CHILDREN BILL.

HL Deb 04 November 1908 vol 195 cc1130-85

Order of the day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into Committee."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The Earl of ONSLOW in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

*LORD LEIGH

moved to delete the proviso that subsection (1) should not apply as respects any infant where the period for which it was received was forty-eight hours or less. He explained that his object was to allow of premises being visited where children were received for payment in places such as crèches. In these places children were said to be often quieted by means of narcotics, and it seemed only right that there should be power of inspection.

Amendment moved— In page 1, line 11, to leave out from the word 'authority' to the end of subsection (1).'" (Lord Leigh).

THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP)

said the noble Lord's Amendment would render it necessary that notice should be given to the local authority even if a child were put out for a single afternoon with a relative. What the Bill did was to re-enact the present law, which was that notice should be given where tin period for which the child was received was longer than forty-eight hours. That, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, was sufficient.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 2:

Drafting Amendments, agreed to.

*LORD LEIGH

moved to leave out subsection (1), which ran— A local authority may exempt from being visited, either unconditionally or subject to such conditions as they think fit, any particular premises within their district which appear to them to be so conducted that it is unnecessary that they should be visited. His object was, he said, not so much to secure the omission of the subsection, if the Government still thought it better to exempt particular places from being visited, as to suggest that where places were exempted, and children were subsequently found to be ill-treated, there should then be power to inflict heavier punishment.

Amendment moved— In page 3, lines 33 to 37, to leave out subsection (4)."—(Lord Leigh.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

thought it would be more convenient if the noble Lord placed an Amendment on the Paper for the Report stage to secure his object. The Amendment which he had now moved was certainly one which His Majesty's Government could not accept. There were a number of institutions conducted by very well-known societies which it was unnecessary to visit, and the object of the subsection was to give power to the local authority to exempt such well-conducted institutions.

EARL RUSSELL

asked whether, under the subsection as it stood, it would be possible to withdraw the exemption at any period if the place became ill-conducted.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he would think so certainly, but he would make sure on that point before the Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ALVERSTONE

moved to amend the provision that— If the occupier of the premises or any other person obstructs any visitor or other person acting in pursuance of such a warrant, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act. by inserting, after the word "obstructs," the words "or causes or procures to be obstructed." He said that as the subsection stood it would not be possible to get at the occupier if he employed a third person to obstruct. He therefore suggested the additional words for the purpose of strengthening the clause.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 12, after the word 'obstructs' to insert the words 'or causes or procures to obstructed.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he gladly accepted the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to leave out paragraph (d) of Clause 3. The clause ran— An infant, in respect of which notice is required to be given under this Part of this Act, shall not, without the written sanction of the local authority, be kept: (a) By any person from whose care any infant has been removed under this Part of this Act; or (b) in any premises from which any infant has been removed under this Part by reason of the premises being dangerous or insanitary; or (c) by any person convicted of any offence under Part II. of this Act; or (d) by any person who, after being given an opportunity of being heard, has been declared by order of the local authority unfit to have the care of infants; and any person keeping an infant contrary to this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act. He said it had been represented that paragraph (d) gave the local authority power, as it were, to prejudge the case. This was thought to be unfair, and as the omission of the paragraph would not in any way weaken the Bill he hoped their Lordships would agree to the Amendment. If a person had been proved to be unfit to have the care of an infant the infant would be removed, and the individual concerned would fall under paragraph (a).

Amendment moved— In page 4, lines 25 to 27, to leave out paragraph (d)."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD ALVERSTONE

, while agreeing to the omission of the paragraph, asked the Government whether something of the kind ought not to be inserted of a wider scope. There was the case of a person who had been declared unfit by some other authority. He thought some provision of the kind ought to be considered before the Bill left their Lordships' House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ALVERSTONE

moved to add after the word "keeping" the words "or causing to be kept." The provision would then read— And any person keeping or causing to be kept an infant contrary to this section shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act. He said this Amendment and the one standing in his name to Clause 5 were of the same kind as his Amendment to Clause 2 to which the Committee had agreed. The object was to get at the individual who employed a third person and endeavoured to transfer his responsibility. He submitted that the additional words strengthened and improved the clause.

Amendment moved— In page 4, line 28, after the word 'keeping,' to insert the words 'or causing to be kept.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

accepted the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clause 5:

Verbal and consequential Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

LORD ALVERSTONE

said that the clause was certainly wider than he had originally thought, because it contained the words that— If any such person directly or indirectly insures or attempts to insure the life of such an infant, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act. But he still thought it desirable to strengthen the words— And if a company … society, or person knowingly issues or procures or attempts to procure to be issued to such a person a policy on the life of such an infant the company or other person shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act. He suggested the addition, after the words "issued to," of the words "or on behalf of or for the benefit of," and, after the words "such a person," of the words "as aforesaid."

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 4, after the word 'to,' to insert the words 'or on behalf of or for the benefit of,' and after the word 'person' to insert the words 'as aforesaid.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the point which had been raised by the noble and learned Lord had occurred also to the Home Office, but they suggested this form of words—namely, to leave out "to such a person" and to insert "to or for the benefit of such a person as aforesaid or to any person on his behalf."

LORD ALVERSTONE

intimated that he would be quite satisfied with these words if the noble Earl would move them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 4, to leave out the word 'to such a person,' and to insert the words 'to or for the benefit of such a person as aforesaid or to any person on his behalf.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed so.

Verbal Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 8:

LORD ALVERSTONE

moved to amend subsection (1)— If any person required to give a notice under this Part of this Act knowingly or wilfully makes, or causes or procures any other person to make, any false statement in any such notice, he shall be guilty of an offence under this Part of this Act. by adding, after the word "false," the words "or misleading." A misleading statement might not be held to be a false statement. It was desirable that there should be accuracy as well as truth.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 9, after the word 'false,' to insert the words 'or misleading.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 9 agreed to.

Clause 10:

*LORD CHEYLESMORE

moved to amend subsection (1)— The local authority for the purpose of this Part of this Act shall: (a) As respects the County of London, exclusive of the City, be the County Council; (b) as respects the City of London, be the Common Council; (c) elsewhere be the guardians of the Poor Law union. by substituting "metropolitan borough councils" for "county council." He did not move this Amendment in any spirit of antagonism to the London County Council of which he had the honour of being a member, but in the interest of the children and of the sorely taxed London ratepayer. He submitted that the provisions of the Bill could be much more effectually carried out by the metropolitan borough councils than by the county councils. It was agreed that it was most important that the houses in which children were received should be in good sanitary condition. To ensure that there must be sanitary inspection. The borough councils were the sanitary authorities for the metropolis, and the London County Council had no means of inspecting these houses. He would cite one instance as showing how necessary it was that there should be adequate sanitary inspection. A lady at Lewisham recently applied to be registered to take in twenty-five children. Permission was granted by the London County Council, but in a very short time several of the children died. The matter was reported to the sanitary officer of the borough, and on the house being inspected it was discovered that the drains were in a very bad state, and were actually ventilated into the rooms in which the children were living. Every borough council had its sanitary officers and there were only three boroughs in London—Shoreditch, Deptford, and Greenwich—which had not appointed female health visitors. It was largely owing to the efforts of these ladies that the rate of mortality amongst infants had been considerably reduced in the metropolis. There were at the present time 247 houses in London registered for the purpose of taking in more than two children. Even if that number were doubled or trebled the staffs of the borough councils would be equal to coping with them. But if the London County Council were constituted the authority under the Act it would lead to considerable additions to the staff and consequent increased expenditure. It would be to the advantage of London that the authority for the purposes of this part of the Act should be as respects the County of London the borough councils, and he hoped the Government would accept his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 6, line 33, to leave out the words 'County Council,' and to insert the words 'metropolitan borough councils.'"—(Lord Cheylesmore.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

, in opposing the Amendment, said that this part of the Bill did not confer any new powers, but merely continued the existing law as established by the Act of 1897. The London County Council did inspect at the present time and had discharged this function without, so far as he knew, any complaint, except the single case to which the noble Lord had referred. But that case was not so much one of complaint against the baby farm as that the sanitary inspection of the premises had been bad, which seemed to him quite a different point. The object of the clause was to continue the London County Council the authority for inspecting these premises, and the noble Lord made a curious appeal when he asked their Lordships, in the interest of economy, to establish twenty-eight new organisations.

