Lords Sitting of 30 November 1908

PRIVATE BILL BUSINESS.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3.) Bill.—Leave given to the Select Committee to continue sitting in the absence of the Lord Monk Bretton.
Hastings Harbour Bill.—Brought from the Commons, read la; and referred to the Examiners.
Liverpool Corporation (Streets and Buildings) Bill—Read 3a, with the Amendments: Further Amendments made: Bill passed, and returned to the Commons.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 3.) Bill.—Report from the Committee of Selection, That the Lord Hylton be proposed to the House as a Member of the Select Committee on the said Bill in the place of the Lord Monk Bretton; read, and agreed to.

PETITIONS.
  CHILDREN BILL.
  Petitions in favour of: Of the Wesleyan Methodists of Frogpool; St. Day; Stithians; Baldhu; Sunday School Teachers and Workers of the Gwennap Wesleyan Methodist Circuit. Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  BOARD OF EDUCATION (BUILDING GRANTS (APPROPRIATION ACTS, 1907 AND 1908, CIVIL SERVICES, CLASS IV., VOTE 1)).
  Further statement showing the cases in which the Board of Education have received applications from local education authorities for special grants for the building of new public elementary schools, and the stage which each case had reached on 31st October, 1908.
  Further correspondence relating to the trial of certain natives in Natal.

  IRISH LAND PURCHASE ACTS.
  Return giving, by counties and provinces, the area, Poor Law valuation, and purchase money of (a) land sold, and (b) lands in respect of which proceedings have been instituted and are pending for sale under the Irish Land Purchase Acts; also the estimated area, Poor Law valuation, and purchase-money of lands in respect of which proceedings for sale have not been instituted under the said Acts.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  DISEASES OF ANIMALS ACTS, 1894 TO 1903.
  Two Orders, No. 7,605 and No. 7,606, dated 21st November, 1908, permitting the landing at the Deptford Foreign Animals Wharf, of animals carried on board the ss. "Marquette" and "Minnehaha," respectively.

  FACTORY AND WORKSHOP.
  Schemes for the regulation of hours of employment, intervals for meals and rest, and holidays of workers in charitable institutions approved by the Secretary of State, in pursuance of the powers conferred on him by Section 5 (2) (a) of the Factory and Workshop Act, 1907.
  Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  SUNDAY LABOUR IN THE MERCANTILE MARINE.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, I rise to call attention to the prevalence of Sunday labour in the mercantile marine in so far as it applies to British ships when lying in port both at home and abroad; and to move that, in the opinion of this House, the subject warrants consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government with a view to measures being taken towards ensuring that those serving on British ships shall, so far as is reasonably possible, be relieved from work on the Sabbath Day.

