Lords Sitting of 5 August 1889

WINDWARD ISLANDS APPEAL COURT BILL. (No. 156.)
Returned from the Commons, agreed to.
MARRIAGES (BASUTOLAND, &c.) BILL. (No. 155.)
Returned from the Commons, agreed to, with an Amendment.
FACTORS BILL. (No. 122.)
Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments.
SWEATING SYSTEM.
Fourth Report from the Select Committee (with the proceedings of the Committee), made, and to be printed. Minutes of Evidence, together with an Appendix, laid upon the Table, and to be delivered out. (No. 207.)
PAYMASTER GENERAL BILL. (No. 208)
  REVENUE BILL. (No. 209.)
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday next.—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)
  LAND CHARGES (IRELAND) BILL. (No. 118.)
  Order for the Second Reading on Thursday next discharged, and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

  PRIVATE BILLS (ALTERATION OF MEMORANDUM OF ASSOCIATION.)
  Message from the Commons to acquaint this House that they have directed the Select Committee appointed by them to join with a Committee of this House to—
  "Consider and report under what circumstances or under what conditions, if any, Private Bills altering the terms of the memorandum of association of companies ought to be allowed to pass,"
  to meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room, Tomorrow at Twelve o'clock.
  Ordered, That the Committee appointed by this House do meet the Committee appointed by the Commons in the Chairman of Committees' Committee Room To-morrow at Twelve o'clock.
  Ordered, That the Select Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.

  COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION ACT, 1888, AMENDMENT BILL. (No. 187.)
  Read 2a (according to order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House to-morrow.
EGYPT—MILITARY OPERATIONS AGAINST THE DERVISHES.

  OBSEEVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in whose name there stood upon the Paper a notice "to call attention to the hostilities on the Nile, and the general condition of affairs in Egypt," said: I have only within the last hour or two received a letter from my noble Friend

  271
  the Prime Minister, stating that it is impossible for him to be present in the House this afternoon, and under these circumstances I think your Lordships will consider that I am exercising a sound discretion in postponing the notice standing in my name. But I cannot do this without one word as to the news that has reached us this morning. We have heard once more of a signal and complete victory; once again English valour and skill have triumphed; and although, as far as we can judge from the reports, the brunt of the contest has fallen upon the Egyptian troops, those troops have been led and officered by Englishmen. It is impossible not to feel for the fanatical and courageous sons of the desert, whose blood has been poured out so lavishly on this occasion. At the same time, every one must rejoice at the victory which has been achieved; and every one must hope that, for the present at all events, it is conclusive. Every one must hope this in the interests of humanity, as well as in the interests of the country, but I am bound to say that I cannot regard it as likely to be final. There is a much larger question even than that of these hostilities, which this victory, conclusive as it is, will not settle. It would be impossible, however, to enter upon this question in the absence of the Prime Minister, and I will therefore postpone my notice till Friday next. As this matter has been mentioned, perhaps I may be allowed to ask my noble Friend the Under Secretary of State for War whether he has any information to give us on this subject in addition to that which has appeared in the newspapers this morning?
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): I was quite sure that my noble Friend would not desire to enter into questions relating to foreign policy in the absence of my noble Friend the Prime Minister. But as he has called the attention of your Lordships to the victory which has been obtained in Egypt, it is only right that I should express on the part of Her Majesty's Government their great satisfaction at the report we have received, which shows alike that the soldiers were worthy of being led by a gallant English officer, and that that officer showed a skill and strategy which were worthy of the occasion, and that in the conflict
  272
  ensued there was so little loss of life, while, at the same time, there was unhappily very severe loss on the other side, which was necessary under the circumstances. I am sure that your Lordships will deeply regret that the few who are mentioned should have suffered, and especially one distinguished and gallant English officer. I believe that the wanton invasion of Egypt—for it was a wanton invasion—has been stopped, and that for a time, at all events, it will not be repeated. What will be the future policy of this country with regard to this whole subject I will not now venture to remark, but I feel that I am speaking the sense of your Lordships when I congratulate the distinguished officer who has won this battle and the soldiers who fought under him.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I certainly will not depart from the judicious course which both the noble Lords have taken of avoiding any political discussion in the absence of the Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary; but perhaps I may be allowed to associate myself completely with what they have both stated with regard to our admiration of the manner in which this battle has been conducted. It is extremely satisfactory to note the admirable strategy with which General Grenfell conducted this operation, the manner in which he was supported by Colonel Kitchener and Colonel Wood-house, and a special and additional circumstance of satisfaction is the good conduct of the Egyptian troops under his command.
  THE UNDER SECRETAEY OF STATE FOR WAR (Lord HARRIS): The only additional information which I can give your Lordships is as to the number of killed and wounded. Of 17 killed, one was a British soldier, and the 131 wounded include Brigade-Major Hunter, of the Lancashire Regiment, and Lieutenant Cotton, of the Shropshire Light Infantry (the latter severely wounded), and four British soldiers. A reconnaissance at day-break on August 4th showed the Dervish force to be completely broken up, the few fighting-men remaining being pursued by cavalry. General Grenfell adds that only one Emir, and that an unimportant one, remains alive.

  CRUELTY TO CHILDREN PREVENTION BILL, now PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN BILL. (No. 160.)
  House in Committee (on Re-commitment) (according to order).
  Clause 1.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, in reference to the Amendments which stand on the Paper in my name, I would like to explain that the Parliamentary Agent for several Scotch societies asked me to take charge of them, as there was no other means of bringing them before the House.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 5, after the word "who," to insert the words "being the parent or."
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think this Amendment is really necessary, because the words "person having the custody, control, or charge of the child" include the parent when the parent is such person. The wider words were only put in in case the parent should not be such person.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I do not understand that these Amendments refer especially to Scotland; they refer to the whole Bill.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD HERSCHELL, in moving after the word "ill-treats," to insert the word "neglect," said: As by this Amendment I propose to restore a word which was struck out, on Division, by a very narrow majority in the Committee, I propose to state the reasons why I ask your Lordships to restore the word. I think it was omitted under some misapprehension as to its effect. It was supposed that it would cover cases of neglect which ought not to be covered by such a provision, but I think those who take that view omit to see the force of the word "wilfully," which precedes the word "neglect." A wilful neglect always must be an intentional act. It is essential to restore this word not only because without it the cases would not be met which we desire to meet, but really the clause, so far as it consists in the words "wilfully neglects," is but a re-enactment, because there exists at the present time a provision in the Poor Law Amendment Act which renders
  274
  liable to penalties and imprisonment upon summary conviction any case of wilful neglect of children. The only reason for inserting it here is that all the provisions should be found together. It will be observed that by the latter part of the Bill, Section 38 of the Poor Law Amendment Act of 1868 is repealed, and the truth is, if this word be not inserted, the law will be made less efficient than it is at the present time.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I felt when we were in Committee very much what has been expressed by my noble and learned Friend; and it struck me, as it strikes me now, that it was wrong to take this word out, because it is quite clear that if wilful neglect took place and death ensued, it would be manslaughter; and, therefore, if there be wilful neglect which brings about injury to the child, it is unreasonable that it should not be punished when, under the General Law, it certainly would be punished if death ensued.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: As the noble Lord the Lord President appears to be in favour of this Amendment, it would of course be useless for me to divide upon it; but I may say that the only argument which has been used by my noble and learned Friend was used in Committee, and the Committee decided by nine to seven that this word should be struck out. One of the main objections is that it would make the section too wide, and might be made to apply to offences of an extremely trivial character.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I am afraid it was my fault; but the point to which I have just drawn attention—namely, that this provision practically exists in an Act at the present time, which for consolidation purposes it is proposed to repeal, was not present to my mind in Committee.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I was not present when this matter was discussed in the Standing Committee. I was engaged in the service of your Lordships' House at the time; but undoubtedly I should have felt with the noble and learned Lord if I had been there. It seems to me it would be very wrong to omit such a provision as this, which is quite consistent with the objects of the Bill. It may be, as my noble Friend fairly says, that in the event of wilful neglect leading to death,

  275
  it would be manslaughter, and I think it would be, undoubtedly; but suppose death does not ensue, is the wilful neglect to go without punishment at all? It seems to me that it is an essential feature of this Bill, at all events with reference to wilful cruelty, that that should be made a specific misdemeanour.
  On Question, that the word "neglect" be inserted, agreed to.
  LORD NORTON: The next Amendment is one in my name, and it is to omit the Proviso at the end of the clause. The Proviso as it now stands would be very little short of a legislative demoralisation of public opinion The category of crimes and punishments dealt with in this Bill as it now stands is this—for ordinary cruelty to a child, a fine of £100; for persistent cruelty by a parent under the consciousness that he will make pecuniary gain out of the death of the child, £200; for causing the child to beg in the streets, or play in a pantomime, £25. Now, I maintain that the old Saxon system of pecuniary compensation for crime was never drawn upon so absurd and mischievous a classification as this. It is horrible that such should be the state of public morality in this country that it should be possible that a parent should be willing to maltreat his child under the influence of a pecuniary interest in the child's death. If death occur, it is murder, and murder of the most vile and horrible kind. If it were possible to make the standard of public morality still lower in this relation, it would be by a Parliamentary enactment making such horrible crime stand in the same category with ordinary domestic severity or cruelty, or with causing children to be hired out for theatrical purposes. I would ask whether, at this moment, cruelty to a child, with such a motive, is not already dealt with in some of our criminal statutes? If not, and if it must be brought into this Bill, I am not lawyer enough to say how it should be dealt with; but I am perfectly certain that it ought not to be dealt with as is proposed in this Bill. It should certainly be made perfectly distinct from the minor crimes with which it is coupled. It should stand alone in a clause by itself as a very aggravated misdemeanour, if not ac-
  276
  tually a felony, as I think it ought to be. Perhaps a wider view altogether should be taken and a separate enactment passed dealing with the insurance of children by parents. However, I leave it to the noble and learned Lord opposite to say how it should be dealt with otherwise than by a mere proviso at the end of a clause dealing with lighter kinds of offence. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor pointed out, as I understood him upon the Second Reading, the enormity of putting a crime, little short of the> worst kind of murder, amongst a much lighter category, and that not even by a clause to itself, but by a proviso tacked on to ordinary kinds of cruelty which might take place under harsh or severe parents at home. Not knowing exactly what the substitution ought to be, I move to omit the proviso altogether.
  Amendment moved, in page 1, line 21, to leave out from the word "months" to the end of the Clause.—(The Lord Norton.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think my noble Friend opposite has somewhat misapprehended the scope of this proviso. There is no doubt that if a person interested in the death of a child wilfully neglects it in order that that child may die, the person so neglecting the child is guilty of murder or manslaughter if death ensues. But we are here dealing with cases where the child is subjected to ill-treatment and neglect without such unhappy consequences resulting; and the question is, how such a person ought to be dealt with. I may at the outset say that this proviso does not merely relate to cases where parents have insured the child, and so have an interest in its death. It covers that, but it does not apply exclusively to that. There unhappily have come under our experience lately cases in which the parents, or those having the custody of the child, though they were not parents, had an interest in the death of the child not resulting from insurance at all, but from a settlement giving rights to the child in some money in which those who had the care of the child had a contingent interest, supposing the child did not survive till the age of 21 years. I am not talking of imaginary cases, but of more than one case which has actually