LORD CHEYLESMORE

They already exist.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that each borough council would have to create a fresh department or appoint additional officers in order to inspect these baby farms. The London County Council already had these officials, and had carried out this work in the past. Moreover, it was very desirable that in an area like London there should be uniformity of practice, and that could only be obtained by having a central authority. If the Amendment were adopted the practice would vary, and there would be a tendency for baby farmers to remove to districts where the inspection was not so stringent.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

thought their Lordships would feel that it was undesirable in this case to load up the London County Council with more work. An Amendment had been passed a few months ago by the House with the object of transferring the work of carrying out the Old-Age Pensions Act from the London County Council to the borough councils, but that Amendment was rejected by the House of Commons on the ground of privilege. Although it would be unwise yet to draw conclusions, he thought the disadvantages arising from the rejection of their Lordships' Amendment were obvious. Moreover, if the noble Earl in charge of this Bill would look at its details he would see that much of the work in question would have to be done locally.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said the noble Viscount had himself given a reason why the Amendment should not be pressed. A similar Amendment in connection with the Old-Age Pensions Act had been set aside in the other House on the ground of privilege, and as it would necessarily follow from Lord Cheylesmore's Amendment that the cost under this Bill would be transferred from the general rate of London to the local rates of the various boroughs it was clear that the Amendment would fall to the ground for the same reason.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

We have not yet heard any sufficient reasons for the refusal of the Amendment. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill told us that under the existing law these duties belong to the London County Council. No doubt that is true; but this is not merely a Consolidation Bill. It is also an endeavour to improve the law wherever we find the law capable of improvement. What we hear is that the London County Council itself is very decidedly in favour of making this change, and is convinced that this work could be better done by the borough councils. Nor am I at all deterred by the noble Earl's statement that if this proposal were adopted twenty-eight new organisations would have to be created. Surely the borough councils must have machinery at their hand adapted for the performance of these duties. I confess that unless I hear a stronger case against the Amendment I shall be disposed to vote with my noble friend behind me.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY (Lord FITZMAURICE)

did not understand the mover of the Amendment to say that the London County Council had expressed an opinion in its favour, and he thought it should not go forward that there had been an expression of that kind by the London County Council. He was not in a position to say, one way or the other, whether the London County Council were in favour of the proposal in the Amendment; but on the merits he would point out that they had an existing organisation for this purpose and no one had alleged that they had not performed their present duties in a satisfactory way. He contended that it was of enormous importance to have uniformity of administration in matters of this kind. There was also the question of expense. It was a notorious fact that if they multiplied a large number of officers over a great area a much more formidable total in the matter of salaries was reached than if the expenditure were centralised. The staff for this work existed in the London County Council; it was a staff of a special character which could not very well be absorbed in other work, and therefore, the probability was that if the proposed change were made in the authority under the Bill many of these officers would have to be compensated. Therefore, from whatever point of view it was looked at the Amendment was not desirable.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

said the time that had elapsed since the Bill took final shape in the House of Commons had been too short to allow of a formal pronouncement on the subject of this Amendment by the London County Council. He admitted it might be undesirable to press the Amendment at the present stage, but protested against the imposition of multifarious duties upon the London County Council.

LORD CHEYLESMORE

withdrew the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11:

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

moved to add to subsection (1)— The provisions of this Part of this Act shall not extend to any relative, or legal guardian of an infant who undertakes the nursing and maintenance of the infant, or to any person who undertakes the nursing or maintenance of an infant under the provisions of any Act for the relief of the poor or of any order made under any such Act; or to hospitals, convalescent homes, or institutions established for the protection and care of infants, and conducted in good faith for religious or charitable purposes, or boarding schools at which efficient elementary education is provided, the words— Or to any religious or charitable society which shall pay any person for keeping an infant, or to the person so employed, provided that such society shall have obtained from the Local Government Board a certificate that it is a fit and proper institution to be exempted from the provisions of this part of this Act. His object was to extend the exemptions to Presbyterian and other Protestant institutions in Ireland where a system of boarding-out was adopted. Though the clause as it stood might work perfectly well in England, it would be useless in Ireland, having in view the relations between religious denominations and representation on the boards of guardians. Without some such Amendment as proposed the inevitable result would be that the institutions in which he was interested would be compelled to return to the institutional system, which was much less efficient and more expensive than the system of boarding-out.

Amendment moved— In page 7, line 13, after the word 'purposes,' to insert the words 'or to any religious or charitable society which shall pay any person for keeping an infant, or to the person so employed, provided that such society shall have obtained from the Local Government Board a certificate that it is a fit and proper institution to be exempted from the provisions of this part of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the Government fully recognised the strength of the noble Earl's case, so far as Ireland was concerned. There had been, however, no suggestion that the Amendment should be made to apply to any other part of the United Kingdom. If the noble Earl would be satisfied by restricting it to Ireland the Government were disposed to accept the Amendment, which however, should find a place in Clause 132 (Application of the Act to Ireland).

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

said he would adopt the noble Earl's suggestion. He would withdraw the Amendment now, and move the insertion of the words when Clause 132 was reached.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 12:

*LORD LEIGH

moved to amend the provision— If any person over the age of sixteen years, who has the custody, charge, or care of any child or young person wilfully assaults, ill-treats neglects, abandons, or exposes, etc., by leaving out the words "wilfully," "ill-treats," and "or," and by inserting, after the word "exposes," the words "or wilfully ill-treats." He said that this was more than anything else a grammatical Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 7, line 25, to leave out the words 'wilfully,' 'ill-treats,' and 'or,' and after the word 'exposes' to insert the words 'or wilfully ill-treats.'"—(Lord Leigh.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

could not accept the definition of the Amendment which the noble Lord had given. It was more than a mere verbal Amendment. The effect of it would be to make the provision read— If any person … assaults, neglects, abandons, exposes, or wilfully ill-treats. —that was to say, the qualification, for instance, that the neglect must be wilful would be taken away. The Amendment was not one which the Government were prepared to accept. The clause as drawn followed the Act of 1904, and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to children was in favour of the maintenance of the form of words proposed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendment, agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to amend subsection (2)— A person may be convicted of an offence under this section, either on indictment or by a court of summary jurisdiction, notwithstanding that actual suffering or injury to health to the child or young person was obviated by the action of another person, by leaving out the words "to the child or young person," and inserting the words "or the likelihood of such suffering or injury to health." He said it had been pointed out that subsection (2) as it stood would suggest that subsection (1) only applied when actual suffering or neglect had resulted.

Amendment moved— In page 8, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'to the child or young person,' and to insert the words 'or the likelihood of such suffering or injury to health."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14:

LORD ALVERSTONE

moved an Amendment to provide that the offence should be to allow a child to be "left alone" in a room without a fireguard. The clause read: "Allows that child to 'be' in any room," etc., and his view was that it should not be an offence within the meaning of the section for a mother to leave the child for a very short time. Nothing had struck him more than the extraordinary way in which the elder children of a family looked after the infants. These young children took an extraordinary motherly care of their younger brothers and sisters, and Parliament ought to be careful not to include a case in which a little child had been left in the charge of a sister a few years older. It seemed to him that that had not been quite sufficiently thought out by the framer of the clause.

Amendment moved— In page 9, line 36, to leave out the words 'be,' and to insert the words 'remain alone.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

pointed out that the word "be" was goverened by the subsequent words "without taking reasonable precautions against" the risk.

LORD ALVERSTONE

I agree.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that, in the opinion of the Government, the case of elder children would be met, for that would be taking reasonable precautions. But what would happen under the Amendment supposing there were a twin? It could not be said if they were burned that either of the children had been left alone.

LORD ALVERSTONE

I had not thought of twins.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that under the Amendment no action would lie in that case. Then, supposing an accident of this kind occurred and the mother was drunk. There, again, the child would not be remaining alone, but no action would lie. In these circumstances he could not accept the words suggested, but if the noble and learned Lord thought further words desirable the Government would be very glad to consider them on Report. But, in their opinion, the clause as it stood was really sufficient.

LORD ALVERSTONE

withdrew the Amendment. He hoped, however, that the Government would consider the point. The answer of the noble Earl did not in any way deal with the question of temporary absence from the room. His fear was that this would be one of those clauses which would be thought to press too hardly, but if the noble Earl would consider the matter before the Report stage he would be satisfied.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 agreed to.

Clause 16:

Verbal Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17:

LORD ALVERSTONE

said his four Amendments to this clause raised a matter of some importance to which he incidentally called attention during the Second Reading Debate. The clause ran— 17.—(1) If any person having the custody, charge, or care of a girl under the age of sixteen years, causes, encourages, or favours the seduction or prostitution of that girl, he shall be guilty of a misdeameanour and shall be liable to imprisonment, with or without hard labour, for any term not exceeding two years. (2) For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have favoured the seduction or prostitution (as the case may be) of a girl if he has conduced thereto by knowingly allowing the girl to consort with, or to enter or continue in the employment of, any prostitute or person of notoriously immoral character. He had to consider the clause from the point of view of the administration of the criminal law, and he objected to the use of so vague a word as "favours." Vague words of that character were never desirable in creating a criminal offence. The framers of the Bill had obviously seen that his objection was one that required to be met, for they had, in subsection (2), inserted what he might call a definition of the word "favouring." He suggested that it would be better to strike out the word in both places. As he understood, what was intended was that a man should be deemed to have "favoured" if he had knowingly allowed the girl to consort with or to remain continuously with persons of immoral character. He would, therefore, suggest that the better alternative would be that the clause should read— If any person having the custody, charge, or care of a girl under the age of sixteen years causes or encourages the seduction or prostitution of the girl, etc. and subsection (2) could then read— For the purposes of this section a person shall be deemed to have caused or encouraged the seduction or prostitution (as the case may be) of a girl if he has knowingly allowed the girl to consort with, or to enter or continue in the employment of, any prostitute or person of notoriously immoral character. His object was to get rid of the ambiguous word "favours" and to keep in the wider scope of the words "causes" and "encourages," at the same time omitting the words "conduce thereto," which would be most difficult to prove. He would now move his first Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 29, to leave out the word 'encourages.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that one legal Amendment was difficult enough to grapple with at one time, but when four Amendments were dealt with simultaneously it became still more complicated. The words in the clause were exactly those used in Section 12 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, and it was thought very desirable to make the language of this clause correspond with that provision which dealt with a similar matter. He would have thought that the noble and learned Lord would himself be anxious that two Acts of Parliament dealing with the same matter should have similar phraseology. The other point seemed to be a very different one, and was really concerned not only with Clause 17 but also with Clause 18. Subsection (2) of the clause now before the Committee dealt with the case where the girl had been seduced, and Clause 18 dealt with the occasions which the noble and learned Lord had specially mentioned when the girl was exposed to the risk of seduction or prostitution, and, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, that provision was sufficient to meet the case. In the opinion of the Home Office the noble and learned Lord's Amendment went further than was really necessary, because if nothing happened, it was thought that the Amendment would inflict too great a punishment upon the delinquent. He thought the method of dealing with more than one Amendment at a time open to objection. His Majesty's Government would be prepared to consider whether they could do anything in the matter on Report, but at the present moment they were not inclined to take any steps in the direction indicated.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

