8 Decembris, 1926.]

[Continued.

adopted in a certain manner certain legal consequences will follow; there is no definition of " adoption "as such. There would probably be hundreds of adopted children whose parents would not bother to go through this formality?—Yes.

Chairman.

421. People will continue to adopt without applying the provisions of that Act? Yes.

(Clause 77 is passed.)
(Clause 78 is passed.)

ON CLAUSE 79.

Sir Frederick Liddell.] The only question is whether this clause is necessary at all, but the Ministry of Health prefer it to be retained, so we have retained it. Lord Askwith.] It seems to be covered by Clause 57 in every way except as regards the education. The word "education" occurs twice in Clause 79, but it does not occur in Clause 57.

Chairman.] I thought it was better to keep the clause in, when I read it.

(Clause 79 is passed.)

(Clauses 80, 81, 82 and 83 are passed.)

Lord Warrington.

425. The interpretation clause says "The expression certified school means a school certified under this Act or any Act repealed by this Act "?—Yes.

Sir Henry Slesser.

426. Sub-paragraph (c) of Clause 84, at the top of page 43, is reproduced verbatim from the Act of 1862: "No child shall be sent to a certified school which is conducted on the principles of a religious denomination to which the child does not belong." Are those the actual words, because what occurs to me is this? I was thinking of what the position would be. Could a Catholic child be sent to a school of no religious denomination? This only says the converse. It says "no child shall be sent to a certified school which is conducted on the principles of a religious denomination to which the child does not belong." It does not say he shall not be sent to a school in which there is no religious teaching at all?-(Mr. Comyns.) Section 9 of the Act of 1862 says that "No child shall be sent to any school which is conducted on the principles of a religious denomination to which such child shall not belong."

427. They are the same words?—Yes.

429. Why are there the words at the end: save as aforesaid it shall not be lawful for a board of guardians to send any deaf and dumb or blind child to any school"? They can only send a deaf and dumb or blind child to a school if he is either (a) (b) or (c)? (Sir Frederick Liddell.) Yes.

8° Decembris, 1926.]

[Continued.

as

"if" or "unless," and the answer was that they treated it as if "if" was the word?-Yes.

Lord Gorell.] If they treat it as meaning "if," it means if the parents ask for something the guardians are bound to do the opposite, which is nonsense.

Lord Warrington.] You could make it plain by reading it like this: "If the parents or surviving parent of the child, being an inmate of a workhouse or of a district school as aforesaid which shall be regularly visited by a minister of his own religious creed for the purpose of religious instruction, or if the minister shall make a request in writing that the child be not instructed in any other religious creed or be required or permitted to attend the service of any other religious creed other than that entered in the creed register as aforesaid, then such child shall not be instructed in such creed."

Lord Gorell.] You would get the same thing as "unless" if you put "not" in.

Lord Warrington.] The question is, what do you mean by a request in writing to that effect"?

Mr. Hudson.] That would imply that if the parent requested that the child should be instructed in some other creed the guardians might be free to instruct him in such other creed.

Lord Warrington

450. The clause as drawn would allow that?--(Sir Frederick Liddell.) That is the effect of the clause.

Mr. Hudson.] The clause will only allow it if the parent asks exactly the opposite.

Lord Warrington.

451. If the parent makes no request at all, then I take it the guardians might cause the child to be instructed in another creed than that which is entered on the register. If they do request that he shall not be so instructed, then he cannot be instructed in any creed except that on the register. That is what the clause as it is drawn means, is it not?Yes.

Lord Monkswell.] You might put the word "even in-" even if the

parents".

Lord Warrington.] That makes it exactly the opposite.

[Continued.

Lord Gorell.] It says exactly the opposite to what it means.

Lord Warrington.

452. It does mean that, Sir Frederick, does it not? It means that in order to prevent the child being brought up in another creed than that which is entered on the register, the parents or the minister must make a request in writing to that effect?-I should not have thought that was the intention.

Lord Gorell.

453. We meet that intention if we substitute "unless" for "if " ?—Yes.

Lord Warrington.

454. It means that the child shall be instructed in another religious creed if you put in "unless "?-(Mr. Comyns.) Would you look at the middle of page 36 of the Notes on Clauses, Lord Warrington? I read that as according with your opinion.

Lord Warrington.

455. "The Ministry of Health, acting under legal advice, have interpreted the various provisions as enabling the guardians to bring up a child in a creed different from that entered as his creed in the Creed Register-(a) in the absence of an objection under s. 19 of the Act of 1834, or of a request under s. 22 of the Act of 1868."-That accords with your Lordship's view, I understand.

