, 1908-11-11

WOuIO VlOidC0 inc oSeaDllSu0u pTlu 3pl0 LuiL6
it was a parents duty to care for the welfare
of his child, and that the State ought not to
interfere 10 purely domestic matters. Mr..
Lupton was again prominent in criticism of
his leaders, Bill. He delighted the OPPOSE
tion By declaring that measures of this kind
were knocked together in a haphazard way
lay Ministers anxious to please benevolent,
meddlesolue people. He opposed the clause
because it was an interference with liberty,
and because a boy would regard it Gs very
unfair that he should be prohibited from
smoking "when the governor smoked"
those WHO desired to prevent boys from
smoking should give up smoking themselves.
The right thing to do would be to ~enlighten
the people as to the injurious effects of nico-
tine. In an elaborate defence of the clause.
Mr.. Herbert Samuel admitted that this part
of he Bill was novel in it's character, but
be sought to justify it on the ground that
juvenile smoking tended to impair, the ma
tional physique. This was not IL sentimental,
imaginary evil, but a real one. Smoking by
young men in the Navy and Army was dis.
eouraged, and other countries hid found it
necessary to take measures against this
growing vice. The tobacco trade as a whole
approved of the Government proposals, wish
ing to be free from the stigma IF contribute
ing to the physical deterioration Of the peo-
pie. After saying that he could not part
with the clause, he expressed his sense OF
obligation to the Opposition for the assist
ance which had been given him during the
progress of the measure, an1 announced that
as u concession the 41st clause of the Bill,
which was vi6wed with mach disfavour Oh
the opposite side of the House, would be
considerably amended or dropped. This was
the clause exposing to penalties a Child
found smoking in a public street or public
place, on who purchased cigarettes whether
for his own uSe or not. There was no evil
denca, Lord +. Cecil, insisted, that smoking
i'll great moderation w8s bad for young per-
sons, ami he saw no reason why this practice
should be dealt with exceptionally. But he
did not believe that the clause would have
any effect, for boys and girls desiring to OBJ
tain tobacco would procure it through the
post OF in som other wy. For the leg.ti-
mate authority Of the parent the Government
were substituting the il,egitimate aud quite
inef fec i've authority of me State. Air. Moore,
Mr.. Latnbton, and M. Ceilings also criticised
thu clause, and a striking speech against it
was dolivcred by
Nj. Balfour, whom his supporters cordial
~ choered when he rose TO speak. Having
prof&cei his observations by informing the
House that he d d not himself smoke, be
enlarged on the lnexpcdioncy Of attempting
to deal by legislation with q particular form
of Indulgence not amounting to a vice. Ho
bad no doubt that the increase OF Juvenile
smoking was due TO the example set by men
aud women, and he believed that if tie Leg
islature dehed boys to noke it would fail in
its purpose. He suggested indeed that the
effect of he Bill would be to add q zost to
smoking, for boys would take delight in
laughing at the policeman. If boys who
smoked for the love Of the thing ware pre-
vented from smoking cigarettes, they would
take to smoking bad cigars and bad tobacco
iii pipes. He ri }icu!ed the idea that real
good wonld be effected by prohibiting boys
from smoking cigarettes in public places,
When elsewhere they would he able TO puff
their cigarettes i'll a policeman'5 face. The
fact was the Government were now revertjng
to the kind Of legi lation common in The 14th
and 10Th centuries. That legislation attempt
ed to control the habits of the people, but
no notice was taken of it, and he predicted
that history would repeat Itself, and that this
new legislation would be similarly ignored.
The one thing an Act of Parliament could
not do was to make public opinion regard a
thing as immoral. In conclusion he contend
ed that this particular group of clauses
might be delatad from tha R1l yy;+bo, o,.