept the Amendment, which, he thought, would have a very undesirable effect. The large music-halls had become more and more approximated to theatres, and they had now many entertainments in which the presence of children was necessary, in order to properly represent the story, or picture, or scene. There was a legal distinction between a music-hall and a theatre, and therefore the exception of theatres from the operation of the proposed sub-section would not cover any of the music-halls or other places of entertainment. The Amendment would have more sweeping operation than even its proposer would,
  1660
  he thought, desire. He trusted, therefore, that the hon. Member would see fit to withdraw it, and, if he so desired, would have a clause carefully prepared and inserted in another place. The present Amendment, if persisted in, would lead to considerable opposition being raised against the Bill, and this would be a matter greatly to be regretted.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that no doubt many persons had a strong feeling against the employment of young children in public-houses, but the Amendment would not merely place restrictions on the employment of young children in licensed premises that were practically public-houses, but would prevent children up to the age of 16 being employed as acrobats, and so forth. He doubted that the hon. Member was aware of the very widespread effect of his Amendment. He had on a previous occasion pointed out the great difficulty which the House was placed in through having to discuss Amendments going into minute details in reference to provisions in the original Act of 1889. He did not presume to cast blame on his hon. and learned Friend in charge of the Bill. He knew that the practice had become consecrated by use, and it was vain for him to enter a protest against it. But a reference to the original Act would show that this proposal would inflict a disability on the employment of young people in circuses, music-halls, and various other places of entertainment, and would prevent parents and others from having their children trained to those employments. He was not one of those who endorsed the theory that such pursuits, if carried on under proper control, should have restrictions placed upon them by Parliament, no employment of children in a performance of a dangerous character being, of course, permitted. But the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment did not disguise his desire to put down the employment of children in the ways he had mentioned. If training were not allowed in some of these callings in early life it would be impossible for them to be carried on at all. To expect an adult to suddenly convert himself into a gymnast would be ridiculous. If such restrictions were intended, Parliament should consider proposals with that object upon the merits, and should not do it by a side wind in the form of an Amendment to a Bill of this kind. He contended that, as long as the employ-

  1661
  ment was conducted in a building licensed according to law for the purpose, the people of this country ought not to be precluded from having their children trained for these callings, if they so desired. Such training was, in fact, in the nature of technical education. So far from regarding those callings with disfavour, the House ought to facilitate them under proper conditions.
  MR. SNAPEsaid, he was willing to adopt the suggestion of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight, and withdraw the Amendment.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had many excellent qualities, but lacked compression. The right hon. Gentleman forgot that other Bills stood on the Paper. The speech of the right hon. Gentleman served its purpose in taking up the time of the House. He moved the adjournment of the Debate.
  MR. SPEAKER: I shall not put that Motion. I mean no disrespect to the hon. and gallant Member. I can quite understand the legitimate feelings which he entertains in wishing to curtail discussion on this Bill for the purpose of bringing on a Bill to which he attaches great importance, and which stands third on the Paper (the Criminal Law and Procedure (Ireland) Act (1887) Repeal Bill). But if any hon. Member is at liberty to move the adjournment of the Debate in order to bring on another Bill the precedent would be a most serious one, as it would virtually give to the majority of the House the power to dictate the nature and order of the business which should be taken. As the matter is of importance, perhaps the House will allow me to say a few words. In 1887, if I remember rightly, the late Sir George Campbell moved to postpone the consideration of an Order of the Day for the purpose of considering some other Order of the Day, which, in his opinion, was of more importance. I then said that the Motion was very unusual. I believe I should have been right in saying that it was almost unprecedented. Since then two Standing Orders of this House have been passed or re-affirmed—the one, No. 14, providing that the Orders of the Day shall be taken in the order in which they stand on the Paper, with a reservation of some rights to the Government of the day; the other, No. 12, on which I lay special
  1662
  stress at this period of the Session, is that, after Whitsuntide, Bills are to be taken according to the stage of progress which they have reached. It would be obviously unfair that Bills which have reached a more advanced stage should be put on one side for the benefit of Bills which have not advanced so far and are not entitled to equal precedence under the Standing Order. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will not press the Motion, as I should have to rule it out of Order. If the precedent were now set it would be destructive of all arrangement of business, and might lead to serious consequences in after time.
