§ As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.) moved the addition of the words in Clause 42 for the protection of children who might be sent by their parents or employers to fetch cigarettes from automatic machines. He said the words regarding the machines being "extensively used by children" were likely to give rise to a good deal of misunderstanding, as it was quite possible children might merely use them for others who were fully entitled to the use of them and not for themselves. In such a case no penalty ought to attach to the user. He, therefore, begged to move.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 24, line 4, after the word 'persons,' to insert the words 'for the purpose of obtaining cigarettes for his own use or that of other children or young persons.'"—(Captain Craig.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ *THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL,) Yorkshire, Clevelandthought the matter was sufficiently covered by the clause, and the insertion of these words would unnecessarily complicate the working of the Bill. As a matter of fact these machines were not extensively used by children for the purpose of obtaining cigarettes for adults. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 24, line 9, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'Provided that any person aggrieved by such an order may appeal against it to a Court of Quarter Sessions.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this appeal would probably be very seldom used, and for that reason it was not inserted in the Bill. But it was as well to allow the appeal, and he would, therefore, accept the Amendment.
MR. RAWLLNSON (Cambridge University)asked whether the hon. Gentleman would extend the appeal to Section 39 (Penalty on selling tobacco to children and young persons).
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he would consider that.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 24, line 16, to leave out the words 'or purchase.'
In page 24, line 19, to leave out the words 'by whom they are bought.'
In page 24, line 21, after the word 'business,' to insert the words 'or was a uniformed boy messenger in the employment of a messenger company and employed as such at the time.'
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ MR. RAWLINSONpointed out that the clause made it an offence to sell cigarettes to certain people, and the Government had made an exception in the case of uniformed messenger boys employed by a messenger company. But he thought the exemption was too narrow. A page at a club or a clerk in an office might be employed in the same way, and surely in their case it ought not to be treated as an offence. Any boy bona fide employed as a messenger, ought to be exempted, especially as, after all, the seller would supply them at his own risk. This clause as it stood would give endless opportunities for traps to be laid for unwary shopkeepers by people who might desire to get them into trouble. He hoped, therefore, the House would accept his Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 24, line 21, after the word 'business to insert the words 'or was bona fide employed as a messenger at the time.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson).
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
769§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he was sorry he could not accept the Amendment. It would open too wide a door to the evasion of the Act. If words were put in that this clause was not to apply in any case where a boy was bona fide employed as a messenger at the time every person who wished to buy cigarettes would represent that he was bona fide employed as a messenger. He might make special arrangements for messenger boys in uniform, because that was a special case and they would be known. But, looking at this from the point of view of the tobacconist, if the tobacconist knew he was not allowed to sell cigarettes to any body under the age of sixteen, the matter was comparatively simple. If he saw a boy apparently under the age of sixteen he knew he must not serve him, but if a boy in uniform came to him he could distinguish him at once and knew that he would be able to serve him. But the insertion of these words giving so wide and undefined an exemption would impose a very great burden on the tobacconist.
§ SIR F. BANBURY (City of London)regretted that the hon. Gentleman persisted in his opposition to the Amendment. It appeared to him that if the Amendment suggested by the hon. Gentleman were carried it would create a monopoly in favour of the boy messenger companies. He saw no reason why a particular advantage should be given to the boy messenger companies, or why people should be put to the trouble of sending out for a messenger boy in order to send for cigarettes when they had a page-boy in their own employment whom they kept for the purpose of running errands, and who would be in livery if not in uniform. Would it not be absurd to say that if a member of the National Liberal Club wanted a cigarette, and there was not one in the club, he must not send out one of the club pages, but must send out for a boy-messenger to buy him some cigarettes? In considering an Act of Parliament it should not be considered from the point of view that some people might desire to evade it, but from the point of view of common sense. Did the hon. Gentleman intend to move the Amendment following the one now before the House? 770 Because if he did it looked as if he was going to recede from the position which he had previously taken up, and was no longer going to allow anybody employed as a servant or a messenger to buy cigarettes.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the remaining words of the clause were purely consequential to Clause 41. If Clause 41 were dropped these words were entirely unnecessary.
§ SIR F. BANBURYasked whether, if the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend were not accepted, he would be allowed to send a servant of his under sixteen years of age to fetch him a cigarette.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELNo.
§ SIR F. BANBURYcontended that he would be able to do so if these words were not struck out. These were strong arguments in favour of the Amendment of his hon. and learned friend, and he hoped that he would press it to a division.
§ LORD R. CECIL (Marylebone, E.)thought this Amendment rather demonstrated the difficulties in which the House was placed in respect to these clauses, which tried to make a thing criminal which was not criminal. It was true that the addition of these words would make a slight addition to the risk of evasion. He did not think it would be so great as the hon. Gentleman supposed, because the boy must be a bona fide messenger, but it would somewhat add to the burden of the tobacconist. That was true, but the tobacconist was not bound to sell unless he liked, and if he had any doubt in the matter he was quite within his right to refuse to sell. If, however, something of this kind was not put into the Bill a very genuine hardship would be involved to those who could not command, by reason of their income, the services of a boy messenger, and who were not allowed to send their little boy or little girl out for a packet of cigarettes. He thought this was a serious matter, and that the Government would have done well to have accepted the Amendment. It would I not have made any difference to this 771 Bill, and would have removed a great hardship.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIG (Down, E.)expressed the opinion that this Amendment might have been accepted if only for the reason that there were very few towns in which the boy messengers were in uniform. It would not inflict any hardship perhaps in London or other large towns in England, where the boy messengers could be found by the telephone; but there were many small towns where the little boys were just as well known to the traders as the boy messengers were here. If these words were not inserted a very great hardship would be inflicted. After all, the onus would still rest on the tobacconist. He would run the risk unless the boy was a bona fide messenger. He thought in cases of this sort, where an Amendment was intended to improve the Bill, and was not proposed in any captious spirit, it might be accepted. There were very few towns in Ireland in which there
§ were uniformed boy messengers. The boy messengers in those places were respectably dressed, but not in a uniform, and the penalty would fall upon them, or an extra expense would fall upon them, in having to dress in compliance with this Act. He hoped the Amendment would be accepted.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—
§ [While the division was being taken, one of the occupants of the first row in the Strangers' Gallery rose and said: "Gentlemen, I have a petition which I have presented to the Prime Minister. I should like you to read it." He then threw a paper on to the floor of the House. He was seized by an attendant, when he added: "I have said all I have got to say." He was then removed.]
§ Ayes, 65; Noes, 204. (Division List No. 264.)
773| AYES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex, F. | Gordon, J. | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Ashley, W. W. | Goulding, Edward Alfred | Morrison-Bell, Captain |
| Balcarres, Lord | Guinness, Hn. R. (Haggerston) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Hamilton, Marquess of | Powell, Sir Francis Sharp |
| Balfour, Rt. Hn. A. J. (City Lond). | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Heaton, John Henniker | Remnant, James Farquharson |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Helmsley, Viscount | Ronaldshay, Earl of |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Sassoon, Sir Edward Albert |
| Butcher, Samuel Henry | Joynson-Hicks, William | Stanier, Beville |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Lee, Arthur H. (Hants, Fareham | Valentia, Viscount |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. K. | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Walker, Col. W. H. (Lancashire |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S. | Whitbread, Howard |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Dixon-Hartland, Sir Fred Dixon | Lowe, Sir Francis William | Wilson, A. Stanley (York. E. R.) |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm |
| Du Cros, Arthur Philip | M'Arthur, Charles | Wortley, Rt. Hon. C. B. Stuart- |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Magnus, Sir Philip | Younger,, George |
| Faber, George Dension (York) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) | |
| Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Rawlinson and Captain Craig. |
| Fletcher, J. S. | Middlemore, John Throgmorton | |
| Forster, Henry William | Moore, William | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Beale, W. P. | Bramsdon, T. A. |
| Agar-Robartes, Hon. T. C. R. | Bellairs, Carlyon | Bryce, J. Annan |
| Alden, Percy | Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo. | Burns, Rt. Hon. John |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Bennett, E. N. | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas |
| Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth) | Berridge, T. H. D. | Byles, William Pollard |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'd) | Cameron, Robert |
| Barker, John | Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Channing, Sir Francis Allston |
| Barnard, E. B. | Boulton, A. C. F. | Cheetham, John Frederick |
| Barnes, G. N. | Bowerman, C. W. | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Brace, William | Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S. |
| Clough, William | Jacoby, Sir James Alfred | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Jones, Sir D. Brynmor (Swansea) | Robson, Sir William Snowdon |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Jowett, F. W. | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Rogers, F. E. Newman |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin, A. | Kekewich, Sir George | Rose, Charles Day |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Kincaid-Smith, Captain | Rowlands, J. |
| Cox, Harold | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. |
| Crooks, William | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) | Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford) |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Lambert, George | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Scott, A. H. (Ashton under Lyne |
| Davies, Ellis William (Eifion) | Lea, Hugh Cecil (St. Pancras, E.) | Sears, J. E. |
| Davies, M. Vaughan- (Cardigan) | Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Accrington | Seaverns, J. H. |
| Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Lehmann, R. C. | Seely, Colonel |
| Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Lewis, John Herbert | Shackleton, David James |
| Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. | Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Sherwell, Arthur James |
| Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles | Lynch, H. B. | Shipman, Dr. John G. |
| Dobson, Thomas W. | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John |
| Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Mackarness, Frederic C. | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie |
| Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne) | Maclean, Donald | Snowden, P. |
| Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | M'Callum, John M. | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | M'Crae, Sir George | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Erskine, David C. | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Essex, R. W. | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Steadman, W. C. |
| Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Micking, Major G. | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Evans, Sir Samuel T. | Markham, Arthur Basil | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Everett, R. Lacey | Marks, G. Croydon (Launceston) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Fenwick, Charles | Marnham, F. J. | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Findlay, Alexander | Masterman, C. F. G. | Thomasson, Franklin |
| Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter | Menzies, Walter | Toulmin, George |
| Fullerton, Hugh | Molteno, Percy Alport | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Money, L. G. Chiozza | Ure, Alexander |
| Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W. | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Verney, F. W. |
| Glover, Thomas | Morrell, Philip | Vivian, Henry |
| Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard. | Walsh, Stephen |
| Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Murray, James (Aberdeen, E.) | Walton, Joseph |
| Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent) |
| Gulland, John W. | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Wardle, George J. |
| Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | O'Brien, William (Cork) | Waring, Walter |
| Hall, Frederick | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmann'n |
| Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | O'Grady, J. | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Parker, James (Halifax) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil) | Paulton, James Mellor | Watt, Henry A. |
| Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r) | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Harwood, George | Pirie, Duncan V. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Henry, Charles S. | Pullar, Sir Robert | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Radford, G. H. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe) | Rainy, A. Holland | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Higham, John Sharp | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Redmond, William (Clare) | |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Rees, J. D. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Richards, Thomas (W. Monm'th | |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n) | |
| Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Ridsdale, E. A. | |
| Hudson, Walter | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
Question put, and agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 24, line 21, to leave out from the word 'business' to end of clause."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that Clause 44 had been very much criticised by the hon. and learned Gentleman and other hon. Members opposite, on the 774 ground that it included "any small cigar," and not a large cigar, and this distinction had caused some ridicule. He might explain that the definition had been taken from the Oxford Dictionary, and it had the authority behind it of Dr. Murray. However that might be, perhaps for the purposes of legislation it could be somewhat improved. They could not leave 775 the definition to the Courts, and to avoid the probability of evasion of the Act, he moved to leave out the words "any small cigar made of," and to insert the word "cut." Then the clause would read "The expression 'cigarette' includes cut tobacco rolled up in paper, tobacco leaf, or any other material."
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 24, line 28, to leave out the words 'any cigar made of,' and to insert the word 'cut.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'cut' be there inserted."
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid it was somewhat difficult at the moment to follow an alteration of this kind, and the hon. Gentleman would quite see that they needed a little further explanation of what the effect of it would be. The old definition "any small cigar" might mean tobacco rolled up in paper, or tobacco leaf or any material. Now they had "cut" tobacco rolled up in paper, or tobacco leaf, or any material. Would that include any form of cigar which contained cut tobacco?
