§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."—(The O'Conor Don.)
MR. PEEL DAWSON,in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he thought the measure was an unwise and inopportune proposal for extending the Reformatory Schools Act, and ought to be regarded with a just sense of suspicion and distrust, because it would have the effect of encouraging sectarian education in Ireland, which it had been the avowed policy of Parliament for the last thirty-five years, and of every successive Government during that period, to restrain and discourage, so far, at least, as assistance from the public purse was concerned. He regarded this Bill as an underhand attack on the national system of education in Ireland, which, though it had many faults, had been the means of diffusing a better system of education throughout the country than any other system was likely to attain. It behoved Parliament, therefore, 1742 to take care that no underhand blows should be dealt against it. It might be in the recollection of the House that in 1861 a very similar measure to this was introduced by the hon. Gentleman who now represented the city of Cork (Mr. Maguire); but with this difference—that whereas in that Bill the charge for supporting the schools was laid on the poor rates, by the present Bill it was transferred to the county cess. He (Mr. Peel Dawson) felt it his duty to give that Bill his opposition; and it met with so little favour from the House that it did not receive a second reading. Under its operation the fourteenth provision of the English Act would be extended to the sister country, and therefore any children under the age of fourteen who might be found begging might be clothed, fed, and educated at the public cost. No better mode, he maintained, of holding out a premium to vagrancy than the establishment of such a system could well be devised. It would also furnish a dangerous temptation to parents to repudiate all responsibility in the care and nurture of their children by making a declaration simply before a magistrate that they were unable to control them. He could discover no security against the uncontrolled expenditure of public money. The Bill was all the more untimely, in his opinion, because the late and present Chancellor of the Exchequer had promised that the educational expenses in unions, and the salaries of teachers should henceforward, as in England, be made a charge on the Consolidated Fund. He objected to having such a measure pressed to a second reading in the unavoidable absence of the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Irish Law Officers. He learnt from a petition which had been presented to that House, that instead of paying 15d. a week for a pauper child, as at present in most unions, the county charge, if the Bill passed, would be raised to 5s. a week for every child who might be kidnapped into the proposed schools in certain parts of Ireland. He doubted not that most of the unions in Ireland would declare their opposition to this measure. He feared that the provisions of this Bill would be made use of for purposes of proselytism, and he could not assent to a Bill which, in his opinion, would tend to such a breach of the principles of Christian charity. The adoption of this Bill would increase and aggravate the disputes which were continually going on, and which 1743 caused so much rancour among ministers of the different religious sections in Ireland, especially in reference to foundlings and the offspring of mixed marriages. The difference between the relation of the religious bodies in Ireland and in England prevented a fair analogy being drawn between them. He contended, moreover, that Ireland was already overschooled, and that no sufficient time had elapsed for testing the principles that had been applied in the same direction in England. The feeling of the Protestants of the North of Ireland was opposed to this measure, and such opinions were entitled to receive the attention and consideration of the House, and the Presbyterian Church there wholly protested against it. He had received a letter from an eminent professor in the Presbyterian College at Londonderry, in which he said that the establishment of this system in Ireland would bring about an educational revolution; that the design of its promoters was to substitute sectarian for united education, and to obtain greatly increased endowments for the promotion of the sectarian system; and he remarked that the Irish system of education differed entirely from the English, and that it was not advisable to follow up the English precedent. Resolutions were also passed at a meeting of ministers in the synod of Omagh, County Tyrone, in opposition to this attempt to further sectarian education, which it was contended would entirely supersede the national system in Ireland, and which was calculated to cause alarm to the taxpayers of the country. He agreed in the opinions thus expressed, and foresaw that if this Bill were passed into a law it would be turned into an instrument of religious discord and of possible proselytism.
§ Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."—(Mr. Peel Dawson.)
§ Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
§ MR. KNATCHBULL-HUGESSENsaid, that as it had fallen to his lot to prepare and introduce the English Reformatory and Industrial School Bills last year, which were adopted by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Walpole) and subsequently became law, he wished to say a few words upon the subject. The non-extension to Ireland of those Bills had not arisen from any 1744 doubt on the part of the late Government that the principles which had proved so beneficial to England were equally applicable to the sister country. But the Irish Reformatory Act had been passed subsequently to the first English Act, and was a separate measure with some separate provisions, and it was thought better, in the first place, still to keep the Acts separate, and, in the second place, as it was positively necessary to renew the English Industrial Act which was about to expire, it was deemed better to introduce as little as possible that might give rise to controversy, and possibly delay the passing of that Act, introduced as it was, of necessity, at a late period of the Session. From the speech of his hon. Friend opposite, the House would imagine that the Irish Reformatory Act must have already proved injurious to the system of National Education in Ireland. But what was the real state of the case? That Act was passed in 1858. He believed there were now nine Reformatories in Ireland. But since the date of that Act the National schools in Ireland had increased more than 1,000 in number, and the number of children on the school-rolls had increased more than 300,000. At the close of the year 1865, there were 6,372 schools in operation, with upwards of 900,000 children on the rolls, and an average daily attendance of more than 320,000. How could any one say that the reformatories have injured the system of National Education? But if this was not the case, what evil was likely to result from the extension to Ireland of the Industrial Act? This Act was for the prevention, as the reformatory was for the cure, of juvenile crime. The classes of children to be dealt with under the Act were these (with a limit as to age)—1, children accused of an offence punishable with imprisonment, who have not been previously convicted of felony; 2, children found begging in the street; 3, children without home or proper guardianship; 4, refractory children in workhouses; 5, children whose parents represent that they are unable to control them. Now, what percentage of the 900,000 children on the rolls of the Irish National Schools did his hon. Friend think would come under any of these denominations? The truth was that the reformatory and industrial schools aimed at a class of children different from that which supplied the National schools; they were children who would not be reached at all without these schools. No doubt there were difficulties in 1745 the system—there always must be difficulties where you engraft State assistance upon voluntary management—bat the good far preponderated over the evil. With respect to the objection that the Bill was proceeded with in the absence of the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland (Lord Naas), he could only say that if his memory served him right, that noble Lord had expressed his approval of the Reformatory Act when it was introduced, and there was no reason to doubt his approval of the present Bill. He (Mr. Knatchbull-Hugessen) had heard with much pain the observations of his hon. Friend opposite, upon the subject of proselytism. Why make it a question whether these unfortunate children should be educated as Protestants or Catholics, when the real question was, whether they should be educated at all? Besides, whenever the question of the Established Church in Ireland was mooted—a question upon which the House would probably hear a great deal more before long—we were always told that although the great majority of the Irish people were Roman Catholics, the vast proportion of the property in Ireland belonged to Protestants. If that was the case, were they to suppose that Protestants were so dead to the interests of their religion, that they would not provide Protestant industrial schools, rather than suffer the Roman Catholics to possess a monopoly of these institutions? For his own part, he confessed that he did not envy the man who would refuse to allow these children to be taught morality, for fear that morality should be inculcated by teachers of a creed differing from his own. It would be a happy day for Ireland when Roman Catholics and Protestants should learn to march forward on their own way, without continually seeking to jostle one another upon the road. But until that happy day arrived, at least do not let the. House choose such a question as this for the battle-field of religious differences—a question of rescuing the outcasts of society from sin, misery, and degradation, was surely a question of all others upon which men of all creeds might forget their differences, and endeavour to meet and to agree to act together upon the grounds of common patriotism and common humanity.
§ MR. DUNLOPsaid, that when he had attempted to pass a Bill for the establishment of the industrial school system in Scotland, he was met by the most determined opposition on the part of the Members from Ireland, who expressed fear lest, 1746 under his measure, Roman Catholic children might be proselytized. He was therefore delighted to find that many Irish Members seemed at length to appreciate the real value of the industrial school system, and were now desirous of having it applied to Ireland. He could assure his hon. Friends that in Scotland they had found that the dangers which were apprehended from adopting a system of this kind were only visionary. Under these circumstances he should cordially support the Bill, though he would not have done so if he had thought that the national system would be endangered by it. He had, however, no apprehension that this would be so. The class for which the Bill was intended was a very limited and a very peculiar class, and the peculiarity of the class was the great reason for providing that the education given should be sectarian. In schools of this kind a great deal depended upon having managers whose hearts were in the work, and they could hardly hope to obtain this amount of interest unless the schools were sectarian. While supporting the Bill, however, he thought that some improvement might be made in the details; and in particular, he thought that the same securities should be given against proselytising Protestant children in Ireland as were given in reference to Roman Catholic children in England.
