§ Amendments reported (according to order).
§ *THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY moved to add the following new paragraph to Clause 2 (Construction of principal Act and Acts referring thereto):—"(a) As if in section 3 of the principal Act the following subsection were inserted, A boy under the age of fifteen years shall not be employed in or carry on street trading."'
§ The most rev. Primate said: My Lords, some explanation or excuse may be looked for on our part for re-introducing at this stage a discussion which in some form took place when the Bill was in Committee a fortnight ago. But the simple explanation is this, that a good many members of your Lordships House felt that the matter which was provisionally decided on that occasion had not really received the consideration on the part of your Lordships to which it is entitled. The point that I raise in my Amendment is a perfectly simple one, though the incidental questions are not altogether simple. If we passed the Bill as it has now gone through Committee we should have said that it was obligatory that a child under fourteen should be prohibited from street trading, but after the age of fourteen a boy would be capable of being allowed to carry on such trading. I desire to make the age fifteen, and not fourteen, and I will give your Lordships my reasons for feeling very strongly that this change is a most desirable one.
§ I admit at once that the question is one of considerable difficulty, and that in all these cases we ought to be exceedingly careful how far we interfere with the natural laws of supply and demand, and how far we try to prevent what seems to be a legitimate mode of employment. All the restrictions which we introduce in a Bill of this kind require, in my judgment, to be very carefully watched, and those who advocate them are rightly subjected to severe criticism as to whether or no they can show that what they are advocating in the way of additional restriction or prohibition is really necessitated by the facts of the case. Therefore I feel bound to endeavour to show why the proposal for the change from the age of fourteen to fifteen is one which ought not to be lightly set on one side. I 278 hope that I shall not be met again to-night by the argument, of which we heard something on the Second Reading and in Committee, that restrictions of this kind are wholly mischievous because even if it is a bad thing that money should be earned in an undesirable way it is a worse thing that it should not be earned for the home at all. If your Lordships will refer back to the discussions which used to take place fifty years ago on factory legislation, chimney-sweeping boys, coal pit boys, and other legislation of that kind, it will be found that the proposals for making it impossible for young boys to be thus employed were met by the argument that you would be interfering with the legitimate earning of money, and that the families were so poor that you must allow the money to be earned coute qu'il coute. I hope we shall not hear that argument pressed at this stage.
§ It is true that, speaking for the individual family, it seems hard upon them at the moment to prevent this money being earned, but taking it as a whole, and looking to the future of the boys who will be the wage earners in these cases, I am absolutely certain that we are on the right lines when we make these restrictions, provided we can do it with reasonable fairness. It is a matter of degree. All the restrictions we desire to introduce ought to be carefully challenged, and we should be bound to show cause for them. I am prepared to show cause why the restriction which we have already agreed to—that a boy shall not be allowed to do street trading before he is fourteen—should be made to apply until he is fifteen. The reasons why I desire to have fifteen instead of fourteen are these. Most boys leave school about the age of fourteen. The critical year for them is the year that immediately follows. Upon the start that they make, whether that start is to be a bad or a good one—upon that start the future of the boy is very likely to depend. If we submit a boy to the temptation in that particular year to start some employment otherwise undesirable but which will produce quick returns, we are subjecting him to a temptation of the gravest possible kind.
§ Boys leave school, as I have said, ordinarily at the age of fourteen, but every effort, by educational authorities, philanthropic authorities, and the rest, is being directed now to getting hold of those boys after they have left school. Boys' clubs, boy scouts 279 and brigades, all the various agencies of that kind, of the recreative sort, and on the other side evening classes and all that belongs to their possibilities for a lad to-day, are modes which are put into operation for the direct purpose of keeping a hold on the boy just when he is leaving school and starting life. But let a boy undertake street trading, which in five cases out of six means newspaper selling, the evening hours during which he will be employed prevent him from taking advantage of the opportunities we are offering in useful ways. We want to make it easy, and not difficult, for boys to take advantage of the opportunities that we are offering when they leave school. The moment they are in touch with those who are endeavouring to help them in those kinds of ways, whether they be the voluntary agencies or the juvenile labour exchanges, they are in the way of being set on the right road to a suitable mode of earning a livelihood of the right sort. But let them start wrongly, let them be kept outside the possibilities of availing themselves of these agencies, and you are putting these boys in a position of extreme difficulty.