  1023
  The question of Sunday labour and the necessity of one day's rest in seven is by no means new to this House, but so far as I am aware, with the exception of a few words that I said on this subject early in the session, when I was calling the attention of the House to the Return issued by the Government on the treatment of their merchant seamen by foreign countries, it has never been discussed in its particular relation to those who serve in our premier industry, the British mercantile marine. Whilst I am in sympathy with those who are labouring so earnestly in the direction of imposing limitations on Sunday labour in so far as it effects certain occupations ashore, I think it a duty to attempt to focus special attention upon the position of our merchant seafarers, to so many of whom rest on the Sabbath day is a thing that is very seldom known.
  My Lords, I do not seek for the amelioration of the seafarers' lot in respect to the Sabbath in any unreasonable way. Though many do not seem to see it, we cannot make regulations for seafarers in the same way as we can for any profession or occupation ashore. It is a service which demands special consideration, and legislation which can be applied with perfect ease ashore might, if applied to shipping, do incalculable harm to all concerned. In the case of British merchant ships exceptional circumstances are apt to arise in port where Sunday work can reasonably be expected of their crews. In the interests of shipowners I would certainly make provision for these exceptional occasions, but in the interests of seafarers I would, did the matter rest in my hands, make provision so that those who do this additional work should receive additional pay for it.
  Then, again, when British ships are on the high seas it would be absurd to suggest that everybody should be allowed to abandon work on the Sabbath Day. The ship must get along; therefore duty must continue, although, so far as I can gather, shipmasters always reduce the work to its lowest possible limits on Sundays when at sea. Having said that I ask for nothing but what is reasonable, I can, with perfect truth, assure your
  1024
  Lordships that Sunday labour on board merchant ships is rife, not only when they are lying in ports abroad but also in ports at home. Officers and seamen, particularly the officers, are worked to the utmost, and the blessing of one day's rest in seven is to them a rare privilege. I make no exceptions in classes or types of ships. In some of the biggest lines Sunday labour is just as common as Sunday labour in ships bearing the misnomer of "tramps." If it is not so when the ships are in ports at home, it is amply made up for when the ships go abroad.
  In one of the biggest shipping lines in this country, whose headquarters are not 100 miles from this House, I may tell your Lordships that the ships always work on Sundays when in ports abroad. I will take another of our biggest lines, where a smart and promising young officer wrote, in a most courteous and reasonable way, to the directors of the company, pointing out what a very great physical strain it was on officers that they should be expected constantly to work on Sundays whilst the steamers were loading or discharging in Mediterranean ports. The response he got was that, on arrival home, he was requested to resign on the ground that he was not satisfied with the conditions of his employment. I would ask your Lordships whether we are right in tolerating this, and whether we should not protect our seafarers against such treatment? Have they no right to say anything on their own behalf? Take another big Atlantic Line. I am reliably informed that cargo is often worked on Sundays when the vessels are in a home port and also at ports abroad.
  Coming to other firms, I find from the chief officer of a big steamer that—
  "Sunday labour is the rule and not the exception at home and abroad. There is no recognition of Sunday, so far as loading or discharging is concerned."
  Another officer says—
  "The Eastern trade is a very hard one, day and night, Sundays included. No one ever knows what it is in his ship to have an hour off."
  And he very rightly thinks that something to stop this state of affairs, so that an officer could get some time to himself, should be considered. Another officer says that abroad there is Sunday

  1025
  labour every Sunday if possible. During the last six months he has had eight Sundays in port, and worked on them all. I could quote you innumerable cases, but will content myself with giving you the opinions of one more gentleman following the sea. He is in command of a steamer and says—
  "Sunday labour abroad, I fear, will never be properly done away with, for this reason. The shipowners of England encourage it by paying dispatch money—that is, to stevedores, who, out of that money, of course, pay extra to their men who are working on Sunday."
  He says that if Sunday labour were done away with, also the ways and means for saving Sunday at sea for owner's benefit, he is certain that seafarers would live longer and not have as many grey hairs in their heads.
  I have in my possession the terms of a postscript appended to a letter of instructions which a certain large and well-known firm of shipowners forwarded to the master of one of their ships then lying in a port abroad. This postscript reads as follows—
  "You should arrange to scrape the ship's bottom on Sunday so as not to interfere with the work on ordinary days. I hope you have thought of this and got it done."
  This emanates, not from any minor or unimportant shipping company, but from one which figures very prominently in shipping circles. I wonder what your Lordships think of this postscript. I ask: Are we going to permit such things to continue? Are we not going to do anything in lightening the lot of men who have such limited opportunities of speaking for themselves? Are we to allow officers and men, even under the broiling sun of West Africa, to be creatures of toil on Sunday just as on any other day?
  Thanks to the Return which I was able to get from His Majesty's Government, shipowners cannot plead the stereotyped argument of contending against fierce foreign competition. From the Return I have mentioned, it is easy to see that most foreign maritime countries are far more solicitous about their seafarers than we are, even though we pride ourselves that the position is quite the opposite. Earlier in the session, when I was calling attention to this Return, I read to your Lordships extracts from it
  1026
  showing how the different foreign nations treated their sailors as far as regards Sunday work. I do not propose to take up time by again going through this, but in all the cases where there is absolute necessity for carrying on work on Sunday in every case the officers and crews receive extra remuneration. I think, my Lords, that anybody who studies the Return in question will realise that we are a long way behind other maritime countries so far as Sunday labour on board ship is concerned.
  Apart from the Return, I can clearly put the position by relating the experiences of two gentlemen serving in different large steamers. One says—
  "Re Sunday work; lying here (at Ibicuy) last Sunday we were working, although there is no hurry for her, as we do not leave here for Santos until the end of October. I asked the contractor, who is building the wharf, if he worked his men on Sundays. His reply was: 'No, unless there is an English ship here, and then she pays all expenses.' He also remarked that most foreign ships would not work on Sundays."
  The other gentleman, writing from an Italian port, gives his opinion in this way—
  "I thought that I would inform you about the altered conditions that prevail in Italy re Sunday labour. There is no Sunday labour now on board vessels in this port, and I can also vouch for Genoa and Civita Vecchia. Our broker informs me that it now applies to all Italian ports. One would hardly credit that where these things can be, and are, stopped in other countries, they are allowed to go on unchecked under British rule. In Alexandria, last voyage, we worked both Sundays that we were there, as every other British vessel does, as it counts one half-day to the ship, providing they work a full day."
  I propose to trouble your Lordships but little more in regard to this serious matter. But I would emphasise the fact that under ordinary conditions when at sea our seamen and firemen must work twelve hours per day, Saturdays and Sundays included. In the great majority of cases our merchant officers must work, roughly speaking, some fifteen hours per day. Surely, then, when they do reach port and Sunday comes round they have an undeniable right to that rest and relaxation which they so richly deserve and most certainly require, and which at the present time they certainly do not get.
  I am glad to say that there are some shipowning firms who set their faces