§ MR. SYNANsaid, he was at a loss to comprehend the grounds on which the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Peel Dawson) opposed the Bill, as the national system in Ireland did not provide for that class of children for whose sake industrial schools were sought to be established. The industrial school S3'stem had operated most beneficially in England, and he desired to see its benefits extended to Ireland. As to the statements that the Bill would promote vagrancy and proselytism, he thought a decisive refutation was given to those assertions by the provisions of the Bill; because the grand juries, the proprietors of Ireland, were to be the parties to grant money for the establishment of these schools, and they were certainly not likely to tax themselves to promote vagrancy and proselytism. He believed that the Bill, instead of encouraging vagrancy, struck at its root; because, by enabling a mass of vagrant children to receive an industrial education, it provided the means of making them industrious citizens.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, that no one who had spoken in favour of the Bill had attempted to show that there ex- 1747 isted any public necessity for taxing the Irish cesspayers for the purposes contemplated by the measure before the House. He had been for over twenty years the chairman of the Board of a large union in Ireland, and was acquainted with all classes there, religious and political, and he could truly say that not one single person had addressed one line or word to him in favour of the present Bill. In order to ascertain what amount of sympathy was excited by the measure, he had made inquiries as to the number of petitions presented in reference to the Bill, and he found that there had been only one petition, signed by two persons, presented on the subject, and that petition was against the Bill. The measure would establish a new and very costly system of education in Ireland, and how was it to be paid for? It was to be paid for out of the county cess, which affected the pockets of all the poorer classes in Ireland. The promoters of the Bill had failed to show that the existing system in Ireland had failed to meet the evil for which a new system was now alleged to be necessary. In all the poorhouses in Ireland there were industrial schools; and he had known numbers of instances of young men and women who, after acquiring a knowledge in the poorhouse of some industrial occupation, had earned enough afterwards not only to keep themselves, but to enable them to withdraw their brothers and sisters from the house. Let them show him that there was a class of juvenile vagrants in Ireland requiring industrial schools, and he was open to conviction. It was very easy to point to the system in England; but he was happy to say that they were not horrified in Ireland by that mass of juvenile crime which was concomitant with the accumulation of wealth in this country. He felt that he was only doing his duty in supporting the Motion for the rejection of the measure, and in so acting he was not influenced by any desire to prevent industrial education in Ireland; but did so because he thought the effect of the Bill would be greatly to mar the operation of the existing system of education, and to sap the principle of self-reliance by offering an inducement to many parents to drive their children into vagrancy and crime in order to make them qualified to obtain a first-rate education at the public expense.
§ MR. LAWSONsaid, he believed that the Bill would confer a very great boon on Ireland. It proposed to deal with children of the vagrant class, and to place 1748 them in schools—extending to Ireland the system which prevailed in England. The hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Peel Dawson), had put forward the extraordinary proposition that Ireland was already over-schooled; but, in answer to the objection urged on such a score, it was only necessary to state that it rested entirely in the option of the grand juries to grant or withhold money for the establishment of the industrial schools. The noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claud Hamilton) asserted that there existed no necessity for such legislation. If that be so, and if in the county which the noble Lord represented the people were perfectly satisfied with the existing machinery at work there, it was extremely probable that the grand juries of that county would not put the machinery of the present Bill in motion: but what reason was there why the grand juries in other counties, where things were not in so satisfactory a state in respect to proper provision for vagrant children, should not be intrusted with the power which it was proposed to give them by the present Bill? He found it difficult to understand the argument that the industrial school system would interfere with the system of National education in Ireland, for the latter system was voluntary. No child could be sent to the National schools without the consent of the parents, and the schools were day-schools, so that the children returned to their parents every day. The industrial schools, on the other hand, would take in children having no protection, and train them up in the principles of religion and morality. This object could not be attained except by the establishment of schools to be conducted according to the religious faith of the children, like the reformatory schools, which were working so well in Ireland. He had no doubt that the pockets of the cess-payers, which the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone was so anxious to protect, would be properly protected by the grand juries, and he gave the Bill his hearty support.
