Lords Sitting of 23 February 1891

BETTING BY INFANTS BILL [H.L.]—(No. 34).

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD HERSCHELL: My Lords, in asking your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, I do not propose to enter upon the subject of gambling generally, or upon the questions of ethics which have been so much discussed with regard to it, because I feel sure that whatever diversity of opinion there may be upon those points there will not be any difference of opinion that it is not expedient that boys and youths should enter upon the practice of betting and acquire habits of gambling before they arrive at an age which affords them that judgment and experience which would enable them to appreciate the dangers and the consequences of such habits and practices. And still more I think your Lordships will be agreed that it is not expedient that facilities should exist—on the contrary, that it would be desirable that they should be limited, or altogether got rid of—for tempting those who are of immature age to enter upon transactions of this description by holding out to them, as we know are held out, specious promises of certain gains and means of acquiring money which, in the vast majority of cases, and in the long run, they are sure to find delusive. That the evil exists I think there can be no doubt; that circulars are sent wholesale to boys at school and to youths at college pointing out to them the way in which, with what is described as little or no risk to themselves, they can have the prospect of acquiring large sums of money, is a fact about which there can be no question. I think your Lordships will feel that it would be desirable to put a stop to such proceedings, inasmuch as they have been unquestionably, in not a few instances, the source of positive evil and mischief. I acknowledge that the measure is, in a certain sense, a small one—it only deals with one class of acts of the same kind,
  1322
  and it may be said to cover only a limited area, but if the consequence of passing it should be to save even a few lives from being wrecked at their very outset, as so many are wrecked, which might otherwise have been honourable, prosperous, beneficial, to themselves and to the community, it would undoubtedly be a desirable thing to accomplish. It might, in individual cases, lead to a happy instead of to a disastrous life, and to this end I think may be accomplished without any of those counterbalancing disadvantages which unfortunately sometimes attend beneficent legislation. The object of the Bill is simply this: it is to render penal the sending of what are well known as betting touts' circulars, as they are now sent wholesale to boys at school and youths at colleges. It renders the sending of such circulars penal, and it raises a primâ facie presumption which, considering the circumstances, I think quite justifiable, that those circulars sent to boys and youths at colleges and schools are primâ facie sent to persons known to be infants. Of course leaving it open to the sender of the circular in each particular case to show that he had reasonable ground for believing that the person to whom he sent it was not an infant but an adult. I do not think I need detain your Lordships longer upon the object of this Bill. The scope of it will be intelligible enough without further words from me, and whatever criticism there may be upon its details,. I cannot think there is likely to be any diversity of opinion as to the end in view being a desirable one. I have been strongly urged to extend the scope of this Bill, or at all events to extend by legislation the area within which it is to operate. At present it is confined to what I may call "betting circulars." I have received many representations from Members of your Lordships' House, and from others outside the House that it would be very desirable that similar legislation should be passed with regard to what will be understood when I describe them as "money-lending" circulars, which are also sent wholesale to boys and youths. The two subjects are obviously closely cognate because the two systems work into each other. The knowledge that there will be facilities afforded of obtaining money if necessary from the money-lender operates to remove

