View report page

46
A notice was served upon the Acting Manager of a theatre
for failing to send to the Local Authority, as prescribed by the
Act, a Magistrate's licence authorizing him to engage 2 children
in a series of entertainments.

The difficulty in administering this Act has been greatly increased
by the influx of children from the adjoining parishes where
Bye-laws are not in operation. These children are for the most
part engaged as hawkers, step-cleaners, and milk-sellers. A return
shows that of the 116 children illegally employed 41 reside within
the Borough of Hornsey, 30 in London, 31 in Tottenham, 8 in
Wood Green, 4 in Edmonton, 1 in Finchley, and 1 in Friern
Barnet.
There is a point on the economic side of the question of child
employment to which I have directed my inquiries, viz., the alleged
justification of sacrificing children to premature toil upon the ground
of monetary needs of the parents. Taking the occupations of the
parents of the children reported, I find that 37 were labourers, 4
hawkers, 1 horsekeeper, 4 railway porters, 5 bakers, 2 confectioners,
2 stokers, 2 engine drivers, 9 milkmen, 3 masons, 4 clerks, 8
painters, 3 bricklayers, 7 shoemakers, 2 coachmen, 2 newsagents,
4 carpenters, 2 carriers, 1 malster, 1 gardener, 1 wood-dealer, 1
dustman, 2 laundrymen, 2 messengers, 1 cat's meat purveyor, 3
widows. Now in some cases the system is part of the deeper
problem of poverty where the child's earnings add to the small
income of the family and bring relief; but from careful observation
I am convinced that in the majority of cases no attempt could be
made to justify the employment on the ground of poverty of the
parents. The child's earnings are necessarily small, and cannot
balance the disadvantage of an excessive use of their small working
powers.
I have failed to trace any case of hardship arising from the
administration of this Act, and I am fully convinced that when
the parents can be persuaded to form a right conception of their