  MR. SEXTON)said, that having regard to the form, extent, and motive of the present discussion, seeing that it had occupied, in the Committee stage, the whole of last Wednesday, and was now taking up another Wednesday, he desired to know whether it would be open to any hon. Member that day to move later on in the afternoon that the Debate on this Bill be adjourned?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think it would be competent for an hon. Member to move the adjournment of the Debate unless circumstances had arisen which would justify a Motion for Adjournment directly affecting the proper consideration of this Bill—for instance, of some discussion having arisen which evidently could not be finished for the want of information, or something of that sort. I do not think it would be competent, except under such circumstances as those, to defeat the two Standing Orders to which I have referred. These circumstances have not arisen, and I should not be doing my duty in putting the Motion of the hon. and gallant Member.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in page 3, after line 18, to insert, as a new sub-section, the words,—
  "(3) The third section of the principal Act shall be amended by the substitution, in Section 3, paragraph (c), of the word 'twelve' for ten.'"—(Mr.Snape.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he was prepared to accept the second part of the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Snape's) Amendment, on the understanding that he proposed only to raise the age from 10 to

  1663
  11 years. The House would remember that since the principal Act was passed in 1889 an Education Act had dealt with the ages at which children should be employed, and he would therefore be quite willing if the House thought right to substitute "11" for "12" in the subsection.
  MR. J. LOWTHERpointed out that the Amendment was of a more serious character than might be at first supposed. A frequent form of occupation for the rising generation among the poorer classes was that of selling and delivering newspapers and similar employments, and he thought if hon. Members would consult their constituents in many large towns upon the matter they would find considerable jealousy shown against interference with the proper employment of young persons outside the necessary requirements for school attendance under the general provisions of the law. He was not prepared to say that the age laid down in the principal Act was that which should be fixed, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. However, that was the law at present, and he failed to see any ground why it should be varied in the sense suggested. Of course, the employment of young persons contrary to the provisions inserted in the various Acts dealing with children should be discouraged; but he did not think further difficulties should be placed in the way of their proper occupation. He had no objection to the age of 10 being fixed; but when the subject was before Parliament some years ago he ventured to draw attention to the danger of interfering with the reasonable employment of juveniles, especially in callings which required early training, because in many cases it would be found impossible later on to make up the time lost in gaining the necessary instruction. Looking at all the circumstances, and having regard to the enactments already on the Statute Book, the House should hesitate before altering the age fixed for the employment of young persons.
  MR. TOMLINSONsaid, the age to be fixed was carefully considered when the subject came before Parliament on previous occasions. The limit of age for educational purposes had really no bearing on questions of this kind. The clause was intended to meet the case of children who early in life developed some faculty capable of development,
  1664
  and where they were allowed to exercise it they were frequently enabled to obtain, by means of the remuneration they received, the means of gaining an education which would enable them to achieve distinction, and which their parents would be unable otherwise to afford them. The House, therefore, should be very careful not to let interference go too far.
  MR. T. H.BOLTONurged that there were many places of entertainment, including theatres, where young children were necessary for the proper and effectual representation, and it had been found very difficult, with the law at present fixing the age at 10 years, to produce many charming and interesting performances.