  1323
  one restraint upon a young man in responding to the seductions of the betting circulars, and I do not think there can be any sound objection to an extension of the measure, because although there may be circumstances under which a borrowing transaction on the part of an infant would be perfectly legitimate, I do not think that any legitimate desire to borrow on the part of an infant would be likely to receive any valuable assistance from the receipt of any of these money-lending circulars; whilst, on the other hand, in many cases, it is certain they lead to the commencement of transactions by which a, may is encumbered and burdened of ten during many of the subsequent years, perhaps during the whole, of his life. Therefore, if I receive any encouragement from your Lordships to do so, I would certainly be disposed to extend the scope of the Bill. It would not be a large addition to extend its operation to money-lending as well as to betting circulars.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Herschell.)
  LORD DE ROS: I am sure both parents and guardians must be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for introducing a measure to put a stop to the pernicious system, of betting by youths through these circulars, and if he had not forestalled me I was going to ask him whether he would include in the Bill, not only betting, but money-lending circulars, and make it penal for them to be sent to boys and youths at public schools and colleges, as they now are to an enormous extent. I hope your Lordships will accede to his suggestion, as he is, I am triad to hear, ready to include money-lending circulars within the scope of the Bill.
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I desire to say that there will be no objection to the Bill on the part of the Government. The only question will be as to the extension of its scope. To myself it seems to be the most unreasonable thing in the world that, while people are brought before Magistrates and dealt with summarily for fortune-telling, persons should be allowed to carry on a trade which is worse a great deal than fortune-telling, and far more
  1324
  injurious in its consequences. A great deal is heard at the present time of legislation for the benefit of the poor, and I am therefore glad that something is at last going to be done for those who are supposed to be rich, and who have been left very much to take care of themselves, whilst rigorous measures are adopted to protect the poor against being entrapped by persons who call themselves fortune-tellers. I cannot see why the Bill should not be extended to those persons who offer facilities for borrowing money under what are practically or absolutely false pretences. What is done by the senders of such circulars may not come technically under the legal definition of false pretence, but persons are deceived in being led to suppose that the repayment of the money would be made on easy terms, while the actual terms turn out to be quite different, so that the unfortunate borrowers are hampered for years by the obligations they find they have incurred. Young men are frequently drawn into this system of borrowing before they are of age, on the security of expectations, which, when they are ultimately realised, are encumbered to an extent which embarrass them for a long time, perhaps as long as they live. Unfortunately, young men who receive these circulars do in that way borrow largely before they come of age, and their liability for money, which perhaps really they have never received, hangs round their necks for the rest of their lives. I am glad the noble and learned Lord has taken the matter in hand, as I believe that legislation may be attended with results beneficial to all who are exposed to these temptations.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I entirely approve of the object of the Bill, but I would call the noble and learned Lord's attention to the fact that he has simply made this offence a misdemeanour. If he will consider for a moment, I think he will see the clumsiness of the remedy which is proposed, instead of these offences being made triable before the Magistrates at Petty Sessions. He will see that the attainment of the object of the Bill is more likely to be secured by the remedy being made short and easy, without the necessity of bringing such cases before a Grand Jury to find a presentment. I

  1325
  believe it would be more effective if, instead of making the offence a misdemeanour for which, an indictment may be preferred before a Grand Jury, it were made an offence for which any person charged with it might be brought before the Magistrates in the ordinary way to be summarily dealt with.
  LORD ESHER: My Lords, I do often almost envy my noble and learned Friend opposite his good fortune in bringing forward all the beneficial measures in his power, such as the Bill which he now proposes. I have often in that view wished I could be an ex-Chancellor myself if it were not for the horrible necessity of being a Chancellor first. For the Bill itself, I really think it would be futile unless the addition were made which has been suggested, because if these people were not prevented from sending circulars to youths offering to lend them money, they would simply leave off sending circulars with regard to betting and would substitute others of a money-lending character but taking care that the offer to lend money should include a stipulation or a proposition that it should be employed in betting transactions. I entirely agree also, if I may be allowed to say so, with the suggestion made by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, that it would be better to put in words which would give to the Magistrates summary power of dealing with the alleged offence. Further, I think, as I mentioned to my noble and learned Friend as I came to the House, there will be a difficulty with regard to the evidence against the persons charged with sending these letters. That will be a very difficult matter indeed, unless you put something into the Bill to make a primâ facie case against any of those persons requiring it to be disproved that he is the person who has sent the letters. I would therefore suggest that if a letter of any of the kinds described in the Bill is sent with the firm name or the known name of any person, that should be primaâfacie evidence that it came from him, with liberty, of course, to that person to show that he knew nothing of it, had nothing to do with it, and that his name was appended to it without his authority.
  THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, I do not think that a Bill to restrain gambling, as proposed by my noble and learned Friend, can fail to be received
  1326
  with gratitude in this House. Perhaps, no body of individuals in this country is more exposed to the evils aimed at by the Bill, arising from this pest of money-lending circulars, than the Members of your Lordships' House, whether as sons or fathers. Those persons who send out these circulars do not draw the line at colleges and public schools, for I have a boy of 12, and therefore not old enough yet to be in a public school, who has received a good many of these circulars, at the private school where he is, in which he is told that if he borrows any money his father need not know anything about it, but that if in due time it became necessary he should know it he would no doubt be delighted to pay the money. It is fortunate that in many cases boys make a confidant of a headmaster, and in that way further evil was prevented. He showed the letters to his schoolmaster, and got, of course, some judicious advice, but that perhaps does not always happen; and I hope, therefore, your Lordships will approve this Bill, and rid the country of this terrible pest.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: I am sure this Bill will be received with great gratitude over the whole country. There has been no Church Conference, decanal or diocesan, for some time past at which the subject has not been discussed with ardour, and at which attention has not been directed to the miseries which betting and gambling are bringing upon young persons and their families. It may be difficult to determine where the balance is to be struck or the line drawn between such betting as it may be thought ridiculous to do more than discountenance, and such betting as is bringing ruin upon a large number of young fellows at the present time. The noble and learned Lord in supporting the Bill has spoken with his accustomed moderation of the evil which attends the sending of circulars to schools and colleges, but he says very truly that it exists upon a scale which renders it worthy of interference by the Legislature. There is no clergyman, I am sure, but knows that the system is being carried on upon a vast scale indeed, and whatever else may be criminal and wrongful, there can be no baser trade than that of instigating ignorant young men to enter into betting and gambling transactions in order to make an enormous

