COMMITTEE. (ON RE-COMMITMENT.) (Hansard, 22 July 1872)

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, that the Interpretation Clause was defective, and the prohibitory portion of the measure also was defective, because it only prohibited the performance of children as acrobats, and did not deal with the training of children for acrobats, where most of the mischief lay. To show how necessary it was to forbid the training of children as acrobats, he begged to read to their Lordships an extract from a letter which a friend of 1503 his had received within the last few days from a lad of 17— No other chap in the world is so supple, and can tumble and twist himself like me. My father, who injured himself with a fall from a high rope, trained me into it. He began by twisting my limbs and back bone when I was a little baby. I used to suffer dreadful, and I remember when I was from four to nine years of age he used to make me twist myself, and remain twisted up, till my bones seemed to come away from each other, and I was often ill with the pain. The training began at two years of age, when there was no bone, but when all that subsequently became bone was mere gristle—at that age the poor infants under training as acrobats were curled up for hours, and the number of children who must become diseased or crippled under the process was appalling to think of. The operative part of the Bill only took cognizance of performances whereby the life and limb of the persons engaged might be endangered—but to be effective it should deal with whatever might be prejudicial to the health of the children while undergoing their training. He put it to the noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst), who had introduced the Bill whether it would not be better to withdraw it for the present Session and introduce it again after he had obtained further evidence, and had had an opportunity of enlarging the provisions of the measure. If, however, the noble Lord persevered with the present Bill he would support him, because he approved its principle; but in such case it would be necessary to move an Amendment to include acrobatic performances which were injurious to health as well as those which were dangerous to life or limb.

§ LORD BUCKHURST
, agreeing with much that had fallen from the noble Earl, said, it would be impossible to enlarge the Bill at that advanced period of the Session. He had no objection, however, to withdraw it provided there was any prospect of the dangerous performances on the elevated tight rope, &c., being put a stop to.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
said, he thought it was impossible for their Lordships to proceed with this Bill without some better definition of "acrobatic performance" than that contained in the interpretation clause. The Bill first declared that "acrobat" should mean "a person engaged in any acrobatic performance. It next declared that— 1504 Acrobatic performance should mean any muscular exercise, or any performance through the agency of muscular action practised or given by way of trade and for the purpose of gain, whereby the life or limb of the person so engaged should be endangered or injuriously affected. Something more definite than this was required.

§ LORD ROMILLY
said, that the definition of the cases intended to be covered by the Bill was this— Any muscular exercise or any performance through the agency of muscular action practised or given by way of trade and for the purpose of gain, whereby the life or limb of the person so engaged shall be endangered or injuriously affected. He did not believe that "acrobat" was an English word, and he had therefore suggested that a definition of the term should be conveyed in the Act, the object being to include any species of muscular instruction that might be dangerous to children. They might be sure that if the exercises themselves were stopped, the preliminary instruction would also be effectually prevented, and he therefore considered that much good would be effected by the measure.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
pointed out that the legal definition just supplied by the noble and learned Lord opposite might lead to strange conclusions; for instance, was a jockey riding a race to come within the operation of the Act? He did not know much about such matters, but assuredly a jockey could not exercise his calling without the agency of muscular action—he did it for gain—and his life and limbs were frequently endangered, and sometimes he lost his life.

§ LORD ROMILLY
said, the Act was confined to children under the age of twelve years, and therefore would not apply to such a case. Acrobatic performances might perhaps be briefly translated to mean performances in which a person "went aloft"—an exhibitor on the tight rope, or on the top of a pole.

§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY
said, a sailor fulfilled that condition—and as he exercised muscular action for gain at risk of life and limb, he would come under the operation of the Act. It must be remembered that a Court of Law would construe the Act according to the definition, without any regard to the meaning of the Greek original.

§ THE DUKE OF MANCHESTER
said, some of the performances on the rails in 1505 Rotten Row came under the definition of "acrobatic performances." He did not think they would come under the operation of this Bill, because they endangered the life and limb of others rather than of the peformers.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
agreed that the Act was at present very loosely drawn, and that if it passed in its existing form many difficulties might arise.

§ THE DUKE OF RICHMOND
suggested that the Bill should be withdrawn for this Session, for there was really no chance of its passing the other House in its present form. Next Session a Select Committee might be appointed on the subject, and something like a useful measure might then be introduced.

§ LORD BUCKHURST
said, he would accept the suggestion of his noble Friend and withdraw the Bill for the present, but would take an early opportunity next Session of again drawing attention to the subject.