  SIR R. WEBSTERpointed out, to save time, that Clause 3 extended in certain cases to children seven years of age. That, of course, had no reference to leaving children generally to run about the streets, but under that clause children of seven might be allowed to appear in theatrical and other entertainments with the approval of the Magistrates.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONwas familiar with the provisions of the Act, but knew also that their enforcement was attended with considerable embarrassment to managers of theatres, music-halls, and places of public entertainment in London and throughout the country. While he entirely sympathised with the object of the principal Act, and with the intention of this measure now brought in, he thought it unnecessary to carry the restrictions so far. He agreed with the hon. Member who proposed this Amendment, that fixing the age at 11 years was not a very great restriction, but still the present limit of age was 10, and he had heard no good argument for raising it. The argument that the age had been raised for School Board purposes was not at all applicable for this purpose. Hon. Members were well aware that in a large number of cases, especially among this class, children were precocious, and had often acquired at 10 as much education as others at 11. It was not, therefore, necessary to adopt the School Board age in prohibition. Again, many of these people trained their own children, and from parental affection would take care of them. If they were to succeed in certain entertainments it was found necessary to accustom them at an early age

  1665
  to audiences, and to the line of life they were to follow. It would inflict a burden upon a man with a family and engaged in public entertainments to prohibit him from employing one of his children in proper cases for an entire year longer. Though this was a matter of no importance to people in the position of hon. Members it made a great difference to persons engaged in circus, acrobatic, and other like entertainments. This further proposed interference by raising the age of employment, however well-intentioned, was really unnecessary and inadvisable, and no argument had been adduced to justify it. In fact, all this kind of prohibition was being carried much too far, and those in favour of such legislation in this country should proceed with judgment and discrimination, otherwise they would defeat the very object they had in view.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, the hon. Member for St. Pancras seemed to be afraid of the provisions in the Bill for raising the prohibitory age for children engaged in theatres; but he need not be in the least alarmed, for the Bill had no chance of passing.
  MR. BARTLEY)said, some people seemed to forget the struggle for existence which many poor people had in London and other large towns, and he was afraid that in endeavouring to make everything theoretically perfect, Parliament was making it harder and harder for poor people to live. Although theoretically he agreed with the Amendment, he hoped it would not be accepted, as this was not a matter which should be entered upon hastily or without considerable care and attention.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 274; Noes 80.—(Division List, No"64.)
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he had an Amendment to propose, the object of which was simply to clear up doubts as to the continued application of certain clauses of the existing law. He begged to move it.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 3, line 26, to leave out from the word "and," to the word "accordingly." inclusive, in line 27, and insert "a licence under that section may be separately granted for the purposes of this enactment, and the powers of an Inspector under that section shall extend to any place at which the training of a child is authorised by any such licence."
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he had not had not had the advantage of hearing a single word uttered by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight. Why was he making this Amendment? Surely he should have given the House some reason for it and adduced some arguments in its favour.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he regretted that he had not been heard. Of course, he could speak again by leave of the House. It had been suggested to him by his hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General whether the clause, as originally drafted, would sufficiently keep in force the powers pointed out in Section 3 of the original Act. He did not himself feel any doubt on the point; but in accepting the view of the Solicitor General he proposed this Amendment, leaving the Home Office to deal with it as it liked.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, it seemed to him that these additional words would enable the Inspector to visit at all times places in which a child was being trained. That might be desirable, but it was a very far-reaching clause. If the power was conferred in the old Act, he saw no reason for incorporating the words in this clause. With all respect for the hon. and learned Gentleman, who, of course, understood the law much better than he did, he could see no reason for adding: these words if they only continued existing powers. But if they constituted, as he thought they did, an extension of the law, then the matter required consideration before they conferred on Inspectors the power to visit these places at all hours. This was a question which seriously affected the well-being of the families dealt with in the Bill, and it was really impossible to discuss it when the Irish Members created a disturbance over every sentence which one uttered.
  MR. SPEAKER: I hope the hon. Member will be allowed to proceed without interruption.
  MR. BARTLEYsaid, it was quite true that the clause only applied to acrobats and people of that sort, but hon. Members who represented London constituencies were aware that a large num-

  1667
  ber of these people lived in the poorer parts of London, and this was a matter of serious concern to them. To give an Inspector the absolute right to visit at all times the homes of these poor persons under the pretext that children were being trained there was at once a novel and a dangerous thing to do. He would like to have the opinion of the Home Secretary on that particular clause. [Nationalist interruption.] He did not mean to be shouted down by hon. Members below the Gangway, and the greater the noise they made the longer he would speak. Would the Solicitor General or some other legal authority say whether this was not an absolute extension of the law?
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was disposed to agree with the arguments of the hon. Member who had just addressed the House. But he ventured humbly and respectfully to say he was not likely to advance the interects he had at heart by lecturing the Irish Members and assuming a function for which he had no special fitness.
  MR. BARTLEY: They want a good deal of lecturing.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, that if they were in need of it it was for the Speaker and not the hon. Member to administer it. They had sat there patiently week after week and month after month listening to speeches of the hon. Member and his friends, which certainly were not worth the attention—
  MR. BARTLEY: I rise to Order. Are the hon. Member's remarks germane to the Amendment?
