Lords Sitting of 21 June 1894

NEW PEER.
John James Stewart Lord Bishop of Worcester—Was in the usual manner) introduced.
PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 89.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HEUSCHELL): My Lords, it will not be necessary for me to detain your Lordships at any length in asking yon to read a second time this Bill which has already passed the other House. Its object is to strengthen the legislation to which Parliament has already given its sanction for the purpose of protecting children from cruelty. The Bill is strictly an amending measure, amending in a number of respects the Acts which Parliament has previously passed. Of course, it would be out of place on the present occasion for me to trouble your Lordships by calling attention to each of the provisions it is proposed to amend or the supplementary provisions it is proposed to add. They are essentially separate and distinct; and that, of course, would be matter for consideration in Committee, and not upon the Second Reading of the Bill. I think your Lordships can entertain no doubt that this is a subject well worth the attention of Parliament. The experience of the last 10 years, and more especially of the last five years, has brought to light an amount of cruelty towards young children which is perfectly appalling. Your Lordships will, I am sure, agree that if ever the necessity for legislation such as Parliament passed in 1889 has been exhibited it has been in the present case. No doubt the powers which were then entrusted to various persons in reference to the protection of children were considerable, and there were not a few who at that time entertained some apprehensions with regard to entrusting powers so large—
  1610
  fears were expressed lest it might involve so much interference with parental control as to lead to dangerous results. Happily, those who have been chiefly instrumental in putting this Act into operation have exhibited a care, discretion, and tact which has prevented those consequences which might well have resulted if less care and tact had been shown, and proves, I. think, that your Lordships may well enable powers in addition to those which have been already exercised to be put into operation. In the last five years, since the Act of 1889 was passed, the number of convictions for cruelty to children have been no less than 5,460. That, my Lords, is surely proof that Parliament did wisely to pass that Act, and when I tell your Lordships that the total number of persons prosecuted was only 5,792—you will see that in only 332 cases were there no convictions; that is to say, the convictions amounted to 94.27 per cent, of those prosecuted—your Lordships will agree that the views of those who put the Act into operation as to its necessity has been thoroughly justified in the result. Of course, it is not to be supposed that even of the 332 persons who were discharged, there was no ground for bringing them to trial, because in cases of doubt the doubt was very properly given in their favour, and there could be no conviction. But the fact that there was so small a percentage not convicted shows that the utmost care has been exercised on the part of those who undertook the prosecutions in those cases. This does not represent anything like the total amount of work done for the benefit of children. It is not only by prosecutions that they are protected, but also by the warnings to cruel parents, which frequently prevent the necessity of prosecutions. Out of 47,000 complaints inquired into, 5,000 were found to be either without foundation or could not be dealt with, 28,895 were warned, and, as I have said, the prosecutions were 5,792. It has been frequently found, and even in cases of a serious nature, it has been sufficient to give a warning and let the persons accused of cruelty know that their conduct was under observation, to stop the cruelties they were committing. Your Lordships will no doubt feel, considering that in the great majority of cases the cruelty found to have been committed towards children was stopped

  1611
  by the warnings given, that is a much better result than in every ease of necessity undertaking a prosecution of parents, which would frequently lead to their imprisonment. Another happy circumstance is this: that where prosecutions have occurred it has seldom been necessary to resort to further proceedings. Of 7,398 persons taken into Court for cruelty to children, nearly 7,000 are now living with their children, and under happier circumstances in the great majority of cases than they ever experienced before. Therefore, the result has been that happily it has not been found necessary to destroy the home and family; and even after imprisonment the parents have returned home and the family has been happier and more prosperous than before the prosecution. I hope your Lordships will consider this extremely gratifying, as showing that steps have been taken to put a stop to this great evil. Of course, it has not been found possible to put the powers given into operation in some parts of the country; but there is every reason to hope and believe that in many parts of the country where punishment has been inflicted that much good has been done thereby, and that the evil itself has been greatly diminished. This Act proposes to amend and strengthen the previous law, and I will only touch upon two or three points by way of illustration. Under the original Act the age limit for boys is 14; it is proposed to extend that to 16 in regard to punishment being inflicted in cases of ill-treatment. For example, supposing a boy was half-starved, but over 14 years of age, no steps could be taken under the provisions of the Act. It has been found by experience there are some cases in which protection is just as necessary as in the cases of younger children. Then, again, the word "ill-treatment" used in the former Act was subject to various constructions by different Justices, and some of them— a not inconsiderable number, although a minority—held that "ill-treatment" does not cover an assault; that if a parent ill-treated his child by starving it he came within the Act; but that if he assaulted the child, he must be dealt with for that offence, and that consequently the provisions of this Act were inapplicable. I will not myself on this occasion express any opinion
  1612
  of my own as to whether "ill-treatment" covers an assault; but your Lordships will, at all events, agree that it is as well that difficulty should be removed, and that in future an assault should come within the Act. Well, then, the utmost term of imprisonment upon summary conviction is now three mouths. It is proposed to extend the term to six months, but, of course, if the accused demand it he can claim a trial by jury. Considering there are a large number of other cases in which punishment of between three and six months is inflicted, I think your Lordships will consider it desirable that the present punishment on summary conviction should be extended to six months. Then there is a provision with regard to dangerous occupations, such as acrobats and contortionists—that licences shall be obtained so that it can be seen whether the child is being properly cared for, and not ill-treated. I do not think it necessary that I should detain your Lordships now by going into all the various points of detail dealt with by this Bill. I think I have said enough to show that it is strictly in the nature of an amending measure that it is intended in many cases to remove defects and to make the administration of justice in the different Courts uniform. I trust your Lordships will consider I have said sufficient to justify this Bill, and to induce you to give it a Second Reading.
  Moved,'"That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

