§ Order of the Day for the Second Beading, read.
§ *VISCOUNT CROSSMy Lords, it has been thought that the penal clauses which existed in these Acts should be brought before Parliament in a separate Bill. That was the general feeling last year, and it has now been done. I ask your Lordships to allow the Bill to be read a second time.
§ LORD HERSCHELLI will just say a few words upon this measure. I think the Bill will require some attention, because it strikes me that although it may be quite reasonable to empower a Court of Summary Jurisdiction in certain cases to impose a fine upon the parent, or to order the parent to pay to any person injured by his child a sum in compensation not exceeding £5, I think that some intimation ought to be given in the Bill that that provision is only to apply to parents or persons who have some control over the child. There is no definition here of what meaning the word "parent" is to have; and though that would be a very reasonable proviso where a parent has control over the child—and its neglected condition may properly be supposed to be attributable to him, and good grounds would exist, therefore, for imposing a penalty upon him—it would be unreasonable where the child was altogether out of the parent's control. 'Therefore, in some way the application of the word "parent" will have to be defined in order to show that the parent must have a control over the child. For example, this Bill will apply to girls under 16 years of age; and girls at that age are often entirely beyond their parent's control, or even married. We know that is not so uncommon a case that it ought to be overlooked. Then there is another point which will have to be regarded. I am not quite sure whether, as the Bill is drawn, it is intended to apply, and would apply, to cases where whipping may already be inflicted by a 1504 Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the Act of 1879. Under that Act, where an indictable offence has been committed, if the parent consents to its being dealt with at once without going to a jury, the Court may order the child to be whipped. I do not think this Bill covers those cases, because it only applies to offences punishable by the Court; and I doubt whether that is the same thing as indictable offences, which are dealt with under the former Act. Again, under that Act the limit of whipping is six strokes; but under this Act, if the child is over 12, the punishment may be increased to 12 strokes. Obviously it would never do to allow 12 strokes to be inflicted in cases of non-indictable offences, while six strokes is the limit of whipping for indictable offences.
§ *VISCOUNT CROSSI will take care that those two points are brought before the notice of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. I do not know whether my noble Friend thinks this Bill would apply to the parents of an adopted child.
§ Bill read 2a (according to order), and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.