  MR. SPEAKER: I take it the hon. Member is replying to the observations of the hon. Gentleman himself.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, he was not aware that the Rules of Order were so drawn as to forbid a Member expressing in polite language his appreciation of the speeches of other hon. Members. The Irish Members, like all hon. Members, had a right to give expression to their feelings either in Debate or by inarticulate action. Now, in regard to the Amendment, he contended that it was an extension of the law, and it was one which demanded attention at their hands for two reasons: The first was, that the Bill was being utilised to occupy the whole of the Sitting, whereas it was expressly understood that only one or two
  1668
  special points which had not been considered in Committee should be brought up. The Report stage was being used not for the purpose of packing up the odds and ends, but to consider new Amendments sprung upon them by the author of the Bill—
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I must be allowed to state that no single Amendment has been put down by me which was not either received or expressly mentioned in Committee.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, the observation of the hon. and learned Gentleman was open to a very wide construction, which he would not attempt to define on the spur of the moment. But it was within the knowledge of the House that the Bill was in Committee a week ago, and only a few simple matters were reserved for the Report stage. Under these circumstances, he and his friends intended to remain for the rest of the Sitting, and apply a very careful examination to every Amendment, because the hon. and learned Member and his friends had violated ordinary usage by using the Report stage to discuss questions which should have been settled in Committee. His second reason was that this Bill applied to Ireland. He was not aware that it was particularly needed in that country, and they would expect to hear not only from the Home Secretary, but also from the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant, who had a special responsibility in Ireland, the reasons for the application of the Bill to that country. It might indeed be necessary to recommit the Bill.
  MR. T. W. RUSSELL): I rise to Order. Is the speech of the hon. Member relevant to the Amendment?
  MR. SPEAKER: I do not think it is. There is a specific Amendment before the House; but when the House comes to the clause referring to Ireland any such remarks will be perfectly in Order.
  MR. SEXTONsaid, his argument was that because the Bill applied to Ireland it was necessary the Irish Members should examine the particular Amendment before the House. He had not gathered from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight why a second licence was necessary. The Act passed five years ago received careful consideration, and why,

  1669
  after so short a period had elapsed, did they find it necessary to issue a second or special licence for the purposes of the Bill? Next, he wanted to know who, in Ireland, would he entitled to exercise the powers of inspection under the Bill? Would they pass into the hands of the Constabulary, or would they be confined to persons appointed by some Society? It was unfortunate that the hon. and learned Member who had obtained the Second Reading of the Bill by universal consent —for the House generally was in sympathy with its objects—should have endeavoured on the Report stage to introduce such highly contentious questions.
  MR. T. H. BOLTON)said, it was evident that under this clause any person who was training a child under 11 years of age for acrobatic and other stage entertainments would be liable at any hour to have his home visited by an Inspector under the Act. That was a very objectionable proposal. A large number of poor persons trained their children at home, and their circumstances were so humble that they would object to the eyes of prying officials. They were as much entitled to have the privacy of their homes respected as any other class of people. A large number of persons who were in this position would resent most strongly these visits, and the Bill might be made the means of a great deal of persecution and annoyance on the part of officious persons. He considered that the powers now proposed to be conferred were wholly unnecessary.
  SIR D. MACFARLANEsaid that, although he had given general support to the Bill, he could not approve this Amendment, which really involved the application of a new form of Coercion Act to poor people. Unless a strong case could be laid before a Magistrate, he did not think an Inspector should have the right to visit the homes of the people, on the ground, perhaps, that a child was being trained in skirt dancing. It was quite possible to go too far in these matters. While he approved the general principles of the Bill, he strongly objected to authorising domiciliary visits at all hours.
  SIR F. S. POWELLhoped the hon. and learned Member would consent to omit the latter part of his
  1670
  Amendment, which, to his mind, went too far.
  SIR J. GOLDSMID)said, that some years ago, when a Bill of this kind was before the House, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the tendency of such legislation was to divide the English public into Inspectors and Inspected. That was the principle on which the Amendment was drawn, and it was most objectionable. He could not understand why so many people sought to indulge in grandmotherly legislation. Day after day some new class of Her Majesty's subjects was brought under the eye and the survey of an Inspector. The people were becoming tired of this constant interference, and he protested against it.