  1027
  against Sunday work on their ships. These firms deserve great praise, though I do not suppose they seek it. If only in justice to them, their colleagues should be forced to fall into line with them and be prevented from offering unscrupulous opposition both in the way of forcing their men to work on Sundays and in other despicable ways. It is no use appealing to conscience. Nothing will do it but compulsion, and that is why I hope this Motion will meet with the complete and unanimous approval of the House. It would be useless to introduce a Bill at the present time, but a consensus of opinion such as that which I now hope for would carry enormous weight, and would considerably facilitate our seeing the matter through to the end.
  There are two aspects to the question. One is the religious aspect, which I will not dwell upon, simply because I think that when we urge the proper observance of the Sabbath we should, in the first place, demand that people should be given the opportunity of observing it properly. In the remarkable "Message to the Nation" which was issued not very long ago by the heads of the three Churches in this country I was very glad indeed to see that, whilst the proper observance of the Sabbath Day was very naturally dwelt upon, the physical necessity of one day's rest in seven was also fully recognised. At the recent International Congress on the Lord's Day held at Edinburgh, Mr. Moore, secretary of the Imperial Merchant Service Guild, speaking as the only representative of seafarers present, said—
  "The amount of Sunday labour in the merchant service is a grave national scandal."
  The Guild have especially brought this subject to my notice, and it is one which I can honestly say I have, never more gladly taken up. It represents an evil which, sooner or later, must be eradicated. I can only commend my Motion for your earnest consideration, and should your Lordships see your way clear to give it your support, it would, I can fully assure you, be received with feelings of deep appreciation and gratitude by those who serve in the mercantile marine of our country.
  Moved, "That the prevalence of Sunday labour in the mercantile marine,
  1028
  in so far as it relates to British ships when lying in port both at home and abroad, warrants consideration at the hands of His Majesty's Government with a view to measures being taken towards ensuring that those serving on British ships shall, so far as is reasonably possible, be relieved from work on the Sabbath Day."—(Lord Muskerry.)
  THE EARL OF MAYO: My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will agree that the subject to which the noble Lord has called attention warrants consideration, not only at the hands of His Majesty's Government, but by everyone in this House. It largely depends, of course, on the way in which Sunday labour is construed. I have seen it on the West Coast of Africa, and the circumstances there make Sunday labour very often essential. But it is not universally essential. The noble Lord mentioned a great many cases, and we should like to have heard the names of some of the steamship companies concerned, especially the one which ordered the scraping of the ship on Sunday. I think it is perfectly outrageous to ask men who have been working all the week to set to work on Sunday and scrape the ship. Sunday labour is absolutely necessary in that part of the Empire to which I have referred. The Resolution, however, is worded in so mild a manner that there would be no harm in voting for it. We should like to hear what His Majesty's Government have to say on the matter.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, it is perfectly true, as Lord Mayo has said, that there are portions of the Empire where Sunday labour is necessary in regard to shipping; but, from personal knowledge, I know that the noble Lord who has brought forward this Motion is absolutely right when he says that there are large portions of the Empire, especially in the Mediterranean, where it is quite unnecessary that labour should go on on the Sunday. I hope that His Majesty's Government are going to answer the noble Lord in a sympathetic manner. It would be very remarkable if this country, which has always shown itself especially anxious that the Sabbath should be a day of rest, were to lag behind the rest of the world in this