  1327
  profit out of their inexperience and misery. It does indeed exist upon a great scale and in all directions. In a single square I know of two most unfortunate cases that have occurred within the last few months not far from where their Lordships are sitting. In the first, a very promising young footman had disappeared under terrible circumstances, leaving behind him proof that he had been extensively engaged in betting. In the second instance, at the other corner of the square, a young secretary committed suicide under most painful circumstances, after having been found to be fraudulent with regard to cheques to the amount of nearly £2,000. This young man's room was full of papers, of one of which I have here a copy. The accounts weekly furnished to him by the commission agent, whom I suppose, poor fellow, he thought he was employing, but who was really employing him, which were found after his death, are made out in a systematic manner, giving the dates of the meetings, the names of the horses, and the balance upon the amounts lost or won. Letters from this agent were also found, showing that occasionally small sums were sent to the unfortunate young man as winnings, but that he was more frequently asked for large cheques to make good the losses. He had been lured on by those means until a life which
  had begun well ended in terror and degradation. But that is not the end of the sad story. A friend who had been abroad for two years, on returning inquired for the young man, after his death, and on learning his fate remarked that he was the second friend of his who in the meantime had committed suicide through the unbearable wretchedness produced by the betting temptations of the men aimed at by the Bill. I would not have mentioned those cases did I not know that they are typical instances. I am assured by business men that there are at this moment many luncheon bars in the City where young men are tempted to bet and to borrow money for gambling purposes. Young men in those places are continually solicited to bet on horses, and are offered money to begin with, the men who make those offers being well assured that once they get the young men in
  1328
  their power they will be able in some way to produce the money even if they are driven to help themselves to it. Scarcely less evil is produced by the vile system of "money-lending," and I hope most heartily that the noble and learned Lord will include in his Bill the money-lending circulars which are being sent in such numbers to almost everybody. Not only youths at college and boys at school but a whole population is being drenched with these circulars. There is a kindred matter which might, I think, be more thoroughly attended to, and that is the large numbers of circulars which are sent to every house from Hamburg and other places on the Continent relating to foreign lotteries. I spoke to a legal authority on the subject the other day and he told me they were illegal, and that it was merely an accident that they had not been stopped by the Post Office. Two more came in a few days to my house, and they go on in profusion. If they are illegal the Postmaster General's attention ought to be called to the fact that these circulars are being constantly delivered, and I hope that an effectual check will be given to the practice.
  VISCOUNT MIDLETON: I am very thankful to the noble and learned Lord for having introduced this Bill. I can give him every encouragement. Between 12 and 13 years ago, with the assistance of my noble Friend (being then in another place) I successfully passed through the House the Infants' Protection Act, which went very much on the same lines as this Bill. Every effort has been made since to overturn that measure by the parties it was intended to reach; and though I was unsuccessful in another place in passing that part of the Bill which made the judge and not the jury the arbiter of what were necessaries for infants in law, yet the simple fact that infants were rendered utterly incapable of contracting, and that no advances made to them while under age could be validated by any subsequent advance after they came of age, has operated as a very material check upon the doings of those depredators who prey upon that particular class. The Bill, with the assistance of my noble and learned Friend, was passed into law; and from that time to this it has never been found possible by those persons to get