NOTICE OF ACCIDENTS BILL.—(No. 106.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  *LORD PLAYFAIR: My Lords, this Bill has been brought up from the other House. The object of it is to ensure that knowledge shall be furnished in the shape of Returns of accidents occurring during progress of labour. Various Acts of Parliament provide for sufficient Returns in many kinds of labour, but leave large fields without any Return at all. For instance, under the Acts of Parliament we get knowledge of accidents at sea; of acci-

  1613
  dents in the working, though not in the construction, of railways; in the manufacture of explosives; in factories and workshops, and from boiler explosions. In all those industries Returns have to be made, to different Departments of the Government, of accidents, whether fatal or disabling. But, as I have said, there are large fields of labour in which no Returns are made to any Government Department. In these matters our practice varies from that in other countries, where the Returns cover all fields of labour, while we have only a certain number covered. For instance, in the construction of large public works like the Forth Bridge and the Manchester Ship Canal, we have no official Returns; and the consequence is, that very often erroneous and exaggerated notions prevail among the public with regard to the accidents occurring on works of that description. No doubt your Lordships have observed statements of that kind daring the making of the Manchester Ship Canal, that no less than 5,000 accidents had occurred, iucluding 1,000 deaths and 4,000 disablements. These are not at all the true records. The true record is usually less than the popular belief on the point. Down to the opening of the Canal in April last the deaths on the works during their construction had been 137, the permanent injuries caused to the workmen were 157, and the other injuries produced were 1,469. Altogether the accidents during the construction of the Ship Canal were 1,813—a much smaller number than the popular belief that the accidents amounted to more than 5,000. It is very advisable that we should obtain full accounts of these accidents. How far the Returns to be given in this way will make accidents avoidable in future it is difficult to say; but the publicity given in the case of accidents in occupations where they already come under the Acts of Parliament has been exceedingly beneficial, and the inquiries which followed in those cases have prevented accidents or have removed the causes of accidents in a great many cases. The object of the Bill is to require notice to be given to the Board of Trade of all fatal and disabling accidents in certain specified kinds of work. Those will be found in the Schedule to the Bill;
  1614
  but I may state generally that they are —the construction and repair of any railway, tramroad, gas-works, bridges, and so on, all under Parliamentary sanction. Then comes the construction and repair of large buildings, for which there are no Returns of any accidents made and which require them, because both the feelings of the working men and the positive fact that in the building trades the assurances for accidents are large to persons engaged in that trade show that accidents are very numerous. Thirdly, accidents which arise from the working of any traction or other engine used in the open air, and in Clause 2 the Board of Trade has additional power given to it to include any dangerous trades which may spring up. For example, if dynamite were to be invented for the first time the Board of Trade could schedule its manufacture as a dangerous trade, in which accidents occurring must be returned. The Returns must indicate, first, loss of life; secondly, bodily injury incapacitating workmen from working three days a week of five hours each, in order that Returns may not be made of accidents of too trivial a character. Under this Bill the Board of Trade will be enabled to appoint Courts of Inquiry in cases of serious accidents, to ascertain whether it was possible to remove the causes of them, and to obtain better security for life and limb. The Bill originated with the strong desire of the Trade Unions in their Congresses that such accidents should be returnable and should be made public. The Bill will apply in the case of accidents occurring to persons employed by a Government Department. This is not at all a Party measure. It comes from the other House, and has passed through the Grand Committee; and I now ask your Lordships to give it a Second Reading. Some Amendments may be proposed to it, but I believe your Lordships will all approve of the general motive of the Bill—that full knowledge should be obtained of the accidents which take place during labour in all industries.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Playfair.)
  LORD BALFOUR OK BURLEIGH: My Lords, I do not rise to offer any opposition to the Second Reading of the