  1029
  matter. I am no fanatic with regard to the observance of the Sunday. If it is necessary that work should go on, I say let it go on; but it is wrong for any body of employers to make their men work on Sunday when it is not necessary. First of all, there are a large number of men who object to Sunday work for honest religious reasons, and you have no right to force these men to work on the Sunday if they feel that it is contrary to their religious convictions. Then there is a very large number who feel that if they were on land they would not have to work on Sunday, and, therefore, they are aggrieved. This is not so much a grievance on the part of seamen, who often get extra pay; but the officers get no extra pay at all, and, from my own personal knowledge, work sometimes for fourteen and fifteen hours a day. Even in port they get no rest, and it stands to reason that if men are working always at high pressure they cannot be as capable of doing their duty as those who get a certain amount of rest. I believe myself that a good many accidents in connection with ships are due to overwork, and, therefore, from the utilitarian point of view, putting the religious view entirely outside, I hope that His Majesty's Government will give this question their serious attention.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF LIVERPOOL: My Lords, I do not intend to occupy your Lordships' time for more than a minute, but as I work in one of our largest seaports I desire, with all my heart, to support the Motion before the House. I do so on the ground that British seamen in port have just as much right to Sunday rest as we who work on land. I think it is a curious anomaly that nations which are supposed not to regard Sunday with any great degree of reverence should have safeguarded Sunday rest for their sailors, while we, who are supposed to be a Sunday-loving people, take no measures whatever to prevent, as far as is reasonably possible, those serving on British ships from working on Sunday. There is undoubtedly a grievance, and any Government that will take this case in hand will earn the gratitude of a class of men through whose craft we derive as a nation a great part of our wealth.
  LORD LYVEDEN: My Lords, I should like to say, as regards the Motion moved by Lord Muskerry, that I fear it will not work at all smoothly. These things cannot be done by legislation, and should really be left to the discretion of the captains. Take, for instance, ships lying in open roadsteads like Jaffa. A ship may have to lie off there for several days owing to the weather. Suddenly a calm comes, and then, of course, it is a case of "all hands." It would be very hard if the day on which the calm came happened to be a Sunday and the officers and men refused to work owing to this legislation. I hope, therefore, my noble friend will not press the Motion, but will leave it to the discretion, of the captains.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF BANGOR: My Lords, I rise to give my support to Lord Muskerry's Motion. I do not think the noble Lord would deprecate men working on Sunday when it was necessary, such as in an open roadstead where it would be dangerous to lose any opportunity, or on the coast of Africa. But is it not something of a national scandal that in ports where there is no such necessity for Sunday work the men on British ships should be required to work whilst those on ships belonging to foreign Powers which do not profess to reverence the Sunday as we do abstain from work. In the Return to which Lord Muskerry has referred instances are given of that. I therefore hope your Lordships will accept the Motion.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: My Lords, I wish to commence what I have to say to-night by a sort of protest which I have had for some time in my mind. I do not know whether your Lordships have noticed that there is an extraordinary family likeness between the Notices of Motion which the noble Lord is in the habit of putting on the Paper. The general proposition which the noble Lord brings forward is always a very excellent one, but the particular application which he wishes to make of that principle is always difficult and very often impossible. The presence of those two features on these occasions places the noble Lord in a very enviable position, and it places the person who has