said that anyone who was familiar with the administration of the criminal law would heartily concur with the Lord Chief Justice in his objection to the retention of ambiguous words. What did the Government mean by the word "favours"? If they meant the definition given in the clause, what was the objection to substituting those words for the objectionable word itself? He sympathised with the Lord Chief Justice, and indeed with all His Majesty's Judges, when they were called upon in summing up to the jury to give an exposition of such a word as "favours." If the learned Judges were asked to give their real opinion, they would be obliged to say they did not know what the word actually meant. As the word had been defined, why not insert the definition instead of the word? That would render the matter very simple. As to the point of order he entirely differed from the noble Earl the Lord Steward. The Lord Chief Justice did not pretend to be moving his other Amendments, but explained the effect of them upon the rest of the clause in order to make intelligible the Amendment he was moving. That seemed to him to be perfectly in order.

*THE LORD PRIVY SEAL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (The Earl of CREWE)

I do not know that we need labour the point as to whether or not the noble and learned Lord opposite was precisely in order, because we undoubtedly often adopt the course of discussing two or three Amendments at once—a course which might not be regarded elsewhere as strictly orderly. As regards the use of the particular word "favours," I am given to understand that the analogy which is employed is that of Section 12 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act. That was the Act of the noble Viscount opposite, Lord Cross, and it has been the law ever since. Whether the term is, in itself, open to objection from the point of view of Judges is, of course, another question, and upon that I am not competent to give an opinion. I should have thought, speaking purely as a layman, that there was a course of conduct which might be described as favouring as distinct from encouraging. The noble and learned Lord pointed out just now that a statement might be misleading without being untrue, and I should have thought that the difference between favouring and encouraging was somewhat analagous to that between an untrue statement and a misleading statement.

LORD ALVERSTONE

said the noble Earl the Lord Steward had not understood the distinction between Clause 17 and Clause 18. The latter clause only dealt with the question of a parent or guardian exposing a girl to the risk of seduction. Clause 17 dealt with two acts which were deemed to be "favouring"—one was knowingly allowing the girl to consort with prostitutes, and the other knowingly allowing the girl to enter or continue in the employment of any prostitute or person of notoriously immoral character. If those two offences were proved, that ought to be sufficient to establish the offence without the necessity of proving that they had conduced to seduction. The existence of Clause 18, which dealt with a different state of things altogether, was no reason why subsection (2) of Clause 17 should not be strengthened. In placing these Amendments to Clause 17 on the Paper he had the support of most experienced men at the Bar who had conducted prosecutions under the present Act for the past fifteen years.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD ALVERSTONE

then proceeded to move his three consequential Amendments.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 30, to leave out the word 'favours,' and to insert the words 'encourages.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 34, to leave out the word 'favoured,' and to insert the words, 'caused or encouraged.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 10, line 35, to leave out the words 'conduced thereto by,' and to leave out the word 'allowing,' and to insert the word 'allowed,'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 18 agreed to.

Clause 19:

*LORD KINNAIRD

moved to amend subsection (1) so that it should read— Any constable shall take into custody, without warrant, any person— The word at present in the subsection was "may"; but it was strongly felt by certain bodies that this power should not be merely left a matter of discretion to the policeman.

Amendment moved— In page 11, line 10, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

could not accept the Amendment. The offence might only be of a trivial nature, and it was very undesirable to make it compulsory upon the policeman to arrest without a warrant.

LORD ALVERSTONE

agreed that it would be most unwise to substitute the word "shall." The Amendment would introduce a dangerous precedent, and he hoped it would not be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 20:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 21:

LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH

painted out that this clause, which dealt with the disposal of the child or young person by order of the Court, contained a provision that under certain circumstances a child might be committed to the care of a relative of the child or young person, or some other fit person; and in Clause 39 there was a definition to the effect that the expression "fit person" included any society or body corporate established for the reception or protection of poor children or the prevention of cruelty to children. He believed that as the law now stood it would be within the power of the magistrate in Scotland to commit the child to the care of the parish council. As there was no inclusion of a parish council in this clause or in the definition clause, he rather thought that an alteration was being unwittingly made in the law of Scotland in this matter. As the parish council in Scotland was the authority that would have to take charge of the child under these circumstances it would be reasonable that parish councils should be included in the definition so far as Scotland was concerned.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he would be glad to look into the point and communicate with the noble Lord.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 24 agreed to.

Clause 25:

THE EARL OF MEATH

moved to amend subsection (1)— The Secretary of State may cause any institution for the reception of poor children or young persons supported wholly or partly by voluntary contributions, and not liable to be inspected by or under the authority of any Government Department, to be visited and inspected from time to time by persons appointed by him for the purpose, and the Secretary of State, with the consent of any society or body corporate established for the reception or protection of poor children or the prevention of cruelty to children may, subject to such conditions as the Secretary of State may prescribe, appoint officers of the society or body corporate for the purpose,— by deleting all the words after "inspected from time to time by" and inserting the words— An inspector or assistant inspector of reformatory and industrial schools, or by any person or persons experienced in the training of children, or belonging to the medical or nursing professions appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose. It seemed to him a novel idea that the Government of the day should be empowered to appoint officers of a private society to criticise and report to Government upon the operations of another society. A great deal would depend upon the tact of the man or woman sent down, and if they were not tactful and discreet immense friction would result. They were not to be paid by the State and were not to be under the control of the State, except that they might be dismissed if they did wrong. But what would the dismissal mean to them? If they had acted in accordance with the wishes and desires of their own particular society, which was driving a particular idea into the public minds, they would return to their society triumphantly and probably have their salaries increased for displaying sufficient courage to stand up in support of a particular theory. He was not opposed to inspection. On the contrary, he heartily joined with the Right Rev. Primate, who stated in his speech on the Second Reading that, being at the head of an enormous number of Church institutions, he welcomed inspection. He did not think inspection an unmixed evil, but it was the lesser of two evils. He did not want officers appointed by societies established for the protection of poor children, or the prevention of cruelty to children, because he was afraid these society inspectors were too much imbued with the one idea of their society when they went into any home. The very fact that these inspectors spent their days and nights with the one thought and doing the one act made them persons not of the judicial mind. Justice would be endangered if there were not some such restriction as that proposed in his Amendment. He pointed out that these societies were only too willing to place the services of their officers gratis at the disposal of the Government. The Amendment would not limit the power of the Secretary of State as regards the appointment of officials so long as they were fit. His whole object was to eliminate the unfit.

Amendment moved— In page 17, line 20, to leave out from the word 'by' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'an inspector or assistant inspector of reformatory and industrial schools, or by any person or persons experienced in the training of children, or belonging to the medical or nursing professions appointed by the Secretary of State for the purpose.'"—(The Earl of Meath.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

, while not accepting the Amendment, offered, as a compromise, to strike out the latter part of the clause which empowered the Secretary of State, with the consent of any society or body corporate, to appoint officers of the society or body corporate for the purpose.

THE EARL OF MEATH

And will you add my words?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

No. The compromise I suggest is that we should strike out all words after "purpose."

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

Perhaps the noble Earl would allow us to consider his proposal, and, if necessary, make a suggestion with regard to it when we come to another stage of the Bill. As I understand it, the noble Earl suggests that the words after "purpose," in line 21, should be omitted, and that the clause should so stand. That would, of course, leave it open to the Government or to the Department to appoint what I suppose my noble friend on the cross benches would call amateur inspectors, who would not have any particular training or aptitude for the work that would devolve upon them. There is absolutely no guarantee that these appointments would be filled up from any particular source.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the inspectors referred to in the noble Earl's Amendment had already more than enough work to do and it was impossible to throw upon them the additional work of inspecting all the reformatory and industrial schools. The Amendment would limit too much the choice of the Secretary of State, who was, however, anxious to avail himself of the services of men of experience in connection with various societies. It was rather imaginary fear that the Secretary of State would send anybody down who was unfit or who would try to make mischief.