  277
  occurred. Therefore, no provision dealing simply with the question of insurance would cover the ground which this proviso seeks to cover. Now, what is the foundation of this proviso? I cannot see that it lowers any standard of morality at all. It says if you have an interest in this child suffering in its health, or becoming worse than it is, it is all the more disgraceful of you, inasmuch as you were interested in the child's death; and the clause seeks to do this, which perhaps is all that can be done—to say if there be on the one hand the stimulus to neglect and ill-treatment of the knowledge that that neglect and ill-treatment may ultimately result in a pecuniary advantage, the law will try at least to give a counter stimulus by the knowledge that that ill-treatment and neglect, if discovered, may lead to a pecuniary loss. That is the principle of the proviso, and it seems to me a sound principle. If you can impress upon these people that, under those circumstances, they may suffer a pecuniary loss, you diminish the temptation to ill-treatment on the ground that possibly it may produce a pecuniary gain. That seems to me a counter stimulus which the law may well give, and which is in accordance with sound principle.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I confess I am a little uneasy about this provision, although I quite follow what my noble Friend has said. I cannot help thinking that either this proves a motive to do the thing or it is irrelevant to the amount of punishment. It seems to me very difficult to get rid of that dilemma. If it is a mere accident that there was pecuniary gain involved in the death of the child, there is no reason why there should be an aggravation of the punishment. If, on the other hand, it is some evidence of a motive, it must be evidence that the Court is to act upon that there has been an intentional exhibition of foul play on the part of the parent or guardian who has the custody of the child, and who has a pecuniary interest in its death. At the same time, I am not prepared to say that I will take the responsibility of voting with my noble Friend behind me (Lord Norton). I am content to say, by way of protest, that I think this provision is insufficient. It is now 30 years ago since I heard that very learned and cautious Judge,
  278
  Mr. Justice Wightman, express an earnest hope that the Legislature would sooner or later deal with the question of insurance upon infant life. That is now 30 years ago and nothing has been done, and I hope something may speedily be done in that direction. One objection I have to a provision of this sort is, that it appears to get rid of the necessity for dealing with the whole subject. Although I quite follow my noble Friend that this does not only apply to cases of insurance, it appears popularly to cover the ground, and I suppose the argument in men's minds would be—if the parent or guardian has in his mind the notion that he may get something by the child's death, the increase of the fine which may be imposed by the tribunal may act as a counter motive, pointing out to him that he may be deprived by the fine of all that he would get by the insurance. But it seems to me that that is insufficient. I know it is said that it is a very hard case upon parents that they may not be permitted to insure against the expenses of burial. I think it is quite possible for the Legislature to take care that no money should pass into the hands of the parents or guardians so interested, while, nevertheless, it might be possible to have an indemnity against the expenses of the funeral. I say this, because it appears to me that the proviso as it stands will lead to the impression that it is meant to meet that evil which has prevailed for 30 years. However, under the circumstances, I shall not take upon myself the responsibility of rejecting it, or of voting with my noble Friend behind me.
  LORD NORTON: May I ask the noble and learned Lord whether he will go so far to meet my view as to allow this proviso to be a separate clause? It is quite clear that if it has any meaning, its meaning is that there is a motive in the persistent neglect of the child—namely, the pecuniary interest in its death. The motive is the whole thing that gives any distinctive meaning to the proviso; and I think I may at least ask the noble and learned Lord, and I will be satisfied if he will so far concede my point, to make this proviso a separate clause, so that it may not appear to deal with a higher stage of the much minor crime connected with it, but with

  279
  a separate crime of the greatest possible aggravation by the implied motive.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think it would make any difference, and therefore I do not object to its being a separate clause. In fact, perhaps it may be more convenient, because I have another Amendment to propose lower down in accordance with my promise before the Standing Committee. It was pointed out, and I think rightly, that if there are any circumstances alleged which might add to the punishment, there ought to be notice of it in the indictment, and with that view I have framed another Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On the Motion of Lord HERSCHELL, the Proviso was amended to read as follows:—
  "Provided that if it be proved to the satisfaction of the Court that a person was convicted on indictment as aforesaid was interested," &c.,
  and the Proviso was made a separate clause, and numbered 2.
  Amendment moved to add to the Proviso the words—
  "Such interest aforesaid in any sum of money accruable or payable in the event of the death of the child shall be charged in the indictment, and put to the jury in the same way, as far as may be, as a previous conviction is now charged and put."
  A Noble LORD: Would it be possible for the noble Lord to substitute a fixed imprisonment in the event of the fine not being paid at once?
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think it is done already in the Bill, because there is power, as an alternative for the fine, to give imprisonment.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I would point out that if the question is to be left to the jury, the words "to the satisfaction of the Court" should be omitted.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I think it is quite intelligible as it is, but I have no objection to leaving out the words.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment moved, in line 1 of the Proviso, to omit the words "to the satisfaction of the Court."
  Agreed to.
  Clause 1, as amended (now Clauses 1 and 2), agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Clause 2 in the Bill).
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: My Lords, it will be necessary for me to say a few words to your Lordships in explanation of my Amendment, and in explanation of my reasons for placing this Amendment before your Lordships instead of the Amendment which I moved before the Committee. I, on that occasion, moved an Amendment the effect of which would have been to have excepted from the operation of this Bill all theatres and music halls and soon; and I am still of opinion that that would have been perhaps the wisest course to pursue. I suggested that course, because I object to the provisions of this Bill applying to theatres and music halls, holding that it is totally unnecessary, that it is not in consonance with the general tendency of our legislation, that it is without precedent in this country or in any country, and that it would inflict a great and cruel hardship upon the children, who would be deprived of the means of making an honest living. I entertain those objections just as strongly now, but I believe that my object and end can be gained as well by the Amendment which I shall presently move as by the Amendment that I moved in Committee. I object to this legislation applying to children employed in theatres for the reasons that I have mentioned. It has been said that it is necessary to apply it to theatres because we have legislated to prevent young children being employed in factories and workshops, and even in agricultural pursuits but I must point out to your Lordships that there really is no analogy whatever in the two cases. In the first place, the first legislation affecting young children at all prevented children being employed under a certain age in textile factories. That was afterwards extended, to other trades and workshops. But, my Lords, there is nothing whatever analogous in the working of children of eight or ten years of age in factories and workshops, and allowing children to appear, generally speaking, for only a few moments upon the stage. What do these children have to do? Sometimes they may sing a few verses in chorus, but, as a general rule, all they have to do is to group themselves upon, the stage, to act sometimes as vegetables,

  281
  in pantomimes, and so on, and in fact the work, such as it is, ought not properly to be called work at all. It is to the children an amusement—they look upon it as an amusement—and it enables them to earn in some cases very good wages indeed. As far as agriculture is concerned, I must point out to your Lordships that children under eight were prevented working in gangs purely and solely on account of the immorality and the evil examples set to the children by the grown persons working in gangs; and, as far as present legislation is concerned, the sole object of preventing young children from pursuing certain agricultural pursuits is that it interferes with their education, and exception is made in cases where there is no school in the vicinity, and exception is made also with respect to harvest time. I submit to your Lordships that, as far as education is concerned in the first place the theatrical training is positively beneficial to the children from an educational point of view; and, in the second place, that if it is not, and if the education of the children is interfered with in any degree, the Education Act, I submit, is quite strong enough as it is, and there is no reason whatever, from an educational point of view, for depriving children of this means of earning an honest living. As to the value of the children's earnings, it is very considerable. I have known and heard of cases where children under 10 years of age have earned £3, £4, or £5 a week. In other cases they may earn perhaps a shilling or two, or three shillings a day; but in many cases there can be no doubt—in not a few exceptional cases, but in many hundreds and hundreds of cases throughout the country—these children are able, without any damage to themselves, but with positive benefit to themselves, very largely to contribute to a family support, and in many cases are practically the bread-winners of a family, and are enabled to keep their families when the proper bread-winners are disabled by sickness, or some other cause, for a time, at any rate. As to the benefit to the children, I would like to read to your Lordships one or two quotations. I have a letter from Mr. Irving to a correspondent which I will ask permission to read, in which the case is
  282
  stated very clearly and fairly, I think. Mr. Irving says:—
  "I am not speaking from theory when I say that these children are educated, are well cared for, and are prepared for their struggle in life. Education is not entirely an affair of blackboards and the rule of three. There is a good deal in practical example, and the kindness with which the little ones are treated in the theatre, the discipline, order, and cleanliness enforced upon them."
  My Lords, I think the whole matter is contained in that letter. The habits of discipline, the cleanliness, the order, and at the same time the kindness with, which the children are treated cannot fail to have a most beneficial effect upon them from an educational point of view. I may read also an extract from a letter that appeared in print from Mr. Runciman, than whom no one has had a larger experience as a school teacher in the City of London. He says—
  "A good many little fellows came to the school after the pantomimes were over, and I was always glad to have them, for, without exception, they were far beyond the average in quickness, politeness, and, above all, in cleanliness."
  I could multiply instances of that kind; but I think, quoting those two authorities—Mr. Runciman, who has had such great experience in teaching, and Mr. Irving—I have quoted quite enough to show your Lordships that the theatrical training is beneficial to these children. Then, as to the hardship involved, if your Lordships understood and knew the kind of work which the children do, and the small amount of labour that is entailed upon them, your Lordships would see in a moment that really there is no common sense—no sense whatever of any kind—in the argument that anything approaching to cruelty can be inflicted upon the children. As a general rule, the children are out of the theatre by 10 o'clock. It is very rarely the occasion that they are kept later than that. As I have already said, what they have to do is, generally speaking, merely to appear for a few minutes upon the stage; sometimes they may have to sing a little, sometimes they may have a line or two to say; but, as a rule, the labour involved is absolutely infinitesimal, and I defy anyone to put before your Lordships any case to show that anything in the minutest degree approaching cruelty is

