the offence, and a Magistrate
ordering a beating to be inflicted by a complete stranger at a later
date.

The Committee, therefore, does not recommend the restoration of corporal
punishment. It merely notes the matter here as part of the history of
the law relating to child welfare and to show that the representations
on this point have been considered.

=(4) Defects in the Act and its Application=

Several matters have come to the notice of the Committee during its
investigations which prompt it respectfully to point out to the
Government that the present statutory provisions are out-moded and that
the time has arrived for a complete redrafting of the statute to remove
anomalies and to suit the needs of the times.

The terms of the order of reference scarcely require the Committee to
make detailed recommendations. It should suffice to point out certain
respects in which the Act itself might be improved and a new meaning
given to "child welfare" which might go a long way towards reducing the
amount of juvenile delinquency.

_(a) "Child Welfare" a Misnomer_

The preamble to the Act of 1925 describes the limited nature of its
intention. It is:

An Act to make Better Provision with respect to the Maintenance,
Care, and Control of Children who are specially under the
Protection of the State; and to provide generally for the
Protection and Training of Indigent, Neglected, or Delinquent
Children.

In other words, the Act aimed at dealing with children _after they have
become delinquents_. The new provisions for the welfare of children were
grafted on to statutes which were designed for "neglected" and
"criminal" children and for the establishment of "industrial schools".
The Act did not purport to have regard for the welfare of children who
_might_ become delinquent. It did not contain any provisions for the
doing of preventive work. That being so, it is not surprising to find
that it operates in different ways in different districts. The Committee
was impressed by the preventive work done in some districts, although
the officers doing this work were unable to point to any provisions in
the Act which required them to do it. In these circumstances it is not
possible to blame any Child Welfare Officer for failing to do preventive
work which, under the statute, he is not obliged, and, indeed, has no
authority to perform.

_(b) "Child Welfare" Merely a "Division"_

The Superintendent of Chi