THE EARL OF HALSBURY

said that every Government Department with which he had been connected had experienced difficulty in checking the undue zeal of some of these officials. If an inspector of one charitable society were appointed to inspect the institution of another charitable society, there would be in that a source of great friction. He hoped the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would consider how this danger could be guarded against.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

thought the compromise he had suggested met the point. The additional words proposed by Lord Meath would, in the opinion of the Home Office, limit too much the choice of the Home Secretary in the matter.

LORD ALVERSTONE

ventured to think the Government had met Lord Meath to a considerable extent, and suggested that it would be possible, on Report, to bring up some supplementary words to limit the persons to be appointed.

THE EARL OF MEATH

accepted the compromise, and withdrew his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

then moved the deletion of the latter half of the subsection.

Amendment moved— In page 17, line 21, to leave out from the word 'purpose,' to the end of the subsection."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 26:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that under the Inebriates Acts one justice was sufficient, and therefore it was proposed to make that apply in the present case.

Amendment moved— In page 18, line 22, to leave out the words 'two justices,' and to insert the words 'a justice.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 27 to 32 agreed to.

Clause 33:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said it had been pointed out by a prominent police magistrate that this clause, which in-acted that— When, in pursuance of this Part of this Act, any person is convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction of an offence, and that person did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information, or when in the case of any application to a court of summary jurisdiction under this Part of the Act for an order committing a child or young person to the care of any person, or for an order for contribution to the maintenance of a child or young person, any party thereto thinks himself aggrieved by any order or decision of the court, he may appeal against such a conviction, or order, or decision to Quarter Sessions— deprived the man who pleaded guilty to the right of appeal to a jury. In all other cases where an appeal was given, the fact of having pleaded guilty did not deprive a defendant of his right of appeal. If their Lordships agreed to his Amendment the defendant would have a right of appeal against the sentence, if, in his opinion, it was too heavy.

Amendment moved— In page 22, lines 3 and 4, to leave out the words 'and that person did not plead guilty or admit the truth of the information.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 34:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to omit this clause, which provided that where a misdemeanour under this part of this Act was tried on indictment, the expenses of the prosecution should be defrayed in like manner as in the case of a felony. He said this clause was rendered unnecessary by the passing of another Act in the present session.

Amendment moved— To leave out Clause 34."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 35 to 40 agreed to.

Clause 41:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

moved to omit the words "or other person having the powers of a constable and," from the provision that— It shall be the duty of a constable and of a park keeper, or other person having the powers of a constable and being in uniform, to seize any cigarettes or cigarette papers in the possession of any person apparently under the age of sixteen whom he finds smoking in any street or public place. He did not know what sort of persons were referred to by the words which he proposed to omit. Perhaps the noble Earl would explain.

Amendment moved— In page 23, line 30, to leave out the words 'or other person having the powers of a constable and.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

expressed his willingness to accept the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT HILL

moved an Amendment to make "boys" not "persons" apparently under sixteen years of age liable to have cigarettes or cigarette papers in their possession seized. He had a later Amendment on the Paper cancelling that part of the clause which forbids a constable or park-keeper to search any person found smoking. He considered it an extraordinary proposal to impose the duty of seizure and to deny the right of search.

Amendment moved— In page 23, line 32, leave to out the word 'person,' and to insert the word 'boys.'"—(Viscount Hill.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

pointed out that the alteration suggested would allow girls to smoke. He hoped the Amendment would be withdrawn. He would presently suggest words which he believed would meet the case. He fully recognised the strong opinion behind the noble Viscount in this matter. The clause had also been the subject of comment in the Second Reading debate, and the Government were anxious to do all they could to meet the points raised.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

VISCOUNT HILL

had an Amendment on the Paper to delete the proviso at the end of the clause, viz.: Provided that such constable, park keeper, or other person as aforesaid shall not be authorised to search any person so found smoking.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said it would, perhaps, be convenient before the noble Viscount moved his Amendment if he stated that the Government were prepared to substitute "girl" for "person" in this proviso. He thought no Member of their Lordships' House would wish the police constable to have the right of search in respect of a girl. If, therefore, the word "girl" were substituted for "person" the constable would have the right to search a boy.

Amendment moved— In page 24, line 2, to omit the word 'person,' and to insert the word 'girl.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

LORD ALVERSTONE

said that, though the noble Earl's Amendment met the particular point, he failed to see any power of search. If it was desirable—and he thought it was—that a boy should be searched, then words should be inserted to give that power.

THE EARL OF MEATH

hoped power of search would be given, for otherwise the whole provision was rendered ridiculous.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that if the noble Viscount was of opinion that no right of search existed as the clause stood, it would be very desirable for him to bring up a form of words on Report to give that power. His Majesty's Government would consider them.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 42 agreed to.

Clause 43:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

moved an Amendment to omit from the clause the words "uniformed boy messengers in the employment of a messenger company and employed as such at the time." So far as he could understand, a uniformed boy messenger might smoke himself if under the age of sixteen because his uniform protected him, and collusion might take place between boys under sixteen and a boy messenger for the purpoes of procuring cigarettes. It was quite evident that this was a legislative feat performed by some private Member in the other House. How a uniformed boy messenger came to be mixed up with a boy employed by a dealer in tobacco completely puzzled him. Perhaps the noble Earl could give some explanation.

Amendment moved— In page 24, line 25, to leave out the words or was a uniformed boy messenger in the employment of a messenger company and employed as such at the time."—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

could not accept the Amendment. Very strong representations were made to the Government on the subject in another place, and it was not thought that this exemption would really weaken the effect of Part III. No matter what provisions were inserted, ingenious boys determined to smoke would, of course, find some way of doing so. Boy messengers were in an exceptional position. They were in uniform, and if they went into a tobacconists to buy cigarettes there was a considerable presumption that they were buying them for other persons. It would be for the convenience of the public that boy messengers should be enabled to make purchases.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

said that, after listening to the remarks of the noble Earl, he was more in the dark than before. The noble Earl did not tell the Committee who the persons were who made the representations, and why uniformed boy messengers were picked out in particular. Other people might wish to include boys wearing another sort of uniform. It really seemed absurd to single out messengers in the employment of a messenger company.

EARL RUSSELL

thought Lord Camperdown had overlooked the words which provided that the uniformed boy messenger should be in the employment of a messenger company and should be employed as such at the time. There was, therefore, very little fear of the collusion to which the noble Earl had referred. Cigarettes could, be bought in penny packets, whereas the fee of the messenger would be a minimum one of threepence.

LORD ALVERSTONE

asked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to state why a uniformed boy messenger should have this privilege.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said he had already given the reason. It was for the convenience of the general public.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 44:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

moved to amend subsection (1) which provided that— For the purposes of this Part of this Act the expression 'cigarette' includes cut tobacco rolled up in paper, tobacco leaf, or any other material. by omitting the words "any other material," and inserting "any material in such form as to be capable of immediate use for smoking." As the provision now stood, the expression "cigarette" might include tobacco rolled up in an old flannel petticoat.

Amendment moved— In page 24, line 30, after the word 'or,' to insert the word 'in,' and after the word 'material' to insert the words 'in such form as to be capable of immediate use for smoking.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

accepted the Amendment.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 45:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to add to the provision— The expression 'child,' used in reference to a child ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school or to be transferred from a certified reformatory to a certified industrial school, applies to that child during the whole period of detention, whether in the industrial school or out on licence, notwithstanding that the child attains the age of fourteen years before the expiration of that period. the words— And when used in reference to proceedings for the purpose of enforcing an attendance order includes any person who, by virtue of any enactment is deemed to be a child for the purposes of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907. He explained that this was a technical point to meet the case of blind or deaf children.

Amendment moved— In page 25, line 25, after the word 'period,' to insert the words 'and when used in reference to proceedings for the purpose of enforcing an attendance order includes any person who, by virtue of any enactment is deemed to be a child for the purposes of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended agreed to.

Clauses 46 to 56 agreed to.

Clause 57:

*LORD LEIGH

moved to amend subsection (1)— The managers of any certified school may establish or join with the managers of one or more other certified schools in establishing, a scheme for the payment of superannuation allowances to officers of the school or schools who become incapable of discharging the duties of their offices with efficiency by reason of permanent infirmity of mind or body, or of old age, upon their resigning or otherwise ceasing to hold their offices— by substituting the word "shall" for "may," and adding, at the end of the subsection, words providing that for this purpose the provisions of the Poor Law Officers Superannuation Act, 1896, should be applied with such adaptations as might be made by Order in Council. He submitted that superannuation allowance for reformatory officers should be instituted by His Majesty's Government instead of being left to the various reformatory committees. All reformatory officers should be on the same footing in the matter of superannuation as Poor Law officers, elementary school teachers, and others, and it would seem unfair if some reformatory committees were to grant pensions and others did not.