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the second subsection of the clause dealt with tobacco other than cigarettes.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid that from the point of view of the Under-Secretary it would have been safer to omit any definition of cigarette, because the moment a definition was given they presented conundrums to the ingenuity of those who desired to evade the law, and who would devise something by which they could escape from the restrictions imposed. For that reason the Courts had always refused to give a definition of fraud, as it might exclude something at which the ingenuity of rascals might arrive. This definition might include any screw of tobacco rolled up in a paper, and bought not for cigarettes, but for the pipe, but he did not imagine that the Court would be such an idiot as to think, in spite of the 776 words of the Legislature, that it meant cigarettes.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid he did not propose to submit the first two Amendments standing in his name, but he moved the third, to substitute the word "tobacco" for the word "cigarettes," in the last line of the clause. He did not know why the Bill proposed to apply to smoking mixtures, and he could not understand why a man should not send his child for a smoking mixture if he preferred it rather than tobacco. He supposed there were some people who smoked things which were not at all tobacco but some other mixture. He should like to know why that was to be included as well as tobacco; what was the explanation of this remarkable proposal? He begged to move.
§ SIR F. BANBURYseconded.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 24, line 40, to leave out the word 'cigarettes' and insert the word 'tobacco.'"—(Lord R. Cecil.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'tobacco' stand put of the Bill."
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the noble Lord would remember that the distinction between cigarettes and other tobaccos was this: that the tobacconist might not sell cigarettes at all to boys, while in regard to other tobacco he might sell it to boys if he had no reason to believe that it was for their own use. The provisions as to cigarettes were comparatively easily enforcible. The provision with regard to smoking mixtures had reference to substitutes for tobacco, not being tobacco, which were being now sold, more and more widely to boys, in halfpenny packets with a small wooden pipe. These mixtures contained more or less deleterious substances, and were very much cheaper than the cheapest cigarettes. It was that which they wished to aim at. The subject had been considered in Committee, and it was considered advisable to put these mixtures under the more complete ban imposed on the cigarette rather than in the more 777 easily obtainable category of other tobacco.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid smoking mixtures were very well-known, and were usually sold in tins. He did not wish to particularise any brand, but a very large number of brands were not intended to be pure tobacco, and what was added made the charm of them. Certain substitutes, which were probably a great secret, were used, and these smoking mixtures were largely sold in tins. He was sure that nine Members out of the ten would read the words of this subsection as applying to these smoking mixtures, and certainly such a construction might be put upon them. The Under-Secretary apparently had some smoking mixture in his mind, and he admitted at once that what the hon. Gentleman had stated was new to him.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he would consider the matter.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed.
In page 28, line 6, after the word 'supervision,' to insert the word 'recall.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ MR. STAVELEY-HILL (Staffordshire, Kingswinford)said the utility of his Amendment spoke for itself. There was considerable danger in the clause as it stood that there might be established a scheme for the payment of superannuation allowances without intervention of any higher authority. It was quite likely that pressure would be brought to bear to secure these allowances and it was only fair that some higher authority should be introduced.
§ SIR F. BANBURYregarded this as a valuable Amendment. In many cases great pressure was brought to bear on people in public positions to increase salaries and grant superannuation allowances, and they were not always able to resist that pressure. The Amendment would be some safeguard, and he hoped it would be accepted.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 28, line 22, after the word 'establishing,' to insert the words 'with the approval of the Secretary of State.'"—(Mr. Staveley-Hill.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that this point was carefully considered before the clause was inserted, and it was decided that the Secretary of State could not and ought not to assume this responsibility. These persons who were receiving superannuation allowances were for the most part not in the public service at all but in the service of the managers of voluntary institutions, though occasionally they were in the service of local authorities, and there was no reason whatever why the Secretary of State should make himself responsible for the actuarial conditions in a private arrangement between the managers of an industrial school which belonged to a philanthropic society and the officers of the school. It was provided in the clause that the superannuation allowances should not be in excess of the amount payable under the Superannuation Metropolis Act, 1866, in order to save the managers and others from indirect pressure, and that Act provided that if the term of service was under eleven years the superannuation must not be more than ten-sixtieths, with an addition of one-sixtieth for every additional year of service, with a maximum of two-thirds of the salary. The Secretary of State could not undertake to make the elaborate actuarial calculations which would be necessary in every particular case of these officers of schools, and he was unable to accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment negatived.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he had put down an Amendment to omit subsection (1) of Clause 59, in order to elicit how far the present law differed from what was proposed in the subsection. It was a consolidating clause as well as one enacting something fresh. Was there any law which allowed any person to bring before a Petty Sessional Court a child which was found wandering or begging? And was it quite fair to inflict 779 such very harsh punishment as might be ordered by a Court of Petty Sessions for some of the trifling offences which were here enumerated? The clause said that any person might bring before the Court any person apparently under the age of fourteen who did so-and-so. That would be an opportunity for spite on the part of the smaller fry who were friends of the infant it was desired to have locked up. "Any person" was a very wide reading to give to such a Bill as this. Again, a young person might be brought before the Court if found begging or receiving alms. They were all thoughtless sometimes in throwing a copper to a boy, or perhaps on meeting with the son of some old servant one was apt to put one's hand in one's pocket. Was anybody to be allowed to take up that small boy to Petty Sessions for taking from somebody much his senior a small tip of 1d. or 2d? It seemed very harsh treatment, and very grandmotherly legislation, because if a person of mature years liked to act in this way the penalty ought to be on him rather than on the boy who took the coppers. If a small boy found another small boy wandering he might charge him and have him taken before the Petty Sessions. Surely, there was some loose drafting about a Bill which would allow that, and probably it would occur as much out of mischief as out of any benevolent feeling on the part of others. He did not observe that the Government had put down any Amendments to meet these obvious defects. A young person might be taken up if found wandering, and having a parent or guardian who was unfit to have the care of the child. It did not say anything about the other parent. The father might be abroad, and though the mother might have a home here, and be fit to have charge of the child, he might be brought before the Court and sent to an industrial school. Surely there was something very weak and wrong in a clause which would allow such interference as that. Then if the mother was undergoing a week's imprisonment the child was practically hidden away in a reformatory or industrial school for several years. Latterly a great number of suffragists had been imprisoned for a short time, and if 780 anyone found one of the children of one of these women wandering about it could be brought before the Court and ordered to be sent to an industrial school. There was something wrong there, too. Had anybody, like himself, ever tried to get a boy out of an industrial school after the mother had come back from prison? It was one of the most costly and difficult proceedings that he had ever had anything to do with in his short career. In Ireland it could only be done by an order of the Lord-Lieutenant, and in order to get it correspondence had to go through so many Departments that the boy was almost an old man before he got his release. The thing was a farce in many of its particulars. Subsections (a), (b), and (c), were all harsh. Surely it was not the intention of the Government to persist in them. A great many people were in favour of prohibiting cigarette-smoking amongst youths, but surely it was not intended to tack on to a Bill to prohibit juvenile smoking such extraordinary hardships as might befall innocent boys. If parents could not keep their boys in proper order and discipline the State would not do it, and for the State to attempt to do it in cases of this sort was to interfere with parental responsibility, and would do more harm than the good which could possibly be effected by a whole Act of Parliament. If they dropped the Bill at Clause 58 they would have done very well in legislation in this direction for this session. The clause gave far too much responsibility to "any person," whoever he happened to be, and he would be no party to allowing the clause to go through without a division.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that under this subsection any person who had a grudge against the parents of a child might bring them before the Court. Strife might arise between acquaintances, and any person who had a grudge against another might for spite declare they had found their child wandering, and swear that the parents were of drunken habits. That was a strong order. A man might swear that the child of John Jones was the child of a drunken person who was unfit to have the care of a child. It might be proved that John Jones was 781 occasionally the worse for drink, but the other part of the charge might fail. Would there be any penalty against the person who had brought an unfounded charge upon which John Jones had been haled before the magistrates? The mother of an illegitimate child might be sent to prison, and upon her return find that some person who had a grudge against her had been instrumental in having got her child sent to an industrial school. He did not wish to impute that the Government were not actuated by the best motives, but he thought this clause ought to have some modification, and he begged leave to second this Amendment.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 24, line 27, to leave out subsection (1)."—(Captain Craig.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he was surprised that the hon. Member, before moving this Amendment, had not taken the pains to see how much of the clause was new and how much was old. The words objected to by the mover of this Amendment had been the law of the land ever since 1866. The phrase "any person" appeared also in the Vagrancy Acts and the Larceny Act. It was extremely undesirable to limit to the police the possibility of rescuing these children. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children frequently used this clause, and under it about 200 children a year were rescued by them from evil surroundings, and received the almost immeasurable benefits of the industrial schools. The Salvation Army also put this clause into operation, and they did not find any of the impossible cases referred to by the Member opposite. He was astounded that such statements should be made in the House of Commons. The provision about receiving alms, wandering, and being found destitute had been the law of the land since the year 1866. It had been urged that these were harsh penalties for such trivial offences, but they were really not penalties at all. This was a clause to enable children in bad surroundings, perhaps with criminal 782 parents, to be rescued from those surroundings and placed in a position to obtain the start in life which the industrial school system gave. That system we as built mainly upon the subsections to which the hon. Member had referred. He had been asked what the new provisions were. Paragraphs (d), (e) and the latter part of (g) were new. There were a few other minor Amendments of a verbal character in other portions of the clause. This clause was discussed most fully and thoroughly for two whole days before the Standing Committee, and under these circumstances he thought the criticisms made by hon. Members opposite were quite uncalled for.
§ SIR FRANCIS POWELL (Wigan)said he hoped the whole of this clause would be retained. As the Under-Secretary had stated, it was most carefully considered by the Committee, and he never knew of a more searching examination of any clause. The existing law had been retained with Amendments of a desirable character, and he hoped no changes would now be made.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETH (Birmingham, S.)made an appeal to the mover and seconder of this Amendment to allow the clause to go through as it stood. The hon. and gallant Member had given his experience of the difficulty of trying to get a boy out of an industrial school. He was inclined to think that if he had seen the inside of an industrial school he would not adhere to his opposition to this proposal. These schools gave boys a chance of starting fairly and squarely in life, and their great success was one of the most satisfactory and striking features in the whole field of education. No part of our educational system approached anywhere near the success of the industrial schools in reclaiming a class of children who were recruited largely from the lowest class of the population, and they turned out good citizens. The Under-Secretary had given reasons why the word "parson" should be retained. He did not think the cases cited were likely to arise. When a child was brought before the magistrate he had to decide whether it would be beneficial for the boy or girl 783 to be sent to an industrial school. Magistrates, as a rule, were reasonable men, who could be trusted not to act as faddists. He did not think a single case of drunkenness against a parent would be considered sufficient by the most foolish magistrate, but if the person charged was an habitual drunkard or criminal, the sooner his children were put into an industrial school, and given a chance of growing up away from scenes of brutality and crime, the better. He considered that this clause was one of the most important in the whole of the Bill, and when put into operation he believed it would do as much good as any other provision in the measure.
§ COLONEL LOCKWOOD (Essex, Epping)hoped his hon. friends would not divide the House against this clause. He did not think the mover and seconder of the Amendment could possibly have considered the advantages given under the Bill. Subsections (d), (e) and (g) contained most valuable provisions which would not inflict hardship of any sort when put into practice. His hon. and gallant friend had asked: Had any of them ever experienced the difficulty of getting a child out of an industrial school? He thought it was a good thing that it was difficult, for when a child was placed in an industrial school he was sure to undergo tuition and enjoy associations which would be to his advantage. He hoped his hon. friend would not press his Amendment. They might call this grandmotherly legislation, but the fact remained that they had committed themselves to the principle of the Bill and undertaken a great deal of responsibility, whether rightly or not. Having done that, he thought they were bound to carry out the logical sequence of the Bill. He considered that these subsections were amongst the most valuable in the Bill.
§ MR. RAWLINSONobjected to the extreme severity of the language used by the Under-Secretary in opposing the Amendment. This was a very important clause. The power which was to be given by the clause to interfere between parent and child was one which was growing year by year, and such speeches as they had just heard from his hon. 784 friends ought to make the House doubly careful before committing themselves to legislation of this kind. They should be careful about taking away children from their parents. In this case the children were not vicious at all. Under this clause, for instance, a child might be taken away from a mother who was undergoing a short term of imprisonment. The child, being consequently destitute, could be sent to an industrial school instead of a workhouse, and that would mean taking the child entirely away from the mother. [An HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear.] His hon. friend seemed to take the view that that was desirable. He admitted that it was a thing which had frequently been done, and perhaps that might be regarded as a justification for the bringing in of this clause. Before extending the power, the House ought to pause. It was a power which ought never to be used except in extreme instances. If a child of five or six years of age, being destitute because the mother was in prison for three weeks, was sent to an industrial school, the mother's punishment would be greatly added to. In cases where the mother was not absolutely vicious the child should not pass away from the control of the mother. He did not wish to oppose the clause, but he thought his hon. friend was thoroughly justified in calling attention to the matter.