§ To allow boys to start street trading at fourteen is, in my mind, to run into a danger so grave that it is hardly necessary to refer to it. If any of your Lordships doubt it, refer to the two Reports which are in your hands—the Report of the Inter-Departmental Committee which dealt with wage-earning children, and the Report upon the half-time system—and you will see recognised by every educational and philanthropic authority the peril that belongs to the first year after leaving school. We desire that such boys shall go to work, but that the work shall be of a kind which will lead on to something else; and if any of your Lordships suppose that the kind of occupation which begins with street trading of the sort that this Bill refers to is going to lead on to useful and desirable employment in the years that immediately follow, I would again refer you to those Reports for the answer. Or if, instead of taking these Reports, any of your Lordships would spend an hour one evening outside any great railway station in our large cities and get into touch with the boys who are there and find out what they are expecting to do, you will gain a lesson which will be brimful of interest.
§ If the boy has left school at fourteen and is prohibited from this particular outlet for 280 his energies during the first year, he will start upon some other line—a line which may lead him on to a better kind of employment in the days ahead. There are boys to whom such a risk is comparatively slight, who will make the best of any occupation they are put to and it will lead them on to something higher. I have a letter here which I received yesterday from a clergyman, who must be sixty-five or sixty-six years of age, who says he began his career by selling newspapers at the time of the Crimean War, and that the money he so earned enabled him to go to Oxford and take a degree and led him on to the honoured position he now holds. To generalise from such an instance of courage and perseverance would be foolish. I venture to believe that that particular lad would have found an outlet for his energies in some other department if this particular opening had been closed to him.
§ But the point I want to press is that it is this one year that really matters. It will make all the difference whether we say fourteen or fifteen in the legislation we are now laying down. I admit the hardship in certain cases, but I am absolutely sure that in the long run we are right if we make this restriction in the way proposed. I venture to hope that we shall have support in this matter from authorities who can speak with the administrative experience which can be afforded by either the Board of Education or the Home Office. I hope we may to-night learn what is the view taken in those quarters of the proposal contained in my Amendment—a proposal about which I am absolutely fearless in saying that it is one that ought to be carried if we are intent upon making a good job of the task we have taken in hand in regulating the employment of children at this critical age.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 1, line 10, after ("construed") insert the following new paragraph—
(a) As if in section three of the principal Act the following subsection were inserted "A boy under the age of fifteen years shall not be employed in or carry on street trading."—(The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury.)
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYMy Lords, I am entirely in sympathy with the Amendment which has just been moved. The most rev. Primate has dealt with the whole question so forcibly and exhaustively that I need not add anything to what he has said, except to express the hope that your Lordships will see fit to accept the Amendment.
§ THE PAYMASTER-GENERAL (LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERS)My Lords, I think I ought; to make some allusion to an observation which fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, when this Bill was in Committee. The noble Marquess appealed to Lord Beauchamp, who was then representing the Home Office, to render some assistance to the Committee and to indicate what the Government view on particular Amendments might be. The Home Office are quite prepared to render any assistance they can to the House, and in so far as it is in my power I shall be glad on any Amendment to give whatever assistance the Home Office is in a position to advance. But it must be understood that this is not a Government Bill. The Government are by no means unsympathetic to the principles and the objects contained in this measure; but it is not a Government Bill and the Government cannot be responsible for it. I may point out that there are many provisions, especially those with regard to the regulations which local authorities are to be required to frame, which do not meet with the approval of the Department. I will not anticipate what I shall have to say on that question later, but I should like it to be clearly understood that, although we are prepared to give whatever assistance we can, we are not prepared to take any responsibility for the Bill.
The most rev. Primate also made an appeal to us to indicate what the Home Office view was of the Amendment he has just moved. Before I come to that may I say that, as far as my recollection serves me, when this Bill was in Committee a compromise was reached, and that compromise was that fourteen should be the age for prohibition, and I do not know whether it is quite fair to your Lordships—although I am quite certain that the most rev. Primate would be the last person to put forward any suggestion which had a semblance of unfairness in it—to at this stage reopen that controversy. With regard to the merits of the Amendment itself, the most rev. Primate, of course, speaks with great authority on this subject. He knows as well as any of your Lordships what the dangers are to which boys of this age are exposed, and how important it is that during the early years after they leave school they should be spared the temptation of indulging in street trading. He has argued that point with great ability, and I am sure he will have made a considerable impression upon your Lordships' House.