  283
  involved in the employment of children in theatres. Then, my Lords, what is the alternative position of these children? Your Lordships must not suppose that if these children did not go to the theatres they would be all at home and put quietly to bed. I would like on that point also just to read an extract from a letter which describes very well the circumstances in which these children would generally be. That is a letter from Mrs. Ellicott, the wife of the Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol. She says, speaking of Gloucester—
  "I have, when returning home from a party, seen, as late as half-past 11, little children, some in arms, some clinging to their mothers' skirts, emerging from public-houses in the streets of Gloucester; other poor little wretches huddled together on doorsteps, waiting for their tipsy parents."
  As a matter of fact, if these children are not in the theatres, they are, in the generality of cases, in the gutter. It is perfectly true that some of them are the children of stage carpenters and other persons employed in the theatres. In those cases they are looked after very well by their mothers. They are under their fathers' or their mothers' eyes the whole time; but in the great majority of cases these children would be in the gutters in the back slums of London; and I need not describe to your Lordships the kind of scenes that they would see, the sort of language that they would hear, or the lessons in morality that they would be likely to learn. As a matter of fact, the theatres are doing a great and beneficent work; and if your Lordships have the wish to benefit the children in the poorer slums of London, and in our great towns, what you ought, in my opinion, to do, if it were possible, to multiply it a hundred or a thousand-fold. It must be remembered that this Bill, if not amended, will affect a vast multitude of children. I do not know how many may be employed in theatres, perhaps 2,000 or 3,000; but this Bill will affect thousands and thousands of children who now sing in out-of-door concerts at the Crystal Palace. I have seen the programmes for this year, and the number of children singing will come to something like 30,000. The choral concerts will employ 3,000 children in the Noncon-
  284
  formist Union Choir; the London Sunday School Choirs, 5,000; the Association of Tonic sol fa Choir, 4,000; the National Temperance League, 5,000; the Church Sunday School Choirs, 5,000; the Tonic sol fa Association, 3,000; the Catholic Total Abstinence League of the Cross, 5,000; the National Co-operative Festival, 5,000. Of course, I do not mean to say that all those children are under 10 years of age; a great many of them are older, but there is no question about it that a very large number of them are under 10 years of age, and if your Lordships legislate so as to prevent those children singing, you will, practically speaking, put a stop to these festivals altogether. These festivals are looked upon as the one great holiday of the year by these children; they prepare for them during all the year, and I do not think your Lordships, after considering the matter, would wish to deprive these children of the pleasure and advantage of singing in these concerts. It has been stated also that there is legislation of this kind in other countries. I wish to correct that mistake. I did so before the Committee, but your Lordships will excuse me if I repeat it before the House. There is no legislation of this kind whatever in France; anybody can employ children under 10 years of age in theatres, provided it does not interfere with their education; and, further than that, not only is there no law prohibiting their employment in France, but the law compels the managers of the State subsidised theatres and the Grand Opera to employ children under 10 years of age. There is no law in Belgium, there is no law in Italy, none in Germany, none in Russia, none as far as I know in any European country. There is no law of the kind in the United States. It is true that in the State of New York as I mentioned before the Committee and also in the State of California, as I did not at that time know, children are prohibited under 16 years of age from playing, but leave can be given for their employment in case of singing. At the same time I must point out to your Lordships that in the State of New York there is also a law which prevents children, male or female, I think it is under the age of 16, from going to a great number of places of

  285
  entertainment, in public houses or anything of that kind where entertainments are going on; in fact, places answering to a great extent to many of our music halls. There is a law preventing children visiting them in any way unless accompanied by their parents or guardians. Well, I do not think your Lordships would take as a precedent legislation of such a great-great-great-grandmotherly description as that which would prohibit boys of 14 years of age from going into a music hall at all. Then, my Lords, the advantages of this early training have been mentioned, and the noble Lord opposite said that it could not amount to much because many of our best actors and actresses had not played at this early age. But on that point also I would like to read a short extract from another letter of Mr. Irving's. He says—
  "The earliest years in a theatre are often of infinite value to members of our calling, and I do not hesitate to say that some of our most distinguished actresses owe their success very largely to the fact that they were brought up in a theatre, and that the stage was to them both a nursery and a school-room."
  That is an opinion which I do not think ought very lightly to be set aside. You must remember that Miss Kate Terry, Miss Ellen Terry, and Mrs. Kendal, Miss Bateman, Mrs. Bancroft, and I dare say many others all played upon "the stage as very small children. Your Lordships may, perhaps, have seen a letter from Mrs. Bancroft, the other day to the Daily Telegraph. Writing from the Engadine, she says—
  "As since my earliest childhood I have been associated with the stage, I may, perhaps, be permitted to speak on this vexed question as to the employment of little children in theatres. I fail to understand what baneful influence there can be in their atmosphere to affect the moralnature of any child. My experience of our theatres is that the children are there so petted and made much of, so fondled and cared for, that when the run of a play in which they have been employed comes to an end, the little creatures often cry bitterly at the thought of being taken away, probably in their hearts dreading the return to the squalor, neglect, or rough treatment."
  I received also a letter which I read before the Committee, and which I would like to read to your Lordships' House from a lady who wrote to me enclosing a communication she had had from a friend, asking this lady to make interest with her brother, who is a member
  286
  of your Lordships' House, not to allow this clause to come into operation. She says—
  "Owing to my niece and nephew having entered the dramatic profession two years ago, I have seen a great deal of the life of stage children, and can assure you that in all my experience I have never seen any of the evils put forward by those who are pressing that Bill, but I know that it will fall most heavily upon hundreds of children who are now gaining an easy and honest livelihood under careful supervision."
  I do not wish to trouble your Lordships with any more extracts and quotations. I might multiply them if necessary, but I think I have quoted enough, and from sufficiently high authority to convince your Lordships that not only are the children enabled to earn a good living by theatrical employment, but that it is not harmful to them, but decidedly beneficial to them, and, above all, that there is nothing in any shape or kind resembling cruelty involved. It is quite true that the title of this Bill has been changed, but changing the title does not change the contents of this Bill, and the whole meaning and object of the Bill is to protect children against absolute physical suffering and cruelty; and I appeal to your Lordships whether it is just to persons who employ these children, or whether it is at all consistent with our general course of legislation to enact that children may not be employed in theatres, in a Bill which, although it is called the Protection to Children Bill, is in reality aimed at preventing actual physical suffering and cruelty. If this Bill were to become law as it is, there would be injustice done in certain minor degrees that I could mention. It would be necessary for children to produce their certificates of birth. Now, to obtain a copy of the certificate costs, I believe, a shilling. Your Lordships must remember that in the pantomime season, I suppose for one child that gets employment probably three children apply, and in all eases those children will have to spend a shilling in order to get a copy of their certificate. A shilling is not intrinsically a very large sum, but a shilling is a very considerable sum in the family economy of hundreds of families whose children are employed in pantomimes. The practical effect of this Bill would be to make bogus certificates rise in the market, and to put stunted children at

  287
  a premium. You would have children of diminutive size pretending to be under 10 years of age, or children who are not properly developed supplying the places of children, who are now on the stage at four or five years of age; in fact, I believe the practical effect would be that it would become a dead letter, and I think there is nothing so unwise in legislation as to allow an Act to remain on the Statute Book containing such provisions that, although a great part of the Act may be exceedingly good, those provisions turn the whole of the Act into ridicule, and tend to make it practically of no effect. Those, my Lords, are the reasons why I object altogether to applying this legislation to theatres and music halls. But I am perfectly content to deal with the matter in the way I proposed; that is to say, by practically licensing the managers of these places to employ children. I am perfectly convinced and certain that in all cases they will have no difficulty whatever in showing to the satisfaction of any competent authority that every provision is made for the children's welfare and comfort, and that no possible harm can come to them, and therefore if your Lordships will agree to my Amendment I am satisfied that the object which I have in view will be carried out. I may be wrong, but my impression, so far as I could judge, was that if I insisted upon my original Amendment and succeeded in persuading your Lordships to admit it, there would be some danger that the Bill might not become law at all this Session. There is so much in the Bill which is excellent that I should be very sorry that it did not become law this Session, and that practically is the reason why, instead of pressing my original Amendment, the effect of which was to prevent the application of the Bill at all to theatres, I prefer to move the present Amendment, which will enable managers to obtain leave to employ such children. I think I have now given all my reasons to your Lordships, and I beg leave to move the Amendment which stands in my name.
  Amendment moved, at the end of Clause 2 (now Clause 3), to insert the following Proviso:—
  "Provided also, that in the case of any entertainment or series of entertainments to
  288
  take place in premises licensed according to law for public entertainments, where it is shown to the satisfaction of a Court of Summary Jurisdiction that proper provision has been made to secure the health and kind treatment of any children proposed to be employed thereat, it shall be lawful for the said Court, anything in this Act notwithstanding, to order that any child, of whose fitness to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments without injury the said Court is satisfied, be permitted to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments, and such order may at any time be varied, added to, or rescinded by the said Court upon sufficient cause being shown; and such order shall be sufficient protection to all persons acting under or in accordance with the same."—(The Lord Kenry, Earl Dunraven and Mount-Earl.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not propose to trouble your Lordships at any length upon what I may call the main, question of this Amendment—namely, the general argument as to the expediency or inexpediency of such a prohibition as is proposed by the Bill, because the matter was discussed, and I expressed my views upon it on the Second Reading, and I have seen no reason to alter those views, and I have no desire to trouble your Lordships with a repetition of what I then said. I cannot admit that this provision, if a proper one at all, is out of place in this Bill. The title of the Bill has been so changed as not exclusively to relate to cruelty to children, and, therefore, without in the slightest degree charging that these acts committed with regard to children under 10 are cruelty (I never have put the case in that light, and I do not now), nevertheless it is quite open to say that a Bill for the better protection of children may well include a provision which, in the opinion of those who advocate it, will save many children from suffering. I know perfectly well that there is a considerable difference of opinion as to the expediency of such a provision as this, but certainly many of the arguments that are used against it were used with just as much force against legislation to which the Legislature of this country is, I believe, irretrievably committed. In saying irretrievably I do not mean to cast a doubt for a moment on the expediency of that legislation, but even those who are opposed to it must admit that it would be hopeless to expect to retrace our steps with regard to it. And I cannot see that if it be right to insist that children shall not work in factories