Amendment moved— In page 28, line 20, to leave out the word 'may,' and to insert the word 'shall,' and in line 20, after the word 'offices,' to insert the words 'and for this purpose the provisions of the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act, 1896, shall be applied with such adaptations as may be made by Order in Council.'"—(Lord Leigh.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the Government could not accept the Amendment. These schools were, generally speaking, of a private and voluntary character, and it was, therefore, undesirable that the Poor Law Officers' Superannuation Act should be applied. He thought their Lordships would recognise the inadvisability of applying an Act of this kind to officers of private institutions The noble Lord would see that power was given to the managers of any certified school to establish superannuation allowances, although the clause did not compel them to do so. He hoped the noble Lord would be satisfied with that power, which was a step in the right direction.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 58:

*LORD KINNAIRD

moved an Amendment to make the clause provide that where a youthful offender apparently over twelve but under eighteen years of age was charged with an offence punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment the Court might order him to be sent to a certified reformatory school. He said the object was to prevent a boy from being branded as a convict for the rest of his life and so kept out of certain desirable situations.

Amendment moved— In page 29, line 3, to leave out from the word 'offender' to the end of line 10, and to insert the words 'apparently over twelve years of age, but under eighteen years of age he is charged before a Court with an offence punishable with penal servitude or imprisonment, the Court, if satisfied on inquiry that it is expedient so to deal with the youthful offender, may order him to be sent to a certified reformatory school.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the Amendment would alter entirely the character of reformatory schools, and His Majesty's Government were quite unable to accept it. The point mentioned with regard to conviction had not quite so much in it as might appear at first sight, because the abolition of the conviction would not affect even the majority of cases. Out of 1,490 cases sent to these schools in 1906, 824 were cases in which it was known that there had been one or more previous convictions. If the age were raised as suggested they might have young men of twenty-one in the reformatory schools, and that would entirely alter their character. The Prevention of Crimes Bill now before the House of Commons made provision for sending offenders between sixteen and twenty-one years of age to a Borstal institution.

LORD ALVERSTONE

said there was another very grave objection to the Amendment. The noble Lord proposed that certain boys should be dealt with before anything had been proved against them. It would be quite impossibe to permit of lads being dealt with as though they had been convicted when they had been merely charged.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

*LORD LEIGH

moved to amend subsection (1)— Where a youthful offender, who in the opinion of the court before which he is charged is twelve years of age or upwards but less than sixteen years of age, is convicted, whether on indictment or by a court of summary jurisdiction, of an offence punishable in the case of an adult with penal servitude or imprisonment, the court may, in addition to or in lieu of sentencing him according to law to any other punishment, order that he be sent to a certified reformatory school. by leaving out the words "less than sixteen years" and inserting the words "not more than sixteen years." He said his object was to make it clear that children could be dealt with up to the age of sixteen.

Amendment moved— In page 29, line 5, to leave out the word 'less,' and to insert the words 'not more.'"—(Lord Leigh.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

resisted the Amendment. It was not quite clear what exactly was the noble Lord's intention in putting down the Amendment. If it was to enable persons between sixteen and seventeen years of age to be sent to reformatories, that was open, though not so seriously, to the objection raised to Lord Kinnaird's Amendment. But in the form in which it was drawn the Amendment would have practically no effect at all. A boy who was sixteen years and one day was more than sixteen. Therefore the only difference between the language in the Bill and that in the Amendment was that under the Amendment a lad could be sent to a reformatory on his sixteenth birthday. Unless he was tried on his sixteenth birthday there would be no point in it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT HILL

moved to leave out from the beginning of subsection (1) the word "convicted" and to substitute the word "adjudged." In the opinion of many people, the word "convicted" was too strong, and he hoped the noble Earl would accept his Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 29, line 5, to leave out the word 'convicted,' and to insert the word 'adjudged.'"—(Viscount Hill.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the noble Viscount's Amendment was practicaly the same as that moved by Lord Kinnaird with which the Committee had already dealt.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved an Amendment the object of which was to enable the Court, instead of sentencing a youthful offender to imprisonment, to make a Probation Order under the Probation of Offenders Act of last year.

Amendment moved— In page 29, line 20, to leave out the words 'commute the order to such sentence of imprisonment,' and to insert the words 'in lieu of the detention order make such order or pass such sentence.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Consequential Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59:

EARL RUSSELL

asked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill what was meant by the words "any person may bring before a petty sessional Court any person apparently under the age of fourteen years." Did they mean bring them by way of summons, or was it intended that they should be physically brought before the Court?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

did not think it was contemplated that physical force should be used, but merely that proceedings should be taken in the legal fashion. If, however, it was not clear he would see to it on Report.

*LORD KINNAIRD

moved an Amendment with the object of giving power to magistrates to take a child away from the mother if the latter were a reputed thief or prostitute. This, he explained, was merely restoring the clause to the shape it assumed when originally introduced in the other House. There was considerable feeling in the matter, and he hoped the Government would accept the Amendment.

Amendment moved— In page 30, lines 10 and 11, to leave out the words 'other than the mother of the child.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the Government could not accept the Amendment. If a child was living alone with its mother she had a right to its custody. The clause was a result of a long and careful discussion in the House of Commons and represented a compromise between those who were anxious to remove children from immoral surroundings and those who thought the parental right should not be interfered with.

THE EARL OF MEATH

said the practice in previous legislation had always been to consider the interest of the child and not that of the parent; and though he felt most deeply that it was a sad thing to have to separate a child from its mother, yet he thought the child should be rescued, if necessary, in these circumstances.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

said that as the law had stood up to now it was open to the Court to consider whether the disreputable character of the mother was a sufficient reason for taking away the child. It might be the opinion of the Court that the circumstances were such that the child might be safely left with the mother, notwithstanding her doubtful reputation. But, as this clause stood, all power of deciding that point was taken away from the Court. As the object of the legislation was to remove the child from contaminating influences, he thought the law as it stood far preferable to the amended form.

*LORD ALVERSTONE

hoped the point would be further considered by the Government. The clause as it now stood barred inquiry by the Court altogether. He had frequently discussed this point with the late Mr. Waugh, whose name would always be connected with the protection of children, and Mr. Waugh informed him that in nine cases out of ten, when they were dealing with women who came within the class described as common prostitutes, it was hoping against hope that the presence of the child would do anything to reform the mother. Seeing that the object of the Bill was to protect children, he hoped His Majesty's Government would give some attention to this point. He did not like the hands of the magistrates being tied in the way proposed.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

supported the Amendment, and said he did not think they had any right to gamble with a child's future, especially when the betting was ten to one against the possibility of the presence of the child having any effect in the reformation of the mother. In the case of a child with property whose mother had gone to the bad, the child would be made a ward and would undoubtedly be taken from her mother. He preferred the law as it now stood to the law as presented in this clause.

*THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANS

urged that the matter might be reconsidered. He hoped that the Government would see their way not to exclude such children from the beneficent action of the magistrates, who might be safely trusted to use a wise discretion in each case.

LORD FITZMAURICE

said that in view of the discussion the question should be carefully considered and dealt with on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT HILL

moved to amend subsection (2), which provided that— Where a child apparently under the age of twelve years is charged before a court with an offence punishable in the case of an adult by penal servitude or a less punishment, the court, if satisfied on inquiry that it is expedient so to deal with the child, may order him to be sent to a certified industrial school— by substituting the age of "fourteen" for that of "twelve." He thought it would do no harm to add another two years, and a boy of fourteen was certainly not too old to be sent to an industrial school.

Amendment moved— In page 30, line 21, to leave out the word 'twelve,' and to insert the word 'fourteen,'"—(Viscount Hill.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said there was very sound authority for the Government's adhering to the age in the clause. He quoted the opinion of Colonel Legge, His Majesty's Inspector, against the age being raised as proposed, and said this view was shared by others intimately acquainted with industrial and reformatory schools.

THE EARL OF MEATH

opposed the Amendment, and said there was undoubtedly much more chance of reformation in the case of boys of twelve than in that of boys of fourteen.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 60:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to substitute for "young person" the words "person apparently of the age of fourteen or fifteen years." He said the object was to protect from the consequences anyone who might bring before the court a person who was apparently of the age of fourteen or fifteen, but who afterwards proved not to be.

Amendment moved— In page 32, line 19, to leave out the words 'young person,' and to insert the words 'person apparently of the age of fourteen or fifteen years.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

*LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTON

asked whether it was desirable to have such loose words as those proposed. Would it not be better to say, "under fifteen years"?

EARL BEAUCHAMP

did not think there was very much in the point. They had the Government draftsman behind them in suggesting the words proposed.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

THE EARL OF LYTTON

moved the addition of a new clause. By Clause 60, power was given to the Court to commit a young person to the care of a relative or other fit person, and in another part power was given to discharge a child to the care of a probation officer; but nowhere was any power given to commit a child to the care of a relative under the supervision of a probation officer. The object of his Amendment was to make such treatment possible. In America, where the probation system had been carried out far more extensively than in this country, the power sought to be given by his Amendment had been found of great value. It had been pointed out to him that the words "shall be placed" made it obligatory upon the Court that whenever a child was discharged to the care of a relative, the supervision of a probation officer should also be provided for. He admitted that his proposed new clause was, perhaps, too strong in its present form, and he would substitute "may" for "shall" and move the Amendment in that form.

