Lords Sitting of 23 February 1892

SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
LORD HERSCHELL LORD HERSCHELL : My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill it is not necessary for me to detain your Lordships with any explanation of its provisions, or any arguments in its favour, because there was a common consent in your Lordships' House last Session, when this Bill was introduced, that it was expedient that legislation of this nature should be undertaken with the view of preventing an evil which undoubtedly exists, which is believed by many to be growing, and which has ended—as is well known—in the ruin of many. My Lords, the measure passed your Lordships' House last year, and went to the other House, where it was read a second time and went into Committee; but, owing to the near close of the Session, and certain opposition with whith it was met, it became impossible to pass it into law. My Lords, I am glad to think that the area of that opposition was a very limited one indeed. I believe the con-census of opinion in favour of the measure in the other House of Parliament was very nearly unanimous, and in accordance with the view taken by your Lordships in this House. But, my Lords, I think it is desirable—inasmuch as I have endeavoured to acquaint myself with the reasons which influenced those who objected to the Bill—to deal with those objections so far as I was able to gather them, and I believe I did gather them completely. My Lords, it was said, as one objection, that this Bill was a rich man's Bill. That statement rests on an entire misapprehension of fact. It is not a Bill that will protect the rich any more than those who cannot, in any sense, come within that designation. It is well known that this evil extends to, and the results of it are felt by, many who can in no sense be called rich;
1002
and I am quite sure that, if those, who took that objection, had seen the letters that I received in relation to this Bill, they would have found that it excited interest in classes as far removed as possible from the description of the rich, who were as desirous of seeing it pass into law as any could be who were well endowed with this world's wealth. Therefore, I say, that is an objection founded on a misapprehension. I do not believe that, under this Bill, those who are rich, or have the prospect of riches, would, in nearly as many instances, be beneficially affected (if this Bill should be successful) as those whose means are very limited indeed. Then, my Lords, another objection was taken. It was said that the person inciting an infant to these transactions was alone made punishable, while no punishment was provided for the person who yielded to the incitement. My Lords, the whole foundation of legislation of this description relating to infants is that protection may well be afforded to them which you would not afford to those who do not come within that description. It is, my Lords, a fact, that is known to us all, that, although a person may have passed the years of childhood, yet, nevertheless, he has not arrived at a condition of well matured judgment, and he is likely to be easily tempted, by those who know the world infinitely better than he does, into action which, if he possessed the judgment which he will possess a year or two later, he would be the first to see was unwise and ruinous. The whole basis of legislation is that you may properly extend protection to those, under a certain age, who need it, which it would not be possible to extend generally. My Lords, there are plenty of precedents for legislation of this description, but it is only necessary for me to refer to one. A person is subject to a criminal charge who induces a woman, under an age when she can no longer be called a child, and is, in every sense of the term, an adult, to leave her home and parents, or those under whose care and protection she is living; whilst no one has ever suggested that it followed, as a logical consequence, that you ought to make her responsible as well as the person who ab-