282 At the same time I think it must be borne in mind that the dangerous age is not only between fourteen and fifteen. It is between fourteen and seventeen, and the most rev. Primate only goes a short way in covering that period. I think it is possible to defend the compromise of fourteen which was arrived at the other day on the ground that up to fourteen the lad is really a child, whereas from fourteen to seventeen he is more of a youth and more able in a way to take care of himself. It seems to me that only to go as far as fifteen is not to really grapple with the problem. Either it ought to be seventeen, or else. I think it would be better to keep to the compromise that was reached the other day and leave the age at fourteen. It is, of course, for the House to decide. The Home Office will not commit themselves on this particular Amendment, largely because they cannot commit themselves on the Bill as a whole, and your Lordships must decide whether in the circumstances it is better to stick to fourteen, or whether it would be desirable in the interests of these boys to substitute the age of fifteen.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYWith the indulgence of the House I should like to explain that when the matter was discussed the other night it was said, Let it come up again on Report. It was on that distinct understanding that I agreed not to press the matter further then. I was party to no compromise.
LORD SHEFFIELDMy Lords, I should like to remind the House that when this matter was discussed in Committee it was not so much a question as to whether the age should be fourteen, but the real issue between the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and the framers of the Bill was the balance of responsibility between the local authority and the national authority, and whether this should be a matter of prohibition in an Act of Parliament or whether the local authorities should be required to make by-laws dealing with it. The noble Lord who has just spoken, while he washed his hands of the Bill, yet discouraged the House from including this valuable year from fourteen to fifteen. I wish to say that I strongly support the Amendment of the most rev. Primate, and that I consider the year from fourteen to fifteen considerably more important than any other period. This would give to the boy on leaving school a fair chance to start in a decent 283 employment which would lead to something better, and would exclude him in a great many cases from entering what are called "blind-alley" employments; and if he goes into decent employment at the age of fourteen, he is not likely to break away from it in after life. Those whose position compels them to look at the social, moral, and spiritual welfare of the rising generation feel very strongly the value of this Amendment, and I hope your Lordships will agree to insert it.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHMy Lords, I am not in a position to say what the opinion of the House was when the Bill was in Committee as to any compromise, but I certainly think it was understood that the age should be fourteen. Until a boy is fourteen he is of school age and bound to attend school. The fact that he cannot then devote his entire time to any employment renders him particularly susceptible to take to this particular occupation in the interval between his school hours, and by the time he leaves school he has got accustomed, as it were, to these employments. Therefore the school age of fourteen was agreed to. But when the boy has left school and is free to employ his entire time in one avocation, it is for him to make the selection; and it may seem to many a little hard that he should be debarred from this occupation entirely, when, perhaps, circumstances may lead it to be the only avocation that he can at the time engage in while waiting for some further opportunity. It was with that view that those who urged the age of fourteen acted. It is going into a totally different principle when you prohibit entirely certain occupations from a lad, who has the whole of his time free and is at liberty to take to any occupation he likes. If the principle of the school age—namely, up to fourteen—is to be given up, I prefer the provision in the original Bill of the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, with the age of seventeen. If you are going to ban this occupation from boys at the moment they leave school, then I think you had better ban it entirely instead of limiting it for one year.
§ LORD REAYMy Lords, I have no hesitation in supporting the Amendment of the most rev. Primate. The age of fourteen, when a boy leaves school, is the critical age, the turning point in his career. The object of the Bill is not to prevent 284 him from earning his livelihood, but to guide him into the proper channel of earning it, and it is of the utmost importance that he or his parents should be given this guidance. I speak in this matter with some personal experience, and I think the great value of the Bill will consist in the insertion of this Amendment. Without the Amendment I think the value of the Bill would be very slight.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEMy Lords, the noble Lord who speaks on behalf of His Majesty's Government commenced his statement by assuring the House that he desired to afford us all possible assistance in dealing with this somewhat difficult subject, but I confess that as his speech proceeded I did not gather from it that amount of enlightenment which I had hoped for at first, because what he really most leaned upon was that this was not a Government Bill and that consequently His Majesty's Government could take no responsibility for it.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSThe principal assistance we can give the House is to get the Bill into shape. It had got into some confusion owing to the different Amendments proposed, and the Home Office have gone through them with the object of getting the Bill into the shape desired.
§ THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNENevertheless, the noble Lord said very distinctly that the Bill was not a Government Bill and therefore His Majesty's Government took no responsibility for it. But may I venture to suggest that, although it is not a Government Bill, the question is one of policy, and one which His Majesty's Government have much better opportunities for examining than we have on this side of the House. It is quite clear that there is a balance of considerations. On the one hand, we none of us desire to deprive these lads of the opportunity of legitimately earning a little money and thereby contributing to the slender resources of the family. On the other, we do not desire that they should be exposed to the undoubted risks and perils of employment of this kind at a very young age. I venture to think that those are exactly the kind of considerations which the official experts who advise His Majesty's Government should be able to weigh in such a manner as to be able to tell us to which side in their opinion the balance ought to really incline.
285 Being left without guidance, we must decide for ourselves, and I must say I am moved by the arguments of the most rev. Primate and by the arguments which have fallen from other noble Lords who have addressed us, and I am not in the least moved by the argument of the noble Lord on the Front Bench opposite, that if you raise the age to the limit of fifteen you ought logically to go on and raise it to the age of seventeen. There may be a certain amount of logic and consistency in the idea, but it is quite clear that as a question of practical politics you gain something if you can protect these lads from the risks which attend street employment during the first year after they leave school. For these reasons, though I do not profess to have studied the question very carefully, I shall, if the most rev. Primate goes to a Division, certainly give him my vote.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSWith the indulgence of the House may I say, on the question of the alleged compromise, that I had not the honour of representing the Home Office when the Bill was in Committee, and therefore I may have been led to a misunderstanding. But I think some noble Lords were under the impression that there was some compromise.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY moved the addition of a new paragraph to Clause 2 with the object of prohibiting the employment of a girl under the age of eighteen years in street trading.
§ The noble Earl said: The next Amendment deals with the question of girls. During the debate on the Second Reading and also during the discussion in Committee, whatever difference of opinion there might have been as regards the age limit up to which a boy should be prohibited from street trading, there was practical unanimity that girls any rate rate should be prohibited altogether, and for that reason I have put down this Amendment. The effect of my Amendment will be that girls will be prohibited altogether from street trading anywhere or in any place. We are dealing in this Bill with street trading because it is one of the worst of the many occupations that children are engaged in, and we think that as a movement towards a higher standard all round this useless employment might at any rate be excluded in the case of girls altogether. Your Lordships will notice 286 that by an Amendment lower down on the Paper my noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh seeks to deal with the question of girls by means of by-laws, and he restricts those by-laws to municipal boroughs and large towns. It may be better to do this by means of by-laws, but I think that if we are agreed that, so far as girls are concerned, street trading is really an evil, we had much better be done with it altogether and lay down by Statute that it shall be prohibited in their case. My noble friend Lord Clifford of Chudleigh, as I have said, suggests that we should leave it to be dealt with by by-laws, but if we do this we exempt by proviso (2) of Section 3 all girls who are trading with their parents. These are serious inroads on the principle we want to establish. I think we had better accept this Amendment, and let the by-laws deal with boys over the age of fifteen. I hope your Lordships will accept this Amendment, because it is to my mind the simplest way of dealing with the question.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 1, line 10, after ("construed") insert the following new paragraph—
(a) As if in section three of the principal Act the following subsection were inserted "A girl under the age of eighteen years shall not be employed in or carry on street trading."—(The Earl of Shaftesbury)
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSMy Lords, this Amendment proposes to carry out the recommendation of the Majority Report of the Departmental Committee, and it was also the recommendation of the Minority Report subject to certain restrictions. I do not know whether the noble Earl has considered the case of the bona fide costermonger. The Minority Report drew attention to this case. I quite understand the noble Earl's desire to prohibit street trading by girls even with their parents, unless it is a necessary part of their vocation. But in the case of the costermonger, where the family live all together, it is a sort of inherited business. However, this is again a matter for the House to decide. But I would point out that if the Amendment is carried certain consequential Amendments will become necessary.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYI quite understand that, and if this Amendment is accepted I will move the consequential Amendments at a later stage.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
287THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYThe next Amendment deals with words which were inserted in the Bill during the Committee stage. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, who I am sorry is not in his place to-day, carried an Amendment providing that "street trading does not include the sale of agricultural produce in recognised markets." It is now found that those words would include all the great markets in the large towns. It would include Billingsgate Market, Covent Garden Market, and other markets of that kind. I do not think the noble Marquess intended that. In moving the Amendment the noble Marquess said—
There is a practice of children living in rural districts being sent by their parents to sell local produce at the markets. That would be street trading within the meaning of the Act. It is a matter of convenience to the parents, and no one can say that it does any harm.Of course it does not, but if you extend this provision to recognised markets the intention of the noble Marquess would not be carried out; nor would it be in keeping with the principle of the Bill. I therefore suggest that the words "a rural district" be inserted in the place of "recognised markets." That, I think, would have the effect of carrying out the noble Marquess's intention.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 17, leave out ("recognised markets") and insert ("a rural district.")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREI do not think that this Amendment would carry out Lord Salisbury's intention, but would have a contrary effect. I was present at the Committee stage, and I remember that Lord Salisbury's point was that children living in rural districts do go into markets to sell their produce. It does not in the least follow that those markets are in rural districts. The probability is that they are not. I am not sufficiently a lawyer to know whether the phrase "recognised markets" may not be too large and may not cover a great many places in which it is undesirable that children should go; but I am told that the phrase "a rural district" would probably be construed to mean places over which there is jurisdiction of a rural district council, and if so construed these words would cut out market towns like Shrewsbury, Stratford-on-Avon, Guildford, St. Albans; in fact almost every single market which Lord Salisbury intended to embrace.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSThe term "a rural district" would exclude anything like a small country town. If the noble Earl merely wishes to exclude London markets and other markets in big towns, the words he has proposed to insert in this Amendment would be hardly suitable. At any rate, the Amendment as it stands would have a sweeping character.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHMy view is that if the grievance is to be set right it should be done in some definition of what is street trading. Raising the age to eighteen with regard to girls in rural districts may possibly lead to a hardship which was never intended It is the practice in rural districts for small farmers to take into market butter, eggs, and small produce and leave their daughters to sell such produce, or, it may be, to go round the town in many cases. No one would for a moment contend that a practice of this sort amounts to street trading, or carries with it the evils which are attendant upon street trading as we generally know it. But unless some alteration of the definition is made the effect of this Bill as now amended, with the total prohibition in it, would be to prevent that practice. This would be a great drawback, particularly to small farmers. It would also involve some difficulty with regard to children who were going round with their parents, and I think the better way to meet the point would be to make some definition of street trading. Under the Amendment standing in my name later on the Paper it would be entirely in the hands of the local authority to make such by-laws as they thought proper with regard to this practice.
§ LORD ALVERSTONEIt seems to me necessary that the two points should be kept distinct. The first question is what this Amendment would do. I think this is a striking instance of what the noble Marquess the Leader of the Opposition pointed out as the desirability of having a draftsman to deal with this matter who would have behind him the experience of the Home Office. It would not do to adopt the Amendment in its present form, for the reason that the words "a rural district" would practically exclude all the small markets in small towns that are supposed to be protected. I am certainly of opinion that the words "recognised markets" as they stand in the Bill require some further definition, for otherwise they would give an 289 exemption which seems to me contrary to the scope of the Bill as originally designed. Perhaps some words such as "in market towns" might be inserted to indicate that the great markets in populous towns were not to be places in which this trading could be carried on by children. By adopting the Amendment we are excluding the very class of sale which Lord Salisbury desired to protect, and by adopting the words in the Bill we include a number of cases where this trading ought not to be carried on.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYI think the House will realise how difficult it is to define areas by Statute, and I suggest that we should try and find some definition which would meet the point before the next stage of the Bill. Perhaps in the circumstances your Lordships will allow the words "a rural district" to go in now, and then we will endeavour to find the right definition to meet everybody's view before the Third Reading.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEWould it not be more convenient to leave the provision unamended now, and let the question stand over till the next stage?