  289
  or workshops at this tender age, it can be otherwise than right to insist that they shall not occupy themselves in such work as some of them are engaged in in theatres. As far as one can judge one's self, I must say I believe it to be just as likely to be injurious to their health, and indeed more likely than some of the operations which are at the present time prohibited. In the case of agriculture, I believe children might more safely be employed at a tender age and without injury to themselves, and with equal benefit to their parents, and equally in the interests of those who desire to employ them, as they could be in the ease of theatres. Therefore the question really is, is there any sufficient reason shown for making an exception in the case of theatres from the legislation which prevails with regard to other occupations. My noble Friend opposite has said that these children, if not so employed, would not be at their homes, but would be in the gutter or upon the streets. That that may be so with some of the children I do not for a moment deny, but from all I can learn there is no reason for supposing that that is an accurate statement as regards the bulk of the children employed. I have heard very different statements, that they are taken mostly from children of what may be termed the lower middle class, who might be perfectly well at home cared for and tended if not occupied in the way which is aimed at by this provision. No doubt in the case of some children it may be important for their parents that the money which they get by acting should be received, but I doubt very much whether that is so in the case of the large majority of the children. And I think noble Lords will see in a moment that that is likely to be the case, because a manager who has to train such children for the stage will naturally seek out those who have had some little education, some little training, some little cultivation, more likely to be amenable to discipline and more likely to be easily taught. The consequence is, I believe, that the last to be engaged would be those who may be called the gutter children. With reference to the education of these children, it has been suggested that it will benefit by this employment, and my noble Friend opposite has read the opinion of one
  290
  authority to that effect. I have been furnished with the opinion of authorities I believe equally entitled to speak and to be listened to on the subject who take an entirely different view. I had representations made to me in a memorial signed by a very large number of members of the London School Board, who, looking at the matter from an educational point of view, were of opinion that the education of the children suffered, and that it was impossible for children to comply with the law and make the required school attendances without which their employment is absolutely unlawful, and at the same time be occupied in this way out of school hours. I will trouble your Lordships no more upon the general question, but proceed to say a few words upon the particular Amendment moved, and to state to your Lordships the course which I purpose taking with regard to it. I shall myself ask your Lordships to reject this Amendment, but in view of the possibility that that course may not be taken, I shall first endeavour to amend it, as I believe it is competent for me to do, by limiting to some extent its scope. Now when my noble and learned Friend opposite, the Lord Chancellor, moved his Amendment in the Standing Committee, he limited the dispensing power as I will call it, to children over seven, that is to say between seven and ten, and he permitted the clause to be absolutely effective as regards all children under seven years of age. I venture to think that if there is to be a dispensing power at all, it is time enough to begin when the children have reached seven years of age: even if you are not prepared to prohibit this employment up to the age often, you may well insist that children shall not be allowed to perform in public for profit during the tender years of their life between seven and ten. Therefore I shall ask your Lordships to insert after the word "children" in line 5, the words "exceeding seven years of age." Then I should like to call your Lordships' attention to the tribunal which the noble Earl suggests as the proper dispensing power, because it is really a tribunal and it does not seem, to me to be a very fitting mode of carrying, out his views. Application may be made to a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and where it is shown to the satisfaction of such a Court that the child

  291
  will be properly cared for, and is not likely to be injured, then dispensation may be given. Now a Court of Summary Jurisdiction means any Justice of the Peace, and it is not necessarily confined to Justices sitting in Petty Sessions. Therefore, so far as I can see it would be competent for a theatre manager, we will say, desiring dispensation to go to a Magistrate, and if the first Magistrate he went to refused the license, to go to another Magistrate, and then go the round of the Magistrates until at last he found a Justice who took the same views as himself, and get his sanction to the performance. So far as I can see, there is nothing in the fact that one Justice has decided that the license shall not be granted to prevent another taking a different view and granting it. I cannot think that that is expedient or desirable. You might have a large majority of the Justices having jurisdiction in the place where the theatre is determining that it will be injurious to the health of a child and inexpedient to allow it to perform there, and if the manager can get any one Justice within whose jurisdiction the theatre is situate to fall in with his views, he can give the license and the child will be allowed to perform. That is my strong reason for objecting to the whole machinery of this clause as proposed by the noble Earl opposite. I do not think it necessary to say anything further upon the clause at present.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: Perhaps it will be convenient for me at once to express my regret at my ignorance, and to say that I did not know that a Court of Summary Jurisdiction could consist of one Magistrate. What I meant was the Magistrates in Petty Sessions or a Police Court.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Unfortunately the Summary Jurisdiction Act defines "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" as "any Justice."
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I will readily assent to any Amendment of my Amendment which puts that matter right.
  THE EARL OF POWIS: I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord to consider whether if he maintains Clause 2 in its present shape, it would not be fair both to the children employed, and to the employers that some rather more distant date than that of the Bill re-
  292
  ceiving the Royal Assent should be fixed for this clause to come into operation. It would be very hard on the children in many cases earning valuable money to be deprived of it at a day's notice; it would also be hard on the employers of those children, especially those who are moving about the country, if the piece is to be summarily put an end to by a number of the young persons employed in it being suddenly forbidden to act any longer.
  LORD HERSCHELL: With reference to the appeal of the noble Earl, I shall be quite prepared to provide that this clause shall not come into operation until the 1st of November.
  LORD WATSON: I should like to say upon this clause that in Scotland a Court of Summary Jurisdiction consists only of the Sheriff or the Sheriff Substitute. Therefore I take it these provisions would not be open to the objection stated by the noble and learned Lord on the Front Bench. The authority constituted by the clause moved by the noble Earl in Scotland is the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Sessions, and in England or Ireland the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor being present to speak for himself, I say nothing as to the Authority constituted for England and Ireland, but I do think that in Scotland the High Court of Justiciary and the Court of Session is not a proper body to which to refer any such duty as framing the rules for the admission of children either above or below seven years of age to act temporarily in theatres.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I may point out that the noble Earl did not move that part of his Amendment. I had already pointed out to him the objections to it, and he agreed not to move it.
  LORD WATSON: I think it right that there should be some general rule throughout the country, and that some such authority as is referred in the last part of this clause ought to be established, but I would suggest that the authority constituted for Scotland should be the Secretary for Scotland, who has means at his command which will enable him to frame a proper system of rules that will ensure some degree of uniformity throughout the different counties and burghs in Scotland.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I would like to point out to the noble Earl beside me (the Earl of Dunraven) that the Amendment as it now stands would involve an almost intolerable amount of duty to be performed by the police Magistrates in London, because it would necessitate inquiry into the case of every individual child. As the clause stands, it is this:—
  "It shall be lawful for the said Court, anything in this Act notwithstanding, to order that any child of whose fitness to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments without injury the said Court is satisfied."
  That would necessitate an examination into the case of every individual child. I think the objections to the clause as it was originally proposed to be amended would be got over by this alteration—to make it read, "That any children under the said age be permitted to take part." Your Lordships will see that the Amendment goes on to state that it is always possible to obtain a revocation of the order in case of anything being proved to be injurious to the health or, I presume, the general well-being of the child. I venture to suggest that some Amendment of the Amendment is necessary if the noble Lord wishes to make his proposed clause workable. With regard to the observations of my noble and learned Friend opposite as to what constitutes a Court of Summary Jurisdiction I should advise the noble Earl beside me to insert instead of "a Court of Summary Jurisdiction" the words, "Two Justices sitting in Petty Sessions or a Stipendiary Magistrate."
  THE EARL OF GALLOWAY: I cannot help expressing my regret that the noble and learned Lord has determined to oppose this proposed Amendment to part of the Bill. The Bill is a Bill for the protection of children, and from all that I have learnt these theatrical children do not stand in need of protection at all. I think it would be a great misfortune if the House took that extreme view of the matter. I believe that employment of this kind for children is the best thing in the world; it takes them out of all danger of evil of every sort, and I do not see any necessity for hurried legislation of this kind. There was a letter in this day's Times from Mrs. Jeune which impressed me very much. According to her own experience and that of others
  294
  with whom she acted and whose names she gave, this employment, so far from having an evil influence, had quite there verse on a great many of the children, and the statistics she gives show that the employment has been attended by beneficent and beneficial results. I hope the House will consider this Amendment, when its wording has been suitably altered, a most reasonable one in the interests of the children.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I was very unwilling to interrupt anything which might conduce to the amending of the Amendment itself, and the putting it in the best shape before your Lordships, but I hope we cannot be said to have quite done with the general question. The noble Earl behind me cast a very rosy stage light indeed over the condition of these children. It has been represented to us as a few minutes' easy and amusing trifling upon the stage at not a very late hour in the evening, as if that were the whole of what was involved; but inquiry shows there is a great deal of hard work connected with the getting up of those few minutes play-work even if a few minutes described this work of the children. We have the account given by Madame Katti Lanner, professional trainer to one of the greatest theatres in London, of the work of the children under her care. Madame Lanner says that the children were at school from nine, or, in the case of the younger ones, half-past nine till a quarter or half-past twelve, that is at their ordinary schooling. The rehearsals were taken between that time and a quarter to two. At two the children return to school, and at half-past four, for as long as is necessary, the rehearsals are resumed. When rehearsal is finished, and the time of the theatre begins, the theatre does not end at ten o'clock. It is eleven o'clock or twelve before the children leave; that is a day of fourteen or fifteen hours spent by these children between the preparation for school and the preparation for the stage or the stage itself. Then, if we inquire into what is the effect upon the whole of the children, it is not so merely a refreshment and recreation tending to their health and strength, as some believe. One of the leading children's physicians in London, who has given years of atten-