  1329
  round the clauses, although every effort has been made to do so. I think we need not be in the least afraid of being accused of legislating in a grandmotherly spirit in reference to this Bill, because it is greatly needed in practice. I think that the noble and learned Lord has done a great public service in introducing it; and I sincerely hope it may be passed as soon as possible.
  LORD NORTON: My Lords, I merely wish to say a few words in gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for the Bill he has introduced; and I do so, not I am sure because it wants in any way a recommendation to the Members of this House, but because I cannot help thinking that the Bill may not commend itself as easily and as generally elsewhere as it does to Members of this House; and, therefore, anything like a general expression of opinion in favour of the Bill here will do as much good in drawing favourable attention to this most important subject as possibly even the passing of the Bill itself. Now, I cannot help thinking that the noble and learned Lord himself rather depreciated the importance of his Bill. He talked of it as a small measure. In my humble opinion there is not a more important measure before Parliament at this moment to the well-being of society than that we are now discussing, which proposes to check a noxious and lucrative trade, involving the demoralisation of the youth of the country, and bringing misery and disaster into many homes and families throughout the Kingdom. I hope that the suggestions which fell from the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, and also from my noble Friend near me, the Master of the Rolls, may be accepted as improvements in the Bill by the noble and learned Lord who has introduced it, for the purpose of facilitating the action of the Bill, and the conduct of proceedings in carrying out its object. I do not think the noble and learned Lord himself realises the enormous extent to which the mischief has gone which his Bill is aimed at suppressing. According to the Report alluded to by the most rev. Primate upon the facts which came before Convocation from various parts of England, carefully gathered together, it appears that there are no less than 10,000 of these
  1330
  professional betting agents in England alone. They are to be found in almost every locality, most of them dealing with young men, and dealing with them chiefly because they make more easily profit out of their inexperience than they would out of men older and with more sense in their heads. Their work is well known to go on, and it cannot be easily checked without the assistance of measures like this. It is going on at our public schools, at Eton, at Sandhurst, at the Universities—Oxford and Cambridge, and elsewhere. That is quite well known. The Bill does not deal with gambling in general, and, therefore, some of the cases cited by the Most Reverend Primate were not illustrations of the operations of this Bill. Gambling in general is the subject of a great deal of our legislation. There is nothing that the legislature has been more assiduous in trying to put down; but, as I have said, this Bill does not deal with gambling in general, but seeks, by protecting youth, to strike at these nurseries of vice and ruin. Gambling, I believe, though I am not a lawyer, is classed amongst public nuisances in our criminal law. It is a misdemeanour, and I cannot conceive a more offensive trade, or more contagious disease, in the country than it is. Certainly it ought to be prohibited in the same way that other public nuisances are. The Legislature has made constant efforts to put down gaming in general, but in all the Acts on the subject there has been a difficulty which we must bear in mind in dealing with even so much-required a Bill as this. The difficulty of legislating in regard to gambling in any shape at all is to steer clear between condemning harmless amusements and neglecting to penalise a most dangerous vice. The Acts which followed the Commission of 1844 have all taken this distinction most carefully; they have distinctly excepted wagering from the Common Law of Contracts, and have condemned it as being against public policy. It is distinctly made an illegal practice, and the Legislature has drawn a line between such games as faro, hazard, roulette, &c., and amusements which often involve money payments on a small scale, but which have nothing whatever to do with the subject of this Bill. The Bill is simply for the protection of youth and

  1331
  for the suppression of betting agencies which, are making enormous profits at this moment from the inexperience and aptitude for excitement of boys who are thus led from small beginnings to acquire the habit, and a taste for gambling. Some persons appear to think that the cause for alarm is exaggerated, inasmuch as there is no such high play now as there was in the days of Fox and Sheridan; but all are agreed that the evil has spread among all classes and ages. Servants, small tradesmen, workpeople, and pot-boys are engaged in betting. The Report of Convocation relates an instance of two boys on their way to school, settling the amount of their bets upon horse races in halfpence. This Bill is for the protection of youths from the first allurements of systematic betting. Some people are so foolish as to assert, and I have heard parents say that after all the stakes in these agents' books are very small, amounting perhaps only to a few shillings. So are the first steps in dram-drinking very small, but they are not the less certain to end in slavery to an unconquerable passion. There is one thing I must ask your Lordships to consider in this training of youth in the first nursery of gambling—for I am sorry to say I know something of this matter. It is very remarkable, but somehow or other these betting agencies manage to keep their young victims at first from the best thing that could happen to them, that is a good loss at starting, and to keep them for a time in a course of small winnings. And how can this be? Why, by blunting and breaking down that fine sense of honour, the destruction of which is after all the most dangerous part of these transactions. It is, however, not only the demoralisation of youth, but the injury done to families throughout this country, which this Bill of the noble and learned Lord will strike at. What a farce is the cant of education, when this vice is allowed to accompany it! My Lords, I fear a good deal of this entrapping of youth in the first steps of gambling is not done through these circulars alone, but in private life there are men and women—ladies—who almost perforce lead young lads to take the first steps in gambling at their houses. We cannot deal with that evil in this Bill, but I hope we can see our
  1332
  way to the infliction of adequate penalties upon these public agents who are sapping the life and happiness of the country, who are making gain for themselves out of the demoralisation of our youth, and introducing ruin in many homes.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: My Lords, I should like to say a few words more than have been said already about this Bill, and I will take very little time to say them. I can myself testify to the existence of the evil, and not only so but that it is growing very rapidly. I can testify that whereas it was somewhat prevalent in Public Schools 20 years ago, when I was myself a public schoolmaster, it has largely increased since that time, and is going on increasing. But there is one thing which makes this Bill particularly valuable in my eyes from a totally different point of view, and that is that the moral effect of the Bill will be to put a black mark against the practice of sending out those circulars and upon the agents or persons who send them out. Not long since I was very much startled to see on the list of a Church Committee, who were engaged in raising money for building a church, the name of a man whom I knew as one of those betting agents, and whose circulars I had seen. On my remonstrating against such a person being allowed on a Committee of that kind, I was immediately met with the charge that I was discrediting a well known and very useful occupation. I think the sooner Parliament makes it plain that those persons do not follow a useful occupation the better it will be for the community at large.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (The Marquess of SALISBURY): I am sure the noble and learned Lord will be well satisfied with the reception his Bill has met with at the hands of your Lordships. I have never before heard such a unanimous expression of opinion on any subject which has been brought before your Lordships' House as has been evoked by this Bill. I trust the expression of opinion may be equally unanimous on the other side of the Central Hall. But, I fear, we may perhaps in the warmth of our sentiments against the practice complained of lose sight of the extreme difficulty in framing