  1031
  to return the matter-of-fact official answer in rather a difficult one. I see that the noble Lord nods his head; he evidently appreciates that fact, and I can assure him that I do. What happens is that the noble Lord is able to pose as the champion of everything which is noble and ideal, and the official mouthpiece is made to appear as the advocate of all that is base and uncharitable. Your Lordships may have noticed that of late a third character has appeared in these scenes, in the shape of the noble Earl on the cross benches, whose role, if I may say so, is to rub in that particular aspect of the case.
  THE EARL OF MEATH: Hear, hear.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I do not really complain of that, because I suppose it is all part of the game, and that in time one will get accustomed to it. But I myself have invariably found that I am in agreement with the noble Lord on the general principle of his Motion. It is only when, one comes to look into the matter more closely that one finds the enormous difficulty of applying it to the particular case brought forward. That has very frequently been so, and it is very much the case on this occasion. I am sure the Government and every Member of your Lordships' House would be willing to support any reasonable legislation for minimising Sunday labour, either ashore or afloat; but the difficulties in connection with this question when applied to shipping are, as has been pointed out, very large indeed. If the noble Lord could show what is at present by no means certain, that it is really desired by those who engage in this labour that there should be legislation on the subject, and if he could also show us some practical way of carrying out that object, I can assure him that the matter would have the most careful and most minute attention at the hands of the Department which I represent. I should like to call attention to one point in connection with this. It is not two years since the last Merchant Shipping Act was under consideration in this House. I was present throughout those debates, and I have since refreshed my memory by reading what took place, and I cannot find among
  1032
  all the mass of Amendments which the noble Lord placed on the Paper a single one which dealt with this point. If the matter was so urgent that was surely the time to deal with it; and as the noble Lord did not bring it forward then, I do not think he can blame His Majesty's Government for not having dealt with it since. What I understand with regard to Sunday labour is that it is made a matter of agreement between the employers and the seamen at the time of their engagement.
  LORD MUSKERRY: No.
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZIEL: Well, that is my information; and, as a rule, those articles of agreement contain a stipulation that in case Sunday labour is found necessary a stated rate of extra pay, usually 6d. or 8d. an hour shall be allowed to the men.
  THE EARL OF MEATHWhat about the officers?
  LORD HAMILTON OF DALZELL: I understand that a similar arrangement is the rule with regard to the officers. I do not say that it is universal, but I am informed that a similar arrangement is the rule, though, of course, the scale of extra remuneration in those cases is higher. We have had no fresh evidence before us since I answered the question put by the noble Lord in June last; and in the circumstances I am sorry to say I cannot return him any different answer. I hope, therefore, he will not press the Motion. But, as I say, if the noble Lord can produce any concrete or practical method of dealing; with the matter we shall be only too happy to consider it.
  VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: My Lords, I think everyone of your Lordships must sympathise in principle with what I understand Lord Muskerry desires to impress upon the House and the country—namely, that Sunday labour in the case of the crews of British merchant ships should be avoided as far as possible. But I am afraid that I must add to that that I sympathise also a great deal with what has just fallen from the noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade. I was myself for four years

  1033
  President of the Board of Trade, and while my noble friend behind me and the subsequent speakers were impressing upon the House their objections to Sunday labour I was thinking how, if I had been President of the Board of Trade now, I should have proposed to Parliament to deal with it. I confess I see no way whatever. One thing is quite certain, that on board ship much more than on land it is necessary sometimes that Sunday labour should be done. There may be cases frequently, such as those referred to, where it is absolutely necessary, in the interest of the safety of the ship and of the work being properly done which the ship is sent out to do, that there should be Sunday labour. Therefore, I am sure Lord Muskerry would not propose that a law should be passed that no Sunday labour beyond the ordinary work of the ship should be done by the officers and crew. But if my noble friend would not propose that, what could he propose? All I can see is that the Board of Trade should endeavour, by any suggestions they can make to the parties concerned, to check Sunday labour as far as possible by requiring that where it is demanded extra pay should be given for it. I do not think it is really practicable to do more than that, and therefore, I hops my noble friend will not press this matter to a division.
  LORD MUSKERRY: My Lords, in reference to what has just been said
  by the noble Viscount, I would point out that all the Mediterranean ports are perfectly safe. There is absolutely no necessity for Sunday labour there; yet Sunday labour does go on there on British ships though not on foreign ships. Then I come to the suggestion made by Lord Lyveden about leaving the matter to the discretion of the captains. If a captain exercised his discretion and stopped Sunday labour he would be told on his return that there was no further need for his services. That is well known. As to what Lord Hamilton said about extra payment, I have heard on occasions of members of the crew being paid extra for Sundays, but I have never heard—and, as your Lordships know, I am in the way of hearing these things—that an officer has ever received a farthing extra pay for Sunday labour or overtime. The noble Lord who represents the Board of Trade suggested that I should bring forward some proposal for remedying this matter. I think His Majesty's Government should bring it forward. I am not asking for anything unreasonable. Sunday work is going on in the docks at Liverpool, London, and all over the kingdom. Is that necessary? I say it is not; and I shall, therefore, press my Motion to a division.
  On Question,
  Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 22; Not Contents, 47.