§ LORD BELPERI think the Home Office should give some assistance with regard to the drafting of this Bill. It is a wholly novel position for the Home Office to take up to say that they are not responsible for the Bill and therefore will give no guidance to the House with regard to the drafting of clauses which they alone have the means of settling in a way to carry out the intended object. I had some little experience as representing the Home Office in this House, and I cannot call to mind any case where that position was taken up by the Department. In the case of many Bills which they did not support and for which they were not responsible, they insisted that those Bills should leave the House in a form as regards drafting which at any rate carried out the objects aimed at. If this Amendment is to be further considered I hope the Home Office will give real assistance with regard to it at a future stage.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEPerhaps the noble Lord who represents the Home Office is in a position now to throw some light on this point. He said he came here with instructions from the Home Office as to the drafting of the Bill. Perhaps he will tell 290 us the view of the Home Office as to this wording.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSWe did not quite know at the Home Office what the intention of the House was on this matter, whether it was intended to restrict prohibition of street trading only in the case of girls under the age of eighteen, or whether it was to be applicable to boys and girls. If it is to apply only to girls the provision would come better if, at the end of Lord Shaftesbury's Amendment where he says that a girl under the age of eighteen shall not be employed in or carry on street trading, words were inserted excepting under certain conditions. If noble Lords will allow me I will consider the point before the next stage, and perhaps I shall be able to throw more light upon it then.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYThe next Amendment is put down to deal with a small omission. It was found that in the Amendment inserted in the Committee stage by my noble friend Lord Faber the London County Council had been left out. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, after ("Council") insert ("of the County of London and the Common Council of the City of London and")—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH moved to leave out the following part of Clause 3—
3. The council of every municipal borough with a population of over ten thousand and the council of every urban district with a population of over twenty thousand shall make by-laws requiring, in respect of street trading by boys under the age of seventeen and by girls under the age of eighteen, the holding of a licence to trade granted by the council, and such by-laws shall regulate the conditions on which such licences will be granted, suspended, and revoked: Provided that every such council as aforesaid may, if they think fit, make by-laws with respect to street trading by boys under the age of seventeen and girls under the age of eighteen—
§ Provided further as follows: 291 and to insert the words in his Amendment. The noble Lord said: The idea underlying the Amendment is that certain large towns and boroughs should be compelled to make by-laws enacting certain things, but that county councils should be left in precisely the same position as they stand under the present law, raising the age to fourteen. Certain alterations in my Amendment will, of course, be necessitated owing to the decisions to which your Lordships have arrived to-day; but I think it better that the Amendment should be inserted as it stands, and the necessary alterations can be made at a subsequent stage.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 1, line 18, leave out from the beginning of the clause to the beginning of paragraph (1), line 12, on page 2, and insert—
("(1) Every local authority other than the council of a county but including the London County Council, shall make to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State by-laws in respect of street trading, and shall by such by-laws in the case of girls under the age of eighteen absolutely prohibit street trading, and in the case of boys under the age of seventeen, require the holding of a licence to trade granted by the local authority.
(2) Any county council may make by-laws with respect to street trading by persons under the age of sixteen, and may by such by-laws prohibit such street trading except subject to such conditions as to age, sex, or otherwise as may be specified in the by-law or subject to the holding of a licence to trade to be granted by the county council, and a county council in making by-laws under this subsection shall have special regard to the desirability of preventing employment of girls under sixteen in street trading. This subsection shall not apply to the London County Council.
(3) By-laws under this section—
Provided as follows").—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSThe weakness of the Bill as it stands is that, although it requires these authorities to make regulations, it does not ensure that those regulations shall be of a satisfactory character. I understand that the Amendment of the noble Lord is to ensure that these regulations shall be satisfactory by subjecting them to the examination of the Secretary of State. In that respect it is an improvement on the Bill as it stands, but even here it fails because it does not provide 292 that the regulations, although approved, shall be enforced, and that is really, from the point of view of the Home Office, the weakness of the Bill as a whole. It would be much better if the policy were set out in the provisions of the Bill. As it is, a great amount of work would be thrown on the Department concerned, and even then the object might not be attained. But, so far as it goes, the Amendment before the House certainly has the effect of strengthening the Bill.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYI accept the noble Lord's Amendment, as it is an improvement upon what was inserted in the Committee stage. But there are words in the Amendment which will have to be left out inasmuch as we have total prohibition for girls in the Bill at the present moment. I do not know whether we can make the necessary alterations in the Amendment now. It seems to me better to do so than to leave it till a later stage.
THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYI venture to hope that we shall not insert a long Amendment containing words that are inconsistent with what we have already passed. Surely it is better that the Amendment should be reconsidered in view of what has been decided to-night, and produced again on the Third Reading. To pass it now in a form inconsistent with what we have done would seem to me to make the document as a whole open to very legitimate criticism.