SIR HERVEY BRUCEsaid, he did not concur with the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Peel Dawson) that the national system of education in Ireland rendered these industrial schools unnecessary; because the first and great principle of the system was that children of all denominations should be simply instructed in secular knowledge, scrupulously declining to enter into the religious element at all. His own opinion rather was that if we 1749 took these children from the streets it was due to them to see that they were provided not only with secular education, but also with religious education according to the religion of their parents. He thought the gravest and most serious objection to the Bill was the proposal to charge the people of Ireland for the schools to be established. He held that it was very unfair to charge the poorest classes of the Irish people with the education and training of these outcast children, and that the expense should not be taken out of the local funds. If he understood the hon Member who introduced the measure, the provisions of his Bill would differ from those of the English Industrial Act in a very important particular. That Act provided that the national funds should pay 2s. 6d. per week for the support of such children; but he saw no clause in the Bill providing that some such contribution should be given by the State towards the support of these children in Ireland. It had been said that Ireland was over-schooled, but he did not think so; though he believed that the education pursued in the model schools was not applicable at the present moment to the wants of the people of Ireland, and much of the money expended on them might be employed for the maintenance of the schools contemplated by the present Bill. The whole expense was to be provided out of the county cess. That was, in his estimation, very objectionable. Independent of any other objections to the Bill, he thought it was brought forward at a very unseasonable time. Owing to the disturbances in Ireland many hon. Members, and most of the Irish Members of the Government, were absent, and it was unfortunate that a measure in which they were deeply interested should be prosecuted in their absence. He thought it would only be showing befitting courtesy to the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the other Irish Members of the Government to delay the further consideration of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman the Member for Roscommon (The O'Conor Don) would promise not to ask the House to go into Committee upon the Bill until the Chief Secretary and other Irish Members had returned to their places, he would not object to the second reading.
THE O'CONOR DONsaid, that he had not imagined that any opposition would be offered to the second reading of this Bill, because it was merely a proposal to extend to Ireland the benefits of the Act passed 1750 last Session for Great Britain. He heard, however, with great surprise the intention of his hon. Friend opposite to oppose the second reading; but did not believe that it was necessary for him to say anything until he had heard the reasons assigned for this opposition. Before dealing, however, with these reasons, he would endeavour to answer the challenge of the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone (Lord Claud Hamilton.) The noble Lord said that it was incumbent on him to show some necessity for the establishment of these proposed new institutions; but two things were evident-from the speech of the noble Lord. First, that he was not present in the House when the Bill was introduced, when he (The O'Conor Don) stated the reasons which influenced him in bringing in the Bill; and secondly, that he had not studied very accurately the criminal statistics of Ireland. In bringing in the Bill he (The O'Conor Don) stated the reasons which operated in his mind in inducing him to propose it; he believed those reasons strong ones. He would now repeat some of them. The noble Lord had drawn a very pleasing picture of the comparative immunity of Ireland from crime, and had boasted of the absence in Ireland of that great mass of juvenile criminality which was so conspicuous in Great Britain; but the noble Lord evidently had not read the judicial statistics published on the authority of the Irish Government. With the permission of the House he would read a passage from the last Report of Dr. Hancock, who was the gentleman who compiled the judicial or criminal statistics of Ireland, and in that passage would be found the answer to the question, why did he introduce this Bill? After giving the table containing comparison between the criminal classes in Great Britain and Ireland, Dr. Hancock goes on to say—
This table exhibits a very satisfactory result, that although the number of police in Ireland is double the number in a corresponding portion, of the population of England and Wales, the number of criminal classes, other than vagrants and tramps, known to the police, in less than one-half, being 11,444 as compared with 22,923 in a corresponding portion of the population in England and Wales in 1864. In vagrants and tramps under sixteen years of age the proportion is reversed, being 3,475, or nearly double 1,812, the number in a corresponding portion of the population in England and Wales in 1864. In connection with this subject the total absence of industrial schools in Ireland should be borne in mind, whilst there were in certified industrial schools in England and Wales at the end of the year 1864 no less than 1751 1,409, or 381 in a portion of the population of England and Wales corresponding to Ireland. During the past Session the law as to industrial schools has been consolidated for England and Wales by statute 29 & 30 Vict. c. 118; but this valuable code of laws, commencing in the year 1854 by statute 17 & 18 Vict. c. 86, and amended by successive enactments, after ten years' experience, has not yet been extended to Ireland. The continuous increase in the number of juvenile delinquents, which I have had to notice for three years, would appear to indicate the necessity of this extension to Ireland.This was his answer to the challenge of the noble Lord. He would now pass on to the statements