  1615
  Bill. On the contrary, I think the testimony borne by the noble Lord opposite in support of it, and of its object, must have convinced your Lordships that there is a case for a measure of this kind. The account given of the Bill by the noble Lord was so full and complete that it is not necessary for me to add much to it. But I should like to confirm what has been said by the noble Lord as to the erroneous ideas that have sometimes got abroad in regard to the number of accidents during the construction of large works, such as the Manchester Ship Canal. Exactly the same ideas prevailed during the construction of the Forth Bridge, and has been entertained with regard to other large works whose construction has extended over a considerable number of years. During the construction of the Forth Bridge accounts of accidents, more or less severe, to men employed on the work were often recorded, and created an idea among the public that it was carried on in a reckless and improper fashion; but, when the matter was looked into, it was found that, having regard to the magnitude of the work, the enormous quantities of iron and steel used in it, the numbers of men employed, and taking into account all the factors by which these things should be judged, the number of accidents was relatively very small. As the noble Lord has said, the Bill is to provide for more complete notification of accidents, and it comprises a Schedule specifying manufactures and trades specially brought within scope of the Bill. There is one point upon which I must say a word, not in condemnation, but rather in congratulation, and that is with regard to the almost child-like trust and confidence displayed in the management of the Board of Trade by the terms of Clause 2 of the present Bill. There is possibly as much legislation allowed under the Bill to the Board of Trade as is to be enacted by Parliament. I am far from saying that that is an unwise thing to do. Having some experience of the Board of Trade, I believe it manages its work very well. But not only is the Board of Trade given a large and wide discretion as to the Court they will set up for inquiring into these accidents, but they are allowed to extend the operation of the Bill to other trades not specially mentioned in the Schedule, Railway
  1616
  accidents are at present inquired into by a special permanent staff of officials, familiar with such matters and competent to deal with them. But under the Bill the competence of the persons who are to hold inquiries is left to the Board of Trade to decide, and it seems certain they are not to be permanent officials or necessarily to possess legal knowledge, because there is a further provision that persons having legal or special knowledge may be appointed to act as assessors. I do not know that it is necessary to oppose this provision. I believe it to be a fair experiment, but I think it right to call attention to the matter. I feel confident the Board of Trade will exercise that care in the working of the Act, and therefore I need say no more on that point. With regard to the extension of the Act to other trades, I understand the Board must pass a resolution that the trade to which the Act is to be extended is "specially dangerous." That being so, it seems absurd to exclude specially from the provisions of the Act domestic service. I agree it is not necessary to include it within the provisions of the Bill; but, from the way Clause 2 is drafted, it seems to imply an opinion by the Board of Trade that domestic service is specially dangerous, but that, in spite of that conclusion, it is not necessary to extend the Bill to it. I do not suppose that that is intended. I do not quite understand why, if there is a limitation in the extension of the Bill to especially dangerous trades, it is necessary to go out of the way to prevent the Bill extending to domestic service. There are one or two matters in which the Bill may, I think, require consideration, and possibly amendment in certain particulars. The Bill provides for the case of an injured workman who is not able to work for five hours on any one of the succeeding three days. It should be specified whether that means successive days or includes Sundays, holidays, and so on. There is also an ambiguous provision in the 3rd section, Sub-section 6, that the Court set up by the Board of Trade with regard to these matters shall have the power of ordering persons summoned before it to pay the expenses of the investigation. I propose to put down an Amendment providing that, before a person is fined, the Court must come to the conclusion that he has

  1617
  been rightly summoned before them, and that he was in some way or other negligent or in fault.
  LORD PLAYFAIRsuggested that the noble Lord should put down his Amendments at once. He would not take the Committee stage till Monday next, which would give the Board of Trade time to consider the proposed Amendments.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

  SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE (PROCEDURE) BILL [H.L.]—(No. 37.)
  Returned from the Commons agreed to, with Amendments: The said Amendments to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next. (No. 114.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 9) BILL. (No. 111.)
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 10) BILL. (No. 107.)
  Read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (GAS) BILL.—(No. 93.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (HOUSING OF WORKING CLASSES) (No. 2) BILL. — (No. 93.)
  Read 3a (according to Older), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 8) BILL.—(No. 94.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  ELECTRIC LIGHTING PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 2) BILL. —(No. 99.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), with the Amendment, and passed, and returned to the Commons.
  RAILWAY RATES AND CHARGES PROVISIONAL ORDER (EASINGWOLD RAILWAY, &C.) BILL.—(No. 96.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  PUBLIC LIBRARIES (SCOTLAND) BILL. (No. 62.)
  House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without amendment; and re-committed to the Standing Committee.
  FISHERY BOARD (SCOTLAND) EXTENSION OF POWERS BILL.—(No. 57.)
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 5) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 116.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT (IRELAND) PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 12) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 117.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 7) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 118.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 9) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read 1a; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 119.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 10) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 121.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 11) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 121.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 12) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 122.)
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROVISIONAL ORDER (No. 17) BILL.
  Brought from the Commons; Read la; to be printed; and referred to the Examiners. (No. 123.)

  LICENSING LAWS AMENDMENT BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to amend the licensing laws—Was presented by The Lord Bishop of London; read 1a; to be printed; and to be read 2a on Thursday the 5th of July next. (No. 115.)
  House adjourned at Five o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.