§ LORD ASHBOURNEAs the Amendment does not harmonise with the existing draft of the Bill the suggestion of the most rev. Primate is obviously the sensible course to adopt. Let the Amendment be recast so as to be brought into harmony with the Bill, and be presented in that form at the next stage.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHI am quite willing to fall in with that suggestion, and I withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHThe next Amendment is merely to provide for confirmation of the by laws by the Secretary of State.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 2, line 22, after ("trading") insert the following new subsection—
(3) The Secretary of State may, subject to the provisions of the principal Act, confirm any by-law made under this section either without modification or subject to such modifications as he may think fit.—(Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGHThe object of my next Amendment is to enlarge somewhat the scope of the Bill as it stands, which provides for those who hold a licence to trade granted by a local authority in accordance with by-laws with respect to street trading under the principal Act, and with regard to whom the provisions of the principal Act continue to apply. It has been pointed out that this would entirely omit the case of those persons similarly trading in districts where no by-laws have been made by the local authority, and the object of the words which I propose to insert is to meet that case and to exclude those persons from the Bill, provided that they show to the satisfaction of the local authority that they were lawfully employed in street trading at the passing of the Act.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 36, after ("Act") insert ("or where such by-laws have not been niacin by the local authority in the case of a person who Shows to the satisfaction of the local authority that he or she was lawfully employed in street trading at the passing of this Act").—Lord Clifford of Chudleigh.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ *LORD MAC DONNELL OF SWINFORD moved the insertion of a new clause providing that the Bill should not extend to Ireland. The noble Lord said: The Bill as it now stands amen led is very different from the Act which exists on the Statute-book. The main feature of the Bill as it now appears is its compulsory character. The legislation of 1903 was entirely permissive. By-laws under the Act of 1903 were made at the discretion of the local authorities; by-laws under the Bill now before your. Lordships must be made by the local authorities, no discretion being allowed to them in the matter. That seems to me to be the first broad and salient characteristic of this Bill. But there are other important differences. The Act of 1903, as your Lordships know, excluded children under the age of eleven, and made all girls and boys between the ages of eleven and 294 sixteen liable to take out a licence before they could practice street trading. On the other hand, the Bill now before the House prevents girls under the age of eighteen and boys under the age of fifteen from street trading, and compels boys between fifteen and seventeen to take out a licence before they can practice street trading.
§ I submit that the Bill as it now stands is a Bill for a rich country, for a country in which primary education is largely developed and is compulsory. It is a Bill which contemplates the existence in the country of large industrial enterprises. I am the last person to doubt that the provisions which your Lordships have now approved are the best that could be adopted in the interests of England. I quite accept the view of the most rev. Primate upon that point. But one of the greatest sources of our ill-success in the government of Ireland is the application to the two countries of the same principles of legislation. Some time ago I read a speech of Mr. Disraeli's which enforced the proposition that if by your legislation you desire to acquire the goodwill and the loyalty of the people of Ireland you must adapt your legislation to the local circumstances.
§ It was my business for many years to travel constantly between Dublin and London, and I never took that journey without being struck by the great contrast between the poor and squalid streets of Dublin and this grand metropolis. A journey such as that would satisfy any one that laws affecting labour and the means of subsistence could not be equitably applied indiscriminately to both countries. In Ireland the struggle for existence is far more severe than in England, and although I do not contest the accuracy and the applicability of the most rev. Primate's references to this Bill in its application to England, I do think that certain qualifications should be made in its application to the sister country. There are only three towns in Ireland to which this Bill can really apply—Dublin, Belfast, and, in a less degree, Cork. I am not one of those who think that the moral dangers in a great town are much less in Ireland than they are in England, taking towns of equal population and of similar circumstances. But from my own knowledge of and observation in Dublin I do think that the dangers which this Bill properly 295 provides against are appreciably less in Dublin than in, say, London or Liverpool.
§ The question of the compulsory character of the educational system must also be taken into account. In Ireland education is not compulsory, except in a few isolated localities. If this Bill is applied to Ireland you will not be able to send the children whom you take off the streets to school; still less will you be able to employ them in industrial schools, because it is a sad fact that even in Dublin there is no such thing as a day industrial school. The efforts of many philanthropic people in Dublin were wasted during a series of years in the endeavour to provide an industrial school with the special object of taking boys off the street and sending them there, but all their efforts failed through what I think was the unsympathetic attitude of the Treasury. Unless provision is made so that education shall become compulsory and that industrial schools shall be provided in Ireland, the condition of these children, should such a law as this be enforced, will be worse than before. At present during their day's employment, at all events, they are subject to public notice. If they are exposed to the danger of contracting the habit of betting and so on, at all events they are under the observation of the police, and are kept from worse practices. But if you send them back to the alleys and the back streets from which they come and in which no observation can be kept upon them, these children will be exposed to damages from which they are now immune.