§ MR. THEODORE TAYLOR (Lancashire, Radcliffe)said some hon. Members opposite were a little bit too afraid of interfering between parents and children. He did not think there was a Member of the House who did not feel that it was a serious thing indeed to take away a child from the mother, but there were cases in which it was a still more serious thing to leave the child with the parent. The hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University had addressed himself to subsection (c), which had been in operation for a number of years, and if there had been a case against the exercise of this power, surely the opponents of the clause would have been able to bring up some instances. They had not done so. The powers given by subsections (a), (b), (c) and (f) had been in existence for some time, and no real case of hardship or evil had arisen. He was sure 785 hon. Gentlemen opposite were animated by good motives and desired to prevent undesirable interference between parents and children. That view was fully discussed by the Committee, and he appealed to hon. Members not to press the Amendment.
§ MR. RUPERT GUINNESS (Shoreditch, Haggerston)said he should like to dissociate himself from those hon. friends on that side of the House who seemed to be in opposition to this clause. He had been on the education committee of the County Council since that body undertook the work, and at this moment he was the representative of that body on the management committee of an industrial school. In his opinion, the subsection they were now discussing ought to be retained in the clause. He believed that would greatly benefit the work of the industrial schools. He strongly disagreed with the hon. and learned Member for Cambridge University in considering that any of these clauses would weaken parental control. Such parental control as would be exercised by parents in these cases must be distinctly bad. His hon. friends had apparently not given proper consideration to these subsections. He considered they were a most important part of the Bill.
§ MR. TOULMIN (Bury, Lancashire)congratulated the hon. Member for Haggerston on the first appearance which he had made in debate in the House, and on the sentiments which he had expressed. He hoped that those sentiments would have large support in the division lobby. As chairman of a children's committee of a large union he had considerable experience in regard to such cases as would come within the scope of this clause. He would be sorry indeed if the provisions were weakened in the slightest. Not merely did they tend to the saving particularly of girls from a fate which none would wish to come upon them, but there were cases in which they were actually intended to save the parents. He had in his mind cases where children had been taken away from parents and restored to them after reformation which was brought about largely through the children having been taken away. He 786 hoped the House would adhere entirely to the clause.
§ MR. STAVELEY-HILLasked the Under-Secretary to consider whether, in the interest of justice and to secure the assimilation of decisions by the Petty Sessional Courts, he could introduce a definition of the words "drunken habits" which occurred in subsection (d). It was a very wide expression which should be defined.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid it would be a pity to hamper the action of the Courts by any cut-and-dried definition. The words referred to were qualified by the words which followed, namely, "is unfit to have the care of the child."
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid it was admitted on all sides that this was a most important innovation in legislation, and he made no apology for moving the Amendment in order to give the House an opportunity of getting a clear explanation as to where the provisions of old Acts were being continued and where new powers were being conferred. In view of the appeal made to him by his hon. friends, he asked leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 29, line 30, to leave out the words 'or public,' and to insert the words 'premises or.'
In page 29, lines 35 and 36, to leave out the words 'is unfit to have the care of the child,' and to insert the words 'does not exercise proper guardianship.'
In page 31, line 8, after the word 'child, to insert the words 'and that the parent of guardian understands the results which will follow.'
In page 31, line 20, to leave out the words 'represent to,' and to insert the word 'satisfy.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel).
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ MR. RAWLINSON moved to leave out subsection (8). It seemed to him that the words after "unless" unduly fettered the discretion of the police. Why should the police authority not be entitled to take proceedings under the first subsection of this clause if somebody else was taking 787 Proceedings? There might be some good reason for the subsection which he did not at the present moment apprehend, and which the hon. Gentleman might be able to explain.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk)seconded.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 32, line 6, to leave out subsection (8).—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words of subsection (8), after line 9, down to line 15, stand part of the subsection."
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that he was happy to give the explanation which the hon. and learned Gentleman had asked for as to why this subsection which was new, was necessary. It had been found in not a few cases that the Industrial Schools Acts were really a dead letter, or almost a dead letter, and for this reason—that the words "any person may bring proceedings" made it everybody's business, and what was everybody's business became nobody's business in particular, and as no obligation rested on the police to take any actions in regard to the children it was found that in some cases owing to the indifference of the local authority no action was taken by anyone. They were all perfectly aware that in one town the Industrial Schools Acts were worked properly and efficiently in all cases where it was necessary to take action, while in a neighbouring town practically nothing was done under them at all. The question arose on whom the duty to put the Acts into operation should lie. Its would naturally devolve on the police in almost all cases under subsections (1) and (2), but cases under subsection (6), Education Act cases, came within the cognisance of the educational authorities, and it was necessary to safeguard the rights and powers of the education authority. There were also cases of action being taken by other persons not official—persons like the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, and the Salvation Army, and therefore it was felt after full consideration that the best course would be to impose the duty on the police authority, but still to leave 788 the local education authority their existing powers and also still to leave other persons their existing powers of action; and in order to do so it was necessary to adopt the form of words in the subsection.
§ MR. RAWLINSONasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUEL moved the next Amendment on behalf of Mr. Leif Jones, who was not present, "to leave out the words 'not required,' and to insert the word 'undesirable.'" This was an agreed Amendment to meet a point that arose during discussion in Grand Committee.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 22, line 16, to leave out the words 'not required,' and to insert the word 'undesirable.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD EDMUND TALBOT (Sussex, Chichester)said he wished to move on behalf of the hon. Member for Berwickshire an Amendment providing that where defective children are committed to special schools, instead of ordinary industrial schools, the action of the Court shall be taken "as a result of a medical examination and report." He was afraid that the number of children who were unable from some defect or other to receive proper training in industrial schools was very much on the increase; and he thought it was very important that the magistrates should have a definite, distinct, and clear medical opinion, as to the state of these children. It was not always the case that the children were palpably incapable of receiving the benefits of industrial training, and those of a milder kind should be decided upon by a doctor. As the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill knew, there was a good deal of anxiety and feeling with regard to medical inspection amongst the members of many societies and associations connected with the interests and welfare of children generally; and he hoped that the hon. Member would see his way to accept the Amendment.
§ MR. STAVELEY-HILLseconded.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 33, line 5, after the word 'satisfied,' to insert the words 'as a result of a medical examination and report."—(Lord Edmund Talbot.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that he quite approved the object of the noble Lord, but there were two objections to the Amendment he had just moved. This clause dealt with children who had committed some offence, and were properly sent to industrial or reformatory schools, but who suffered from some mental or physical defect. The noble Lord proposed that they should not be sent to an industrial or reformatory school unless after medical examination and report. But the physical defect might be obvious. Suppose a child was brought before a Court when it had only one leg or was absolutely blind. Why should they go to the expense of having a medical examination? The Government had just received a most voluminous and elaborate Report from the Royal Commission on the Feeble-Minded, and that Report proposed a large scheme of medical examination and certification for feebleminded persons of all ages and classes. It proposed that machinery should be set up in each local governing area with the necessary medical officers attached to it who should have a general supervision over all classes of mentally defective persons. He thought it would be a pity in a clause of this kind to put in a somewhat unsatisfactory form of words without providing any system to which the Courts might have recourse in order to secure the examination which was desired. It was better to wait, he thought, until the matter could be dealt with as a whole on the Report of the Feeble-Minded Commission rather than to put in a somewhat unsatisfactory form of words now which only covered a minute portion of the ground.
§ Amendment negatived.
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 33, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'school specified in the detention
790
order shall, where practicable be,' and to insert the words 'detention order (if any) shall be for detention in.'
In page 35, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'willing to receive him and.'
In page 39, line 7, after the first word 'school,' to insert the words 'in which the offence was committed.'
In page 39, lines 12 and 13, to leave out the words 'wilfully neglects or refuses to conform to,' and to insert the words 'is guilty of a serious and wilful breach of.'
In page 39, line 13, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'or of inciting other inmates of the school to such a breach.'
In page 40, line 12, after the word 'school,' to insert the words 'from which he escaped.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid that various Amendments followed on the Paper which imposed additional charges on the Consolidated Fund or on the rates, and could not be considered on Report.
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 41, line 24, to leave out the words 'or that he habitually wandered from place to place.'
In page 41, line 39, at end, to insert the words '(c) Being a child who had no settled place of abode and who habitually wandered from place to place through the districts of various local education authorities; or.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ SIR F. BANBURY moved, after the word 'borough,' in Clause 74, to insert the words 'and in the case of the City of London the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that city in common council assembled.'" He had had some conversation with the Under-Secretary earlier in the day on this Amendment, but he did not know whether the hon. Gentleman was prepared to accept it.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELIn substance.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 42, line 36, after the word 'borough,' to insert the words 'and in the case of the City of London, the mayor, aldermen, and commons of that city, in common council assembled.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
791§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that this Amendment raised a question as to the position of the City within the County of London, as the authority with regard to reformatory schools. The matter was somewhat complicated, and he would therefore venture to explain it. The City now had power to provide reformatory school accommodation for children and paid for those children. But it did not pay with regard to children sent from other parts of London, and did not share the burden of those other parts in this respect. That was not because it had any privileges qua City. It was not one of the old rights of the Corporation, this exemption from the general charge, but all boroughs that had a population of over 10,000, and separate Courts of Quarter Sessions, had powers in regard to reformatory schools, and the City had these powers in consequence of that provision of the law. But under the Government Bill, which simplified the matter very greatly, they gave powers only to the councils of the county or county boroughs, and in consequence all these other boroughs (and the City with them) lost their powers. He had had an opportunity of receiving a deputation from the City that morning and of discussing the matter very fully with them. The City authorities said they did not object to share the burden of the whole of London in this respect, and they did not say that it was unreasonable that a charge such as that for reformatory school children should cover the whole of London, and that the City which was the richest part of London should not be exempted from paying its share. Of course, there were very few children sent from the City of London itself; at present there were only eleven, but if the City was brought into London they would have to bear a considerable portion of the cost which now rested upon the remainder of London alone. But while the City did not object to paving that, they said they took a very great interest in their reformatory school children, and they had a special committee which looked after them, visited them, and brought them under supervision. They said that they would be sorry to lose this power of supervision, and he had great sympathy 792 for their view and would be sorry to discourage any form of interest taken by a local authority in the children in its area. Therefore, he thought the view of the City ought to be met by on the one hand leaving the charge of the reformatory school children to be a county charge and not a special charge, and on the other hand making the City a special authority for its own children. It might be necessary to have some adjustment between the two authorities. He had been endeavouring to draft an Amendment that day in order to be able to move it so as to meet the point then, but difficulties had arisen and he found it was impossible. He would, however, give an undertaking to the hon. Baronet that in another place an Amendment would be moved by the Government which would meet his point and would constitute the City as a separate authority for reformatory schools, while at the same time it would leave the rate to be a county charge and not a charge on the special rate in London.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid that under these circumstances he would not press-his Amendment. He understood the hon. Gentleman to say that there were only eleven such children from the City in reformatory schools. His information was that there were 200 children from the City in eleven different schools. He thought that was where the mistake occurred.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he thought the hon. Baronet must be including industrial school children, but this only related to reformatory schools. He was informed by the City Remembrancer.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid his information came from the same Gentleman. He would withdraw his Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid the next Amendment, in the name of the hon. Member for Montgomery Boroughs, would mean an additional charge upon the rates, and could not be dealt with on the Report stage.
§ *MR. REES (Montgomery Boroughs)said that the Amendment was intended to have exactly the opposite effect, the fact being that it was found that children could be maintained on £16 a year in an institution in Canada as Against £32 a year in a similar institution in this country. He regretted very much if it came under the rule, and he only ventured to make this explanation because the Amendment was intended to have precisely the opposite effect to that on account of which it was to be ruled out of order. It was intended at one and the same time to reduce the rates and provide fresh air and greater opportunities for these children.
§ *MR. SPEAKERsaid the effect of legislation was very often quite different from that which was anticipated.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUEL moved an Amendment to Clause 74, to leave out the words "or vice versa," and to insert the words "or having beer originally ordered to be sent to an industrial school he is subsequently transferred to or ordered by a Court to be sent to a reformatory school."
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 43, line 20, to leave out the words "or vice versa,' and insert the words 'or having been originally ordered to be sent to an industrial school he is subsequently transferred to or ordered by a Court to be sent to a reformatory school."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel).