  1333
  provisions that will prevent it. That is the real difficulty we have to deal with. We have no doubt whatever that it is desirable to stop these betting and loan circulars being sent to persons under age, if we can do it. My fear is that the men engaged in this business are men to whom character is of little importance; that they will change their names, use other persons' names, and employ the agency of men of straw to conduct their correspondence, and the proof will be, as my noble and learned Friend behind me has already pointed out, will be exceedingly difficult, and the Bill may miss its mark. I listened with some melancholy to the observations of my noble Friend (Lord Norton) that there is nothing which the Legislature has pursued so sedulously as the prevention of gambling by legislation. If the state of things we see around us at the present time is the result of long and sedulous action on the part of the Legislature, I am afraid it does not give us much hope for the future in respect to sedulous endeavours. I should be very glad if it could be made penal to join in playing with any person who is under age, I believe that the evil is so great. But I do not suggest a remedy that is beyond the possibilities of the moment. There is one remedy I would suggest to the noble and learned Lord, which I want him to take into his consideration. It may be possible that my unlearned mind may not see the difficulties; but it appears to me that the great object of the men who send out money-lending circulars is to get young men into their toils, not for the few shillings or pounds that they can dispose of, but to get them into their toils so that they shall have heavy debts hanging round them when they come of age, and then induce them to renew their acceptances and force them to pay. I should like to make it a plea in answer to an action of that kind that a similar debt had been contracted by the person sued when under age to the same plaintiff. If that idea could be thrown into practical shape, I am sure it would take away the great object that these men have in view, and do more than anything else to put an end to a practice which we unanimously condemned.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I have, of course, every reason to be satisfied with the
  1334
  reception this Bill has met with. I quite agree with the noble Marquees that nothing is more difficult than by means of legislation to effectually carry out the end we have in view, and that, however carefully you may frame a measure of this description there are quite certain to be attempts, and quite certain to be-almost successful attempts, to get round it and do that which you are seeking to prohibit. But, on the other hand, I think, notwithstanding that, you may gain great advantage by putting obstacles in the way of doing it, and that although you do not altogether succeed in your object, you will diminish and check the evil if you make it more difficult and dangerous to practice. I think, therefore, the noble Marquess will agree with me that though we are fully conscious of the impossibility of altogether preventing evasion we ought not on that account to be deterred from at any rate making some attempt to check the evil. I am much obliged for the suggestions made by noble Lords. I agree with the Lord Chancellor that it would be an advantage to make those offences punishable by summary conviction rather than by indictment. I would rather see a prospect of these offences being punished on summary conviction, even with diminished penalties, than make them subject to indictment for misdemeanour; for if imprisonment is one of the possible penalties that will act as a sufficient deterrent, it would not perhaps be rendered a greater terror if two or three months longer term were added on a conviction for misdemeanour. Then the Master of the Rolls referred to money-lending circulars. I am not quite sure whether it would be possible to insert a clause relating to them. I have consulted about it and it seems doubtful. Therefore, the better course would be to introduce another Bill and then to consolidate them in Committee. If your Lordships will allow me I would ask the House, immediately after this Bill has been put, to authorise another to render penal the sending of money-lending circulars to infants with the view of bringing the two Bills on together.
  On Question, agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