456. "To that effect" means that a child shall not be instructed in a creed other than the creed on the register. If they do not make any request at all then the guardians can do what they like? (Sir Frederick Liddell.) Yes. Your Lordship used the word "if ", and I think that is right, and not "unless." Lord Warrington.] If that is the meaning to be given the whole question turns on the meaning of the words "to that effect."

Chairman.] I think we must leave it

It does not say that all other children shall be brought up in some other religion. In that case why put in "subject as aforesaid "?

Chairman.

457. In fact in the Department the words as drawn do not cause any embarrassment? (Mr. Comyns.) They do cause embarrassment.

458. But you act as if they did not?We have expressed a definite view, which is very brave of us, but it was under advice, as Sir Frederick points out in the Notes on Clauses.

Sir Henry Slesser.] What I would like to propose is that we should defer the final settlement of this clause and take it away and think about it.

Chairman.] That was passing in my own mind, as to whether we should not leave the clause as it is in the Bill, and give it a pretty good slating in a note.

Sir Henry Slesser.] I was rather suggesting that we should not do anything to-day either way, but take it away with us and leave it in suspension.

Chairman.] See if we have any more penetration this day week? I think it is rather a strong order to re-draft the clause to make it mean something different from what we read it now to

mean.

Lord Warrington.] It really means, if the parents object in writing then it cannot be done.

Lord Gorell.] It is quite plain what it

means.

Chairman.] I am not quite sure.

Sir Henry Slesser.

459. I think my suggestion is the best, that we do nothing this afternoon-Section 19 of the Act of 1834 says that a child is not to be educated in any religious creed other than that professed by his parents or surviving parent. The creed to be entered on the creed register is the creed of his father, whether surviving or not. If the creed of his father is known that is the creed entered on the register. Then the Act of 1868 says that you are not to educate him in any creed other than the creed entered in the creed register except in certain circumstances. You have to reconcile that, or attempt to reconcile that, with section 19 of the Act of 1834, which says that he is not to be brought up in any creed

except the cred of his surviving parent. If it is his mother it is not a creed entered on the creed register if the religions of the two parents are different.

Mr. Hudson.

460. You have a still further complication, because you now say "if the parents." It is not a surviving parent? -Yes.

Lord Warrington.] Have not some of the recent Acts about infants put the mother and the father on an equality? It used to be the father alone who could direct the religious education of the child; I am not quite sure now. Does not that want to be considered too?

Chairman.] We ought to have Lord Askwith here now.

Lord Warrington.] That would mean that we should be amending the Act; we should not be simply consolidating.

Lord Gorell.] It cannot mean that they are to do exactly the opposite of what they are asked to do, which is how it reads at the present moment.

Sir Henry Slesser.] I think the Guardianship of Infants Bill only applies where there is an application to the Court.

Lord Warrington.] I was not quite sure. It is what the Court must take into consideration, the wishes of the mother as much as the father.

Sir Henry Slesser.] Yes.

Chairman.] Then we will leave Clauses 90 and 91 in hopes of being a little wiser next week.

ON CLAUSE 93.

Sir Frederick Liddell.] The whole of the provisions as to apprenticeship are practically obsolete; they are never used now. (Mr. Comyns.) Very rarely, owing to the rise in wages and the premiums demanded.

Chairman.

462. You have put these provisions into a schedule, have you not?-(Sir Frederick Liddell.) Yes, the detailed provisions.

Chairman.] Yes, it is rather ingenious. Where does sub-clause (4) about sailors come from?

Lord Warrington.

463. I suppose the Merchant Shipping Act provides for that?-Yes.

Sir Henry Slesser.] I am unhappy about the words "directly or indirectly." Unless one has before one all the Acts about apprenticeship at sea it may be that indirectly they will dovetail in with these Acts. I should think it would be better to say "nothing shall affect." That is very explicit. I am not sure of the legal consequences of saying "shall directly or indirectly affect." It may be that the existing Poor Law Acts and the Apprenticeship Act do differ.

Chairman.] "Directly or indirectly " are the words of the old Act.

Sir Henry Slesser.] We have new legislation which may refer back to the Poor Law now. I should have thought "nothing shall affect" would be sufficiently explicit.

Lord Warrington.] If those words were in the old Act I think we had better keep them?

Chairman.] I think, on the whole, we had better keep them.

Sir Henry Slesser.] Yes, I had not appreciated that they were in the old Act, though I should have done.

(Clause 93 is passed.)

ON CLAUSE 94.

Lord Warrington.

464. I suppose the words as to the payment of the fine "the Court may direct that the amount of the fine shall be paid