§ For these reasons—because I think that the circumstances of the two countries are entirely different; because I think that in Ireland the Bill can only apply to a very few towns; because in the rest of the country there is no justification for the Bill at the present time—I think our policy in Ireland should be to adhere to the present law, to bring pressure to bear upon local authorities to make rules under it, and then see how those rules operate. The Irish circumstances are entirely different from those with which your Lordships are dealing to-night. I trust that the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill will take these points into consideration, and that he will agree to exclude Ireland from the provisions of the Bill.
§ Amendment moved—
§
After Clause 7 to insert the following new clause—
This Act shall not extend to Ireland.—(Lord MacDonnell of Swinford.)
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYMy Lords, although I am not in entire agreement with everything which has been said by the noble Lord with regard to Ireland—especially as I think that this Bill should apply to Ireland probably more than to any other part of the Kingdom—yet at the same time I confess there is something to be said for the Amendment, and I am not altogether out of sympathy with it. To begin with, the principal Act of 1903 was never intended to apply to Ireland. I believe it was only at the last moment that a Member of the House of Commons suggested that it should be made to apply to Ireland, and without another word his suggestion was adopted. I understand, however, that the Act has been a dead letter in Ireland ever since it was passed into law. Again, I know full well—alas!—that in Ireland education is not so advanced as in England, Scotland, or Wales. There are no such things as evening schools in Ireland. There is no machinery like we have in England for guiding children into proper channels of employment, and altogether I do not think that Ireland is sufficiently advanced for legislation of this character. Therefore I am not going to oppose the Amendment. But I do hope that the time is not far distant when we shall be able to deal with this question of street trading in Ireland, and bring that country into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
LORD AMBOURNEMy Lords, I should like to say a word on this Amendment, partly because I am an Irishman, and partly because I find myself unable to accept all that was said by Lord Mac-Donnell. I agree that the circumstances of Ireland are different in many respects from those of this country, but the people are extremely intelligent, acute, and resourceful, and this may to some extent make up for what is said to be their want of education. I am sorry that in the description which the noble Lord gave of Dublin he used an epithet which I am entirely unable to accept. He spoke of Dublin as "poor, dirty and squalid." Why, it is one of the most beautiful cities in Europe. Some of the streets of Dublin could compare with those of any city. I do not dwell on the Liffey. But we have Sackville-street, two noble Cathedrals, an old University and a new University, and a great park which is the admiration and 297 envy of many of the greatest cities in England.
What strikes me in regard to this Bill is that it is much more likely to pass if Ireland is omitted from its scope than if Ireland is included, and that is a very practical way of looking at the question. I am in favour of many of the clauses in the Bill, and I think they might be applied to Ireland with advantage. But the Bill is, I believe, unpopular in Ireland, and from what I have heard it is most unpopular in that part of the country with which the noble Earl, Lord Shaftesbury, is best acquainted. In this matter one has to consider, not only the Bill, but its chances of passing into law. I am aware that Irish criticism is very resourceful, and if there is dissatisfaction about a Bill extending to Ireland rarely is that Bill received in silence; and I am disposed to think that, in accepting the Amendment, the noble Earl has substantially increased the prospect of the Bill passing in another place.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYThis Amendment in the Schedule is a verbal Amendment, the words being redundant.
§
Amendment moved—
In the Schedule page 3, lines 17 and 18, leave out ('in subsection three of section five the words "under the age of sixteen" ' ").—(The Earl of Shaftesbury.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HENEAGEMy Lords, before we part with this stage of the Bill I should like to ask the noble Lord who represents the Home Office what will be the position of the Government on the Third Reading. Will they be prepared to give us the advantage of the legal advice which they have at the Home Office in regard to drafting, to make the Amendments which have been affirmed to-day consistent in the different clauses one with another? It is a difficult thing for any private member of this or the other House to deal with drafting Amendments to a Bill which amends old Statutes, but it is a very easy thing for the Home Office, with the advisers they have at their command, to look through a Bill and put down on Third Reading the few Amendments which may be necessary to make the Bill consistent with itself.
§ LORD ASHBY ST. LEDGERSMy Lords, in this matter I am in the hands of 298 the House. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill and Lord Clifford of Chudleigh desire, I will undertake to have the drafting of the Amendments to which the House has consented to-day examined by the Home Office with a view to putting them into shape. At the same time, it must be understood that the Home. Office accept no responsibility for the policy of the Bill.