  CONTENTS.

  Newcastle, D.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Liverpool, L. Bp.

  Courtney of Penwith, L.)

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Carlisle, E.

  Langford, L.

  Mayo, E.

  Ampthill, L.

  Mendip, L. (V. Clifden.)

  Westmeath, E.

  Ardilaun, L.

  Muskerry, L. [Teller.]

  Armitstead, L.

  Newton, L.

  Cross, V.

  Belhaven and Stenton, L.

  Stanmore, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.) [Teller.]

  Hill, V

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Loreburn, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Lauderdale, E.

  Hood, V.

  Liverpool, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Lansdowne, M.

  Lovelace, E.

  Mansfield, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Beauchamp, E. (L. Steward.)

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Cadogan, E.

  Onslow, E.

  Cathcart, E.

  Russell, E.

  Ashbourne, L.

  Cromer, E.

  Balfour, L.

  Kimberley, E.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Braye, L.

  Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clan-william

  Grenfell, L.

  Pirrie, L.

  Grey de Ruthyn, L.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessbor-ough.)

  Clements, L. (E. Leitrim.)

  Hamilton of Dalzell, L.

  Cloncurry, L.

  Herschell, L. [Teller.]

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Colebrooke, L. [Teller.]

  Hindlip, L.

  St, Davids, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Sanderson, L.

  Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Saye and Sele, L.

  Farrer, L.

  Lyveden, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Glantawe, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  On Question, Amendment agreed to.

  CHILDREN BILL.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Bill read 3a.
  THE LORD STEWARD (Earl BEAUCHAMP)explained that his first Amendment was of a temporary character, and applied to those children who had been put out to nurse before the passing of this Bill.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 2, line 31, after the word 'thereunder,' to insert the words 'Subject as aforesaid, this part of this Act shall apply to an infant whose nursing and maintenance has been undertaken for reward before the passing of this Act, in like manner as it applies to an infant whose nursing and maintenance has been so undertaken after the commencement of this Act, and as if any notice given under the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, had been a notice given under this part of this Act.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Verbal Amendment to Clause 3 agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend subsection (2) of Clause 17—
  "(2) 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 who has been seduced or become a prostitute 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,"
  by omitting the word "notoriously" and inserting the word "known." He said the Amendment had been submitted to, and approved by, the Lord Chief Justice.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 11, line 6, to leave out the word 'notoriously,' and to insert the word 'known.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwas advised that "notoriously" was the word wanted, as it meant generally known, whereas "known" would mean known to nobody in particular. But as the Lord Chief Justice had approved of the Amendment he would not press his objection.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid his proposed new subsection to Clause 38 was chiefly of the character of his first Amendment.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 23, line 14, after the word 'person,' to insert the following new subsection: '(3) This part of this Act shall apply in the case of a child or young person who has before the commencement of this Act been committed to the care of a relative or other fit person by an order made under the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, as if the order had been made under this part of this Act.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend subsection (3) of Clause 58—
  "(3) Where a child, apparently of the age of twelve or thirteen years, who has not previously been convicted, is charged before a Court of summary jurisdiction with an offence punishable in the case of an adult by penal servitude or a less punishment, and the Court is satisfied that the child should be sent to a certified school but, having regard to the special circumstances of the case, should not be sent to a certified reformatory school, and is also satisfied that the character and antecedents of the child are such that he will not exercise an evil influence over the other children in a certified industrial school, the Court may order the child to be sent to a certified industrial school, having previously ascertained that the managers are willing to receive the child,"
  by leaving out the words "Court of summary jurisdiction" and inserting the words "Petty Sessional Court." He reminded the House that their Lordships had decided, in Committee, that Courts