Amendment moved— After Clause 60, to insert the following new clause: 'Where under the provisions of this part of this Act an order is made for the committal of a child or young person to the care of a relative or other fit person named by the Court, in any case where such child or young person has been charged with an offence before the Court making the order, such child or young person may be placed under the supervision of a probation officer in like manner as if he had been charged with an offence and dealt with under the Probation of Offenders Act, 1907.'"—(The Earl of Lytton.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that although in the opinion of the Home Office it would be unnecessary, after the Court had decided upon the fitness of a person, to provide for the super vision of a probation officer, he would offer no opposition to the clause in its permissive form.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 61:

Verbal Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 62:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to amend the proviso in subsection (1)— Provided that if it is found impossible to specify the school in the detention order, the school shall be such as a justice having jurisdiction in the place where the Court which made the order sat may by endorsement on the detention order direct, by inserting after the word "shall," the words "subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the determination of the place of residence of a youthful offender or child." The object was to indicate that in fixing the school the magistrate must have regard to the place of residence according to Clause 74. The determination of the place of residence was, of course, important in settling what local authority was to be responsible for the maintenance of the youthful offender.

Amendment moved— In page 33, line 2, after the word 'shall,' to insert the words 'subject to the provisions of this Act with respect to the determination of the place of residence of a youthful offender or child.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 63 and 64 agreed to.

Clause 65:

*LORD KINNAIRD

moved to extend the age-limit for detention in a reformatory school from nineteen years to twenty-one years. If a boy was sixteen when committed it would not be possible, as the clause now stood, to keep him in the reformatory school for the desired period of five years. He thought it would be admitted that the older the boy was when committed to the school the longer it would take to reform him.

Amendment moved— In page 34, line 7, to leave out the word' 'nineteen,' and to insert the words twenty-one.'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the Government were of opinion that the youthful offender should not in any case be kept in a reformatory school until he reached the age of twenty-one. The maximum age for detention was deliberately changed by Parliament from twenty-one to nineteen owing to experience gained, and he thought it wise to adhere to that age.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.

Clause 68:

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

moved to amend subsection (1)— (1) Every youthful offender sent to a certified reformatory school shall, on the expiration of the period of his detention, if that period expires before he attains the age of nineteen years, remain up to the age of nineteen under the supervision of the managers of the school, by adding, after the word "remain" the words "for two years or." As the subsection stood, if the youthful offender was eighteen and a half when convicted he would only remain for six months.

Amendment moved— In page 36, line 31, after the word 'remain,' to insert the words 'for two years or.'"—(The Earl of Camperdown.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

could not accept the Amendment. He had already stated the objections to an extension of the age-limit.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 69 to 73 agreed to.

Clause 74:

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

moved to leave out subsections (1) and (2), viz.— Where a youthful offender is ordered to be sent to a certified reformatory school, it shall be the duty of the council of the county or county borough in which he resides (to be specified in the order) to provide for his reception and maintenance in a certified reformatory school suitable to the case, having regard to the requirements of this Part of this Act. (2) Where a child is ordered to be sent to a certified industrial school, it shall be the duty of the local education authority of the district in which he resides (to be specified in the order) to provide for his reception and maintenance in a certified industrial school suitable to the case, having regard to the requirements of this Part of this Act. He did not move this Amendment for the purpose of pressing it upon the Government, but to secure a locus standi in order to draw attention to what was taking place. Hitherto it was voluntary on the part of the local authority to provide for the reception and maintenance of a youthful offender ordered to be sent from its district to a reformatory or industrial school; but by this clause it was compelled to do so, and to do so at its own cost. It was true that the Treasury gave a subvention; but, as was well known, the Treasury never handed out more money than it could possibly help, and certainly there was no guarantee that the subvention would adequately relieve the burden on the local authority. This duty had nothing whatever to do with local government. It was a national affair, and therefore its cost should be a national charge. He moved the omission of the compulsory subsections.

Amendment moved— In page 41, lines 6 to 17, to leave out subsections (1) and (2)."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said this duty had been very largely exercised hitherto by progressive local authorities, and the Government considered that there was no hardship involved in making it general. There was no reason to suppose that the Treasury grant would be inadequate.

LORD BELPER

said that by making this duty obligatory Parliament was compelling local authorities to spend money in this direction whether they liked it or not. The point really was that this sort of thing was constantly going on, and while members of the Government had recognised by their speeches that the incidence of local taxation was not fair at the present moment, Parliament was constantly, by all sorts of Bills, making the case more unfair, and doing so without in any way inviting the opinions of the representatives of the ratepayers. Clause 110 gave power to the Treasury to contribute to this purpose, but what they complained of was that no minimum was fixed. Therefore, the local authorities were entirely at the mercy of the Treasury, and the amount they would have to provide would depend on the sum which the Treasury would contribute. He did not know whether any assurance could be given on the point, but the subsections in question aggravated a state of things which it was recognised ought not to continue.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

agreed that there was a material difference between local authorities acting in this matter of their own free will, and being compelled to do so, and to do so at their own cost. He disliked invading the right of the people in a locality to manage their own affairs in their own way and compelling them to pay whatever charges a bureaucratic authority ordered them to pay. He thought that where the Government forced the hands of the local authorities it ceased to be a local matter and became an Imperial matter. Therefore, the local authorities had strong reason to claim that the bulk of the cost should be made a national charge.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

*LORD LEIGH

moved to omit subsection (9), viz— (9) A local authority may contribute towards the ultimate disposal of any inmate of a certified school for whose maintenance in such a school the authority are under this section responsible, or towards whose maintenance the authority have voluntarily contributed. The powers given by this subsection were extremely vague; so much so, that a local authority might even set up a boy in business or give him a pension for life. He knew there was a similar provision in the Act which this Bill would repeal, but there would seem now to be an opportunity of laying down more definite terms as to the allocation of this money.

Amendment moved— In page 43, lines 10 to 14, to leave out subsection (9)."—(Lord Leigh.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the subsection reproduced words to be found in enactments quite lately passed, and the Government thought it would be better to retain it. It was not compulsory; it merely gave power to a local authority, where it desired to do so, to give a boy a start in life, and he thought it would be a pity to deprive the local authority of that power.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved the insertion of a new subsection in fulfilment of a promise given during the Report stage in the other House. It was really an agreed subsection, and he hoped there would be no opposition to its insertion.

Amendment moved— In page 45, line 18, after the word 'Act,' to insert the following new subsection: '(18) As respects the City of London the Common Council shall, notwithstanding anything in this section, be the local authority liable for providing for the reception and maintenance in a certified reformatory school of a youthful offender committed by a court of summary jurisdiction acting in and for the city. Provided that nothing in this provision shall exempt the City of London from contributing towards the expenses incurred by the London County Council in respect of reformatory schools, but the London County Council shall in each year repay to the Common Council for each youthful offender maintained by that council a sum equal to the average cost to the London County Council in that year of the maintenance of a youthful offender in a reformatory school for whose maintenance the London County Council are responsible, which cost shall be ascertained in accordance with the directions of the Secretary of State.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 75:

Verbal Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 76:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 77 to 81 agreed to.

Clause 82:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to amend subsection (3)— (3) If a parent or other person is unable to pay the sum required by the order to be paid, he shall apply to the guardians of the Poor Law union comprising the parish in which the parent or other person is resident, who, if satisfied of such liability, shall give the parent or other person sufficient relief to pay the sum, or so much thereof as they consider him unable to pay, and the money so given shall be charged to the parish as provided by the Elementary Education Act, 1876, in the case of money given for the payment of school fees'"— by omitting the words "and the money so given shall be charged to the parish as provided by the Elementary Education Act, 1876, in the case of money given for the payment of school fees." This Amendment was drafted by the Local Government Board, who suggested that the relief which was given ought to be charged to the union and not to the parish.

Amendment moved— In page 50, line 2, to leave out from the word 'pay' to the end of the clause.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 83 to 86 agreed to.

Clause 87:

Verbal Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 88 and 89 agreed to.

Clause 90:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 91:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to delete the words— And where any such officer can only be removed with the consent of a Secretary of State or the Local Government Board, such consent shall be part of the tenure of his office. He explained that the words were inserted with the object of preserving the rights of the officers at the London County Council school at Feltham. It was thought that they had certain rights and could not be removed without the consent of the Secretary of State or of the Local Government Board, but on inquiry it was found that none of the officers had this right. It was, therefore, now proposed to omit the words as unnecessary. The Amendment was agreed to by the London County Council.

Amendment moved— In page 53, line 10, to leave out from the word 'passed' to the end of the clause."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 92:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 93 to 96 agreed to.

Clause 97:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 98 and 99 agreed to.

Clause 100:

*LORD KINNAIRD

moved to add at the end of the clause, which provided that— The conviction of a child or young person shall not be regarded as a conviction of felony for the purposes of any disqualification attaching to felony. the words "except as provided in Clause 59, section (3)." These words seemed to him to be necessary; otherwise convicted children might be prevented from being sent to industrial schools.

Amendment moved— In page 58, line 6, after the word 'felony,' to insert the words 'except as provided in Clause 59, subsection (3).'"—(Lord Kinnaird.)