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ SIR F. BANBURY moved to amend Clause 79 by leaving out "the Secretary of State may authorise," and inserting "may be declared by Order in Council to represent approximately the average cost of such training and meals." He had not had the time to refer to Section 16 of the Act of 1876, and it might be that the Under-Secretary would inform him if this particular section was only a reproduction of that Act. He did not know whether that was so.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELNot quite in this respect.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he was going on to observe that he did not think, because an Act of Parliament had been passed 794 thirty or forty years ago, it followed that it was a good one, and that if they had an opportunity of amending it, if in their opinion it was wrong or had been proved to be wrong, they should not alter it. This Clause 79 said that the parents or guardians of any child might come to the managers of a certified day industrial school and ask them to take care of their child and give it industrial training and meals; and the clause authorised the managers to do that, provided such, a sum as the Secretary of State might authorise was paid by the parent towards the expense of training and meals. He thought that was giving too great a power to the Secretary of State. Under this particular clause the parents of a child went to the managers of a school and asked them to undertake the care of their children.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid they went to the local education authority.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid it was the same thing. It said upon "the request of a local education authority and of the parent or guardian"—the two were bracketed together—the managers of a certified day school might, upon the undertaking of the parent to pay towards the industrial training and meals such sum as the Secretary of State should authorise, receive the child into the school under an attendance order or without an order of the Court. Therefore it did not at all follow that the parent was necessitous, and it was purely a question of chance. No sentimental Member of the House under those circumstances could get up and talk about the necessity of providing for those who could not provide for themselves. The parent could go to the managers and say: "Receive this child," and he dared say that was a good thing and he did not want to stop it. But his Amendment, if it were carried, provided that the cost should be the average cost of such training and meals, settled by an Order in Council. The result of that would be to relieve the ratepayers or taxpayers, upon whichever body the burden fell at present, and the burden would fall upon the parent of the child, and there being no question of necessitous people surely I he ought to bear the cost. He did not 795 seek that the parent should pay anything beyond the actual cost of training and food, but he thought that was the least he could do. The parent would receive the benefit of a large institution and teachers and of the training which was put at his disposal by the State, but he would be asked to pay the exact sum which the cost of that represented to the taxpayers or ratepayers. If his Amendment were not carried the Secretary of State might authorise a sum which might either represent more than the cost or less; but he only wanted to guard against loss to those who paid and who were sufficiently burdened at present. If his Amendment were carried, regularity would ensue, and everyone would know if he sent a child to these industrial schools what he would have to pay, and it would be the same in every industrial school in the kingdom; whereas if it were left to the Secretary of State for the time being, with a change of Government they might have a different regulation made, or there might be different regulations for different industrial schools. He thought he had made his point clear, and he begged to move.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGseconded.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 48, line 39, to leave out the words 'a Secretary of State may authorise,' and to insert the words 'may be declared by Order: in Council to represent approximately the average cost of such training and meals.'"—(Sir F. Banbury.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Baronet had asked him to state the provisions of the present law. It said that under these circumstances the sum to be paid by the parent should be such sum, not less than 1s. a week, as the Secretary of State might from time to time fix. It was now left to the Secretary of State, not to Order in Council, which was a somewhat cumbrous machinery for such a small matter. This question was fully discussed in Committee, and the Committee, animated by the knowledge that 796 this 1s. was not enforced very often and that in necessitous cases it was ignored, by a large majority decided that it should be left out and that the clause should appear as it did now. It was true that under this clause the parent who was by no means necessitous might, with the connivance of the education authority, get free meals for his children, but if these words were reversed the parent who was necessitous could never get his child into a day industrial school. This was the case of the truant child who was refractory and who absolutely refused to go to school. It was no use punishing the parent, because he did his best to get the child to school, but the child absolutely refused to go. The only thing to do was to get an order to send the child to a day industrial school, and he had to have his meals there because he was kept there all day. He went home at night, but it was like an ordinary industrial school—semi-penal. He agreed that the parents ought to pay if they could do so, as he did not think they ought to use the day industrial school system as an indirect method of outdoor relief. It was not intended for that purpose and ought not to be used for it, but where they had a parent who was necessitous who might not have 1s. a week to pay under any circumstances, some provision must be made and it was intended that the Secretary of State should make an order allowing exemption in proper cases, while providing that generally the cost of training and meals should be paid by the parent.
§ LORD R. CECILhoped his hon. friend would not press this Amendment. These schools were amongst the most valuable in the country. They had settled the religious question now by a close adherence to the principle of the rights of parents, and therefore he would be reluctant to see any Amendment introduced in this Bill which would damage these schools. They ought to be far more numerous than at present. He believed they did a very great and valuable work from the religious and industrial point of view. Though there were penal powers to compel the children to attend he understood they were never put into force because they were unnecessary. 797 There was one point which the hon. Gentleman the Under-Secretary, in answering his hon. friend, did not notice, which was that instead of paying for industrial training, elementary education, and meals, the elementary education was now dropped out. That was perfectly right. He therefore hoped his hon. friend would not do anything now to impair the admirable work these schools were; doing.
§ MR. COCHRANE (Ayrshire, N.)entirely agreed with what had fallen from the Under-Secretary for the Home Department. The point raised by the junior Member for the City of London would certainly stereotype the charge that might be made for industrial training and meals. He understood that his hon. friend rightly considered that a stereotyped charge would make it impossible for necessitous children to be sent to these schools. In reading the clause of the Industrial Schools Act with this Bill he found a minimum charge of 1s. had to be made to meet necessitous cases, but he did not see that different treatment was to be meted out to others. It might be that the Secretary of State might authorise such a payment that it should not be a fixed sum. In all cases where the parent who could afford to pay took advantage of the truant schools he should pay the full amount, but where the parent was unable to pay for any of the meals he should be let off with a less sum. He wished to know if it was clear that that was what the hon. Gentleman intended. It was a point that should be cleared up, because hon. Members on both sides of the House would, he believed, like to have differential treatment with regard to the necessitous and the non-necessitous child.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELthought the words of the section, as they stood, covered the point of the hon. Member. The Secretary of State need not authorise one sum for all cases, but allow differentiation in such a manner as to meet the varying conditions of the cases. He would, however, consider the words before the Bill reached another place, and if he found that they were ambiguous he would add words to make it clear.
§ SIR F. BANBURY, having regard to the fact that it was the intention of 798 the hon. Gentleman to make some difference between the necessitous and the non-necessitous children, although he did not think it was clear in the Bill, expressed himself satisfied with the undertaking of the hon. Gentleman, and begged leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. HERBERT SAMUEL, in moving the omission of Clause 90, said his reason was that the point was covered by Clause 93, and this clause was no longer necessary.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 52, to leave out Clause 90."—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 55, line 31, at end, to add the words 'and the certificate shall be produced to the Court before which the person is brought.
In page 56, lines 7 and 8, to leave out the words 'ought not to be so committed,' and to insert the words 'is not a fit person to be so detained.'
In page 56, line 11, after the word 'custody,' to insert the words 'or to be of so depraved a character that he is not a fit person to be so detained.'
In page 58, line 35, after the word 'be,' to insert the words 'liable to be.'
In page 59, line 6, after the word 'be,' to insert the words 'liable to be.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEY (Yorkshire, N.R., Thirsk) moved an Amendment to Clause 108 for the purpose of obtaining from the Under-Secretary an explanation as to what was the exact meaning of the clause. So far as he could gather, the subsections of the clause did not mean anything particularly, except that they proposed to put before the magistrates the alternatives they would have. The effect of leaving out the words "or any other" would be to mike the alternatives operative, and give the magistrates a wider descretion than they now possessed. The particular point to which he wished to draw attention was that, whereas the magistrate had power to whip where the offence was 799 indictable, they had no power to whip where it was not. That seemed to have been taken away from them by an oversight. An Industrial Schools Bill passed the House of Lords in 1889, but for some reason or other never came into this House. That Bill gave the magistrates ample powers for dealing with the children brought before them, but it did not include this power. After its introduction in the House of Lords, however, a petition very extensively signed was got up for presentation to the House of Lords and to this House should the Bill reach this House. That petition was presented to the House of Lords by the then Archbishop of York, and was signed by five Courts of Quarter Sessions and no less than fifty chairmen of Petty Sessions throughout the country, and was in favour of whipping for non-indictable offences. So great was the weight behind that petition that the House of Lords in the following year brought in a Juvenile Offenders Bill which passed through the House, and which included this very alternative. If his Amendment were accepted it would make these alternatives really operative. His object was to enable magistrates to order the whipping of boys for non-indictable offences. The law as it now stood was somewhat peculiar. When a boy took apples from the ground and ran away with them he could be ordered a whipping by the magistrates; but the boy who climbed the tree, really the more serious offence, could not be ordered a whipping by the magistrates. He begged to move.
§ MR. RAWLINSONseconded.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 59, line 36, to leave out the words 'or any other.'
§ Question proposed, "That the words 'or any other' stand part of the Bill."
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the noble Lord had correctly stated the purport of the clause, which did not confer any powers on anybody at all; it was merely a summary of possible ways in which children might be dealt with by the Court before which they were brought. The clause indicated various sorts of punishment, but it conferred no new power in addition to those which a 800 Court of Summary Jurisdiction now possessed. But the Court would have the advantage of seeing, in a single page of an Act of Parliament, the various courses which it was possible for them to pursue with regard to a particular child. The noble Lord's Amendment would not in the least effect the purpose he had in view. This Bill did not touch the question of corporal punishment at all. When he brought it in, there were two subjects which he was determined as far as possible to avoid. One was alcohol and the other flogging. He felt that to insert either in the Bill would give rise to considerable controversy. Therefore, save as to one minute point, not worth mentioning, he did not alter anything in the present law with regard to corporal punishment. Some hon. Members had requested him to abolish the existing, power of the Courts to inflict corporal punishment in the case of children; others urged that those powers should be extended. In a matter of such great controversy, he thought it far better to leave the law as it was, and if the noble Lord had any desire to amend it he might introduce a private Bill. The Amendment would not attain the ends its mover had in view, while on the other hand it would spoil the clause, which was a table showing the various courses which might be taken under this Act in dealing with a child.
§ SIR F. BANBURYpointed out that (g), on page 60 said "by ordering the offender to be whipped." He understood the Under-Secretary to say that the Bill had nothing to do with whipping.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELNo further powers.
§ SIR F. BANBURYThe result of provision (g) would be to order a whipping. The hon. Gentleman stated that he had avoided the questions of alcohol and flogging, but he presumed that by subsection (g) whipping could be ordered, and that if his noble friend's Amendment were adopted it would defeat his object, namely, to enable the magistrates to order a boy to be whipped. Therefore, he asked his noble friend not to press his Amendment. The hon. Gentleman would perhaps correct him if he was wrong, but it would appear that by the law as it stood 801 a boy could he whipped if a magistrate so ordered.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEYsaid he must confess that he was rather influenced by the observations of his hon. friend the Member for the City of London. He had not been clear, nor did he think many hon. Members had been clear, as to what was the effect of the clause as a whole, but, in the circumstances, he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment. But he would ask the Under-Secretary whether, putting aside all questions of flogging, he did not really think it a reasonable provision. It was not an argument as to whether whipping, as a whole, should be abolished, but whether in certain cases the magistrates should not have further discretion. There was a petition which had been signed by fifty-four chairmen of petty sessions—
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELThe noble Lord refers to the petition of 1861.
§ VISCOVNT HELMSLEYNo, 1890.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELA Bill was introduced in 1900 for that very purpose, but it was so strongly opposed in both Houses that it had to be dropped.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 61, line 1, after the word 'custody' to insert the words 'and care.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 61, line 33, at end, to add the words, 'Where it is intended to bring before a petty sessional Court a person apparently under the age of fourteen as coming within one of the descriptions mentioned in subsection 1 of Section 59 of this Act, and it is necessary that accommodation should be temporarily provided for him, a place of detention may be used for his accommodation until he can be brought before such a Court.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid he would like the hon. Gentleman to give them some explanation of this particular Amendment.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid places of detention were provided under the Bill for children who had to be kept in custody when not bailed, or when not released on bail, instead of being kept in the police stations. Similarly, children remanded by the Courts were; to be kept in these places instead of being remanded to a prison. But there was a case which was overlooked that might arise under Section 59 (1) referring to children sent to industrial schools. A child might be found wandering, destitute and helpless, and be a proper subject to be brought before the Court and sent to an industrial school. What was to be done with him during the day or two days which might elapse before he could be brought before the Court? At present he would be kept in the police station. They wanted to avoid that. A place of detention was already provided for the other classes of children, and this should be used in the case he suggested. Therefore, he proposed to insert this Amendment here.