  Sir R. WEBSTERrose to speak—
  MR. T. M. HEALY: I rise to Order. I wish to know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has not spoken twice already—once audibly and once inaudibly?
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. and learned Gentleman has, of course, exhausted his right to speak on this Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that as one who had humbly endeavoured to impress on the House the unwisdom of this system of the grandmotherly legislation, and had indeed opposed it for more than a quarter of a century, he was glad to notice that his protests were now receiving some attention. He would like to move the omission of this clause altogether. Why should a licence be taken out at all? There were already difficulties enough in the way of those who desired to follow any honest calling in this country, and Parliament ought to hesitate before it created further obstacles in the path of those who sought to earn an honest livelihood. Why should a parent have to take out a, licence to teach his child skirt-dancing or even to turn a somersault? He would propose to omit the sub-section.
  MR. SPEAKER: It is not competent for the right hon. Gentleman to do that now.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, that then he would vote for the omission of as much of it as he could.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 133; Noes 260.—(Div. List, No. 65.)
  Question proposed,
  "That the words' a licence under that section may be separately granted for the purposes of this enactment, and the powers of an Inspector under that section shall extend to any place at which the training of a child is authorised by any such licence' be there inserted."
  MR. T. H. BOLTONsaid, he wished to move the omission of the following words in the Amendment:—
  "And the powers of an Inspector under that section shall extend to any place at which the training of a child is authorised by any such licence."
  He thought that owing to the form of the Amendment on which the last Division was taken there might have been some doubt in the minds of hon. Members as to what they were voting for. But on this occasion the issue was perfectly plain. The Bill proposed that wherever a child under 11 years of age was being trained, there should be a right of inspection—a right on the part of an Inspector to make domiciliary visits to see what was going on. Whereas, under the existing law, the right of inspection was practically confined to certain performances, under this section it would be largely extended, and would apply even to cases in which parents were seeking to develop special talents on the part of their own children. He thought such interference went too far, and therefore moved the omission of the words he had indicated.
  Amendment proposed to the proposed Amendment, to leave out from the word "enactment" to the end of the proposed Amendment.—(Mr. T. H. Bolton.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Amendment."
  SIR R. WEBSTERintimated that he would accept the Amendment.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, they were interposing another difficulty in the way of training a child for public purposes, and he thought that no impediment should be so placed if the training were by a parent or guardian or person authorised by such parent or guardian. As he had before said, if a parent chose to teach his child to turn a somersault, he would
  1672
  under this provision, have to take out a licence. It would he most injudicious to pass an Act containing such a proviso, and he would, therefore, move the addition of words—
  MR. SPEAKER: The Amendment before the House must first be disposed of.
  SIR R. WEBSTERsaid, he would like to make the point now under discussion perfectly clear, as he had been put in a false position by the refusal of hon. Members below the Gangway to allow him to make a brief explanation. He was going to agree to the Amendment of his hon. Friend that the inspection in certain cases should be omitted; but he was bound to say his proposal was put forward with the assent of the Home Office, and because it was known that more grievous injuries had been inflicted on poor little children in training them as acrobats than in the public performances. It was absurd to suggest that they were dealing with such a case as that of a parent teaching his child to turn a somersault. What the Bill did deal with was the case of a child being trained as an acrobat, a contortionist, or a circus performer, or for any performance which in itself was dangerous. He only wished that hon. Members who had taken part in the discussion of the last three-quarters of an hour had had the opportunity he had had of seeing how children had suffered from reckless and careless training. This was not in any shape or way grandmotherly legislation; it was simply subjecting to proper inspection places in which children ran the risk of being injured for life. But as he wanted the Bill to pass he would accept the Amendment, although he hoped it would go forth that the Nationalist Members objected to the protection of children while they were undergoing training.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, that he quite agreed that the hon. and learned Member was in a false position, but that false position was due to his own unaided efforts, and not to that of hon. Members below the Gangway. But what he had done had been to endeavour to import into the Bill, sub silentio, a most important Amendment affecting private interests. Had the hon. and learned Gentleman accepted the Bill in the form in which it passed through the Committee of that House last Wednesday

  1673