Earl BEAUCHAMP

declared the Amendment unnecessary. Clause 100 simply provided that the conviction of a child or young person should not be regarded as a conviction of felony. Subsection (3) of Clause 59, which the noble Lord referred to, enabled the Court to send a boy or girl in certain circumstances to an industrial school instead of to a reformatory school. That power already existed, and the child could be sent without the words which the noble Lord wished to add.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 101 to 107 agreed to.

Clause 108:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 109:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 110:

Drafting Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 111:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to amend subsection (3), which ran— His Majesty may by Order in Council under the Metropolitan Police Courts Acts, 1839 and 1840, provide for the establishment of one or more separate juvenile courts for the metropolitan police court district and for assigning as a division to each such court such portion of that district as may be specified in the order"— by adding words at the end to enable the Secretary of State to require the county council to provide the necessary accomodation, although the expense of it would be defrayed by the Secretary of State out of the Police Fund.

Amendment moved— In page 63, line 33, after the word 'order,' to insert the words 'and where such an order is made the London County Council shall, if so required by the Secretary of State, provide the necessary accommodation for the purpose at any place of detention provided by the council upon such terms as to payment and otherwise as may be agreed between the Secretary of State and the Council, or in default of agreement, as may be settled by the Treasury.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 112:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

asked permission to transfer Clause 112 (Prohibition on children being present in Court during the trial of other persons) to Part VI.—the miscellaneous and general section.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

said it would be necessary to negative the clause here, and to move its insertion when Part VI. was reached.

Amendment moved— Tto leave out Clause 1 12."—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 113 agreed to.

Clause 114:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to substitute "April" for "January" in this clause, which ran— This Part of the Act shall not apply in the case of any proceedings instituted before the first day of January, nineteen hundred and nine.

Amendment moved— In page 64, line 14, to leave out the word 'January,' and to insert the word 'April.'"—(Earl Beauchamp,)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 115 agreed to.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

then moved the insertion of the words which formerly constituted Clause 112.

Amendment moved— After Clause 116, to insert the following new clause, 'No child (other than an infant in arms) shall be permitted to be present in Court during the trial of any person charged with an offence, or during any proceedings preliminary thereto, and if so present he shall be ordered to be removed, unless he is the person charged with the alleged offence, or during such time as his presence is required as a witness, or otherwise for the purposes of justice. Provided that this section shall not apply to messengers, clerks, and other persons required to attend at any Court for purposes connected with their employment.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 116 and 117 agreed to.

Clause 118:

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

moved to leave out subsection (2), which provided that— Any constable who finds a person wandering from place to place and taking a child with him may, if he has reasonable ground for believing that the person is guilty of an offence under this section, apprehend him without a warrant, and may take the child to a place of safety in accordance with the provisions of Part II. of this Act, and that Part shall apply accordingly as if an offence under this section were an offence under that Part. It was nothing new that a constable might arrest a man without a warrant when he saw him actually committing a crime; that was obviously commonsense. But this subsection went a great deal further, and was, as far as he knew, unprecedented. Under this subsection a constable would be empowered to arrest a man without a warrant on suspicion that his child was not being properly educated. Surely that was not a crime of sufficient magnitude to justify power of arrest without a warrant being given. The procedure known as the school attendance committee procedure was the proper method of dealing with an offence of this kind.

Amendment moved— In page 65, lines 20 to 26, to leave out subsection (2)."—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

regretted that the noble Earl regarded the provision in the subsection as extreme. It was, as a matter of fact, the only way in which the object of the clause could really be carried out. In the case of vagrant children the difficulty was to catch the persons concerned. If the course suggested by the noble Earl were adopted, by the time the warrant was obtained the vagrant would have disappeared carrying the child triumphantly with him.

LORD FARRER

hoped Lord Donoughmore would allow the subsection to stand. He knew from personal experience the difficulty of dealing with these cases. On one occasion a number of these people encamped on ground near his residence; there were eleven vans in all, and the children numbered thirty. In his endeavour to get the names he appealed to the police, but they declined to go on to common land unless they received instructions from the Lord of the Manor. To get the necessary sanction from the Lord of the Manor took five hours, and by that time every one of the vans had disappeared. This illustrated the extreme difficulty of dealing with these people without some such provision as that proposed. He believed the County Councils Association were unanimous in wishing for legislation of this kind.

*LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

urged the Committee to support the Government in this matter. These people evaded the present powers by their rapid means of locomotion, and without the subsection he was afraid the clause would be inoperative. The matter had been considered by the County Councils Association, and they were anxious that some practical powers should be given.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

expressed his willingness, after what had been said, to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 119 agreed to.

THE EARL OF CARLISLE

, in the absence of Lord Monkswell, moved the insertion of a new clause. It was, he said, practically the same as a clause in the Licensing Bill now under consideration in the other House, but it seemed to him that it would be a very desirable addition to this Bill. Even supposing the Licensing Bill to be perfectly safe, it would be an awkward arrangement that persons dealing with cases of this kind should have to look for their authority to two different Acts of Parliament. The clause followed the universal colonial practice. There it was found to act perfectly well; the only difference was that in the Colonies the age was much higher. The Amendment carried out the temperance and hygienic teaching now given in schools, and embodied the policy of trying to instil temperance rather through the young than through adults.

Amendment moved— After Clause 119, to insert the following new clause: (1) The holder of the licence of any licensed premises shall not allow a child to be at any time in the bar of the licensed premises except during the hours of closing. (2) If the holder of a licorice acts in contravention of this section, or if any person causes or procures, or attempts to cause or procure any child to go to or be in the bar of any licensed premises, except during the hours of closing, he shall be liable on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding, in respect of the first offence forty shillings, and in respect of any subsequent offence five pounds. (3) If a child is found at the bar of any licensed premises except during the hours of closing, the holder of the licence shall be deemed to have committed an offence against this section unless he shows he has used due diligence to prevent the child being admitted to the bar. (4) Where any person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of a child who is alleged in the charge to be under the age of fourteen, and the child appears to the Court to be under that age, the child shall be deemed to be under that age unless the contrary is shown. (5) Nothing in this section shall apply in the case of a child who is resident but not employed in the licensed premises or in the case of premises constructed, fitted, and intended to be used in good faith for any purpose to which the holding of a licence is merely auxiliary. (6) The bar of licensed premises means any open drinking bar or any part of the premises exclusively or mainly used for the sale and consumption of intoxicating liquor.'"—(The Earl of Carlisle.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said the Amendment was really the introduction of practically foreign matter. The Bill had been received with such approval on both sides that the insertion of the proposed new clause might make its passage difficult. In these circumstances he hoped the noble Lord would not press it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 120 agreed to.

Clause 121 agreed to.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

moved to insert after Clause 121 the following new clause:—"Where a woman is convicted of the murder of her infant, and that child was under the age of one year, the Court may, in lieu of passing a sentence of death, sentence her to penal servitude for life or any less punishment." The fact was that the passing of sentence of death upon a woman convicted of this offence was, if one might thus speak of so terrible an occurrence, a mockery. As a matter of fact, it had not been carried out in such cases since 1849. The practice had always been to let these unhappy women out after about three years imprisonment. He thought that public opinion was shocked at the idea of the death sentence being passed in cases where it was manifestly inhuman to carry it out, and, on the other hand, it was very much to be regretted that the death penalty should be nominally infliced when there was no reality behind it. Juries were in the habit of taking things upon themselves; they would not convict in many of these cases, and, if they did convict, it was for a minor offence. He did not propose that the death sentence should never be passed. He could conceive cases in which it would be appropriate, although he was glad to think they would be very few; but what he proposed was to allow an option to the Judge.

Amendment moved— After Clause 121, to insert the following new clause: 'Where a woman is convicted of the murder of her infant, and that child was under the ago of one year, the Court may, in lieu of passing a sentence of death, sentence her to penal servitude for life or any less punishment.'"—(The Lord Chancellor.)