  295
  tion to the subject, writes, in a letter which has been forwarded to me, "that this night employment, and especially of girls, is necessarily injurious to bodily health, and in London a cause of disease." If your Lordships will look at the tabular statements of the excessive number of children suffering from nervous disease in the hospitals, I am sure your Lordships will think that these are not times in which children ought to be forced through a great deal of this nervous and exciting work. It is not merely that the child smiles when it is amused, the children are kept to the moment in a state of tension, and they are taught for hours beforehand to retain and keep themselves in a state of tension, till the very moment when they ought to laugh or till the very moment when they ought to frown. Now, I do not say at all that this kind of discipline is bad for children—far from it. But I say that the immense amount of it, taken in combination with what we are obliged to require from them at schools, is very injurious, in the opinion of the best physicians, to the health of the children. Then the mischief is not over when the theatre is over. The children have to leave the theatre for home. I see it stated in a fascinating and able letter which appeared this morning in the Times, that the children are sent from the theatres with an employé of the theatre to the train. That may be so now, but it was not the case a very short time ago, nor was it the case at one of the best places of public amusement. I have here the account of a lady who attended the pantomime at the Crystal Palace for the purpose of seeing what became of the children. She says:—
  "All the children left the theatre with the black on their eyes and the paint on their faces just as they had been on the stage. No one came to meet them at the theatre, and they divided up into groups and strolled about the Palace. My friend and I accompanied one of these groups into a 3rd class carriage of the train leaving for London at five minutes past 10; there were, perhaps, a dozen children of all ages in the compartment. The younger children were dreadfully fagged and evidently dead beat. They leant against the carriage or against each other in attitudes of complete exhaustion. None of those we spoke to had anyone to meet them at the Palace, and very few had anyone to meet them in London. They had to change trains for Ludgate Hill, some going to Drury Lane or Leicester Square, which they would reach about half-past 11."
  Then she goes on to describe the case of
  296
  a child who would have to take train to Glower Street and then get to Great Coram Street—
  "My friend went on with the child and found things exactly as she had said. She was left utterly unprotected and in an exhausted condition to find her way home. They arrived at Great Coram Street close on half-past 11, and the little thing thankfully took my friend's hand."
  I will not detain your Lordships further, but the lady goes on to give a similar account of her own experience. This is in mid-winter, late at night in the lonely streets, and with the children very lightly clad. A very different account indeed from the account which your Lordships will have read in the Times this morning. Well, I say this severe preparation for night work, and the nightly work itself, and the getting home afterwards are all bad for health. But then there is the next morning. The same children have to be at 9 o'clock in school, and that combination appears to me to be the worst feature of the whole case, as regards the children's health. My Lords, you would not let your own children even amuse themselves night after night by looking on at these performances; and if your Lordships know very well that the children would be exceedingly excited by the performances—if you know that they would be quite unfit for their ordinary lessons the next morning, what is it to these little children, not just standing still as "Vegetables," but with a great deal of running and dancing to-and-fro, and a great deal of exertion leading to the fatigue which is here described. Then I have taken pains—I thought it my duty—to inquire into what is the view of the children's condition from the school side. I have taken a very experienced elderly teacher who has had a life's experience, who is a well known man in the schools in London, knows them all, and is himself a principal teacher; and he tells me that the lessons of course are unlearned—that must be the case—there is not time to learn them. Moreover, the children when they come to school are too tired to learn there, at once restless and sleepy. Sometimes, as he says, he has scarcely had the heart, knowing that the wages they earn were so valuable (I am most anxious that there should be no exaggeration on the one side or the

  297
  other) not to ease everything to enable the children to go on, but he says it is a vain task, and practically he may state as a general rule that the boys do miss their year's standard, they are unable to pass at the end of the year, and that means that they are a year longer at school. Then when all that is over the race of life itself begins, and he says the best educated, and the best trained boys of course get the places that are to be had; they get the start in life, and the other children are hindered, not only in their school lessons, but are practically unfitted for their work in life by the time when they ought to enter upon industrial occupations or upon employment as clerks. I believe that we may say that the preparation for stage life itself is not worth thinking of, and could easily be made up at the age of 10 years if the children are really going to be devoted to the stage. But, my Lords, one of the worst things connected with it, is what was described to me by another of the witnesses I talked to, as the bogus schools. The children are taken away from their Board Schools, or National Schools, and a certificate is given by people who undertake to keep them at school and to teach them something, but in reality there is no teaching to speak of at all. Now, either the school is a serious thing or it is not. If it is not a serious thing, if it is a mere pretence, there is not one of your Lordships who would think it proper that a child should be treated in this manner, because it must be a great, interference with all that a child's education is intended to fit him for in life. If it is not a serious thing, if it is a pretence, it ought not to be allowed; and if it is a serious thing it involves excessive hours for children under 10 years of age of hard and continuous work. Then as to the profit to the family. That has been disregarded in all other cases. It may be hard; I sympathise with the hardness as much as possible; but it has been thought right to disregard it in all other cases in order that the child may be better fitted for its life, and that the parents may be really benefited by the child receiving a good education. Then we are told what good wages the children get in many cases. Yes, the very clever and able children do, but the ordinary payment for a child is only 7d. a night;
  298
  that is to say, four or five shillings a week, lasting over three months. That is what the mass gain, and that is the whole profit to the family. But I say it is no real profit if the boy loses a year and is disqualified for his work; and, again, I say it is still less of a profit if it ends, as I am sure it does very frequently, in nervous weakness. It has been said that many of these children, or you might almost believe from what is said in the papers that all of them, are gutter children. Now, let me quote to you Mr. Oscar Barrett's statement. Mr. Oscar Barrett is the manager of the Crystal Palace Pantomimes. Upon a deputation at which he spoke, to meet objections urged against the system, he observed that "Theatrical children were far better off than ordinary children—they were supposed to be gutter children, but they were not." I have inquired of people who have devoted their whole lives to the service of the poor and to their children. I will not mention Mr. Waugh, lest it should be thought that he is an advocate, although I am sure that anyone who has read his statements will admit that there could not be a fairer-minded man. I might quote Miss Octavia Hill, who is intimately acquainted, in the minutest details, with the life of all these people, and who has devoted herself in a cool rational spirit to her good work, and another lady of the same surname. Miss Frances Davenport Hill. They have no knowledge whatever of invalid parents being maintained by children, or being kept out of the workhouse. They have knowledge of a very great number of families in which the earnings of the children are spent in drink. But, my Lords, these children are not really gutter children. The managers of theatres and pantomimes do not want half starved, emaciated, poor little bony children; they want the lithe, well-fleshed, well-formed, easily moving children; children already well mannered, in order to do the work of the stage. I know that there are two classes. There must be among them some exceedingly poor children. Of them I have spoken already. No doubt there will be loss there; but I am persuaded that the loss is very small indeed compared with the gain which it would be to all alike to be kept at school,

  299
  at any rate up to such a tender age as 10 years. Again, we have been told that if the children are not in the theatre they would be on the streets. I dare not venture to put my experience against the experience of others who have written and spoken on this subject; but I thought it worth while three or four weeks ago to walk through the lowest streets and alleys in Lambeth, and that is a very suitable place to walk about in, because there are three theatres there. In walking for about an hour, between the hours of 10 and half-past 11, I met 13 children. The majority of these were with their parents, or they were going to the shops, whose doors were still open, although the shutters were closed, to fetch things for their parents, all in the quietest and most simple manner. There were three children in the gutter, for three children were employed in picking up the remnants of some fruiterers' packages. There was no rioting or anything of the kind in the streets—in fact, the streets were much quieter than I expected to find them, but there were no children at all about who in any way answered to the description of gutter children, seeing, and hearing, and mixing in all sorts of monstrosities, and who would be better off in theatres. The fact is that these streets which I walked through simply swarm with children the whole day long, while at night there were, as I have said, only 13 children, the rest were in bed. I have no wish to say a word about the characters of those who I am persuaded are good and kind to the children. I believe that very large numbers of them are perfectly irreproachable; but there must be, and we know there is, a rank and file whose examples and contact cannot be very beneficial to the children, and we know also that there are such things as stage doors. However, I believe the profession generally to be neither worse nor better than other professions. But what I do feel is that I have satisfied myself on two points. The wages that these children earn are not worth such a sacrifice as that of health, and nerves; and the work itself is not healthful. The mixture of school work and stage work is I am persuaded most injurious, while the incidents of the children having to make their way home are still more trying to them.
  Amendment amended by leaving out the words "a Court of Summary Jurisdiction," and substituting the words—
  "A stipendiary Magistrate or Petty Sessional Court in England and in Scotland the Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute."
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I propose to leave out the words—
  "Any child of whose fitness to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments without injury the said Court is satisfied,"
  and in lieu thereof to insert the words "children under the said age."
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I shall be glad to accept that Amendment.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I very much prefer the words as they stand, because then it does require the Court to be satisfied that the child, as to whom the dispensation is given, is fit to take part in the entertainments. I shall certainly oppose this Amendment.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I can quite understand my noble and learned Friend opposing it, because the Amendment would be perfectly unworkable if it is left as it is.
  On Question, "That those words stand part of the Amendment," their Lordships divided:—Contents 37; Not Contents 20.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I now move, in line 5, after the word "child," to insert the words "exceeding seven years of age."
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: I cannot accept that Amendment. I think that every argument I have used already applies to that Amendment, and I will not trouble your Lordships by arguing the matter further.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should have thought that those who were most ardently in favour of omitting this occupation from the provisions of the Bill would have conceived that there was some age below which employment ought not to take place. Can it be really right to permit children below seven years of age to take part in these entertainments, and pursue their education at the same time?
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: The difficulty is reduced to an extent by the 8th clause, which reverses the usual procedure in Courts of Justice, where it is necessary for the prosecution to make out their case by providing that the de-

