The Court may, without proceeding to conviction, if the offence is in its nature so trifling as not to call for severe punishment, order the child, or young person, to pay damages, not exceeding 40s., and such costs as seem reasonable, and to be then discharged; or it may, after conviction, order his discharge on his giving security to appear for sentence when called upon, or to be of good behaviour.

The Youthful Offenders Act, 1901, (c) has brought about an even more complete and important change in the method of dealing with child wrongdoers, by providing that where a child or young person is charged with any offence for which he may be punished by a Court of summary jurisdiction, and there is reason to believe that his parent or guardian has conduced to the commission of the alleged offence by wilful default or by habitually neglecting to exercise due care of him, the parent or guardian may be charged with so contributing to the commission of the offence; and, if on the hearing of the case any fine, damages or costs are imposed on the child or young person and it appears that the parent or guardian has so contributed to the commission of the offence, the Court may order the parent or guardian to pay the fine, damages or costs and also to give security for the good behaviour of behaviour of the child or young person. (d)

The same statute also provides that a Court of summary jurisdiction, on remanding or committing for trial. any child or young person, may, instead of committing him to prison, remand or commit him into the custody of any fit person who is willing to receive him, and may order the parent or other person legally liable to maintain the child or young person, to pay towards his maintenance a sum not exceeding five shillings a week during the whole or part of the time of his custody. (e)

(e) 1 Edw. 7, c. 20, post, p. 244. (e) Id. s. 4. (d) Id. s. 2.

Whipping.

Probation of first offenders.

Apprentices.

The Juvenile Offenders Whipping Act, 1862, (f) provides, that where whipping has been awarded, the sentence, or order, shall specify the number of strokes. and the instrument to be used, and that in cases where the offender is under fourteen years of age, the number of strokes shall not exceed twelve, and the instrument used shall be a birch rod. No offender may be whipped more than once for the same offence.

For the crime of robbery with violence, however, boys under sixteen may receive up to twenty-five strokes of the birch. (g)

The Probation of First Offenders Act, 1887, (h) gives power to any Court to release first offenders, whether children or adult, convicted of larceny, false pretences, or any other offences which are punishable with not more than two years' imprisonment, upon entering into their own recognisances to appear and receive judgment when called upon, and in the meantime to keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

An apprentice failing to fulfil his duties may be brought before a Court of summary jurisdiction and ordered to perform them, and if he do not comply with the order, he may be imprisoned for fourteen days. (i)

(f) 25 Vict. c. 18; see post,

p. 232.

(g) 26 & 27 Vict. c. 44.

(h) 50 & 51 Vict. c. 25; see post, p. 241.

(i) 38 & 39 Vict. c. 90, s. 6.

CHAPTER III.

OFFENCES OF CRUELTY.

BEFORE the year 1889 no such offences were known to English law as those of "ill-treatment " or " neglect " of children, and the statute which was enacted in that year wrought accordingly a very important and much-needed change. It is true that in some cases "ill-treatment" might constitute a common assault, that "neglect " might be an offence under the Poor Law Amendment Act, 1868, (a) if it were to supply food, and if it caused serious injury to the child's health, and that "abandonment was an offence if the child was under two years of age, and if its life had been endangered, (a) but that such provisions were inadequate is now obvious. The Prevention of Cruelty to, and Protection of Children Act, 1889, remained in force for five years, when it was amended in 1894, and shortly afterwards the amending Act and the principal Act were both repealed and re-enacted by the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1894. (b) This Act was in its turn repealed by the Prevention of Cruelty to Children Act, 1904, (c) which substantially re-enacts the previous statute with certain alterations. The reason that so much legislative amendment was needed was that the original Act was in many respects so novel in its provisions that it was impossible accurately to foresee the exact consequences of such provisions when worked. out in detail. The main clause in each Act, however, has been aimed at providing for the punishment of any person over sixteen years of age who, having the custody, charge, or care of a child under the age of sixteen years, (c) 4 Edw. 7, c. 15.

(a) 31 & 32 Vict. c. 122, s. 37. (b; 57 & 58 Vict. c. 41.

wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons or exposes such child, or causes or procures such child to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed, in a manner likely to cause such child unnecessary suffering or injury to its health.

It will be seen, therefore, that on a charge under this section it will be incumbent on the prosecution to

prove :

(1) That the defendant was over sixteen years of age.

(2) That the wronged child was under that age. (3) That the defendant had the custody, charge, or care of the child.

66

(4) That the defendant, in fact, committed the 'offence of cruelty."

(5) That he did so wilfully.

(6) That such commission was likely to cause unnecessary suffering to, or injury to the health of, the child.

PROOF OF AGE.

Strict proof of the age of the defendant is not necessary where the Court is able to judge from his appearance and from all the circumstances of the case that he is in fact over the age. (d) Where, however, the matter is in doubt, it should be strictly proved.

It is not necessary to prove the age of the child strictly, i.e., by production of its birth certificate, coupled with evidence of identity; any such lawful evidence as would establish any other fact is sufficient even in the absence of the child at the trial. (e) When the child is present,

the Court may assume from its appearance that it is under sixteen, unless proof to the contrary is given by the defence.(f)

(d) Reg. v. Cox [1898] 1 Q. B. 179. (e) Reg. v. Cox, ibid.

(ƒ) 4 Edw. 7, c. 15, s. 17.

CUSTODY, CHARGE, OR CARE.

The following explanations of these words are submitted:-

Custody. That, for certain purposes, is a father's, Legal. whilst he lives, unless cancelled by legal proceedings, and for purposes of nurture is jointly a mother's, unless cancelled by legal proceedings.

Charge. That is a deputed thing, given by a parent, Deputed. e.g., to a stepmother, or housekeeper, or master, or mistress of a boarding-school, or a nurse, and exists jointly with custody.

Care. That is an assumed thing, and covers any child Actual. in anybody's actual possession, no matter how that possession has been come by.

Section Twenty-three of the Act (g) declares that:

66

Statutory

Any person, who is the parent of a child, shall be definition. presumed to have the custody of the child; and

"Any person to whose charge a child is committed by its parents, shall be presumed to have charge of the child; and

or

"Any other person, having actual possession control of a child, shall be deemed to have the care of the child."

A person who undertakes the duty of supplying an When voluntarily infant with food and clothing and is provided by the undertaken. father with the means of doing so, is guilty of murder if he wilfully neglects so to provide it, and in consequence of such neglect the child dies; and where such father is conscious that the food is withheld, and does not interfere, he is guilty of manslaughter.(h)

A person who places himself voluntarily in loco parentis, as, e.g., a man who cohabits with a widow and exercises authority over her children, is in the same. position as a schoolmaster exercising a deputed authority, "If a man chose to assume a duty, and violated the