Lords Sitting of 4 July 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading—Acrobats (173); Boundaries of Counties (Ireland)* (180).
Report of Select Committee—Infant Life Protection (No. 188).
Report—Infant Life Protection* (118–187).
Withdrawn—Trusts of Benefices and Churches (151).

ACROBATS BILL—(No. 173.)
(The Lord Buckhurst.)

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD BUCKHURST, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that during the last few years there had been a growing taste for acrobatic performances. He did not wish to interfere with the indulgence of that taste where it was legitimate, and the object of the Bill was not to prohibit these altogether, but merely to protect young children of tender years from being compelled to take part in acrobatic performances which were dangerous to their

619
lives or injurious to their health. He could narrate numerous instances where children of very tender years had been employed in this kind of performances; but he would not waste their Lordships' time beyond a simple reference to one case, occurring in a provincial town, where a boy of 14 years died from the effects of injuries he sustained in a fall from "the high trapeze." He had been told by witnesses of credit that children of five or six years had performed most dangerous feats to satisfy a morbid taste on the part of the public, and of course also to bring gain to the persons who were the parents or guardians of such unfortunate children. Not only was it cruel to employ children in this way for the sake of gain—it must be demoralizing to them and to the people who witnessed the performances. It was no argument to contend that cases of this description had been fatal only in very few instances, for if cruelty and danger were admitted, the law ought to step in to protect the lives or health of children however few. There was, however, no law that afforded them this protection. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Morley) told them on a previous evening that wherever interference seemed necessary the Home Secretary took the precaution of requesting that dangerous performances should be stopped; but the fact that such performances, attended with serious accidents, did take place showed that notices from the Home Secretary might arrive too late. What he desired was not so much a measure to inflict penalties where accidents occurred, but rather a measure to prevent them from occurring at all. The Bill, the second reading of which he now moved, was confined to prohibiting the employment of young persons, male or female, under the age of 16 years in any dangerous gymnastic performance: the penalty on the parent or other person employing such young person for gain was a maximum of £5; and a like penalty was imposed on any person letting any place for such performance. There were also provisions giving magistrates and the police summary powers of interference. If their Lordships consented to the second reading, he would be willing that they should make any Amendments in Committee which might render the Bill more workable, without affecting its principle.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Buckhurst.)
THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, that when the noble Lord drew attention to this subject on a former occasion, he ventured to suggest to him that dealing with it would be rather an instance of over-legislation. Since then the noble Lord had eliminated women from the Bill, and now confined it to children of both sexes under 16. There was a legal maxim, de minimis non curat lex, and without knowing exactly the number of the objects of the noble Lord's care, he believed they were so few as to be scarcely subjects for a special Act of Parliament. The noble Lord condemned those acrobatic exhibitions as degrading and demoralizing. He (the Earl of Morley) did not by any means wish to defend the taste of those who took a pleasure in witnessing dangerous exhibitions of this kind, but he did not think bad taste was to be corrected by Act of Parliament any more than drunkenness. Unless there was some feature in the performance which was of a distinctly demoralizing character, he hardly thought that it should be interfered with by legislation. The second ground on which the noble Lord advocated this Bill was that those performances were injurious, physically and mentally; but he had only quoted the account of one accident. He (the Earl of Morley) had made inquiries and found that, in the metropolis at all events, accidents very seldom occurred in the course of these performances, and altogether too rare to call for special legislation. As to the moral effects of these performances upon the children who took part in them, there were no data which would warrant them in saying that they were worse in this profession than in any other. With regard to the physical effects of a gymnastic training, he doubted that there was that cruelty the noble Lord supposed. The physical conformation which enabled those people to turn and twist themselves, unlike mental endowments, ran through families, and was handed down through successive generations. He apprehended that when they came to definition under the noble Lord's Bill serious difficulties would present themselves. By the Bill the gymnastic performances to which it was to apply were defined as being those "whereby the life, limb, or health