  1037
  of summary jurisdiction unless they were Petty Sessional Courts should not have jurisdiction to order a child to be sent to an industrial school.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 30, line 29, to leave out the words 'Court of summary jurisdiction,' and to insert the words 'Petty Sessional Court.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved a number of drafting Amendments to Clause 74, the object of which was, he explained, to transpose the definition of Local authority from subsection (5) to subsection (7). It was thought to be more convenient that it should appear there than in the fifth subsection.
  Drafting Amendments to Clause 74 agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend subsection (10) of the same clause—
  "(10) The local authority responsible for the maintenance of a youthful offender or child in a certified school under this section shall be responsible for his maintenance in the school in which he is for the time being detained, notwithstanding that having been originally ordered to be sent to a reformatory school he is subsequently transferred to an industrial school or having been originally ordered to be sent to an industrial school he is subsequently transferred to or ordered by a Court to be sent to a reformatory school—"
  by omitting the words "in the school in which he is for the time being detained" and inserting the words "in the event of his transfer to another certified school." This subsection was only intended to cover those cases where a youthful offender or a child, having been sent to one school, was afterwards transferred to another. Their Lordships would see that the words in the subsection as it at present stood were open to a wider construction.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 43, lines 17 and 18, to leave out the words 'in the school in which he is for the time being detained,' and to insert the words 'in the event of his transfer to another certified school.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Consequential Amendment agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments to Clause 92 agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend the provision in Clause 105, that—
  "A child or young person in detention pursuant to the directions of the Secretary of State may, at any time, be discharged by the Secretary of State on licence—"
  by deleting the words "child or young." As this clause dealt with cases of prolonged detention of a child who had been guilty, perhaps, of some serious offence, the child when released would be a great deal over sixteen years of age. It was, therefore, desirable to amend the provision in the manner proposed.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 59, line 25, to leave out the words 'child or young.' "—(Earl Beauchamp).
  Drafting Amendment agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid the meaning of the new subsection which he proposed to insert in Clause 111 was clear upon the face of it. It was thought that there might be places which might not be able to make the necessary arrangements before the Act came into force, and this subsection would enable the Secretary of State to postpone the coming into operation of this section as regards those places. He could give the House a pledge, on behalf of the Secretary of State, that he would not use the power further than was absolutely necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 65, line 2, after the word 'Treasury,' to insert the following new subsection: "(6) Where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that arrangements cannot be made for the purpose of complying with this section in any place by the first day of April, nineteen hundred and nine, the Secretary of State may by order postpone the coming into operation of this section as respects that place until such date, not later than the first day of January, nineteen hundred and ten, as may be specified in the order.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments to Clause 114 agreed to.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to strike out of subsection (2) of Clause 118—
  "(2) 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—"
  the power there given to a constable to apprehend an offender under the clause without a warrant. He urged that the clause proposed to establish a very far-reaching procedure. He could not see why it should be necessary to arrest the father, but the clause gave a policeman power, not only to take charge of the child with a view to its proper education, but also to arrest the father and lock him up. It Was not a criminal offence to fail to send a child to school, and in his opinion the power given to arrest the father went far beyond the necessities of the case.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 66, line 33, to leave out the words 'apprehend him without a warrant, and may.'" (The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  THE EARL OF ONSLOWsaid that those who lived amid the arid heaths and waste lands of Surrey and Sussex knew how impossible it was to get hold of a gypsy. They were here to-day and gone tomorrow, and he felt sure he would be supported by the chief constables when he said that these people were the source of a great deal of the crime in those counties. If power to arrest without a warrant were not taken, the police would never be able to get hold of these men and their children. If the Amendment were agreed to the clause would be rendered nugatory so far as vagrants were concerned. He quite agreed that this was a new departure, but they had to deal with a very peculiar class in these nomads, who were commonly known as gypsies, but had not much of the old glamour that surrounded gypsy tribes. They were, for the most part, loafers and vagrants from the great towns, and more particularly from London. He hoped
  1040