  EAST INDIA OFFICERS BILL [H.L.] (No. 35.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  ELEMENTARY EDUCATION (BLIND AND DEAF) BILL [H.L.]—(No.,33.)
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 11.
  Amendment moved, in page 4, line 4, after ("regards") insert ("conveyance to and from a school, or.")—(The Lord Norton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  LORD NORTON: I do hope to draw attention to this clause. In line 10, it is provided that the parent of a deaf or blind child shall not pay a larger fee for its instruction in a blind and deaf school than the ordinary school fee. The words are that, as far as regards the education of such, a child, "the parent shall pay the ordinary weekly fee payable in a public elementary school for a similar child not blind or deaf." Everybody knows that the education of blind and deaf children is a great deal more expensive than that of ordinary children, and why should a parent, equally capable of payment for his child, be allowed to get a shillingsworth of education for 6d.? It is a great affliction, of course, to have a blind or deaf child, but you are not in consequence of that to make the unfortunate ratepayers pay more for its education. It is introducing a pauper principle if you only charge the ordinary fee to cover the much greater expense of education at one of these special schools. Those special schools are not only very expensive for the particular kind of instruction required, but they can only be district schools scattered throughout the country, and there is the conveyance and boarding of the children and other expenses incidental to this kind of education. I can find no reason whatever why the well-to-do parents of a blind or deaf child should pay no larger fee for the education of that child than is payable by a parent in similar circumstances for an ordinary child at an ordinary school.
  Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 10, to leave out from ("parent") to ("deaf") in line 13.—(The Lord Norton.)
  THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My noble Friend rather surprises me at the way he seems to read this clause. No doubt if I read it as he appears to have read it I should find considerable difficulty; but the clause does not mean what he supposes. He supposes, apparently, that it lays down the principle that not more than the ordinary fee shall be paid for such a child at one of these special schools, that is to say, not more than 9d.; but that is only one of the items to be taken into consideration.
  LORD NORTON: It is for the education.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: One of the items to be taken into consideration is the means of the parent. The circumstances of the parent are to be regarded. That is to say, the two things are to be taken into consideration, the cost and the parents' means, and a sum is to be fixed, which it is thought right the parent ought to pay looking to his means. That is a totally different thing from ordering all parents to pay the same fee. The clause is intended to give power to the Court to fix upon the sum, which is to be settled in each case.
  LORD NORTON: Allow me to say that is not the case at all. I suppose the means of the parent, in the comparison, to be the same in the case of a child sent to an ordinary school and of one sent to a blind school; and yet the more expensive education is to be got by one of the parents for his blind child at the same fee as is charged to the other, similarly circumstanced, for the ordinary child. The other expenses of conveyance, maintenance, and so on, must be otherwise met; but in this line of the clause it particularly says that the payment for the education of a blind child is to be the same as the fee paid for an ordinary child. I really think this is a serious point. It is introducing a sort of eleemosynary socialistic principle into the Bill to say that because a parent has the misfortune to have a blind child, having the same means as the parent of an ordinary child, he is to be provided at public expense

  1337
  with the more expensive education at the same fee as the other parent pays for his child's ordinary education.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: It is provided that if the parent can make an agreement in regard to the sum to be paid he may do so. If not, the question must be taken before a Court of Summary Jurisdiction, and then there is power to take into consideration the means of the parent and also what the expense of the education of a child is ordinarily. That is to say, in the case of a parent who is of the working class, who would ordinarily pay the usual school fee at an ordinary school and not more, it would be in the power of the Summary Court to say that he should not pay more on account of his child being deaf. He would obtain conveyance for it from the place where he resides; but it is left entirely open to the Court of Summary Jurisdiction to fix whatever fee it thinks proper for the education of that child, absolutely.
  LORD NORTON: I am afraid my education has been so ordinary that I cannot perceive the reason for the limit laid down, though a Court may relax it. However, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave of the Committee, withdrawn.
  Clause 14.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTON: My Lords, I have an Amendment at the end of the clause, which raises the question whether the compulsory powers in regard to these afflicted children should be exactly the same in reference to age as with regard to ordinary children. The noble Lord at the head of the Education Department contends that the parents of these children ought to have the power to take them away and to employ them in some occupation at the age of 14 years. Now, I venture to think that the case of these children—certainly of the deaf—is very different from that of ordinary children. If the parent of an ordinary child takes it away without having passed certain standards which may be found necessary for him in after life, he may continue his education; but if you take away a deaf child at the age of 14, before he has attained the means of speech—acquiring the power of speech,
  1338
  he never can recover what he has lost in that way—he never can recover his powers of speech which he was in process of acquiring. Therefore, I say, a deaf child is placed at a disadvantage, under which he ought not to suffer, and on that account there should be a distinct difference made between deaf and blind and ordinary children. I have ventured to put the age at 15. I have not gone quite so far as the Royal Commission, and perhaps my noble Friend will be disposed to meet me on that point. I think the age of 15 a very important period, because it gives the necessary eight years after a child who is deaf should have commenced his education. It will enable him to have finished the education which he ought to have for eight years. The limitation to the compulsory powers at the end of eight years was taken out of the Bill. By the first Bill it was not necessary to send a child who was deaf to school before the age of seven years for reasons which were shown to us by inquiries both at home and in foreign countries—France, Germany and Italy; that it was not profitable to the State to begin to educate a deaf child until he attained the age of seven, that he could not possibly before that age take any education. It was shown that those children were at least two years behind others, and therefore the compulsory powers I am asking for these children up to 15 are really no more than those for ordinary children up to the age of 13. That point was very strongly urged before the Commissioners, and that conclusion was arrived at after communication with teachers both in this country and abroad. It is not so likely, perhaps, that parents will withdraw their children in order to put them to work when they are getting a good education in some school maintained for that purpose, because they would not be fitted to obtain their livelihood at 14, but they might take away a child and put him in the streets to beg. I would ask your Lordships, is that a desirable thing to permit to be done? Therefore, I say it is to the interest of the State to see that these children are properly taught, and that they should not be allowed to be withdrawn at the caprice of the parents. The State having gone so far as to provide for their being educated, ought to see that the