§ MR. RAWLINSON moved to leave out subsection (2) of Clause 112. The subsection, he said, was for the establishment of juvenile Courts, a new experiment; and it was provided by the subsection that, when a child was charged in the juvenile Court, only those concerned in the case were to be present and the public were to be excluded. He presumed that it was desired to avoid publicity. But if that were so, the remaining part of the subsection seemed to be extraordinary, because it said that bona-fide representatives of newspapers or news agencies should not be excluded. By this provision they took away a power of that kind which might exist in a particular Court, and while none of the public were to be admitted the Press were to be present—a course which would defeat the object of avoiding publicity. He should like an explanation from the Under-Secretary as to the object he had in view, and why he drew a distinction between the public, who were to be excluded, and the Press, whose representative might send reports to the local papers, doing much more harm to the child than would arise from the presence of people who were attracted to Courts of petty sessions by curiosity.
803§ MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood), in seconding the Amendment, said the course proposed by the Bill was exactly calculated to defeat the object of the Government. No doubt the object was to prevent, in the interests of the child, a crowd of people from going to see what might be very painful and disagreeable, but for his part he would greatly prefer the exclusion of the representatives of newspapers and news agencies. He really did not understand the principle on which the people were excluded and the representatives of the Press admitted, because the effect would be to spread publicity over a wider surface than could possibly arise from the presence of a few people in the back of the Court.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 63, line 21, to leave out subsection (2)."—[Mr. Rawlinson).
§ Question proposed, "That the words down to 'the' in line 24, stand part of the Bill.'"
§ SIR WILLIAM BULL (Hammersmith)said it was one of the great principles of English justice that it should be free and open, and that the public as a rule should be admitted. He would suggest that it should be an entirely discretionary power.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid this was a clause which extended to England the principle of juvenile Courts, which was rapidly spreading all over the world. Originating in America and Australia, it was now being adopted in Germany and other countries, and had already voluntarily been adopted in Birmingham and some other towns in England and always with very great advantage to the administration of justice in the case of juveniles. It was the very essence of the idea of juvenile Courts that they should have as much privacy as possible. A juvenile Court was a place in which magistrates, as a rule specially chosen for their qualifications in this regard, gave their decisions in cases in which children alone were charged with offences. They wanted to get away from the whole character and surroundings of the ordinary police Court, from the criminal atmosphere and the somewhat unsavoury 804 public that attached to and frequented the ordinary Court of Summary Jurisdiction. They wanted to get away from the procedure in which the poor terrified child was placed high up in a dock, surrounded by numbers of police and with a crowd of persons in the background, too frightened to tell the truth or to understand what was being said, and completely uninfluenced by the proceedings. What was desired was that in a sort of parental way the magistrate should come into close personal relations with the child and speak to him in a more human fashion than was possible in the ordinary surroundings of a police Court. That could only be done if the general public were not allowed to throng these Courts. The clause provided that the parties, the solicitors, counsel, and other persons directly concerned in the case, should have an absolute right of attending, and other persons should have a right of attending if the Court so gave leave in a particular case, but the general public should be excluded for the reasons he had given. From the point of view he had just been mentioning, of the general character of the juvenile Court, it did not matter if one or two reporters were there, while from the point of view of the administration of justice it was essential that the Press should have a right in all cases to be present. The newspaper reporters were the eyes of the nation, and if they were not there they could never be sure that in particular cases possibly some injustice might not be done. Therefore he was unwilling to permit the exclusion of the public to extend so far as to exclude also the; representatives of the Press, and for these reasons these words were inserted in the Bill. The hon. Member for Norwood assumed that the purpose of the clause was to prevent a child being marked and known as criminal. That was not the purpose of the clause. It did not matter very much to the child whether his name was in the newspapers or not. What mattered was whether the friends and relations knew he had been before a Court of Justice. If they knew, it mattered very little indeed whether the outside public knew or not. From that point of view be did not think this limitation on the privacy of the Court was open to objection, and he trusted the House would permit the clause to remain as it stood.
§ MR. COCHRANEsaid that as to the advisability of juvenile courts there was no difference of opinion whatever. The late Home Secretary had taken steps to secure that the trial of children should take place in private. The hon. Member considered that children under certain circumstances would be too frightened if the public were admitted. That might be so in some cases, but, on the other hand, there were many hardened little offenders who appreciated advertisement, and in permitting the Press to attend, they would be gratifying that very taste which the hon. Member would wish not to allow to be cultivated. But it was a fundamental principle that the public should be admitted to the Courts. The hon. Member admitted that, to a certain extent, by admitting the public by special leave. Why could he not extend the same provision as regarded the Press? Why should it not be left to the magistrate to decide whether the Press should be admitted? It was not at all desirable that various incidents in these delicate cases should be made public, and if the public were excluded, the Press would give wider publicity to these delicate details. He supported his hon. friend's Amendment.
§ *MR. HORRIDGE (Manchester, E.)said the clause as it stood seemed to put the House in rather a difficulty, because on the one hand one had a very strong feeling that the right of the public to be present in some form or other ought to be retained, and one also felt that the publicity one wanted to avoid in regard to children was put in perhaps its most objectionable form. The suggestion that it should be left to the magistrates was one which was most undesirable. His view of the matter was that upon the whole the right of the public to have some audience was more important than the question as to whether or not a particular child would suffer by publicity. He quite agreed with the first half of the section, because the terrorising of the child by treating it as if it was in a Court and not in a room was avoided, and the right of the public to know what was going on was preserved. On the whole, he thought the Government were right.
§ CAPTAIN CRAIGsaid he should certainly support the Amendment. It was most necessary to be cautious in new legislation of this kind, that the public should have the opportunity of studying for themselves if they eared to do so, how juvenile Courts worked. He had in his mind cases where injustice might possibly be done accidentally by the public-being excluded. It was very difficult sometimes to find out exactly what case was going on in the Court, and anyone not directly interested in the case was not allowed in. It was just possible that some good-hearted person who was excluded would, if he had been allowed in the room, have decided to take charge of one of the children which would otherwise have been sent to an industrial school, and thus the clause would defeat the end of making the future life of the child as comfortable as possible. He did not think the Court would be overcrowded by the class of persons indicated by the Under-Secretary. The public as a whole were very sympathetic in any case where sympathy was to be extended, and no unnecessary noise or applause was ever allowed. The more difficult it was made to commit children to these homes, the better. The children would be practically unknown to the public which would not take very much interest in reading the cases, and they would sink into oblivion as soon as they were tried. Therefore an increasing inducement might possibly be held out to the magistrates to commit boys straight off to a home. It was an advantage to many of these homes to have boys committed to them, and the more difficult it was made the better. They got a Government grant, and he understood in Ireland there was only one industrial home that ever had to submit its annual report and statements of accounts to any Government auditor. The consequence was that the more boys they got into these homes the larger grant they got, and they turned it into a business transaction The Bill would be an improvement if this were struck out.
§ SIR F. BANBURYsaid the hon. Member for East Manchester had made an admirable speech in favour of this Amendment. He put his arguments very clearly; he was surprised to 807 hear him wind up his speech by saying mat he was going to support the Government. In Clause 118 they had already provided for all the evils which the Under-Secretary anticipated. They had been told that as long as the parents knew what was going on, it did not matter about the public knowing. In that case what harm could be done by accepting this Amendment, because the damage to the reputation of the child would have been done by the publication of possibly garbled or inaccurate reports in the Press. More harm might be done by the Press than by allowing a few people to remain at the back of the Court. For those reasons he should support the Amendment.
§ *MR. REESsaid there seemed to be a consensus of opinion that subsection (2) was sound, and the only doubt was as to whether the Press should be excluded. It was too late in the day to discuss whether the Press should be excluded. The Press had been described as "the eyes of the nation," and if this proviso were omitted he did not think it would conduce to the popularity of the Bill. In Montgomeryshire he was sure the exclusion of the Press would be very much objected to by those who wanted, for good and sufficient reasons to watch the working of the Act. The Press representatives when appealed to were always very willing to exclude anything that it was undesirable to publish, and be did not think the representative of any decent newspaper would wish to publish anything prejudicial to the future life of a child. Besides if the Press nowadays wanted to get hold of anything they would get it, and, therefore, it was much better to give them proper facilities. It might be said of the newspapers, as was said of one-half of their readers—
If she will, she will, you may depend on't.If she won't, she won't, and there's an end on't.
§ MR. RAWLINSONsaid the hon. Member opposite had misunderstood the position, because the Press and the public would still be at liberty to attend the Court. The point was that the public ought to be admitted to this new Court. They had been talking quite casually about taking children away from their mothers, but there was no better lesson to be given to the public than to be present in Court, as he had often been, on 808 occasions when orders had been made. The magistrates ought to be carefully watched by the public, and he submitted that this was a most reasonable proposal.
§ MR. GOULDING (Worcester)said the Under-Secretary had given as a reason for the retention of this subsection that similar transactions had taken place in Germany and the United States with beneficial results. He had also argued that if the public were left out the magistrates would adopt a different tone than they would if the public were admitted. It was also stated that if the Court was practically empty the magistrate would be inclined to adopt a paternal tone. He had a greater opinion of the Bench than to think that they would be influenced in that way, because he was sure they would deal with all cases on their merits. It should not be over-looked that this Bill dealt not only with children but with youths up to the age of sixteen, and instead of leaving the question of publicity to the magistrates, Parliament was laying down that the public should be excluded. He believed in both the Press and the public being present. Many of the children would be wayfarers, with no one to look after them and no relatives as parties to the case. He much preferred the safeguard of open Courts and publicity. If there was anything likely to arise in a case in regard to which publicity was undesirable, the magistrate could be allowed to clear the Court, but in the vast majority of cases there would be no cause for alarm. He hoped his hon. friend would press his Amendment to a division.
§ MR. CARLILE (Hertfordshire, St. Albans)said his hon. friend had covered most of the objections to this Amendment He would like to know why the members of the Bar were to be excluded from these Courts. It was important that barristers, who would no doubt take a special interest in defending cases in which children were concerned, should have free access to such Courts, but under the provisions of this section the members of the Bar, if not immediately concerned or retained in connection with the particular charge being tried, would be excluded from the Court.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELThe Court may give leave.
§ MR. CARLILEsaid the magistrates could clear the Court without this provision.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELThey have no power to do that now.
§ MR. CARLILEsaid he knew that they had cleared the Court again and again. He had not heard that they had exceeded their power in doing so. Why should they pass a special provision which would exclude members of the Bar from the Court? It was in every way desirable that those gentleman should have access to the Court from the educational point of view and that they should have the opportunity of learning the nature of the difficulties which surrounded child life. He sincerely hoped on that ground that the Amendment would be accepted. It was also most desirable that police court missionaries should have access to the Court because they were interested in the reclamation of those who had gone wrong, and also in preventive work in relation to young persons. Why should Parliament at this time of the day hamper and hinder the police court missionaries, who were hand in glove with the bench in preventive and reclamation work? Surely it could not be necessary under this Bill to exclude from the Court missionaries and charitable persons who would be likely to render aid in the case of children.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELIt does not.
§ MR. CARLILEsaid that unless the Court missionaries were in the case they could be excluded from the Court under this objectionable provision. The magistrates ought to have a free hand in the matter. He thought a strong case had been made out against the retention of the section. He hoped the Under Secretary would accept the Amendment. This was not a party question, and he appealed to hon. and right hon. Gentlemen to support the Amendment, which went a long way towards providing for the welfare of the children concerned.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKER (Gravesend)hoped the Amendment would be accepted. He did not think sufficient consideration had been given by the Under-Secretary to the question which had been raised. 810 He admitted that the intention of the Government was good, namely, to exclude from the Court of Summary Jurisdiction any element of sensationalism, to do away with curiosity, and not to minister to the baser minds of a sensation-loving public. But there was something far more important than that. This was a new experiment, and it was absolutely necessary that the public and the Press should have an opportunity of judging what that experiment was doing. What opportunity would they have if the proposal of the Government were adopted? In establishing such a Court as this, which made a demand on the good feeling and commonsense of the community, it was absolutely necessary that the community should be convinced. If the Court were established under the proposed conditions there would immediately be created doubt and anxiety in the minds of the public generally They were at the very beginning of this experiment, and it seemed to him that the Government were taking the worst possible course in excluding from the Court influences which could only be for good. The hon. Gentleman said the magistrates had no power to clear the Court. He would have received the support of hon. Members on that side of the House if he had suggested that that power should be given to the magistrates in this particular case.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that the magistrates had only power to clear the Court in case of disturbance.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERasked whether he was to understand the hon. Gentleman to say that the magistrates had no power to clear the Court except in case of disturbance.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the magistrates had no power to say that the public should not come into Court. In the Children's Court at Birmingham they were only able to exclude the public by persuasion.