  it would have been read a third time by this time. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said that he had been forced to accept the Amendment he had moved by the Home Office. But in that case where was the Home Office, and why did not its responsible head come forward and support the Amendment as it stood?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: I must ask the hon. Member not to misrepresent me. When I spoke of being placed in a false position it was with reference to my not being permitted to give an explanation in the course of the discussion on the last Amendment. I have never suggested that I have been put in a false position by the Home Office, nor have I said anything which could be twisted into such a statement. What I said was that I had inserted it on the suggestion of the Solicitor General.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he had not suggested the hon. and learned Member had accused the Home Office of putting him in a false position. He thought he had made it perfectly clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman owed his position to his sole unaided efforts. But he wished to know why the Solicitor General was not present to support the Amendment? For his own part, if he were compelled to choose between the two, he should prefer the learning of the hon. and learned Gentleman the present Solicitor General to the learning of the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General. He desired to know the view of the Government on this question. The hon. and learned Gentleman had accepted the Amendment of a political ally, but the Government were perfectly independent and should give them the benefit of their advice. The House was placed not in a false but in a difficult position by the action of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight and of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General. The hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight had only himself to thank if his Bill did not become law during the present Session, and if the victims for which he had expressed so much commiseration had to wait another year for the protection proposed to be afforded by this Bill.
  MR. ASQUITH: As unfortunately I was absent last Wednesday when this matter was under discussion, and was not privy to the arrangements that were then
  1674
  made, I do not feel that I am in a position to speak with first-hand knowledge. I think, however, as far as I am able to understand the matter, that this is, after all, merely a drafting Amendment. I do not think it introduces or is intended to introduce any change into the substance of the clause. Its only object is to make clear and unambiguous that which is not clearly stated. Under the principal Act children under a certain age are not allowed to be employed for purposes of public entertainment except under a licence, and a person employing them is liable to a penalty. The Factory Inspectors are to have the power of visiting places of entertainment and seeing whether the conditions of the law are complied with. I have not had the opportunity of studying the evidence myself, but I understand that a considerable amount of cruelty and abuse exists in places where children are trained for performances in public, and that the law cannot but prove inadequate unless it protects the children in the places of training as well as in the place of entertainment. I do not think that any Member of the House will object to a provision of that kind. I may say that it is extremely desirable that when we are making changes of this kind we should be very careful not to carry the law beyond the point to which it can legitimately be carried. I think my hon. and learned Friend (Sir R. Webster) is well advised in assenting to the suggestion of the hon. Member for St. Pancras (Mr. T. H. Bolton), to omit this provision, because as drawn it might be construed to apply to places where it is not required, and where parents are actually engaged in training their children for the purpose of enabling them to earn an honest livelihood.
  Question put, and negatived.
  Words, as amended, inserted.
  MR. J. LOWTHERsaid, the Home Secretary had stated that it was not the intention of the supporters of the Bill to interfere with a parent who was educating his own child. As the Bill was drawn it would clearly be obligatory upon a parent who was instructing his child to perform in public to take out a licence. Under these circumstances, he would propose that after the words just inserted in the clause these words should be added—

  1675
  "But no licence shall be requisite for the training of any child by its parent or guardian."
  Amendment proposed, after the last Amendment, to insert the words—
  "But no licence shall be requisite for the training of any child by its parent or guardian."—(Mr. J. Lowther.)
  Question put, "That those words be there inserted."
  The House divided:—Ayes 305; Noes 107.—(Division List, No. 66.)
  SIR R. WEBSTERthen moved the next Amendment which stood in his name. He said it dealt with entertainments which took place on licensed premises. When the Bill was in Committee the hon. Member for Heywood (Mr. Snape) secured the passing of an Amendment on this subject. He (Sir R. Webster) pointed out at the time that the words proposed by the hon. Member would not be satisfactory. The Amendment he had now to propose provided that no entertainment in which children were employed could be held upon premises which were licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquors without a special licence.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 2, to leave out from the word "entertainment" to the second word "the," in line 3.—(Sir R. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  MR. SNAPEsaid, that although he did not think the Amendment was as thorough as the case required, he accepted it as a distinct improvement upon the original clause. The difficulty that would arise in carrying out the Amendment would be that it would require very great vigilance upon the part of those who were interested in the matter to prevent the granting of special licences to parties to whom they should be refused.