  1339
  education is completely and thoroughly carried out. I have, therefore, fixed 15 as the age at which these children can fairly be said to have had an education sufficient to enable them to obtain a livelihood in the future. These children are frequently withdrawn from school by their parents when only 13 or 14 and apprenticed to tailors or put to work at other trades, and they soon forget the little knowledge they have obtained, and though they may be capable of earning their livelihood by their work, they are without that education which they ought to have. The contention before the Commission is, that these children are and ought to be treated educationally as a class apart. The right way to deal with them is to do as is done in the United States, where they are considered the wards of the State, and where it is recognised that it is the duty of the State to look after them more carefully than other children. This is a very important matter if the oral system of teaching is ever to be largely carried out in this country. It is quite clear that this description of education is a thing apart. I am sorry to have to go into these details, but this is a subject of great importance. If the deaf children are to be educated at all it is only by enforcing such a system as they have in France, Germany, and Italy. In those countries they have certainly, by the course of education followed, enabled the deaf to speak, and it is only in consequence of the inferior teaching and of the short time devoted for the purpose of education that children of that class are in this country less fortunate in regard to what is done for them. This country is, I am sorry to say, very much behind the nations of the Continent in that particular. The Commission had before their minds the necessity that the education of these children should be raised to what it is according to the best system among the nations of the Continent, and it is speaking on their behalf especially, that I venture to propose the addition of words which will raise the compulsory period from the age of 14 to 15.
  Amendment moved, in page 5, line 4, at end of clause to add ("beyond the age of fifteen.")—(The Lord Egerton of Tatton.)
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I should like to say a few words in addition to what has fallen from the Mover of the Amendment, because I also am a Member of the Commission. I paid very particular attention to all the evidence that was presented upon the best method of dealing with deaf children. It was certainly made out to us very clearly that it would be a very great gain to the deaf if they were so taught by the oral instruction method as to be able to speak in ordinary conversation with other people. It was also very clearly proved that it was necessary, if this was to be done at all, that sufficient time should be given to it. I venture to think if you curtail the time you will seriously damage the chances of giving the necessary instruction in that respect, and that you will waste a large proportion of your efforts in what may have been already done, you will have spent a rather shorter time and not have really obtained your object; and you might almost as well cease the attempt altogether as not carry it to its full extent. For myself I regret that the age was not fixed at 16; but, at any rate, I venture to think it would be very unwise to cut it down still lower. We ought not, I think, to fall into that worst of all mistakes, that is, doing a thing in so imperfect a manner that it is a question whether you ought in such a case as we have here to deal with to do it at all. I venture, therefore, to press upon the House to accept the Amendment.
  VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: My Lords, I think there is some little misappre hension as to what this clause really does. This clause puts deaf and blind children upon a totally different footing from other children who come into the ordinary schools and remain in the ordinary schools up to a certain time. In the ordinary schools at the age of 14, the Government ceases to pay any Parliamentary Grant for them at all. Here we agree to pay a Parliamentary Grant, and we permit their education to be helped out with it up to the age of 16, which is two years more than in the case of other ordinary children; but at the same time we leave them, at 14 years of age, as in the case of the