  301
  fendant must prove to the satisfaction of the Court that the child is above the actual age. That will stand enormously in the way of managers employing these young children. It is next to impossible to ascertain that these children are above the actual age. It would involve an enormous expense to them, and the difficulty would be so great as to render it impossible for managers to run the risk of prosecution, and they will therefore be bound to give up employing children altogether.
  VISCOUNT CROSS: This matter came before the Royal Commission on Education, and differing, as we did, upon many vital points with regard to that matter, upon this particular subject we were absolutely unanimous that these children wanted some protection. We had suggested some modification of the Factory Act. What your Lordships have inserted in the Bill would practically meet precisely the same point; but I do trust, on behalf of these young children under seven years of age, that the House will step in and protect them from what I am quite sure must in their case at all events result in cruelty.
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: If the last Amendment had been carried the case would have been rather different; but your Lordships will remember now that the Courts have got to decide as to the fitness of every particular child. One child of only seven years of age may not be physically fit to play in a theatre, whereas another child may be perfectly fit. Your Lordships are aware that a great number of plays cannot be played if you insist upon this proviso—I refer to such plays as Claudian, A Midsummer Night's Dream, The Winter's Tale, and so on.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: I may say that the Midsummer Night's Dream is played in Germany frequently without children. I would really ask the noble Lord why that play cannot be played without very young children?
  THE EARL OF DUNRAVEN: There must be small fairies.
  On Question, that those words be there inserted—agreed to.
  On Question, that the following words be inserted at the end of Clause 2 (now Clause 3):—
  "Provided also, that in the case of any entertainment or series of entertainments to
  302
  take place in premises licensed according to law for public entertainments, where it is shown, to the satisfaction of a Stipendiary Magistrate or Petty Sessional Court in England, or in Scotland the Sheriff or Sheriff Substitute, that proper provision has been made to secure the health and kind treatment of any children proposed to be employed thereat, it shall be lawful for the said Court, anything in this Act notwithstanding, to order that any child exceeding seven years of age of whose fitness to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments without injury, the said Court is satisfied, be permitted to take part in such entertainment or series of entertainments, and such order may at any time be varied, added to, or rescinded by the said Court, upon sufficient cause being; shown; and such order shall be sufficient protection to all persons acting under or in accordance with the same."
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents 31; Not Contents 24.
  Clause agreed to.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: I do not wish to move an Amendment of this clause, but I cannot help calling attention to one particular part of it which, strikes me as very remarkable; that is to say, that if a man is committed for trial his child is taken away, and is placed with some other person to be taken charge of, and that if he is acquitted no compensation is paid to him at all; though he is not found guilty of any crime or offence, all that has been done during the time he has been waiting for trial he is made to condone, as it were, and to pay for, though it has been against his will, and though his child has been taken from him for no offence whatever.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I would point out that this is not compulsory at all. The clause merely gives the power in certain cases to remove the child from the custody of the parent when he is committed for trial. I think your Lordships will see that there are cases when it would be not only most expedient, but even necessary; for instance, if a parent were committed for trial, and were out on bail, the child might be intimidated, or might suffer seriously in consequence; therefore I think that the provision is perfectly right. But at the same time, I quite agree with the noble Viscount opposite that the provision as to the payment of any money ought to be had regard to. On Report I will propose an Amendment to meet this objection.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would also call attention to the fact that the phrase "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" appears here again. The noble and learned Lord will probably consider that on Report.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I have given notice, upon this clause, to move that the last three lines be omitted. The proposal in these three last lines is that the Secretary of State should make rules and regulations for the conduct of children in the foster homes to which they are committed by this Bill, and for the inspection of them. I think that that strikes at the whole principle of the Bill. The principle of the Bill is to place the foster parent in loco parentis: he is to take charge of the children, and to have all the responsibility of a natural parent. But under this clause the foster parent is relieved of responsibility, and the conduct of the child is put under the regulation, management, control, and inspection of the Secretary of State. Is the Secretary of State to regulate the homes of England, whether they are foster homes or the homes of natural parents? I protest against this. It destroys the feeling of parental responsibility, and it places the responsibility of home duties on the Secretary of State. If the Secretary of State must regulate these foster homes à fortiori he ought to regulate the worse kinds of homes for which these foster homes are substituted; and the ultimate corollary to these three lines would be that the Secretary of State had better regulate every home in England. This point was discussed in the Standing Committee, and this proposal was defended as a parallel to rules made by Guardians in the case of boarded-out children. There is no parallel whatever between the two cases. Guardians boarding out children are obliged to make rules for the conduct of the children in the places where they send them, because they pay for their care, and have to account for an expenditure of public money. They, therefore, make some rules (which are, after all, very slight) for the schooling of the children, and their clothing, and so on. But in this case the foster parent will be invested with the whole of the responsibility: he will be put in the position of the
  304
  parent: he is the parent in the eye of the law, and is as much answerable to the law for any neglect or abuse of duty as any other parent. Nor is there any reason why the Secretary of State, if he should make regulations with regard to these foster homes, should not make similar regulations with regard to all the homes in the country. I think the State is already intruding a great deal too much upon the domestic life of this country. It is against the whole spirit of this nation that the State should be constantly interfering in domestic life. It is a foreign and not an English idea. In England we consider that a man's house is his castle, and that he may keep out the Secretary of State or anybody else, unless he abuses his position as a citizen; in which case he is amenable to the law, without special rules imposed. I say it would be a step in the wrong direction, and against the independent spirit of this country, if we passed the three lines at the end of this clause, which would relieve the foster parent of responsibility, and put it in the power of the Secretary of State to regulate the conduct of domestic life.
  Amendment proposed, Clause 4 (3), page 4, line 27, to leave out from "approves" to the end of the Clause.—(The Lord Norton.)
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH: The arguments of the noble Lord who has moved the omission of these words, if they go for anything, go against the whole spirit of the clause; that is to say, the whole spirit of the clause is that the State does step in, and does interfere with the rights of the parent by taking away the child altogether. It appears to me that if the State takes the child from the parent, it may be bound to make such rules and regulations as shall ensure the proper custody of that child in the hands of those in whom it is placed. I hope, therefore, that the House will not agree to strike out these words, which, while casting no absolute duty upon the Secretary of State to make such rules, give him ample power if it be found necessary to make rules which will ensure the proper carrying out of the clause.
  EARL FORTESCUE: I quite agree that Parliament has power to authorise the Secretary of State to make rules for

  305
  the custody of these children who are to be entrusted to a sort of foster parents; but the question seems to me to be, is it expedient that the reasonable authority for the child, who is to be a sort of adopted or foster child, in default of the proper treatment and care of the child by the parent, should be vested in the Secretary of State? Is it likely to work well? Will it not disincline the most desirable foster parents to adopt these children and take care of them if a sort of notion gets abroad that they are subject to a number of vague rules and regulations? It seems to me, I must say, that if the foster parent is fit to have custody of the child, and to be placed in loco parentis, he should be entrusted with the whole duty and responsibility of its proper care. I entirely agree with my noble Friend who moves this Amendment.
  LORD NORTON: I would like to say one word in reply to the Lord Clifford of Chudleigh. I could quite understand his argument if the State, in taking away the custody of the child, undertook the care of the child itself. Then the matter would be parallel to the boarding out of children by Boards of Guardians. But in this Bill the State takes away the child from the parent, and places it in the hands of a foster parent; and I say that when the State has once placed the child in the care of the foster parent, it weakens the sense of responsibility in that foster parent that the Secretary of State should undertake to regulate his conduct.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should be very much opposed to any interference with the foster parent beyond what is absolutely necessary to secure the proper treatment of the child committed to his charge. The provision contained in the clause does not really contemplate that the Secretary of State should undertake the management of the child, or dictate to the foster parent how it is to be managed. It gives to the Secretary of State the widest discretion to make such regulations in relation to these cases as he thinks necessary. I cannot but think that it would be desirable that at least there should be some record from time to time of where the children are who have been committed to a person other than the parent; because although the parent may have behaved ill, we will say, two, or three, or four years
  306
  before, nevertheless I am quite sure it would not be desired that the parent should be forbidden, if there were no objection to it, to have access to his child, to know something about its welfare, and where it was. Therefore, it would seem very reasonable that there should be, for example, such a rule as this: that at certain intervals (I do not want too make them too short) a Report should be made of the whereabouts of the child, so that if the parent desires to see the child or to have access to it, he may be able in some way or other to learn where the child is. I merely give that as an example; but I would point out that the whole thing is left to the Secretary of State; there is no compulsion upon him to make rules, it is a power given, and not an obligation upon him, and I have no doubt he will exercise it with care and discretion.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Perhaps if my noble and learned Friend would put in the words "may if he shall think fit," it would show that the matter was left to his discretion, and that might satisfy my noble Friend.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have no objection to it, although I still do not see that it is necessary.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment proposed, in line 27, after the word "may," to insert the words "if he shall think fit," agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 5.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: This is a clause to which I beg to call attention for a few moments. It refers to a matter which will, I am certain, give rise to considerable dissatisfaction amongst the working classes, and the poorer people of this country. It provides that any Justice of the Peace, on information made before him by any person—that is, any busybody who may take up a case of this kind—
  "Who in the opinion of the Justice is bona, fide acting in the interest of any child, that there is reasonable cause to suspect that such a child, being a boy under the age of 14 years, or a girl under the age of 16 years, has been or is being ill-treated or neglected in any place within the jurisdiction of such Justice"
  (the word "neglected," as I said just now with regard to another clause, is not

  307
  one of very clear application and meaning, it might mean any kind of neglect which this person should think prejudicial to the health of the child)—
  "such Justice may issue a warrant authorising any person named therein"
  (that might be the busybody in question)
  "to search for such child, and if it is found to have been or to be illtreated or neglected in manner aforesaid to take it to and detain it in a place of safety."
  Now, my Lords, all Justices are, unhappily, not persons of sound discretion; yet a man who is an enthusiast may go to any one Justice and get power to search any home for a child; and, if he finds him, he may carry him off forcibly from his parents in order to place him in what he calls a place of safety. But that is not all. By the 3rd sub-section there is a provision that—
  "Any person authorised by warrant under this section to search for any child may enter if need be by force any house, building, or other place specified in the warrant, and may remove the child therefrom,"
  that is to say, that this person who succeeds in getting round any Justice of the Peace may break into any working man's house, or one of your Lordships' houses, if it comes to that, at any hour of the day or the night, and wake a man up in the middle of the night, and may take, as it were, by force of arms, any child who may, in his judgment, be neglected or ill-treated. That seems to be a most startling power to give to any Justice; and I should have proposed to have omitted the clause altogether, but it has been suggested to me that there are certain cases of cruelty which go on here and there throughout the country, which could not be detected without some such clause as this. Therefore, I have not proposed to omit it altogether, although I still think perhaps that would be the wisest course to take; but I venture to suggest to your Lordships that the power should not be given to one Justice but to two Justices, or to a Stipendiary Magistrate. The clause, as it stands, has been copied word for word from a very ill-considered, and, as I think, mischievous measure called the Criminal Law Amendment Act, which has already caused a great deal of mischief, and perhaps will cause more; but it was passed, as your Lordships may
  308
  remember, in a panic, or something approaching to it, and was not very well considered. Therefore, I shall presently propose to limit the time at which a search warrant can be executed to the hours between 6 in the morning and 9 at night, which are the hours, as your Lordships know, which distinguish burglary from house breaking.
  Amendment moved, in page 2, line 3, after the word "Justice," to insert the words "or Justices."—(The Earl of Milltown).
  LORD HERSCHELL: If this Amendment were adopted, I think it would go far to defeat the object of the clause, because it is not always easy to get two Justices together on an emergency. Very often it becomes known that a child is being ill-treated, and perhaps dangerously ill-treated, and unless there can be immediate action that child may be sacrificed. Therefore, to require, as this Amendment proposes, a resort to two Justices would often render it impossible to put the provision in operation until it was really too late to effect the desired purpose. My noble Friend has quite truly said that a similar clause to this was inserted in the Criminal Law Amendment Act of 1885. Whatever complaints may have been made of certain provisions in that Act, and there have been some, there has been no complaint that I am aware of of this particular provision, which has been in operation now for nearly four years. It it were applicable in the cases covered by that Act, it seems to me to be equally applicable in the present case; and the power is not only not more liable, but I should think less liable to abuse under this Bill than under the Act to which my noble Friend referred. If the noble Lord could have shown that complaint had been made of that particular clause, or that there had been abuse of it, he would have made out a strong case against inserting it in another Act of Parliament, but, failing that, my only desire being really to make this effective, and to protect the unfortunate children, I feel myself obliged to resist the Amendment.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would suggest to my noble and learned Friend that it would perhaps effect his purpose, and I should think would satisfy the noble Earl behind me if that, which he