  MR. T. H. BOLTONasked whether the hon. and learned Member (Sir R. Webster) had considered that under the Amendment if young people up to the age, he believed, of 14 in the case of boys and of 16 in the case of girls took part in an entertainment given in a concert room or a Town Hall, or any other place that had a licence for the sale of intoxicating drinks, it would be necessary to obtain a special licence from the Magistrates?
  1676
  "Entertainment" was a very wide term, and would include illustrated lectures, concerts, in which young people took part, and many other things. That being so, the Amendment, if adopted, would impose a great deal of trouble upon a large number of people, and he could not help thinking also that it was unnecessary. It was not within the scope and intention of the Bill.
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he thought they had now reached the climax of absurdity. How anybody in a responsible position, and having reached mature age, could at, this time of day propose that whenever there was to be, say, a little bit of dancing it should he necessary to get a special exemption from two Magistrates was more than he could understand. Where was the House going to stop? Talk of cruelty to children! This was cruelty to people who were not children. All over the country, whenever they proposed to have some little entertainment, they must go to two Magistrates—and in Ireland to two Resident Magistrates—in order to get a licence. In this way they were going to regenerate the rising youth of this country. The section, if amended as proposed, would read in this way—"Section 3 of the principal Act." As yet they did not know what the principal Act was. That was modern grammar. They would have to go to the Library and when they had got the principal Act the clause, when this Amendment was introduced, would read in this way—
  "Section 3 of the principal Act shall not apply in the case of any occasional sale or entertainment, if such sale or entertainment is held."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Those words do not come in there.
  MR. T. M. HEALY: The hon. and learned Gentleman is very evasive in his explanation. As I read the words they are "any sale or entertainment."
  SIR R. WEBSTER: Read in "the net proceeds of which."
  MR. T. M. HEALY: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman read it?
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It will road—
  "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, if such sale or entertainment is held elsewhere than on the premises which are licensed for the sale of intoxicating liquor, but not licensed according to law for

  1677
  public entertainment, or if, in the case of a sale or entertainment held in any such premises as aforesaid, a special exemption from the provisions of the said section has been granted in writing under the hands of two Justices of the Peace."
  MR. T. M. HEALYasked if the hon. and learned Gentleman contended that was a reasonable provision? The Bill was originally passed without a word of explanation. In Committee a day was taken up with it, and they agreed to the Bill passing that stage. But now at the stage of Report entirely now and novel proposals, which were never dreamed of before, were made by the hon. and learned Gentleman without one single word of comment or explanation. So far as ho was personally concerned, he thought it was the climax of absurdity to say that if he was engaged in any entertainment he was to go beforehand to two Magistrates for a licence. It might be true there were difficulties in dealing with the cases of these children singing in public-houses, but that, he ventured to say, was not this clause. This clause was, in itself, deserving of careful consideration by a Select Committee. He presumed the Legal Department of the Government had considered the matter; and did they really consider it was necessary, for the purposes of an occasional licence, to go before two Justices? So far as he was concerned, he denounced the proposition, and should vote against it; but, before voting against it, he trusted they would hear from the Government, who were responsible in the matter, some vindication of the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for the Isle of Wight (Sir R. Webster).
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, the Government had no responsibility in the matter of introducing the Bill. He understood that some objection was taken last week—
  SIR R. WEBSTER: An Amendment was moved by an hon. Member opposite.
  MR. ASQUITHsaid, ho was not aware of that, but he could not undertake to decide one way or the other upon the proposition. He confessed that after the best consideration he had been able to give to the subject, although, like the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, he looked with a certain amount of suspicion upon the proposal, upon the whole he did not think it would do very much harm. There wore, he
  1678
  thought, cases in which it might protect children who needed protection, and he therefore thought that the balance was rather in favour of the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend.
  COLONEL NOLANthought they were at a disadvantage, because so far none but gentlemen of the long robe had spoken about the Amendment, and their explanations did not convey to ordinary minds what the effect of the Amendment would he. As he understood, if the Amendment of the late Attorney General were to be inserted, any child singing in an Irish public-house would come under the principal Act.