§ SIR GILBERT PARKERsaid that was exactly what he wished to arrive at. Did he understand the hon. Gentleman to say that if in a case tried in the juvenile offenders Court it was deemed desirable in the public interest that the unpleasant circumstances connected with 811 it should not be stated in open Court, the magistrate would not have the right to say to the people in the Court, "You must leave." If that was so, the hon. Member had not taken the right course. The Government ought to have trusted to the discretion of the magistrates. They had always conducted the Courts of this country with singular discretion, tact, and good judgment. The Court proposed to be established ought to have over it the supervision of honest and sincere public opinion. He did not believe that one in a thousand would go to Court to hear children tried, except from sympathy with them in their miseries and shame. It was desirable that the public should be able to learn from day to day through the Press of the evils which the Court was intended to deal with effectively. Reference had been made to the children's Courts in the United States. These Courts had proved most successful, but he did not understand that they were on the same basis as the Court proposed by this clause. In this case the magistrates were tied down to impose the strict penalties which the Bill provided for, while in the United States Courts the Judges had almost absolute discretion. The two things were not on all fours, and the hon. Member was not well advised in referring to the
§ United States Courts to justify this particular proposal.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELexpressed the hope that the Amendment would not be pressed. He felt convinced that if the Amendment were accepted and the subsection omitted, the object they had in view would be completely defeated. Many of his hon. friends took the keenest interest in this particular subsection, but they had not spoke in defence of it, merely because they wished to economise the time of the House. He knew that generally on that side of the House his action would be deplored and condemned if he accepted the Amendment. In order to induce hon. Members not to press it, he would not move the next Amendment standing in his name to insert the word "special." He hoped that would remove some, if not the whole, of the objection to the clause. There was an understanding that the discussion on the Report should finish and the Third Reading be taken by 8.15, and also that some Amendments to the Prevention of Crime Bill should be considered. He appealed to hon. Members to allow the division to be now taken.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 235; Noes, 75. (Division List No. 265.)
815| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Brodie, H. C. | Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P. |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Brooke, Stopford | Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles |
| Alden, Percy | Bryce, J. Annan | Dobson, Thomas W. |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn | Duckworth, James |
| Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herbert Henry | Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness |
| Astbury, John Meir | Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Charles | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Byles, William Pollard | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward |
| Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.) | Cameron, Robert | Erskine, David C. |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Carr-Gomm, H. W. | Essex, R. W. |
| Barker, John | Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard Knight | Esslemont, George Birnie |
| Barlow, Sir John E. (Somerset) | Cawley, Sir Frederick | Evans, Sir Samuel T. |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Everett, R. Lacey |
| Barnes, G. N. | Cheetham, John Frederick | Fenwick, Charles |
| Barry, Redmond J. (Tyrone, N.) | Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Findlay, Alexander |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Clough, William | Freeman-Thomas, Freeman |
| Bell, Richard | Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Fullerton, Hugh |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Gilhooly, James |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grinst'd | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt | Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Glen-Coats, Sir T. (Renfrew, W.) |
| Benn, W. (T'w'r Hamlets, S. Geo) | Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Glover, Thomas |
| Bennett, E. N. | Cox, Harold | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Crooks, William | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Crosfield, A. H. | Grant, Corrie |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Crossley, William J. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) |
| Black, Arthur W. | Curran, Peter Francis | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward |
| Boulton, A. C. F. | Dalniel, James Henry | Gulland, John W. |
| Brace, William | Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale |
| Branch, James | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) |
| Hardie, J. Keir (Merthyr Tydvil | Mond, A. | Snowden, P. |
| Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) | Soames, Arthur Wellesley |
| Hart-Davies, T. | Morrell, Philip | Soares, Ernest J. |
| Harwood, George | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas | Stanger, H. Y. |
| Haworth, Arthur A. | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) |
| Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Myer, Horatio | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) |
| Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Nannetti, Joseph P. | Steadman, W. C. |
| Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Napier, T. B. | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) |
| Henry, Charles S. | Nicholls, George | Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal) |
| Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Norman, Sir Henry | Strachey, Sir Edward |
| Higham, John Sharp | Norton, Capt. Cecil William | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) |
| Hobhouse, Charles E. H. | Nussey, Thomas Willans | Summerbell, T. |
| Hodge, John | Nuttall, Harry | Sutherland, J. E. |
| Holland, Sir William Henry | Parker, James (Halifax) | Taylor; Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Holt, Richard Durning | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) |
| Horniman, Emslie John | Pearce, William (Limehouse) | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr |
| Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Pearson, W. H. M. (Suffolk, Eye) | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. |
| Hudson, Walter | Pickersgill, Edward Hare | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton |
| Hyde, Clarendon | Pirie, Duncan V. | Tillett, Louis John |
| Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Pollard, Dr. | Torrance, Sir A. M. |
| Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. | Toulmin, George |
| Jones, Sir D. Brynmor Swansea) | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) | Trevelyan, Charles Philips |
| Jowett, F. W. | Radford, G. H. | Ure, Alexander |
| Kearley, Sir Hudson E. | Raphael, Herbert H. | Verney, F. W. |
| Kekewich, Sir George | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) | Walsh, Stephen |
| King, Alfred John (Knutsford) | Rees, J. D. | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) |
| Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) | Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'n | Wardle, George J. |
| Lambert, George | Ridsdale, E. A. | Waring, Walter |
| Layland-Barratt, Sir Francis | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Wason, Rt. Hn. E. (Clackmannan |
| Lehmann, R. C. | Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich | Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Levy, Sir Maurice | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Lewis, John Herbert | Rogers, F. E. Newman | Weir, James Galloway |
| Lloyd-George, Rt. Hon. David | Rowlands, J. | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Lyell, Charles Henry | Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Lynch, H. B. | Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) | Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Maclean, Donald | Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| M'Crae, Sir George | Scarisbrick, T. T. L. | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) | Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) | Schwann, Sir C. E. (Manchester) | Williams, Llewelyn (Carmarthen |
| Maddison, Frederick | Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Mallet, Charles E. | Sears, J. E. | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Markham, Arthur Basil | Seaverns, J. H. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Marks, G. Croyd on (Launceston) | Shackleton, David James | Wood, T. M'Kinnon |
| Marnham, F. J. | Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) | Sherwell, Arthur James | |
| Massie, J. | Shipman, Dr. John G. | TELLERS TOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Masterman, C. F. G. | Simon, John Allsebrook | |
| Micklem, Nathaniel | Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | |
| Molteno, Percy Alport | Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir. Alex, F. | Craig, Captain James (Down, E.) | Heaton, John Henniker |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Craik, Sir Henry | Helmsley, Viscount |
| Ashley, W. W. | Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | Hill, Sir Clement |
| Balcarres, Lord | Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | Hills, J. W. |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Faber, George Denison (York) | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Fardell, Sir T. George | Joynson-Hicks, William |
| Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester | Fell, Arthur | Keswick, William |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Kimber, Sir Henry |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Fletcher, J. S. | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Forster, Henry William | Lockwood, Rt. Hn. Lt.-Col. A. R. |
| Bull, Sir William James | Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West) | Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (Dublin, S.) |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Gooch, Henry Cubitt (Peckham) | Lonsdale, John Brownlee |
| Cave, George | Gordon, J. | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Goulding, Edward Alfred | M'Arthur, Charles |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Hamilton, Marquess of | Marks, H. H. (Kent) |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Harris, Frederick Leverton | Mildmay, Francis Bingham |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingh'm | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Moore, William |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S.) | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Morrison-Bell, Captain | Ronaldshay, Earl of | Thornton, Percy M. |
| Nield, Herbert | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) | Valentia, Viscount |
| Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) | Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.) | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington | Smith, F. E. (Liverpool, Walton) | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Percy, Earl | Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand) | Younger, George |
| Powell, Sir Francis Sharp | Stanier, Beville | |
| Randles, Sir John Scurrah | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Rawlinson and Mr. Carlile. |
| Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
§ MR. RAWLINSONmoved to leave out in Clause 113, the words "or young person." The clause actually prevented anyone under the age of sixteen from being present in a criminal Court. He thought the Government would see that that was carrying restrictive legislation too far. He could understand that children under twelve or thirteen years of age should be prohibited from being present at the trial of certain cases; but though he was as strongly in favour of protecting the morals of young persons as anyone could be, it was going too far to prohibit young persons from being present in Court during the trial of other persons.
§ LORD R. CECILsaid it surely could not be intended to exclude all young persons from criminal Court proceedings. He had always thought that to take schoolboys to listen to the proceedings in selected criminal trials was the finest instruction which could be given to them; and therefore it would, in his opinion, be a thousand pities to exclude young persons up to the age of sixteen from listening to and witnessing such trials. Of course no one would allow them to be in Court in certain cases, but their exclusion should be left to the discretion of the Judge.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 63, lines 34 and 35, to leave out the words 'or young person.'"—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid that there was a good deal of force in the Amendment. The clause as it stood might operate harshly in preventing young clerks from attending criminal trials. In all the circumstances he would accept the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 64, line 19, at beginning to insert the words 'In addition and without prejudice
816
to any powers which a Court may possess to hear proceedings in camerâ the Court may.'
In page 64, line 21, to leave out the words 'the Court may.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendment, agreed to.
§ *MR. CLAUDE HAY (Shoreditch, Hoxton) moved the omission of Clause 118, which relates to the prohibition against pawns being taken from any person under fourteen years of age. Pawnbrokers were not, he maintained, engaged in a business which could be regarded as either wicked or which was detrimental in any sense to those in terested in it or to their customers. In many respects pawnbrokers were properly described as the bankers of the poor, and it seemed to pass an unmerited censure upon them to make it appear that a child, apparently under fourteen years of age, who went into a pawnshop to pawn something, was going into a place where he or she could only find evil. It was very hard, if the father was in bed, if the mother who had to look after younger children could not send a child under fourteen years of age to the pawnbroker to provide for the immediate needs of the family. It could not be argued that there had been any evidence accumulated to show that the pawnbroker had been an influence for evil in child life. He believed he was correct in saying that in those cities where there were children's Courts pawnbrokers had been publicly thanked by the magistrates for their assistance in the detection of crime. He was well aware that in the Committee attempts were made to make this clause more stringent than it was, but those efforts were defeated. He was also aware of the strong opposition of those engaged in the pawnbroking trade to anything on these lines. He thought the care of the children and their proper rights, and safeguards for them, could be very well met without this clause becoming part of this Bill. Therefore, he begged to move its omission from the Bill.
817
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 65, line 1, to leave out Clause 118."—(Mr. Claude Hay.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid there was no intention, of course, by this clause to place any stigma on the trade of the pawnbroker. It was a respectable trade, sanctioned and controlled by law. At the same time, Parliament had long recognised that it was a trade that provided a means of easily disposing of the proceeds of a theft. For many years past, under the Pawnbrokers Act of 1872, pawnbrokers had been prohibited from having any dealings with children under twelve, though so far as London and Liverpool were concerned the age was sixteen. It was originally proposed in this Bill to make sixteen the universal age, but that had been met with a great deal of opposition in the Committee, and it was finally decided to make the age fourteen, and leave it sixteen in London and in Liverpool. He might further point out that the pawnbroking trade had no objection to this clause. The Pawnbrokers' Association offered no opposition to it. Under those circumstances he hoped the hon. Member would withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ MR. RAWLINSON, in moving the omission of Clause 119, said that this was the last Amendment that he should propose to this Bill, and for that reason, if for no other, he hoped the Under-Secretary for the Home Department would accept it. He ventured to submit that this clause went much further than any clause ought to do in taking children away from their parents under these particular circumstances, namely, that if the parent went from place to place in the pursuit of work and the child failed to get proper education, a constable should have power to arrest the parent and punish him and take the child away altogether. That 818 seemed to him particularly harsh. There was the case of a mother who, in all probability, was very fond of her child and treated her well, but who, from the profession she followed, travelled about the country—it might be with a circus or as a hawker, or led a nomadic life of that kind. Owing to that, she was unable to have that child educated as well as it should be, but at the same time she was on perfectly friendly and affectionate terms with the child, and the child was on perfectly affectionate terms with the parent, by whom it was well treated. It was under those circumstances that that child of perhaps six or seven years of age was taken away altogether from the parents and placed in one of these schools. He submitted that that was harsher treatment than was merited by the parent. Yet, if this Bill passed, the child was to be taken away altogether. It was an extremely harsh piece of legislation. The House, he knew, would have been against him if there had been a question of immorality or improper conduct on the part of the parent, as was shown at an earlier period of the Bill. But in a case such as he had suggested it was a monstrous thing to take a child away from its parent and shut it up in an industrial school for good and all. This clause dealt with a class that might not have too many friends, but who at the same time were sincerely attached to their children, and who tried to bring them up as respectable citizens. Under these circumstances he begged to move the omission of the clause.