  their Lordships would be content with the modification of the clause about to be proposed by the Lord Steward, which would relieve those who were engaged in a trade or business during certain parts of the year.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPalso argued that the Amendment would make the clause of no effect. One of the objects in arresting the father was to make him pay. If he got away, there was no power to make him pay.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved the insertion of a new subsection, which he said was the outcome of the promise given to Earl Russell by the Lord Privy Seal at an earlier stage that the matter to which the noble Earl called attention should be considered.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 66, line 36, after the word 'Part,' to insert the following new subsection: '(3) Without prejudice to the requirements of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907, as to school attendance or to proceedings thereunder, this section shall not apply during the months of April to September, inclusive, to any child whose parent or guardian is engaged in a trade of such a nature as to require him to travel from place to place, and who has obtained a certificate of having made not less than two hundred attendances at a public elementary school during the months of October to March immediately preceding, and the power of the Board of Education to make regulations with respect to the issue of certificates of due attendance for the purposes of the Education Acts, 1870 to 1907, shall include a power to make regulations as to the issue of certificates of attendance for the purposes of this section.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL RUSSELLexpressed the gratitude of those for whom he was acting to the Government for drafting the new subsection, which entirely met his particular opinion. He moved, however, to amend the Amendment by inserting the words, "or business" after the word, "trade." The expression "trade" might possibly be taken to mean some specified or particular trade recognised by a trade union.
  Amendment moved to the Amendment—
  "After the word 'trade' to insert the words 'or business.' "—(Earl Russell.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPaccepted the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREasked the noble Earl in charge of the Bill whether he was satisfied that the words as now drafted covered the case of a tinker who was travelling about the country looking for business. Such a man could not be said to be at the moment actually engaged in a trade or business.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPthought that such a case would be covered. The Home Office, however, would consider the point, and, if necessary, the wording could be amended in the other House.
  LORD MONKSWELLnext moved a new clause, which, he said, was simply a transfer of Clause 21 of the defunct Licensing Bill to this Bill. He believed the principle had the assent of every Member of their Lordships' House, and, therefore, it was unnecessary to say anything on the merits.
  Amendments moved—
  "In page 66, 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 licence 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 to 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 in 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 under this section unless he shows that 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
  1042
  any purpose to which the holding of a licence is merely auxiliary. (6) In this section 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."—(Lord Monkswell).
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to amend the proposed new clause by omitting subsection (4), the point as to age being already provided for in the Bill, and inserting, as the final subsection, a provision that the expressions "licence" and "licensed premises" had the same meaning as in the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906.
  Amendment moved to the Amendment—
  "To leave out subsection (4), and to insert the following new subsection: '(7) The expressions "licence" and "licensed premises' have the same meaning as in the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906.'"—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Amendment, as amended, agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved to leave out the words "Before making any order under this Act with respect to," at the beginning of Clause 122, and to insert other words. He explained that the object of this and the three following Amendments was to make it quite clear that sentences under Clauses 103 and 104 were not to be invalidated by subsequent proof that the child on whom the sentence was passed was not really a child or young person—that was to say, if a mistake had been made in the age the sentence should still be held to be valid.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 69, lines 14 and 15, to leave out the words 'Before making any order under this Act with respect to,' and to insert the words 'Where a person is brought before any Court, whether charged with an offence or not, and it appears to the Court that he is.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  Consequential Amendments agreed to.
  Drafting Amendments to Clause 128 agreed to.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPexplained that a gap had been left in Clause 130 in the definitions of "police authority" and "police fund," the Police Act of 1890 not applying to the City of London. The Amendment was drafted to supply that deficiency.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 72, line 22, after the word 'fund,' to insert the words 'as respects the City of London, mean the Common Council and the fund out of which the expenses of the City police are defrayed, and elsewhere.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  EARL BEAUCHAMPmoved an Amendment in Clause 131 consequential upon the new clause which had been inserted on the Motion of Lord Monkswell, the object being to give the proper references to the Scottish Licensing Acts.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 75, line 34, after the word '1864,' to insert the words 'and the reference to the Licensing Acts, 1828 to 1906, as a reference to the Licensing (Scotland) Act, 1903, provided that the expression "holder of a licence" means holder of a certificate under the last-mentioned Act.' "—(Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREmoved to amend subsection (17) of Clause 132—
  "(17) The provisions relating to exemptions from Part I. of this Act shall include any religious or charitable society which shall pay any person for keeping an infant, or any 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,"
  by leaving out all the words after "The provisions relating to exemptions from Part 1 of this Act shall" and inserting the words in his Amendment which had been suggested to him by the Irish Office as better than those which their Lordships had been good enough to insert, on his Motion, at an earlier stage.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 81, line 10, to leave out from the word 'shall' to the end of the subsection, and to insert the words 'extend to any person who undertakes for reward the nursing and maintenance of such infants only as are boarded-out
  1044
  with him by some religious or charitable society or institution approved by the Local Government Board for Ireland.'"—(The Earl of Donoughmore.)
  Drafting Amendments agreed to.
  Privilege Amendments agreed to.
  Moved "That the Bill do now pass." (Earl Beauchamp.)
  On Question, Bill passed, and returned to the Commons, and to be printed as amended. [No. 233.]
  House adjourned at Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.