  309
  has given as a reason of his somewhat exceptional power, should be made part of the provision itself—namely, that the Magistrate should only issue such an Order upon his being satisfied upon oath that the case was one of emergency. My noble and learned Friend will observe that although no doubt that is the leading idea thoroughout the clause, it is not confined to it; and I think if he would make it a condition precedent to the operation of this clause that the Magistrates should judicially determine that the case was one of emergency calling for this extreme and unusual remedy, a great part of my noble Friend's objection would be got rid of.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: If that satisfies my noble and learned Friend, of course I can hardly venture to press my objection, but I still think that this power is a most objectionable one. I would like to ask this question: What remedy would a man have if his house is broken into at any hour of the day or the night because somebody has succeeded in persuading some philanthropic Magistrate that there is a child in that house under ill-treatment? How is he to recover damages? This clause even as modified is of such a character that if one case of malfeasance occurs under it, it would become a dead letter. My noble and learned Friend challenged me to find a case where this particular clause in the Criminal Law Amendment Act had produced abuse. I am not aware that there is any, and probably it has never been put in force; but I would point out that it is much less likely that error should occur in the detection of the crimes covered by that Act than in the detection of crimes which this Bill deals with, such as, for instance, the question where a child is or is not neglected in a particular house. I confess I would prefer to leave the matter to two Justices. The noble and learned Lord himself just now objected to one Justice of the Peace having jurisdiction; and I do not see why the same objection should not apply now. I do hope that my noble and learned Friend will accept my very simple Amendment. With regard to the question of Stipendiary Magistrate, I may say that this is a matter which would generally occur in large and populated districts where
  310
  there is always a Stipendiary Magistrate available.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I should have no objection to having two Justices or a Stipendiary, provided that, in case of emergency, it may be done by one Justice. I would agree to that as a compromise. That would point, of course, to its being held to be a case of emergency.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: Perhaps my noble and learned Friend would, upon the Report, introduce what he considers the proper wording. I may mention to him with a view to consideration on Report, also, that there are very extraordinary powers in this sub-section. Power is given, unless the Justice otherwise directs, that the person who makes the charge should be a party to the seizure, and be entitled to go into the house. That might be the means of introducing very objectionable people into a house, who could not go there in any other way. I think it is a thing which ought not to be left to any person. Let the Justice direct who shall go if he pleases; but I think it would be undesirable to allow any person who so desired to enter the house of his own free-will. I think it is a very formidable thing to have unknown persons admitted to other people's houses.
  Amendment by leave, withdrawn, Clause agreed to.
  Amendment proposed in page 4, line 37, after the word "health" to insert the words "or is residing with common or reputed prostitutes or reputed thieves."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: This would be introducing a new head altogether into this Bill, which deals with the neglect of children and not with the question of morality. There are provisions already in other statutes dealing with the consorting of children with prostitutes, and I do not think it would be desirable to embody such a provision in this Bill, which does not really deal with that question at all.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: My Lords, Sub-section 3 empowers any person authorised by warrant to search for any child, to enter by force any

  311
  house specified in the warrant and to remove the child therefrom. I cannot imagine anything likely to cause greater dissatisfaction, and just dissatisfaction, than such a power as this. It is surely a reasonable thing to say that this power shall only be exercised in daylight. It is a very strong thing to allow it to be done then; but to allow a house to be searched in order to see whether a child is there, and to ascertain if it is ill-treated, at any hour of the night, is really a most extraordinary proposition. I hope my noble and learned Friend will accept the very moderate limitation which I propose.
  Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 8, after the word "enter" to insert the words, "at any time between six o'clock in the morning and nine o'clock at night."—(The Marl of Milltown.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: My only reason for objecting is that I think there are cases in which this limitation would defeat the objects in view. If it is right for such purposes as this to enter between six in the morning and nine at night, I cannot see any magic that makes it wrong to enter at any hour. Those are the hours no doubt fixed with reference to the distinction between burglary and housebreaking; but is there any reason for such a limitation in the matter with which we are now dealing? When my noble Friend says that this is a provision which would be hateful, and strongly objected to by the people of this country, I must remind him that this particular clause comes to us in a Bill in its present form from those who are the representatives of this country other than those who are in the House of Peers. They are jealous of the rights of those whom they represent, and are likely to attend to anything that they think would seriously affect them. They represent the people who would be subjected to these provisions, and they, as their representatives, considered that it was worth while to yield up a portion of the rights of the community in that respect for the sake of securing a considerable and important end; and if they have been willing to do that, I do not see that your Lordships would do well to stand in the way.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: I really do not at all admit the doctrine that the
  312
  House of Commons are the only representatives of the people. Your Lordships are, in many respects, far better representatives of the people. I should think it extremely doubtful whether anyone's attention in the House of Commons was called even to this particular point. If the noble and learned Lord's faith in the House of Commons is so profound, how is it that he has himself put sheet after sheet of Amendments into this Bill? The Bill is extremely ill-drafted; and if it were not for the corrections which your Lordships have put into it, the time of Her Majesty's Judges would have been entirely taken up by endeavouring to find out the meaning of the Bill.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I will bear in. mind what the noble Viscount has said about the 4th Sub-section. It might be that one ought to turn the provision round and enable the person to be present if the Justice of the Peace so directs. The Amendment I now have to propose is to leave out the words "legally qualified," in order to insert the word "registered."
  Amendment moved, in Sub-Section 4, line 6, to leave out the words "legally qualified," and insert the words "registered."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  THE EARL OF POWIS: I would take this opportunity of asking the noble and learned Lord how he would make provision for the medical practitioner being properly paid, and what authority should fix the proper remuneration. In the case of a medical practitioner attending at an inquest, the Coroners' Act lays down the remuneration which he is to receive; he gets his guinea for attendance, and he gets his two guineas if he has a post mortem examination. It would be very undesirable to leave it at the mercy of the medical man to fix his own fee, and to make whatever charge he pleased.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My impression is that there will be no power to remunerate the medical men out of the public funds. There is no such provision here, but there are cases where the person making the information himself obtains the services of a medical

  313
  man, and it is a matter of arrangement with him what is the fee which the medical man shall receive. It would be necessary to fix the fee if it were a charge upon the public funds, but that is not the case here. I do not see that there is power given to the Justice of the Peace to insist upon any medical man being present; it is only to enable the Justice to allow the person to be accompanied by a medical practitioner; it does not enable the Justice to order a medical practitioner to attend.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6.
  LORD HERSCHELL: This is a clause which raises a question of very considerable difficulty which has weighed upon my mind a good deal. It enables in the first instance the accused person to give evidence. As to that I do not think there is likely to be any difference of opinion, but it goes further, and it makes the husband or wife not merely competent to give evidence, but compellable to give evidence. Undoubtedly, that is a very great innovation, and one which under circumstances which I can conceive might give rise to a considerable amount of feeling. The object of inserting it is one with which I entirely agree. There are many wives who would feel it their duty to give evidence if summoned to do so for the protection of their children (and the same may be said, perhaps, of husbands too) who do not like to appear to volunteer. They would attend if summoned to attend as witnesses, but they do not like to offer themselves when they are not summoned. It affords a kind of protection which it is natural they should desire and which it is right, I think, to extend to them. But it, of course, covers the case of a witness, a wife we will suppose, attending unwillingly, and when asked questions which will incriminate her husband refusing to answer, and as the clause stands the Judge would have no alternative if the witness so refuses to answer but to send her to prison, and I think that, if such a case arises as a wife refusing to testify against her husband and being sent to prison in consequence of that act, there would be likely to be a very considerable sensation excited, and
  314
  I think it is not at all unlikely that the provision would be condemned. I have, therefore, sought to hit upon a middle course, one which will give all the protection which is desired, which will prevent the appearance of volunteering evidence on the part of the wife or husband, and at the same time prevent such an occurrence as I have just described. What I propose is this, that the clause be amended by providing (I will put the exact form of the Amendment in a moment) that the wife or husband of such a person shall be competent, and may be required to attend to give evidence as an ordinary witness in the case, but shall not be deemed to be in contempt for refusing; to answer a question tending to incriminate the accused person. That enables either a wife or a husband to be heard as an ordinary witness; but at the same time if he or she is unwilling to answer questions incriminating the accused person the Judge would not be under the obligation of sending the witness to prison. It seems to me that that is a middle course which is likely to secure all the advantages that the clause would have secured, without at the same time those disadvantages which might have brought discredit upon it.
  Amendment moved to leave out the word "compellable" in order to insert the words "may be required to attend," and at the end of the clause to add the words—
  "But shall not be deemed to be in contempt for refusing to answer a question tending to incriminate the accused person."
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I cannot help thinking that this is a somewhat circuitous mode of meeting the case. Would it not be better at line 21 to strike out the word "and," and to insert the words "but not?"
  LORD HERSCHELL: I will explain why I did not do that. I want to insert the words "may be required to attend as an ordinary witness" That is, that a husband or wife may be summoned by the Court—that is really what is required for their protection. All I do is this: if in any case the witness says, "I will not answer that question because it will incriminate my husband," or "my wife," then I protect the witness, from the ordinary consequences of refusing to answer questions.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: That would amount to this, that you would force the husband or wife into the witness box, and enforce upon them the duty of giving what may be the most cogent evidence, perhaps, against the incriminated person by declining to answer a question. I object to that sort of indirect admission of the husband or wife which you would force from their lips.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Then I should propose to leave the clause as it is.
  THE EARL OF MILLTOWN: The object is to make the evidence of the husband or wife evidence for the defence, but not for the prosecution. It seems to me that if it should be evidence at all it should be evidence on either side. There are many cases of cruelty to children especially of which the wife is the only witness, and the husband continually escapes because she cannot be called. If you are going to do away with that anomaly, very well; but do it thoroughly, and enable the case to be proved by the only witness possible.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My provision would do that.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: It will satisfy me if my noble and learned Friend will consider this matter on Report. I myself should prefer the words "but not" substituted for the word "and."
  LORD HERSCHELL: Then we will leave the clause as it is till the Report Stage.
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7.
  LORD HERSCHELL: When this clause was before the Standing Committee containing a provision which appeared in it, rendering a child who was examined in pursuance of the provisions of this clause liable to the penalties of perjury, but limiting the punishment to two years' imprisonment, it was felt by many that, considering that we were dealing with the case of a child, of tender years, there was something revolting in an express provision that such a child might be sentenced to two years' imprisonment; at the same time, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor said, and I confess I shared his view, that it would not do to say that a child examined under this clause should not be liable to be indicted for
  316
  the offence of giving false evidence, because sometimes that might be the only way in which a person whose character had been affected by the child's evidence would be able to clear it. I feel myself, also, that it would be making a strange distinction to say that the child who could understand the nature of an oath and who told a falsehood should be liable to punishment, whilst a child who did not understand the nature of an oath, but knew that it ought to tell the truth and did not tell the truth, should be liable to no punishment. The result would be certainly to put a premium on the absence of theological knowledge, which seems to me indefencible in principle. But in order to meet the various views that were expressed in the Committee, I propose to add as Sub-section (b) at the bottom of page 5 these words—
  "Any such child whose evidence is received as aforesaid, and who shall wilfully give false evidence, shall be liable to be indicted and tried for such offence, and on conviction thereof may be adjudged such punishment as is provided for by Section 11 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, in the case of juvenile offenders."
  On Question, "That those words be inserted as a new Sub-section (b.); agreed to.
  Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I would point out to my noble and learned Friend that here again the words "Court of Summary Jurisdiction" occur.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 10.
  LORD WATSON: This clause is quite inapplicable to Scotch procedure.
  LORD HERSCHELL: There is an Amendment on the Paper to provide that Clauses 7 and 10 shall not apply to Scotland. I propse to assent to that.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clauses 11, 12, 13, and 14 agreed to.
  Clause 15.
  Amendment moved, that the following Clause be inserted after Clause 14:—"That Section 7 and Section 10 of this Act shall not apply to Scotland."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: On this clause I wish to move an Amendment as to child life insurance. Clause 1 touches upon the question of insurance, but only where there has been proceeding by indictment and a conviction. The Registrar General, or some other equally high authority on statistics, has spoken more than once of the great infant mortality owing to insurance, and the number of children that die on account of over-insurance is so great that in a Bill of this kind for the protection of children I think the clause proposed would not be out of place.
  Amendment proposed,
  "After the passing of this Act, it shall not be competent to insure the life of a child so that on its death occurring before it is 10 years of age any money shall become payable in the policy, without prejudice, however, to any insurance to the effect of providing decent and proper burial for such child."—(The Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HERSCHELL: This Amendment, no doubt, raises an important question, but I think it is too large a question to be dealt with by a provision in this Bill—namely, the question of the insurance of infant life. I do not feel satisfied that if the matter were dealt with at all it ought to be dealt with upon the basis of prohibiting insurance under 10 years of age. For such a purpose I do not see why 10 years should be taken as the limit; but beyond that, the clause provides merely that it shall not be competent to insure the life of a child in the event of its death occurring before it is 10 years of age. I apprehend that at the present time a policy on the life of a child is void as much as the policy on the life of anyone else unless the person insuring is interested in the life—that is to say, no person can insure the life of another unless he is interested in that life. I have no doubt insurances are effected every day which would be void if those who insured the life chose to take the objection, but the truth is they do not take the objection—they find the business of insuring a profitable one, and its profits, of course, would entirely cease of they were to repudiate the insurance by refusing to complete their contracts on the ground that their contracts were void. Therefore, in saying that it shall not be competent to insure the life of a child under
  318
  10, unless you provide some machinery' something going beyond the present law, which really makes an insurance where there is no interest a void insurance, you will effect nothing at all. It is not competent in a sense at the present time, inasmuch as the liability could not be enforced unless an interest in the life could be proved. Therefore, to say that it shall not be competent would be absolutely ineffectual. If you are to deal with this matter at all, it must be dealt with in the way of making it absolutely penal on those who take part in it. That is the only possible way to secure it. Then I think it can, and ought, only to be made penal in cases where there is not an interest which justifies the insurance and not where the insurance does not exceed that interest. There are cases where it is very proper to insure an infant's life. It is done constantly without any impropriety in the cases of settlements and leases for life and in various other cases. Those who have any experience of the business of insurance offices know that the insurance of infant lives in that way is a perfectly legitimate and necessary thing. The abuse consists in the insuring of lives where those who insure have no interest which justifies the insurance. To insure a life in the proper sense is to insure from loss by reason of the death where you are insuring the life of another person. That is the only proper object of insurance. In order, therefore, to deal effectually with this evil, you must first of all limit your prohibition to the cases where insurances ought not to be effected, and then, having limited your prohibition in that way, you must make it effectual by proper penalties. Under these circumstances, strongly as I feel the importance of the question raised by this Amendment, it seems to me that it lacks altogether the machinery which would be necessary to give effect to its intention.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I have already expressed an opinion upon this subject, and I must say I entirely agree with my noble and learned Friend that this is an improper way of dealing with it. I believ it is a very important subject, and will have to be considered. As my noble Friend knows, everybody is supposed to have an insurable interest in his own life, and I believe the mode

  319
  in which these things are done is that the infant is supposed to insure its own life, and then those who represent it obtain by inheritance or representation that which belongs to the child. Therefore, the objection to its being void by reason of the absence of insurable interest would not apply. But I quite agree there is no machinery here applicable to it, or I should myself have taken charge of an Amendment having the same object. I believe it is a subject which must be hereafter dealt with in a complete way, and that it is one which cannot be dealt with in a fragmentary manner, as it would be if it were endeavoured to be grafted upon a Bill of this kind.
  Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYwithdrew the remainder of his Amendment.
  LORD WATSON: There is one Amendment of which the noble Lord had given notice, which seemed to be necessary in order to make Clause 15 complete, as in one part of Scotland, if not in others, there will be no Local Authority. The Amendment is on page 8, line 18, after the word "Council," to insert the words "as regards any police burgh in Scotland, the Commissioners of Police thereof."
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: I altogether differ from my noble Friend and cannot accept his proposal, which would lead to great confusion. The police burghs in Scotland would be independent of the Council for this purpose only. The Amendment which I introduced in the Standing Committee was to the effect that after the passing of the Local Government Bill all the powers which are now in the Commissioners of Supply, or in the police burghs would be transferred to the County Council, and after the passing of that Bill there would inevitably be confusion if this Amendment were carried.
  LORD WATSON: These two Acts will run very nearly parallel. I should fancy it depends on who first obtains the Royal Assent. There is no reference in this clause to the supersession of the powers of the Commissioners of Supply by the County Council.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: But by the Local Government Bill the powers of the Police Commissioners would be entirely superseded.
  LORD HERSCHELL: The Local Government Bill does not come into operation until next year, so that there would be a certain hiatus which ought to be covered in some way.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: On Report I will introduce some words to> meet the case. Perhaps these words would do, "until the Local Government (Scotland) Act comes into existence."
  LORD HERSCHELL: It will probably be better to put in these words now, and we can amend them on Report if they are not satisfactory.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 17.
  Amendment moved, in page 8, line 20, after the word "the," to insert the words "prevention of cruelty to and,"—(The Earl of Aberdeen.)
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: I may mention that the noble Lord who first proposed an alteration in the title has authorised me to say that he is quite in favour of the new form which I propose, and as I think my noble and learned Friend who has charge of the Bill is also in favour of it, I shall not trouble your Lordships with any remark. The Amendment is for the purpose of bringing out the twofold aspect of the Bill and meeting some of the objections which have been raised with regard to the nomenclature.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Originally this-was called the "Prevention of Cruelty to Children" Bill. Then objection was taken to that title on the ground that it covered matters which were not properly within that description. Then it was changed to the "Protection to Children" Bill. Then I have learnt that some of those who are interested in this measure think that it will not be so effectual if it does not keep also the title of Prevention of Cruelty. There seems to be no objection to give it a title which covers both.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Amendment proposed, in page 1, in. the title, after the word "the," to insert, the words "Prevention of Cruelty to and,"—(The Earl of Aberdeen),—agreed, to.
  Bill reported.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Thursday next, and Bill to be printed as now amended (No. 211.)

JUDICIAL FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL (No. 202.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the SECOND READING read.
  THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN: This is mainly a technical Bill providing for the re-arrangement of the position of two officers in Scotland, one of whom is called the Accountant of the Court of Sessions, and the other the Accountant in Bankruptcy. There are two main objects of the Bill. One is to consolidate the supervision of bankrupt estates, and other estates in the hands of the Scotch Courts, and the other is to subject to this supervision all estates without exception where an officer of the Court is an Administrator. The Bill is purely technical in its character, it has been considered by the most prominent legal bodies in Scotland, and many valuable suggestions which have been made by them have been incorporated into the Bill. I think I need not further explain to your Lordships the object of the Bill which I now move be read a second time.
  Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee on Law, &c.

  SETTLED LAND ACTS AMENDMENT BILL (No. 203.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Thursday next.
  PRINCE OF WALES'S CHILDREN BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a tomorrow—(The Marquess of Salisbury). (No. 212.)

  COMMITTEE OF SELECTION FOR STANDING COMMITTEES.
  Report from, That the Committee have added the Lord Ker (M. Lothian) to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c, for the consideration
  322
  of the Judicial Factors (Scotland) Bill; read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.