1003
ducts her or induces her to leave her home. My Lords, I think that illustration is enough to show that no new step is taken in the legislation to which I am inviting your Lordships to give your assent. Another objection, my Lords, that was taken was that, under this measure, you compel the person charged to prove himself innocent. I do not think that is a just or adequate description of this legislation. The Bill does that which has been done very frequently—I could cite almost numberless instances—for many years past; it is to make certain facts primâ facie evidence unless they are displaced; that is to say, when you know that certain facts will in general, in almost every case, or in the great majority of cases, indicate some inference, you should take that inference to be established, unless the person, within whose power it is to make the facts known, and who is in full possession of them, should show that the facts are otherwise. My Lords, I think not only is that not contrary to the spirit of English law, but it is in accordance with common sense, and is a principle that ought to be adopted. So far as I know, my Lords, with one exception, those are the only objections I have heard to this Bill; and, dealing with all those objections, I would say at once that I should be most pleased to consider any suggestions that might be made, by way of Amendments to the Bill, which would remove any difficulty which may be felt by any of those who have raised those objections. I do not feel bound, by any spirit of pedantry, to the exact provisions of the Bill; and, if, without defeating its object, any of those difficulties can be removed by suggestions from any quarter, no one will be more pleased than myself to alter its form in those respects. But, my Lords, if those who have objections to the Bill are unable to suggest any way in which it can be made safer or more advantageous, you are reduced to this question: whether, because there may be possible difficulties in some quite exceptional case, or some possible danger in such legislation, you ought to forego legislation which, on the whole, is felt to be necessary and beneficial, on account of some possible danger which nobody sees any
1004
way of remedying or avoiding? It seems to me, my Lords, that, if we were to act on such a principle as that, it would be practically to forego all legislation; because you cannot pass any Act of a remedial character without its carrying with it some possible dangerous consequences. I said, my Lords, that there was one other objection raised to the Bill. It has been said that the Bill does not deal with one important matter of public interest that it ought to deal with. I have no doubt your Lordships are aware that already, under legislation that has existed for a long time, a bet cannot be recovered in a Court of Law; but it has been held, notwithstanding those provisions of the Legislature, that, if you employ a person to make a bet for you, and payment is made by him, the amount of the bet can be recovered from the person who gave the directions to make it. I believe the Courts arrived at that conclusion somewhat reluctantly, but they felt themselves bound to it by the terms of the enactment. Consequently we have seen of late in a good many cases what I call the scandal of the time of Judges and juries occupied often for hours, and, I believe, in some cases for days, in determining betting disputes which ought not to have come within the cognizance of a Court of Law at all. My Lords, I felt that it was impossible to introduce that matter into a Bill which deals with infants, without changing the framework of the Bill, which would be creating difficulties; but, so far as that subject is concerned, I trust that those who take that objection will feel that it will be removed when I tell your Lordships that I propose, in a short time, to present a Bill dealing with that matter by itself, and to ask you to give your assent to it.
Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(Lord Herschell.)
LORD NORTON*LORD NORTON : My Lords, may I be allowed in one word to express my deep gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for again introducing this Bill which, by an accident almost, failed at the last moment of last Session to pass the other House. I am sure your Lordships all agree in feeling grateful to him for having persisted with a

1005
most useful measure, which has been proposed for a long time to Parliament, for the general welfare of this country. Your Lordships not only agreed unanimously to its propositions when it was introduced at the beginning of last Session; but the only amendment which you made was to carry it out still further. The first proposition was merely to check betting agents from inciting youths to a system of betting in their young days which was sure to grow into a system utterly demoralising to them, and with consequences miserable to their families. Your Lordships brought within the provisions of the Bill the making of loans to an infant an invalid contract. That was a very considerable advance in the proposition, which was carried, without one word against it, in this House. When the Bill went before the Lower House there was, apparently, the same unanimity on all sides; there was not an appearance of any opposition to thus protecting infants from such demoralising influences. But at the last moment in the Session, when this measure and others had been thrust into a corner by more pressing business, it was possible for any one individual merely to put a notice on the Paper to be fatal to the Bill—and so it happened. I believe none wished to frustrate the Bill, and I believe that the idea in putting such notice of Amendment on the Paper was a simple fallacy as to the objections which the noble and learned Lord has just shown to be absolutely futile. My Lords, as to its being a Bill for the rich and not for the poor, anybody who makes that objection shows that he knows nothing whatever about the object and circumstances of this Bill. It is perfectly true that there may not be gambling on so large a scale now in this country as there was in the days of Fox, as we read; but—which is infinitely worse—the spirit of gambling is permeating the whole of Society from high to low. There is not a house in which the servants are not exposed to this temptation; there is no tradesman, however small, who is not more or less engaged in it. And, my Lords, when once lads are trained and engage in it, I do believe that, in general, all sense of honour ceases, and a lower
1006
state of morality takes place in the minds of those engaged in its pursuit. It may be said that these betting agents, who number thousands in this kingdom, are dealing with young lads in a very small way—only a few shillings; and there are parents who are foolish enough to think that there is not much harm in that. They do not know the seeds of corruption that are being bred in young minds, to their demoralisation and ruin, and to the misery of their parents and families. There can hardly be, my Lords, I believe, a more important measure brought before this House, and I really do believe that there is no greater source of mischief in this country at this moment than the temptation of the young to begin life by indulging in this spirit of gambling. I really believe there is nothing that so much militates against all that we are doing in the way of the advance of education, and the amelioration of the morals of the country, and the reduction of crime, (in which we are so interested at this time) as this growing spirit of gambling. I know the noble and learned Lord will not lose a moment in pressing this Bill through this House, as there is a unanimous consent of your Lordships to assist him in carrying it as speedily as possible, in order that it may begin in the other House at an earlier time, which may prevent its being again stifled by some ignorant or senseless individual, who, by the mere fact of putting a notice upon the paper, can frustrate the progress of the Bill.
Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

COUNTY COUNCIL CANDIDATES.