  SIR R. WEBSTER: It is already under the principal Act; this clause does not touch that.
  COLONEL NOLANsaid, that if the child said she was singing for some charity she would not come under the principal Act. At least that was his understanding of the matter, and he thought it was as clear as anything that that had fallen from the many highly learned gentleman who had spoken on the subject. He had no wish to have travelling musicians and their children placed at the mercy of the Royal Irish Constabulary. He felt a great sense of responsibility upon him when he heard last Wednesday for the first time that this Bill was to apply to Ireland. He should have opposed it then, but he thought it might endanger his own Bill, and he therefore passed it over. Now that his own Bill was past praying for, he should oppose the proposition of the hon. and learned Member the late Attorney General.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 70; Noes 327.—(Division List, No. 67.)
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 5, after the word "object," to insert the words—
  "If such sale or entertainment is held elsewhere than on premises which are licensed for the sale of any intoxicating liquor, but not licensed according to law for public entertainments, or if, in the case of a sale or entertainment held in any such premises as aforesaid, a special exemption from the provisions of the said section has been granted in writing under the hands of two Justices of the Peace."—(Sir R. Webster.)
  Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
  MR. T. M. HEALYsaid, he did not think the hon. and learned Gentleman,

  1679
  at this hour, should bring forward an Amendment of this magnitude without some word of explanation. On the former Amendment, when it was proposed to omit the words for which these were to be substituted, he raised some objections, and he thought it would have been more respectful on the part of the hon. and learned Member if he had availed himself of the opportunity which this further Amendment gave to meet the arguments advanced against the proposal. The fact was, that his Amendment being so riddled with criticism the hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to think it was absolutely hopeless to defend it, and they were left in this position: that, when the Motion was put, they did not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman called "aye" or "no," though they presumed he would say "no," as it was his own Amendment. He said that was not a proper position for the House to find itself in at the end of the day. Having addressed himself to that point, he would now address himself to the Amendment.
  MR. SPEAKER: Order, order!
  It being half-past Five of the clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed To-morrow.

  STEAM TRAWLERS (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 200.)

    SECOND HEADING.
    Order for Second Reading read.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(Mr. Crombie.)
    MR. T. M. HEALYdesired to know if the hon. Member would, when the Bill was in Committee, agree to extend it to Ireland? It would be an enormous advantage if the Bill were made to apply to Ireland. At the present time Scotch trawlers, when they were prohibited from trawling in Scotch waters, sailed across to Ireland and intruded into the Irish fisheries, becoming a nuisance to the fishermen and an injury to the fisheries. Trawling should not be prohibited in one country and permitted in another, but there should be a similarity of treatment all round.
    MR. CROMBIEsaid, he should have no objection to seeing the Bill extended to Ireland, but at any
    1680
    rate he was anxious to see it passed for Scotland.
    MR. CARSONsaid, if the Bill was to extend to Ireland its object should be explained.
    MR. CROMBIEsaid, it was provided by the Bill that the masters of trawlers should have certificates just like the masters of coasting vessels, such certificates to be liable to suspension upon any default.
    Objection being taken to Further Proceeding, Second Reading deferred till Wednesday next.

    WEMYSS, &c. WATER PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.—(No. 158.)
    As amended, considered; to be read the third time To-morrow.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL. (No. 238.)
    Read a second time, and committed.
    LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL. (No. 239.)
    Read a second time, and committed.

    PUBLIC BUILDINGS (LONDON) BILL. (No. 243.)
    As amended, considered.
    Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 15, to leave out the words "in the month of September, October, or November."—(Colonel Hughes.)
    Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
    And, it being after half-past Five of the clock, and objection being taken to Further Proceeding, the Debate stood adjourned.
    Debate to be resumed upon Friday.

  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (NO. 19) BILL.
  On Motion of Sir Walter Poster, Bill to confirm a Provisional Order of the Local Government Board relating to the Haslingden, Rawtenstall, and Bacup Outfall Sewerage District, ordered to be brought in by Sir Walter Foster and Mr. Bryce.
  Bill presented, and read first time. [Bill 262.]
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock.