§ MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the charge upon which Mr. Maughan was sentenced at the Gateshead police court on May 7th last to be deprived of his son, and to pay a weekly fine of 1s. 6d. for ten years; and whether any direct evidence whatever was given in support of that charge.
§ * MR. GLADSTONEMaughan, the father, was charged under the Youthful Offenders Act, 1901, with conducing to the commission by his son of the offence of begging by habitually neglecting to exercise due care of him. He was convicted on the same evidence on which the boy was committed to the school. He was fined 5s., with 6s. costs: the order to pay 1s. 6d. a week was not a fine. He had been once before fined for a similar offence and had been three times cautioned by the police. The direct evidence of the police constable who took Maughan in charge was to the effect that for five weeks he had seen the boy begging, and that at 9 p.m. on April 30th be saw him accost seven men in ten minutes. Several ladies had pointed out and complained of this boy to the constable. The boy was in a half-starved condition and filthily dirty. His home surroundings were indescribably objectionable. The reports I have received in answer to my inquiries absolutely 1240 confirm the action of the police and the Justices, and I am glad that this poor little creature will now have a chance of growing to be a decent citizen.
§ MR. THORNE (West Ham, S.)What were the wages earned by this individual? Does the right hon. Gentleman know?
§ * MR. GLADSTONEI have ascertained the facts. I should hardly like to mention some of them to the House.
§ MR. J. WARDWas not this man a soldier with a splendid record in the Army? Had not other members of his family been brought up respectably?
§ * MR. GLADSTONEI am very glad if he had a splendid record in the Army. I very much regret he did not keep it up.