621
of any person engaged in them might be endangered or injuriously affected." Again, who was to say what was likely to be the effect of engaging in any performance on the health of any particular person? What might be injurious to one might be invigorating to another. Where were they to stop if they embarked in legislation like this? Were they to say that no children should be fastened here and there among the scenes or suspended from the clouds in pantomimes? If this Bill were admitted he did not see what limits could be put to legislation of this kind. It appeared to him that they must at once put an end to steeplechases. He submitted to their Lordships that the measures taken by the Home Secretary in sending cautionary notices to persons who advertised what were plainly dangerous performances had worked satisfactorily, and that there was no occasion to pass a Bill which would create difficulties by the adoption of excessive legislation.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, there was no doubt that great difficulties existed in the way of legislating on this subject, but he should much regret if their Lordships decided to reject it on the second reading—the principle, at least, deserved their attention. It was very desirable that their Lordships should express some opinion on these amusements; for if they were at all aware of the atrocities that were perpetrated on these children day after day to gratify the morbid tastes of tens of thousands of persons in this country, their Lordships would see the absolute necessity there was of declaring that something should be done to put a stop to these amusements. Unless these atrocities were revealed their Lordships would hesitate to believe their extent. He knew that the Secretary of State had occasionally successfully interfered and prevented these exhibitions; but unless he had evidence of which he (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was not aware, he could not know what occurred every day and night in all the large towns of the country. He remembered that when it was announced that Blondin intended to wheel his child in a wheelbarrow along a rope at the Crystal Palace 100 feet high, Sir George Lewis, the then Home Secretary, addressed a letter to the conductors, stating that he should hold them personally responsible if any
622
accident happened, and this had the desired effect of stopping the performance. But we could not have a Home Secretary in every great town. He believed that many accidents occurrred while these children were in the course of training, and nothing could be more detestable than the training itself. He had been informed by a friend of his, an eye witness, that when he was going his nightly rounds he heard shrieking and piercing cries, and on his going up into the room from whence the sounds proceeded he found seven or eight children, with two or three women standing over them with sticks, beating them into skins too small for them because the children would be required in a few days to represent monkeys and devils at an adjoining theatre. He recollected the case of a child, about 14 or 15 years of age, who was in training for the acrobatic business, and whose duty it was to stand on his head for a considerable time, until from its continual practice it had become a second nature to him. When in the ragged school the lad would suddenly rush from his class into a corner of the room and stand on his head; and the consequence was that some minutes would have to elapse before he would be able to resume his lessons. Their Lordships would do well to show some respect to the motives of the noble Lord who had introduced the Bill by reading it a second time. He did not believe they would be enabled to prevent these exhibitions altogether by legislation; but that it was only by bringing public opinion to bear on them that they could hope to put down those abominable and degrading exhibitions. They were a disgrace to the age and to the progress of our refinement. It was possible that compulsory education might do something to check them, from the spare hours that would be left to their children after attending school not being sufficient for efficiently training them; but, in the meantime, their Lordships ought not summarily to reject such legislation as that now proposed.
LORD ROMILLYsaid, he would vote with the noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst) if he pressed his Bill to a division. He could not understand that Parliament, which had passed Bills for the protection of factory children, should refuse it to those poor children who were now

623
employed in dangerous acrobatic performances. The noble Earl who had opposed the Bill on behalf of the Government had not urged a single argument against the Bill that might not have been urged with equal force against bull-baiting, cock-fighting, and the like, that had been prohibited by law. These performances were not only dangerous and demoralizing to the children engaged in them, but also to the spectators who witnessed them. He should most willingly vote for the second reading of the Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

TRUSTS OF BENEFICES AND CHURCHES BILL—(No. 151.)
(The Lord Bishop of Carlisle.)

THIRD READING. BILL WITHDRAWN.
Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE, in moving that the Bill be now read the third time, said, the Bill had been rather unfortunate in its passage through the House, because, having been read a second time, and having gone into Committee without opposition, and after an explanation by him of its various provisions—so that every possible opportunity for objection had been afforded—opposition to it arose on the Motion for the reception of the Report, and now Notice had been given of an Amendment to the Motion for the third reading. He was prepared to meet the objection that was raised on the last occasion as to the trustees; but the noble Earl (the Earl of Harrowby) who intended to move the rejection of the Bill did so upon different grounds. A suspicion had arisen in the minds of some that the Bishops would under this Bill get an unwarrantable amount of patronage by putting themselves into these trusts. He had no desire to make the Bishop or the incumbent a corporation sole in a trust for a benefice or a church. What he wished to lay stress upon was this—There were certain persons prepared to give money for founding benefices or churches, or for forming ecclesiastical districts, and they desired a certain form of patronage. Now, he contended that they ought not
624
to be prevented from having it, except there was something very objectionable in the form of patronage. "A Quondam Conveyancer," in a letter to The Times of this morning, pointed out what he said was a way of getting through the difficulty. He did not know whether the writer of that letter was right or not; but what he did know was that the Ecclesiastical Commissioners felt their hands were tied when they were asked to recognize such trusts as it was the object of the Bill to make lawful.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord, Bishop of Carlisle.)
LORD CAIRNSsaid, that from the remarks made by the right rev. Prelate on a former occasion, he appeared to think it was a mistake in the drawing up of an existing Act of Parliament which prevented persons desirous of founding a trust from mixing up individuals with corporations sole. The adjournment that had taken place in reference to the Bill had given him an opportunity of further considering its provisions, and he could assure the right rev. Prelate this was the result of no mistake, but a consequence of the principle that you could not mix up in a joint tenantship corporations which never die and individuals who do die. But he thought there would be no difficulty under the existing law in meeting the case put by the right rev. Prelate. There was complete power, in the persons founding the trust, to make any stipulations they pleased as to the mode of appointing trustees. All that was required if they wished to appoint a Bishop or the archdeacon, or the incumbent of the parish one of the patrons was to appoint him as one of the first trustees; and to provide that upon the death of the Bishop, or as the case might be, and before the vacancy was filled up, it should be offered to his successor; and so on from time to time as vacancies arose. Without entering into the policy of the Bill itself, he would suggest to the right rev. Prelate the propriety of having those legal objections first settled.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYrose to move that the Bill be read a third time that day three months; but——
THE BISHOP OF CARLISLEinterposed, saying it was clear, after what had fallen from the noble and learned

625
Lord, that the Bill in its present state could not be proceeded with. He should, therefore, with their Lordships' leave withdraw it.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONwas understood to express his great regret at the withdrawal of a measure intended not merely to authorize certain trusts in future—which it might or might not be expedient to do—but to correct serious inconveniences that were admitted to exist. He knew himself of three benefices in one parish, the patronage of which was vested in trusts now understood to be illegal. In his opinion, it was most desirable to legislate as soon as possible upon the subject.
After a few observations from Lord PORTMAN, the Marquess of SALISBURY, and the LORD CHANCELLOR,
Motion and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, 'till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.