  QUESTION—OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY : My Lords, the question that I desire to ask Her Majesty's Government relates to the point whether a Clerk to the Petty Sessions is disqualified from being a member of the County Council? The point turns upon certain sections in the Municipal Corporations Act, which is incorporated with the Local Government Act, and a section in the Local Government Act

  1007
  itself, which I will read, as it is very short. The disqualifying section is to this effect:—
  "A person shall be disqualified who has, directly or indirectly, by himself or his partner, any share or interest in any contract or employment with, by, or on behalf of the Council."
  My Lords, the clerk of the Petty Sessions is not appointed by the Council, but he is dependent upon the Council for his salary; because, by Section 84 of the Local Government Act, it is provided that the Joint Committee of the County Council should be substituted for Quarter Sessions as to all powers connected with the fixing of salaries or fees to be received by the clerk of Petty Sessions and the payment of such salaries. The question therefore arises whether, inasmuch as the Clerk to the Petty Sessions, if elected to the County Council, would be qualified to be a member of the Joint Committee as a member of the County Council, and might be appointed as such, he would not be so indirectly interested in this pecuniary question of the fixing of his salary that he would be disqualified? The point is not by any means an abstract one, for I understand that there are several candidates in different parts of the country who are clerks of Petty Sessions; and, if it is possible to clear up the doubt, it will be a great satisfaction to those who are interested in those elections. My own feeling is—while not attempting for a moment to say what is the right interpretation of the Act, which is a legal question—that it is desirable that such an officer should not be a member of the County Council, under all the circumstances.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I regret that the noble Lord who would properly respond for Her Majesty's Government is not in his place. Lord Henniker, I am sorry to say, is kept away by reason of suffering from the prevailing epidemic. I should be glad if he were here to answer the question for more reasons than one. In the first place, I think it is a very difficult question; and, in the next place, my noble Friend, who represents the Local Government Board in this House, would be able to answer it without the responsibility that attaches to a Judge who
  1008
  may have hereafter to discuss that very question when it comes before him in his judicial capacity. But the point, which is no doubt an important one, and, as I have said, a very difficult one, seems to me to turn very much upon the nature of the relations between the County Council and the officers in question. Those officers were appointed under certain provisions, and fulfil certain functions which do not directly place them under the County Council— that is quite true. On the other hand, the language of disqualification is very peculiar. I did not catch whether the noble Lord read the language of disqualification from the Statute.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I did.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR:If you put the language of disqualification in the Statute, and you see the relation that these officers bear to the County Council in respect of their remuneration and what they have to do, and ask whether they were to be under the County Council or not, that raises an extremely difficult question. In giving an opinion on the subject I hope your Lordships will understand that I have not had the point argued before me, and therefore it is an opinion which I am entirely at liberty to retract when the question is properly argued before me; and I say that the more impressively, because I understand that my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General has given an answer to-day to that very question in the House of Commons with which (I speak always under the reserve that I have mentioned) I should not entirely concur. The impression that I should form, upon the whole, would be that the object, and meaning, and spirit of the Statute is that these officers should not be qualified as County Councillors—that the disqualifying section would apply to them. But, as I say, it is certainly not directly said; it is only said by reference, and reference in such a way as to make it extremely doubtful whether the words of disqualification apply to them in the character in which they would be members of the County Council. I am afraid, my Lords, that the proposition is not very clear as I put it; but that is not my fault; it is the fault of the Legislature in passing

  1009
  the Act in the form in which it was passed. The only thing I can say is that my own impression (and I do not give it as anything more) would be that they are disqualified, and that—inasmuch as they do receive their remuneration from the County Council, although that is not the word contained in the disqualifying section, yet, looking at the object, and purpose, and meaning of the Statute as a whole, considering what it was intended to prevent in the event of offices of that sort being held under a body who themselves had, in some sense, the control over them—the holders of those offices should not be members of that body. My impression, therefore, at present is that they are within the disqualifying section, and could not properly be elected to the County Council.

CLERGY DISCIPLINE (IMMORALITY) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 19.)
A Bill for better enforcing discipline in the case of crimes and other offences against morality committed by clergymen—Was presented by the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; read 1a; and to be printed.
House adjourned at ten minutes before Five o'clock.