§ VISCOUNT HELMSLEYseconded the Amendment. He thought this was a clause which ought not to be allowed to pass, and hoped it would be withdrawn from the Bill. Parliament ought to be very careful in a matter of this kind. The House must remember that this class was an inarticulate class, and that whatever injury they might suffer at the hands of the House, the House would never hear a word of it. It seemed to him to be a very strong order to say that because a person wandered from place to place in pursuance of his trade or avocation, and took his child with him, the law should be allowed to step in and say that the child was to be taken from him. That seemed to him to be 819 one of the most interfering projects of legislation that had ever been proposed. It could not be a question of such tremendous magnitude as to make it a matter of importance. The Under-Secretary might be able to give the House some statistics on the matter, but he did not think the number of children who evaded education in this way was so great as to make the matter a very important one. It must be remembered that they were not dealing with a bad class of people. In fact they were good people, and people who had great ideas of bringing up their children properly. In point of fact, he had noticed that children of this class had very often a greater regard for their parents, and a greater conception of their responsibility to their parents, than children of other classes seemed to have. Nobody could say, as a whole, that, these children were badly brought up or suffered from having a lower standard of education than those children who had a permanent residence in a town. After all, there were other forms of education than that given in the elementary schools of the country, and some of these children obtained a far more valuable education through their mode of life and were taught how to maintain themselves in life in a far better way than the children of the schools. Hon. Members ought to ask themselves whether the advantage to be gained by the clause was sufficient to counterbalance the great injury which it was going to inflict upon the parents of the children themselves. That it would inflict a great injury, nobody would deny. He hoped, therefore, the House would consider the matter very carefully before they passed such a clause as this.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 65, line 7, to leave out Clause 119."—(Mr. Rawlinson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hon. Members who moved and seconded this Amendment had entirely misconceived the purpose of the clause. This was not a clause to enable the children of 820 vagrants to be sent to an industrial school; that was the law now. This clause was on the contrary intended to obviate that and to provide an alternative by which vagrant children could be rescued. The problem of the vagrant child was one of the most difficult problems to be solved. They must be rescued—although it was quite true there were only a few hundred of them. It was well-known that vagrancy was a most prolific source of crime. It was perfectly certain that vagrancy, so far as children was concerned, was in many cases an apprenticeship to crime and there was nothing which those interested in questions of child welfare desired more than that this problem should be solved. He agreed that it was harsh to step in and say to a person: "Because you are a vagrant your child shall be taken away from you," but that was the law under the Industrial Schools Act, which said that children found wandering and not under proper care and guardianship should be brought into the industrial schools. Proper guardianship had been interpreted to mean that a person of the tramp class, without any permanent abode, might not be a proper guardian for his child. Indeed circulars had been issued by the Home Office to that effect in order to clear up the doubt in the minds of certain magistrates. This section of the Industrial Schools Act had not been put into operation very largely, because a child could not be sent to an industrial school unless the local authority would pay for it. Local authorities very naturally said: "Why should this child, who is me elv passing through our county, be educated and kept by us for four or five years?" One could not blame the local authority, and the question was what other course could be adopted, so far as these children were concerned. It had been a matter of very great anxiety to him in framing this Bill. To say that they must go to an industrial school was to relieve that parent of all responsibility, because it was impossible to collect the contribution from the vagrant parent, for the reason that the child having been got into the school, when it was desired to collect the contribution, it was found the parent had wandered away. The clause no doubt did repeat the present law with regard to industrial schools, but 821 it brought in a new and alternative machinery. It applied the machinery of the Education Acts to these cases. It was necessary to adapt the machinery of the Acts in order to make it applicable to and enforceable in these particular cases, for those Acts contemplated a stationary population, and were useless in the case of parents who wandered with their children through the areas of a series of education authorities. The home worker was not allowed to keep his child from school, and in the same way it was proposed to punish these men if they deprived their children of the benefits of elementary education. So far as taking the child away from the parent was concerned, that was not a new provision, and, as was the case at present, it would be rarely enforced. The Government believed that the result of the clause would be that these children would be left with some relative or put out to board in some way, as showmen now dealt with their children. It was the vagrant alone, who carried his child from place to place, whom this clause would touch. It was the only practical way of dealing with the problem.
§ VISCOUNT MORPETHsaid the Under-Secretary had hardly been so convincing as he generally was with regard to this Amendment. The hon. Gentleman proposed to repeat a law which was already in operation. His (Viscount Morpeth's) point was that when it had been discovered that a particular course was futile in the first place, there was no utility in repeating it. To repeat it did not make it any more efficacious, it simply clogged machinery with one more useless piece of mechanism. The hon. Gentleman called in another bit of machinery, viz., one of the provisions of the Education Act, for the enforcement of education, through the attendance officer. But that was not likely to be more efficacious than the other system. The hon. Gentleman had told the House that a great many people now slipped through the compulsory clauses of the Education Act. Everybody knew, for instance, that there were a large number of people resident in the great cities who were always moving from house to house. No sooner had the attendance officer scheduled them as 822 being in one district than they moved into another, and it was notorious that by this method, large numbers of children escaped the compulsory provisions of the Education Act, although resident in great cities. How was it possible that the children of vagrants moving all over the country could be caught by the attendance officer? There would be no onus on any local authority to do this, because they would not be desirous either to find accommodation, or to provide for children who did not belong to their district. Earlier in the afternoon he had supported the hon. Gentleman because he recognised that where parents were vicious or immoral it was only right that the State should step in and remove the child from the parent who, by his vice and immorality, had rendered it necessary. But these persons whom they were now dealing with had not committed any crime or done anything sufficiently bad to render it necessary that these children should be taken from them. Although there were bad people amongst them, and although a vagrant life must facilitate crime, it was not proved that these people were so bad, that their children should be taken from them. He hoped the Government would give a friendly consideration to this Amendment, as he thought the Government were going too far by this clause, by which it was proposed to remove children from the custody of their parents when it could not be proved that the parents were doing the least harm to their children.
§ MR. MACLEAN (Bath)did not for a moment deny the kindness of the motives which actuated the mover and seconder of the Amendment, but he did not think they quite realised the difficulties of the problem with which the clause sought to deal. It was intended by this clause to get at that section of the vagrant class who habitually ill-treated and neglected their children. To show that this was a real problem, he pointed out that during the past few years the Society for the Protection of Cruelty to Children had had to deal with 35,000 children, who had been severely ill-treated and neglected by those who were in charge of them. In many cases the persons who had the control of these 823 children were not the parents at all, but persons who had hired them and hawked them about all over the country. Not long ago there was a little girl about seven years of age who had only one leg. She was discovered, probably in a common lodging-house, by a vagrant who had only one arm, who thought it would be a very happy combination for extracting the sympathy and financial support of the public. What did he do? He took the little child he had picked up for some consideration with him, and ultimately it was found with its stump exposed, and after, at an examination, to have suffered from horrors which could scarcely be alluded to. That man was sent to prison for twelve years. Another case was that of a woman who was taking her own child about the country. The condition of that child was too vile for comment. Its head was a moving mass of vermin. There were other cases which might be mentioned. He admitted that what was in the mind of the mover of the Amendment was that these cases were already efficiently dealt with, but that was not so. These children must be rescued before they arrived at that condition, and they could be rescued. That was the problem with which they had to deal. It was not dealt with by the present law, and this was the most effectual way of dealing with it. He earnestly hoped, in view of what the Under-Secretary had said, and of the general information before the House, that all would help to save this class of children from the suffering to which they were unnecessarily subjected at the present time.
§ *MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)associated himself with those who moved and seconded this Amendment. He thought it was a most drastic thing to say that a man who was moving about the country in a caravan, it might be with his children, should be arrested because his child could not spell "receive." It had been held by a magistrate in London that if a child misplaced the vowel in the word "receive" he had not an efficient elementary education, and he thought that such a drastic clause as this should never be passed by a British House of Commons. Clause 12 dealt with every possible case of parents who 824 exposed, ill-treated, or neglected their children, or caused unnecessary suffering in the way to which the hon. Member for Bath had referred, and therefore this provision was not necessary for that purpose, as the parents were already liable to two years' imprisonment. The hon. Member dealt with this, as if in cases in which parents were fond of their children and their children were fond of them, it was not a great hardship to snatch a parent from a child or vice versa, because the child had not got this elementary education. The question was what was elementary education, and who was the proper person to give it? Was it some youth or girl acting as a pupil teacher, with a class of fifty children in an overcrowded school-room, or was it for the mother of the child to give it under circumstances in which fresh air could be obtained? There was in these days of sanitary reform a movement to procure for children fresh air, and how could the child be better off or happier than going about the world with its parents? What did a little smattering of the A. B. C. or of arithmetic which a child got in schools, and which was frequently forgotten, matter, unless the knowledge was kept up afterwards? Here they were going to snatch these children from parents who, no doubt, had an honest mode of life, which prevented them from stopping in towns and sending their off-spring to school regularly. Where mother and child had lived together for a number of years, they were often "bound up in each other," and to take an infant away from a parent under those circumstances might be very serious indeed. If the child went to an industrial school the parent did not know what sort of treatment it was given. In some of these schools there was a great deal of stick. There was a good deal of talk about the birth rate declining, but it seemed to him that if they persecuted the parents of children in this way, it was likely to lead to a still further decrease of it. Then there was a good deal of talk about population aggregating in towns, but this would make it impossible for parents except in towns to have their children educated. The scientific experience of the last thirty years taught us not to separate the parents from the 825 children if we could help it, although he knew there was a certain school of thinkers who thought that the parent was the very worst person to have the charge of a child of their own, but he did not think the hon. Gentleman who had so cleverly and courteously conducted this Bill through the House was one of that sort. He hoped he would accept the Amendment.
§ *MR. R. DUNCAN (Lanarkshire, Govan)thought they were dealing with a very difficult problem. This clause recognised no distinction between very different kinds of people, but in fact there was a great difference between, on the one hand, itinerant dealers and those who lived in "houses on wheels" (caravans, etc.), and
§ on the other hand, the abject wanderers they too often encountered in the highways and bye-ways of our land. They did not want to see these vagrants carrying children around the country with them who were wretched and dirty, but it seemed to him that the clause went much too far, especially for a penal clause. While he thought the country was bound to see that every child had some education, he thought this clause went too far, and as it was so stringent he should be compelled to vote for the Amendment.
§ Question put.
§ The House divided:—Ayes, 206; Noes, 69. (Division List No. 266.)
