§ Commons' Amendments to Lords' Amendments and consequential Amendments, and Commons' reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords' Amendments considered (according to order).
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe first Amendment which stands on the Paper is the one made by your Lordships in page 17, line 21, to leave out from the word "purpose" to the end of the clause and insert "Provided that such persons shall be either inspectors or assistant inspectors of reformatory and industrial schools, members of the medical profession, or persons of experience in the management and training of children." The Commons disagree with this Amendment, because they think that the Secretary of State should have full power to avail himself of the services of officers whose experience would render them well qualified to act as inspectors of children's homes. I have to move that your Lordships do not insist upon such Amendment. It deals with the question of the people who are to inspect and look after the children, and it was felt by the Home Secretary to be very important that he should have as full a discretion in the matter as possible. It is considered by the Commons that your Lordships' Amendment fetters that a discretion, and, therefore, in another place your Amendment has been struck out. I, therefore, ask you to agree to the Commons Amendment.
§ Moved, "That this House does not insist upon its Amendment."
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe next of your Lordships' Amendments dealt with is in page 30, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words "other than the mother of the child," and in line 17, to leave out the word "child" and insert the word "person." The Commons propose to insert the following consequential Amendment. "In page 30, line 20, after the word 'school' to insert the words 'Provided that a child shall not be treated as coming within the description contained in paragraph (f) if the only 2042 common or reputed prostitute whose company the child frequents is the mother of the child, and she exercises proper guardianship and due care to protect the child from contamination.'" The House of Commons desires this Amendment to be left as it was moved by the Lord Chief Justice who has concurred with the words on the Paper.
§ Drafting Amendments made by the Commons in Clause 108, page 61, line 27, and in page 65, line 15, agreed to.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe next Amendments which I have to move are those relating to Clause 119, which deals with the exclusion of children from the bars of licensed premises. Your Lordships will see on the Paper the Amendments which the House of Commons propose. They suggest, in the first place, to insert in line 15, after the word "bar," the words "apparently a person over the ago of fourteen." That is intended to cover the case of an elderly boy who looks to be older than he is, and it deals with what we know as the big boy.
§ Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendments."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ VISCOUNT MIDLETONsaid these were Amendments to a clause in a Bill which was said to have been most carefully reviewed and discussed in another place, and which was claimed to have been sent up to their Lordships' House in its final form. It had now come back from the Commons, and no less than four very important Amendments had been made in it.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe next Amendment to this clause suggested by the Commons is intended to meet the Scottish point. In Scotland it appears that some public-houses there are like shops. They have a private bar, and it is desired that a child should be allowed to go into that bar to carry the dinner to its father. That will be possible under 2043 this Amendment, but unless the Amendment is made the child will be able to enter the bar, but it will not be able to get away. The first Amendment I propose is in "line 17, after the word 'premises' to insert the words 'or who is in the bar of licensed premises solely for the purpose of passing through in order to obtain access to some other part of the premises, not being a bar, where there is no other convenient means of access to that part of the premises.'"
§ Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe Commons have inserted a further Amendment in the same clause "in line 18, after the word 'of' to insert the words 'railway refreshment rooms or other.'"
§ Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ Consequential Amendment made.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe Commons propose to amend your Lordships' Amendment to Clause 122, page 68, lines 1 and 2, by inserting the words "whether charged with an offence or not" after the word "person," and after the word "court" inserting the words "other than for the purpose of giving evidence."
§ Moved, "That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said Amendment."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPThe Commons disagree with your Lordships' Amendment in Clause 131, page 74, line 3, and propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof: "and references in section one hundred and nineteen and section one hundred and twenty to a licence, to licensed premises, and to intoxicating liquor respectively as references to a certificate, to certificated premises, and 2044 to exciseable liquor, within the meaning of the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903."
§ Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment, and agrees with the Commons' Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPI move that your Lordships do not insist on your Amendment to Clause 132, with which the Commons have disagreed, and which is in the following terms: "The exemptions from Part I. of this Act contained in section eleven thereof shall extend to any person who undertakes for reward the nursing and maintenance of such infants only as are boarded out with him by some religious or charitable society or institution approved by the Local Government Board for Ireland." The Commons disagree to this Amendment because they think that the powers of exemption possessed by local authorities are sufficient. When the Amendment went down to the Commons, it found no friends on either side of the House, and that being so the Government cannot see their way to ask your Lordships to insist upon it.
§ Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon the said Amendment."—)(Earl Beauchamp.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREinsisted that the Amendment ought to have found friends in His Majesty's Government. When he moved it in Committee the noble Earl opposite said that, if he would restrict its operation to Ireland, the Government were disposed to accept it. He consented so to restrict it, the Irish Office redrafted its terms, and in that form it was accepted by the Government and embodied in the Bill. Now the Government disagreed with it, and, in these circumstances, he thought he was justified in strongly protesting against such treatment being meted out to their Lordships' House. He did not think it was unreasonable to say that it was generally understood that, when the noble Lord in charge of a Bill accepted an Amendment, he accepted it as an integral part of the Bill, and that its acceptance would be recognised in another place.
§ * THE EARL OF CREWEI am sorry the noble Earl is so angry with us on this point, but the case is not quite as he puts it. He brought forward his Amendment, vouching for it that he was representing Irish opinion on the matter, and it was accordingly accepted by my noble friend Earl Beauchamp with that simple faith which distinguishes him. It went down to the House of Commons, and both sides of that House seem to have agreed that it was an Amendment that ought not to be accepted. Therefore it is perhaps hardly fair to regard my noble friend's acceptance as an unqualified acceptance. I am quite sure that my noble friend had no intention of misleading the noble Earl.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNENothing is further from our thoughts than imputing anything like bad faith to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill, but when understandings are arrived at in Committee of this House, His Majesty's Government, who command the big battalions in another place, should see to it that those understandings are not thrown over. If understandings of that kind are liable to be thrown over it renders it much more difficult to come to terms, as we always wish to do, if possible, when discussing the details of a Bill in Committee. I recollect a case when my noble friend the President of the Board of Agriculture accepted some Amendments from us, and when the same difficulty was raised in another place he put his foot down and said that having accepted the Amendments it was his intention to see that they were retained. I am sorry a little more courage has not been shown in this matter.
§ EARL BEAUCHAMPYour Lordships made the following Amendment, "in page 82, line 20, after the word 'evidence' to insert the following new subsection: "The Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1853 to 1905, shall be substituted for the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906.'" The Commons disagree to this Amendment, but propose the following new subsection in lieu thereof: "The provisions of section one hundred and 2046 twenty of this Act (relative to the exclusion of children from bars of licensed premises, shall not apply in the case of any child going to or being upon licensed premises, if a substantial part of the business carried on upon the premises is a drapery, grocery, hardware, or other business wholly unconnected with the sale of intoxicating liquor, and the child or the person (if any) in whose custody the child is, goes to or is upon the premises for the purpose of purchasing goods other than intoxicating liquor for consumption on the premises; and the reference in the said section to the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906, shall be construed as a reference to the Licensing (Ireland) Acts, 1833 to 1905."
§ Moved, "That this House doth not insist upon its Amendment, and agrees to the Commons' Amendment proposed in lieu thereof."—(Earl Beauchamp.)
§ Bill returned to the Commons with the Amendments.