SCHOOL ATTENDANCE ("REGINA V. DUGGAN"). (Hansard, 28 April 1896)

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

asked Her Majesty's Government what notice had been taken of the magistrates of Smethwick for imposing a fine of 5s. on a woman named Elizabeth Stanley, mother of seven children (whose husband had gone to America), because her second son Joseph, aged 13, did not attend the Board school; and whether the decision of an Appeal Court in "Regina v. Duggan" had been reversed. In this case, on the 9th October, the magistrates of Smethwick committed two illegalities: 4 first, they inflicted a fine of 5s. when 2s. 6d. was the fine for a first offence; secondly, the boy was more than 13 years of age; thirdly, they disregarded the advice of their law clerk, Mr. A. Hibbert, who pointed out that it had been decided, in the case of "Regina v. Duggan," that, when the wages of a child were necessary for the maintenance of a family, it was a reasonable excuse for absence from school. In this case the mother earned only 5s. a week, her eldest boy 6s., and the second 3s. a week, and she had seven children to maintain. The second boy had made the requisite 250 attendances for five years in a Wesleyan school at Oldbury, and the Brasshouse Lane Schools. The mother was unable to pay the fine, and must have gone to gaol, but the fine was paid by a newspaper and one of its readers. At first the School Board intended taking out a second summons, but it relented, owing to the representations of the Birmingham Daily Mail and of some of its members, Mr. Somerton and the Rev. T. T. Sherlock. This case came up again on the 7th November, before two other magistrates, when a solicitor (Mr. Clarke) applied for the fine previously imposed to be remitted, and also for the costs of the case, including his fee. The magistrates said they could not remit the fine, nor revise the decision of their colleagues, but they made an order for £1 11s. 6d. costs. They further said they had nothing to do with the Daily Mail and the public Press. They were above that.

§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord HALSBURY)

said that he must protest against Her Majesty's Government being called upon to express an opinion on the decision of a magistrate, which, whether they agreed with it or not, was a matter over which they had no control. The noble Lord did not suggest that the magistrates had acted so wrongly as to justify removal from the bench. Further, when the noble Lord asked any question which reflected on a magistrate, he ought to state how he came by the information which he presented to the House. Many of the facts mentioned by the noble Lord never came before the magistrates at all. The noble Lord said that the magistrates had disregarded a certain decision. It was true that a widow in a particular case, who had no means of subsistence, 5 was held excused for not sending her sons to school, as the earnings of those sons were necessary for her support. But what was the case that came before the magistrates? The person who appeared in the Court was not the defendant. The boy who was the subject matter of the inquiry, was brought to the Court by his grandmother, who stated that the mother was a widow; that she was dependent upon the earnings of the boy for her subsistence; and that he was an only son. The magistrates did not believe her story; and it turned out they were perfectly right. The mother was not a widow, and the boy was not her only son. [Laughter] It was then stated in the newspapers that, though the woman was not a widow, her husband had deserted her. That was a most unjust reflection on the husband, because he supplied his wife with a stated sum every month from America. The other supposed illegality of the magistrates was that they had fined her 5s., when as it was her first offence they could only fine her 2s. 6d. As a matter of fact a previous conviction was proved against the woman. [Laughter.] There was, therefore, not a word of truth in the pathetic story told by the noble Lord. [Laughter.] He would suggest that it would be well to ascertain the facts before putting questions of this sort, which contained very considerable reflections upon magistrates. But even if magistrates went wrong or made a mistake, it was not a matter that should be made the subject of a question to the Government. Misconduct of magistrates was, of course, a different thing; but, apart from misconduct, it would be a serious thing if every wrong decision of a magistrate, or of a Judge, was made the subject of an interrogatory in Parliament.