827| AYES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Rhondda) | Davies, Timothy (Fulham) | King, Alfred John (Knutsford) |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Davies, Sir W. Howell (Bristol, S. | Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster) |
| Alden, Percy | Dickinson, W. H. (St. Pancras, N. | Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester) |
| Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch) | Dobson, Thomas W. | Lehmann, R. C. |
| Armstrong, W. C. Heaton | Duckworth, James | Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwich) |
| Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight) | Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness) | Levy, Sir Maurice |
| Barker, John | Dunne, Major E. Martin (Walsall | Lewis, John Herbert |
| Barlow, Percy (Bedford) | Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward | Macdonald, J. R. (Leicester) |
| Beck, A. Cecil | Erskine, David C. | Maclean, Donald |
| Bell, Richard | Essex, R. W. | M'Callum, John M. |
| Bellairs, Carlyon | Esslemont, George Birnie | M'Crae, Sir George |
| Benn, Sir J. Williams (Devonp'rt | Everett, R. Lacey | M'Kenna, Rt. Hon. Reginall |
| Benn, W. (Tow'r Hamlets, S. Geo | Fenwick, Charles | M'Laren, Sir C. B. (Leicester) |
| Bennett, E. N. | Findlay, Alexander | M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.) |
| Berridge, T. H. D. | Fullerton, Hugh | Maddison, Frederick |
| Bethell, Sir J. H. (Essex, Romf'rd | Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herbert John | Mallet, Charles E. |
| Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon) | Glover, Thomas | Markham, Arthur Basil |
| Black, Arthur W. | Goddard, Sir Daniel Ford | Marks, G. Croydon (Lauceston) |
| Brace, William | Gooch, George Peabody (Bath) | Marnham, F. J. |
| Bramsdon, T. A. | Grant, Corrie | Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry) |
| Brodie, H. C. | Greenwood, G. (Peterborough) | Massie, J. |
| Brooke, Stopford | Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward | Masterman, C. F. G. |
| Bryce, J. Annan | Gulland, John W. | Micklem, Nathaniel |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Gurdon, Rt. Hn. Sir W. Brampton | Molteno, Percy Alport |
| Burt, Rt. Hon. Thomas | Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B. | Mond, A. |
| Byles, William Pollard | Harcourt, Rt. Hn. L. (Rossendale | Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall) |
| Cameron, Robert | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | Morrell, Philip |
| Cawley, Sir Frederick | Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worcest'r | Morton, Alpheus Cleophas |
| Channing, Sir Francis Allston | Harmsworth, R. L. (Caithn'ss-sh | Murray, Capt. Hn. A. C. (Kincard) |
| Cheetham, John Frederick | Haworth, Arthur A. | Myer, Horatio. |
| Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R. | Hazel, Dr. A. E. | Nannetti, Joseph P. |
| Clough, William | Henderson, Arthur (Durham) | Napier, T. B. |
| Cobbold, Felix Thornley | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Nicholls, George |
| Collins, Stephen (Lambeth) | Henry, Charles S. | Norman, Sir Henry |
| Corbett, C. H. (Sussex, E. Grins'd | Herbert, Col. Sir Ivor (Mon., S.) | Norton, Capt. Cecil William |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Higham, John Sharp | Nussey, Thomas Willans |
| Cory, Sir Clifford John | Hodge, John | Nuttall, Harry |
| Cotton, Sir H. J. S. | Holden, E. Hopkinson | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Cowan, W. H. | Holland, Sir William Henry | Pearce, Robert (Staffs, Leek) |
| Cox, Harold | Horniman, Emslie John | Pearce, William (Limehouse) |
| Craik, Sir Henry | Horridge, Thomas Gardner | Pickersgill, Edward Hare |
| Crooks, William | Hudson, Walter | Pollard, Dr. |
| Crosfield, A. H. | Hyde, Clarendon | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Crossley, William J. | Isaacs, Rufus Daniel | Price, C. E. (Edinb'gh, Central) |
| Curran, Peter Francis | Johnson, W. (Nuneaton) | Raphael, Herbert H. |
| Dalziel, James Henry | Jowett, F. W. | Rea, Russell (Gloucester) |
| Davies, M. Vaughan-(Cardigan) | Kekewich, Sir George | Rees, J. D. |
| Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mptn | Stanley, Albert (Staffs, N. W.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney |
| Roberta, Charles H. (Lincoln) | Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.) | Waterlow, D. S. |
| Roberts, G. H. (Norwich) | Steadman, W. C. | Watt, Henry A. |
| Robson, Sir William Snowdon | Stewart, Halley (Greenock) | Weir, James Galloway |
| Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) | Strachey, Sir Edward | White, Sir George (Norfolk) |
| Rogers, F. E. Newman | Straus, B. S. (Mile End) | White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire) |
| Rowlands, J. | Summerbell, T. | White, Luke (York, E. R.) |
| Russell, Rt. Hon. T. W. | Sutherland, J. E. | Whitehead, Rowland |
| Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland) | Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester) | Whitley, John Henry (Halifax) |
| Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel) | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) | Whittaker, Rt. Hn. Sir Thomas P. |
| Scott, A. H. (Ashton-under-Lyne | Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.) | Wiles, Thomas |
| Sears, J. E. | Thomas, David Alfred (Merthyr) | Williams, J. (Glamorgan) |
| Seaverns, J. H. | Thompson, J. W. H. (Somerset, E. | Willoughby de Eresby, Lord |
| Shackleton, David James | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton | Wilson, John (Durham, Mid) |
| Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford) | Tillett, Louis John | Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough) |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Torrance, Sir A. M. | Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.) |
| Shipman, Dr. John G. | Toulmin, George | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Simon, John Allsebrook | Ure, Alexander | Wood, T. M. Kinnon |
| Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John | Verney, F. W. | Yoxall, James Henry |
| Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie | Walsh, Stephen | |
| Snowden, P. | Walton, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Joseph Pease and Master of Elibank. |
| Soames, Arthur Wellesley | Ward, John (Stoke-upon-Trent) | |
| Stanger, H. Y. | Wardle, George J. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Acland-Hood, Rt. Hn. Sir Alex F. | Faber, George Denison (York) | Marks, H. H. (Kent) |
| Arkwright, John Stanhope | Fell, Arthur | Mason, James F. (Windsor) |
| Ashley, W. W. | Fetherstonhaugh, Godfrey | Middlemore, John Throgmorton |
| Atherley-Jones, L. | Fletcher, J. S. | Moore, William |
| Balcarres, Lord | Forster, Henry William | Morpeth, Viscount |
| Baldwin, Stanley | Gordon, J. | Nield, Herbert |
| Banbury, Sir Frederick George | Gretton, John | Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend) |
| Baring, Capt. Hn. G. (Winchester | Guinness, W. E. (Bury S. Edm.) | Pease, Herbert Pike (Darlington |
| Beach, Hn. Michael Hugh Hicks | Hamilton, Marquess of | Randles, Sir John Scurrah |
| Beckett, Hon. Gervase | Harrison-Broadley, H. B. | Renwick, George |
| Belloc, Hilaire Joseph Peter R. | Hay, Hon. Claude George | Ridsdale, E. A. |
| Bignold, Sir Arthur | Heaton, John Henniker | Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall) |
| Bowles, G. Stewart | Hill, Sir Clement | Rutherford, John (Lancashire) |
| Bull, Sir William James | Hills, J. W. | Stanier, Beville |
| Campbell, Rt. Hon. J. H. M. | Hope, James Fitzalan (Sheffield) | Staveley-Hill, Henry (Staff'sh.) |
| Carlile, E. Hildred | Joynson-Hicks, William | Stone, Sir Benjamin |
| Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.) | Kennaway, Rt. Hon. Sir John H. | Valentia, Viscount |
| Coates, Major E. F. (Lewisham) | Keswick, William | Wyndham, Rt. Hon. George |
| Cochrane, Hon. Thos. H. A. E. | Kimber, Sir Henry | Younger, George |
| Collings, Rt. Hn. J. (Birmingham | Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich) | |
| Collins, Sir Wm. J. (S. Pancras, W. | Lonsdale, John Brownlee | TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Rawlinson and Viscount Helmsley. |
| Craig, Charles Curtis (Antrim, S. | Lowe, Sir Francis William | |
| Craig, Captain James (Down, E. | Lupton, Arnold | |
| Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers- | MacCaw, William J. MacGeagh | |
| Duncan, Robert (Lanark, Govan | M'Calmont, Colonel James |
Bill read a second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 68, line 10, after the word 'Act,' to insert the words 'except an offence under the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885.'
In page 69, after the word 'child,' to insert the words 'or young person.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he had undertaken when they reached the definition clause to bring up a definition of "intoxicating liquor," and he begged, therefore, to move as an Amendment a form of words adapted from the Licensing 828 Acts, and which he had not been able to put on the Paper.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 71, line 15, at end, to insert the words 'The expression "intoxicating liquor" means any fermented, distilled, or spirituous liquor which cannot according to any law for the time being in force be legally sold without a licence from the Commissioners of Inland Revenue.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."
§ MR. BOWLESasked whether that definition excluded all patent medicines 829 or preparations of that kind? He understood that some of these preparations were fermented and many of them were distilled and could not be sold otherwise than with an excise licence.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid he did not think that these would be included, but he would consider the point and, if necessary, deal with it.
§ THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL FOR IRELAND (Mr. CHERRY,) Liverpool, Exchangesaid the next Amendment was a drafting Amendment. Some objection had been taken in Committee to the drafting of the subsection dealing with summary jurisdiction in regard to children, the Act of Parliament for Ireland being slightly different from the corresponding Act in this country. He moved an Amendment to leave out subsection 7, and to insert another subsection which would make the law similar in both countries.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 77, line 23, to leave out subsection (7), and to insert the words: '42 & 43 Vict., c. 49. 47 & 48 Vict., c. 19. (7) References to the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, shall, save as otherwise provided in this subsection, be construed as references to the Summary Jurisdiction over Children (Ireland) Act, 1884, and the reference to Section 10 of the first-mentioned Act shall be construed as a reference to Section 4 of the last-mentioned Act. 14 & 15 Vict., c. 93. The reference to the provisions of the first-mentioned Act with respect to recognisances to be of good behaviour shall be construed as a reference to the provisions of the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act, 1851, with respect to recognisances to keep the peace. The reference to the First Schedule of the first-mentioned Act shall not apply. For the provisions of this Act giving power to make rules under the first-mentioned Act, the following provision shall be substituted: The Lord Chancellor of Ireland may make rules regulating the procedure of Courts of Summary Jurisdiction under this Act, and other matters incidental thereto, and all rules so made shall be laid as soon as may be before both Houses of Parliament.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendments proposed—
In page 79, line 37, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'for Ireland.'
830
In page 80, line 39, after the Word '1907,' to insert the words 'or any of those Acts.'
In page 81, line 29, after the word 'Board,' to insert the words 'for Ireland.'
In page 81, line 32, to leave out the words 'district board,' and to insert the words 'managers of a district Poor Law school.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ MR. CHERRYnext moved an addition to Clause 132, having reference to the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, and said the Amendment which he submitted was suggested by reason of certain alterations which the House had made in Clause 26. The General Evidence Act, 1898, did not apply to Ireland; therefore, it was necessary to make the law as to evidence exactly the same in Ireland as it was in England.
§
Amendment proposed—
In page 81, line 37, at end, to add the words: '61 & 62 Vict., c. 36. The reference to the Criminal Evidence Act, 1898, shall not apply, but in any proceeding against any person for an offence under Part II. of this Act, or for any of the offences mentioned in the First Schedule to this Act, such person shall be competent but not compellable to give evidence, and the wife or husband of such person may be required to attend to give evidence as an ordinary witness in the case, and shall be competent but not compellable to give evidence.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
§
Amendments proposed—?
In Schedule 3, page 85, line 3, in the third column, before the word 'In,' to insert the words 'Subsection 1 of Section 5 from the words 'and if the young person is a male,' to end of subsection.'"—(Mr. Cherry.)
In Schedule 3, page 85, lines 10 and 17, to leave out the words 'before he is sent to such reformatory school, and to insert the word 'as if he or she had been sworn.'"—(Mr. Herbert Samuel.)
§ Amendments agreed to.
§ *MR. HERBERT SAMUELsaid the hour being near for private Bills, he would only formally move the Third Reading, expressing at the same time his deep gratitude for the favour with which the Bill had been received by the House.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a third time."
§ MR. AKERS-DOUGLAS (Kent, St. Augustine's)said he raised no objection to taking the Third Reading at the present moment. He would not trouble the House with any eulogy, but he should like to refer to the manner in which the hon. Gentleman opposite had conducted this Bill both through Committee upstairs and through the Report stage. By his courtesy and lucidity of explanation the Under-Secretary had been enabled to get this very long measure successfully through both these stages, and they were all very glad indeed to think that it would find its place in the Statute Book. It was never a Party measure. There were three or four clauses which they thought created new offences and to which they had objected, but so far as the Bill as a whole was concerned, it was a measure of which they thoroughly approved.
§ *MR. LUPTON (Lincolnshire, Sleaford)said he should have had pleasure in voting for the Third Reading of the Bill if it had not been for the terrible penalties with which it was disfigured. Clause 12, for instance, dealt with the offence of not giving adequate food or clothing or lodging, or not calling in medical attendance, for which a person might be sentenced to two years imprisonment. It might be right to punish people for some failure in their duties, but it was not right to punish them to this extreme severity. In the 19th century they made great advance in the treatment of these offences, and reduced the scale of punishments to a great extent. He thought that they sometimes forgot that this was the 20th century, and, in drafting Bills, framed penalties of the most awful and terrible and horrible kind for offences committed by their fellow creatures. If this penalty were two months instead of two years it would have been quite sufficient. It would be very useful if every one of the Members of that House were sent to prison for two months—one month of ordinary imprisonment and the other month of hard labour. [An HON. MEMBER: You would go.] He dared say some of them would not come out alive; but he should be 832 willing to sacrifice himself if the others also went to gaol and the very fact of their having had the experience would he hoped lead to Bills not being disfigured with these horrible and terrible sentences, which were a disgrace to the age and to civilisation. He made these remarks in the hope that someone would recollect there were persons who objected to these drastic penalties, and were determined to oppose them. He could not find it in his heart and conscience to support a Bill which had such terrible penalties, and which reminded him of the middle ages and not the 20th century. He thought the Bill was intended to promote feelings of love and gentleness, and that the penalties should have been of a milder character, but for the reasons he had given he most respectfully objected to the Bill.