LORD ALVERSTONE

said the noble and learned Lord had raised a most difficult and delicate question, and he was a little sorry that it had been raised in this Bill, because the Amendment was very far outside the original scheme of the Bill. It was quite true that Judges who had the great responsibility of passing sentence in such cases felt at times that they were obliged to pass a sentence which they knew would not be carried out; but he did not think it right to speak of this as a mockery. He agreed that there were cases in which it was desirable that the death sentence should not be carried out, but he was not sure, in the general interests of human society, it was not better that this should be part of the prerogative of mercy rather than part of the judicial function. Nobody felt more than he did that in these cases the woman was often very much more sinned against than sinning. But the clause as framed went rather far. It was a very grave matter for consideration whether such an option as that set forth in the clause should be given in cases in which the circumstances were not such as those to which the Lord-Chancellor had referred. The longer he lived and the more he was brought into contact with the criminal law, the more was he satisfied that it was essential that the death penalty should be maintained. However, the contention which he submitted to their Lordships in this case was merely that the question before them was a very grave one, which ought to be very fully and carefully considered. There were, no doubt, cases in which it would be a relief to possess the power suggested, but it was a grave alteration of the law which was suggested, and it would, he thought, have been better if it had not been dealt with in this Bill. It certainly had nothing to do with the protection of children in the ordinary sense of the phrase. The alteration of the law might in itself be a valuable one. There was a very great deal to be said on both sides of the question. He did not think, however, that it could be dismissed quite so briefly as the Lord-Chancellor had dealt with it, by applying the word mockery to proceedings under the existing law. The matter was a very grave and serious one, and he was not satisfied by the opinion of his noble and learned friend on the woolsack, notwithstanding the respect in which he held that opinion.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

recognised that it was a serious matter to propose any commutation of the death-sentence. Referring to the question whether such a clause ought to be introduced into this Bill, he pointed out that there would probably not be another opportunity of bringing in a Bill or clause dealing with the subject for a considerable time. The matter related to children and the protection of children. If the Committee thought it proper to reject the clause, let them do so on its merits. He had not the least intention of using the word "mockery" offensively. To pass sentence of death, however, was a very solemn matter. He did think it was a mockery—if he might be permitted the use of the word—that such a sentence should be passed without the probability that it would be carried into effect and when it related to a class of cases for which for upwards of fifty years there had been no execution. Capital punishment in these cases had practically become obsolete in England, and he was thankful that that was so. He did not propose to abolish sentence of death. If it were thought desirable that this punishment should be imposed in a particular case, the new clause left the matter to the discretion of the Judge. His view was that if the Judge thought capital punishment ought not to be inflicted, he ought to be able to say so and to make the outward form of the sentence correspond to the reality. Those who had been trained in the study and practice of the law—including himself—were not able without an effort to do justice to a question of this kind. It was a matter for the considered commonsense of men of the world whether it was not better that the appearance of a Court of Justice should correspond to the reality.

*THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE

I do not rise with any idea of discussing the Amendment of my noble and learned friend upon its merits. I think I am probably expressing the opinion of many lay Members of your Lordship's House when I say that, after listening to the speeches that have been delivered, I should feel very great difficulty in deciding how to vote if I were compelled to record my vote this evening. I think the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice himself frankly admitted that there was a great deal to be said on both sides in regard to this question. What I shall venture to suggest is this. To the best of my belief this Amendment only appeared on the Paper this morning; at any rate, most of us have had no opportunity of considering the question deliberately, and I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether, in these circumstances, he would not consent to let the matter stand over until Report, by which time we shall have had fuller opportunity of examining the matter.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

assented.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 128:

LORD ALVERSTONE

pointed out that this clause incorporated the provisions of the Summary Jurisdiction Act 1879. By Sections 10 and 11 of that Act the magistrate could only deal with children with the consent of either parent or guardian. He feared that if it got about that under this new legislation only consent could give the magistrate jurisdiction parents and guardians might be inclined to withhold their consent. It was obviously important that in the Courts for dealing with these cases the magistrates should have this power without the consent of the parent or guardian.

Amendment moved— In page 70, line 19, after the word 'thereto,' to insert the words 'Provided that notwithstanding anything contained in Sections ten and eleven of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879, the justices shall have jurisdiction to deal with any charge against a child or young person without his consent or the consent of the parent or guardian of the person so charged.'"—(Lord Alverstone.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

said that, in the opinion of the Government, the Amendment went too far. It clearly would deprive a child and young person of their right to be tried by jury on any charge of an indictable offence, except homicide. Great importance was attached to the privilege of the possibility of trial by jury, and it would be a serious matter to take that right away from children and young persons in the ruthless way proposed.

LORD ALVERSTONE

hoped the noble Earl would consider the matter with a view to some alteration. He could not help thinking that the necessity for consent might render part of the Bill of very little use.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

invited the noble and learned Lord to put down words for Report, and the Government would consider them.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 129 agreed to.

Clause 130:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to define the expression "Common Council" as meaning the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the City of London in common council assembled.

Amendment moved— In page 71, line 4, after the word 'person' to insert the words 'The expression "Common Council" means the mayor, aldermen, and commons of the City of London in common council assembled.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause as amended, agreed to.

Clause 131:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

explained that the Amendments standing in his name to this clause had been drawn up by the Scottish Office. They were designed to make the Bill apply to Scotland, and he could assure their Lordships that none of the Amendments took more power for Scotland than would exist in England.

Amendment moved— In page 71, line 40, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the end of line 41, and to insert the words 'for the purposes of Part I. of this Act have the same powers of making inquiries, calling for Returns, and applying to the Court of Session as they have for the purposes of the Poor Law (Scotland) Act, 1845.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 76, line 34, after the word '1890,' to insert the words 'Provided that, in the case of a Royal parliamentary or police burgh, the expression "police authority," where occurring in Section 59 and in Section 120 of this Act, means the town council; and provided further, that whore in any such burgh expenses chargeable to the police fund or as part of the current expenses of a police authority would, under the existing law, be payable out of the burgh general assessment, expenses so chargeable under the provisions of this Act shall be defrayed as expenses incurred by a town council under Section seventy-four of this Act.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Drafting Amendments agreed to.

Amendment moved— In page 77, after subsection (24), to insert the following new subsection: (25) Subject to the provisions hereinafter contained, nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal, alter, prejudice, or affect any of the provisions of the Glasgow Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Repression Acts, 1878 and 1896 (hereinafter referred to as the Glasgow Acts), and the Commissioners and directors acting under the Glasgow Acts shall continue to have the full rights, privileges, and powers at present competent to them. Provided, nevertheless, that the Secretary for Scotland may, by order under his hand, provide for altering, amending, or adapting the Glasgow Acts so as to provide: (a) For the retiral of the existing directors, for the reconstitution of the board of directors, for the election of new directors, for subsequent elections of directors, for the annual retiral of one-third of the directors, and for supplying vacancies arising from time to time; (b) for the assessments authorised to be levied under the Glasgow Acts being levied in the same manner as assessments for the expenses of a town council for the purposes of Section seventy-four of this Act instead of as in the Glasgow Acts provided, and for the reduction of the maximum amount thereof, if thought proper, and for the application of the said assessments; (c) for authorising the said directors to grant securities over all lands and heritages vested in them, including school houses; (d) for raising the age up to which, under the Glasgow Act, a child may, upon the request of the school board, if the Court think it expedient, be sent to a certified day industrial school from thirteen years to fourteen years, and for providing that any order for payment of contributions by a parent under the Glasgow Acts shall be enforceable as a decree for aliment; and (e) for otherwise altering, amending, or adapting the provisions of the Glasgow Acts, as may seem to him necessary to make those provisions conform with the provisions of this Act, or to enable the powers under the Glasgow Acts to be exercised as if they were powers under this Act. Any such order may be revoked and varied by a subsequent order.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 132:

THE EARL OF MEATH

moved to amend the subsection which made it unlawful for a pawnbroker in Ireland to take an article in pawn from any person apparently under the age of thirteen, by making the age fourteen. He pointed out that the Bill had already made the age fourteen in England, and argued that there was no reason for making any difference in the case of Ireland. The only argument he had heard which at all appealed to him was that Irish children were so much more intelligent, that an Irish child of thirteen could be considered equal to an English or Scottish child of fourteen. His Amendment was supported by at least fourteen Irish associations which had petitioned and passed resolutions in its favour, and he appealed to their Lordships to prevent what he regarded as a really unnecessary differentiation between Great Britain and Ireland.

Amendment moved— In page 78, line 31, to leave out the word 'thirteen,' and to insert the word 'fourteen.'"—(The Earl of Meath.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

resisted the Amendment. If, he said, it were accepted now, there was no chance of its meeting with approval in another place. The subject was there discussed at considerable length, and the age in the clause was arrived at as a kind of compromise. Up till now there had been no age-limit in this matter in Ireland, and it was thought rather hard that the age should be made at once as high as in England, where for many years this restriction had existed.

LORD ATKINSON

said it seemed to him that the subsection was inserted not to further the objects of the Bill, but to benefit the pawnbrokers of Ireland at the expense of Irish children.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

associated himself with the noble Earl who moved the Amendment. He was, he said, connected with several clothing and similar organisations, and his experience was that it was almost impossible to keep children warm during winter if they were allowed on any occasion to pawn their clothes for the purpose, possibly, of a bet on a horse or buying cigarettes. He thought there should be no differentiation in the matter of age.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

then moved the Amendment which he had previously moved to Clause 11, but had withdrawn on the suggestion of Earl Beauchamp.

Amendment moved— In page 79, line 8, after subsection (16), to insert, as a new subsection, the words, 'The provisions relating to exemptions from Part 1 of this Act shall include any religious or charitable society which shall pay any person for keeping an infant, or to the person so employed, provided that such society shall have obtained from the Local Government Board a certificate that it is a fit and proper institution to be exempted from the provisions of that part of this Act.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 133:

EARL BEAUCHAMP

moved to substitute the 1st day of April, for the 1st day of January, 1909, as the day when, save as otherwise expressly provided, the Act should come into operation.

Amendment moved— In page 82, line 24, to leave out the word 'January,' and to insert the word 'April.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

Standing Committee negatived; the report of Amendments to be received on Monday next, and Bill to be printed as amended. [No. 220.]

House adjourned at Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Four o'clock.