  1341
  ordinary children when they have passed a certain standard, at liberty to be taken away and put to work. In the ordinary schools they are taken away when they are able to assist their parents. But in this case it is well known that in most of these institutions they stay of their own accord, and if they do they will be able to do so with greater advantage by the help of the Parliamentary grant. With regard to the age of entry, that is provided for in a certain way. My noble Friend, Earl Granville, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, especially as his absence is from being indisposed, takes a great interest in this subject, and he headed the deputation to the Department. He, when the Bill was in this House, thought it would be a great advantage to add in the earlier years. I did not, however, think that a very material point to insist upon, because probably the School Boards would not think it advisable the children should be sent, and that the institutions would not be very anxious to receive them at that age. But with regard to the present Amendment of my noble Friend I really hope he will withdraw it, because it would be, I think, absolutely useless. This Bill does not alter the compulsory age for education at all, and all that my noble Friend would do would be to say that nothing in this Act shall operate beyond the compulsory period of 15 years. This leaves it simply under the Education Acts, and so the Amendment which my noble Friend proposes would be absolutely inoperative. I cannot help thinking that when he considers how far the suggestions of the Commission have been adopted in this Bill that he had better accept it as it is.
  LORD EGERTON OF TATTON: After what has been said by my noble Friend, I beg to withdraw the Amendment. I merely wished to raise the question so that the Bill should not pass without its being noticed.
  Amendment (by leave of the Committee) withdrawn.
  Bill re-committed to the Standing Committee; and to be printed as amended. [No. 43.]

  INTERMEDIATE SCHOOLS, &c. SITES BILL [H.L.]—(No. 3.)
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1.
  LORD HERSCHELL: This clause proposes to enable a person who has a limited interest in land to give or sell or exchange it for the purpose of erecting upon it an intermediate school, or a covered market or buildings. As regards remaindermen, I think sufficient protection is afforded by saying that the gift or sale is not to be made without their consent. But there is one point that needs consideration. The section provides, that if such a conveyance is made and the party to it is a minor or a lunatic, the conveyance is not to be made unless the guardian or Committee of such a person should concur. So far as it deals with sale or exchange I do not see any objection—I think that is enough; but if it is a gift which may be disposing of very valuable property of the infant or lunatic, inasmuch as it applies to land up to the extent of an acre, I doubt whether it is a sufficient safeguard that the guardian or Committee should concur, because it is really practically enabling the guardian or Committee to make a gift of the infant's or lunatic's land without consideration, no doubt for the public purpose of a school or market buildings. It may be doubted whether the mere consent of the guardian or Committee is a sufficient protection. I would suggest that in that case the intervention of the Court should be invoked, and that the gifts should only take effect (where it is a gift of property of a minor or a lunatic) with the sanction of the Court. Of course there may be cases where it would be for the benefit of the estate of the infant or lunatic to do this if it were advantageously and properly done, but I think the Court would not interfere in such cases; and, on the other hand, it would not be in the power of the guardian or Committee of the infant to make improperly a gift of what might be a valuable portion of his property.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: If the noble Lord means to include the guardian who is probably the

  1343
  father of the next person in remainder, it seems to me hardly worth while to ask your Lordships to pass such a Bill, because in the case of sale and exchange Lord Cairn's Act is ample; but it is to avoid the difficulties of sale and purchase that I would ask your Lordships to pass this measure doing, in the case of sites for intermediate schools and markets, the same thing as was done in the case of places of public worship and burial ground sites. In the case of the Committee of a lunatic, I have no objection that the sanction of the Court should be taken; but in the case of a minor who, probably, is nearly of age, it would, it appears to me, make the Bill perfectly useless.
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not think my noble Friend sees the point. The minor might be only two years old—of course there is no limitation of age—and this would enable the guardian to make really a gift of what might be a valuable portion of the minor's property.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: You have done it in the Places of Public Worship Sites Act. Why should you not do it in other cases?
  LORD HERSCHELL: I do not propose the Amendment now; it will require a little careful framing. For instance, the Court whose sanction is required would, in the case of a minor, be the High Court; and in the case of a lunatic, the authority would be the Lords Justices in Lunacy.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: You can put it in when the Bill is before the Standing Committee.
  LORD HERSCHELL: Yes.
  Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.

  BORROWING (INFANTS) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to render penal the sending money circulars to infants—Was presented by the Lord Herschell; read 1a; and to be printed. (No. 44.)

  CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for better enforcing church discipline in the case of crimes and other offences against morality—Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday the 5th of March next. (No. 45).
  House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.