of his hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry (Mr. Peel Dawson.) Before doing so, he should point out to the hon. Baronet the Member for Coleraine (Sir Hervey Bruce) that he was quite mistaken in supposing that the provisions for Treasury advances towards the maintenance of children in industrial schools was omitted from this Bill. Section 35 of the English Act provided that the Treasury should be empowered to make certain payments towards the support of children coming under the operation of that Act, and if the hon. Baronet looked to Clause 3 of the Bill before the House, he would find that it proposed to embody in this Bill Section 35 of the Act of last Session. The hon. Baronet's objection, therefore, on this head had no foundation in fact. As to the statement of the hon. Gentleman who moved the rejection of this Bill, it consisted of several objections; some of them had been answered by previous speakers, but to some of them he found it necessary to reply. His hon. Friend objected to the Bill, because he thought it would endanger the national system of education; he objected to it because it would give rise to sectarian disputes and differences; he objected to it because it would add to the burden of county rates; he objected to it because it was brought forward at an untimely moment, when the Irish Law Officers were absent; and finally, he objected to it because a certain portion of his constituents disliked it. This Bill, it was said, will interfere with the national system of education in Ireland. In the name of common sense, how? With what class of children did it deal? With, those wandering and begging in the streets—those without any protectors, without any visible means of obtaining a livelihood, with the miserable little wretches at present growing up in ignorance, idleness, and crime. How can this affect National schools? None of these children attend 1752 such schools; there is no one to send them there, and, if there were, who would support them whilst attending there? The Bill, then, in no way affects children at present attending ordinary National schools. But it may be said it proposes to touch workhouse children; the schools in workhouses are National schools, and so far it interferes with national education. But what class of workhouse children does it affect? Only those who are so unruly and unmanageable in the workhouses that they can be taught nothing, and disturb the discipline of the establishment; and is it to be supposed that because a few bold, unruly, juvenile paupers may be transferred from workhouse schools to establishments in which a particular form of Christianity is taught, that thereby the national system of education is endangered? He was willing, however, to omit this clause in Committee, because he thought those unruly workhouse children ought rather to be sent to reformatories. But perhaps the hon. Gentleman would say that it was in the affirmation of the principle of granting public aid to educational establishments of a denominational character that he saw the danger to the national system of education. If so, he (The O'Conor Don) would only say that that principle had been already affirmed. It had been affirmed in the passing of the Irish Reformatory Act, and no one had ever heard that, by the passing of that Act, the system of national education had been weakened. The hon. Gentleman next laid great stress on the disastrous results of religious differences and disputes in Ireland. He entirely agreed with him in that, and believed that his Bill was so framed as to give the least possible opportunity for such arising. His hon. Friend, though objecting to what he called the sectarian character of the proposed institutions, did not directly suggest that they should be, like the national schools, mixed as to the religious persuasions of the inmates. Had he done so, he (The O'Conor Don) could easily show the objections to this course. The hon. Member did not propose this, but his argument simply amounted to this:—If this Bill be passed, in some isolated instances squabbles might arise as to the religious persuasion in which certain deserted children should be registered; therefore the Bill should be rejected, and not only these children but all the others who would come under its operation should be left neglected and deserted in the streets 1753 to grow up in vice, and to add to the criminality of the country. This was literally the logical conclusion of his hon. Friend's argument. These schools could not be other than denominational, or if they were religious disputes would be only intensified. It must be recollected that they were to be founded and managed by private individuals. Now, no private individuals would go to the trouble and expense of getting them up or undertake their management unless they could manage them in accordance with their own religious opinions. But supposing that children of all religious persuasions could indiscriminately be sent to any one of these institutions, this, instead of putting an end to religious disputes, would only increase them tenfold. Under the Bill as proposed the only dispute which could arise would be the registration of the child in the first instance. That settled, no other cause of difference could exist; but make these establishments open to children of all persuasions and your difficulties only commenced with the registration. Then followed immediately demands for the appointment of chaplains of the different persuasions, demands for the admission of visitors to teach religion, disputes as to the regulation of hours for religious instruction, and a whole host of other most difficult and annoying questions. One of the great recommendations, then, of the present Bill was that it got rid of all these perplexities, and reduced to the minimum the occasion for religious differences. It had been said that the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Maguire) had introduced a Bill on this subject and had failed; but the hon. Member for Cork never asked the opinion of the House on his Bill. He introduced his Bill late in the Session, found he had no time to proceed with it, and withdrew it. This, therefore, was no argument against the present Bill. His hon. Friend (Mr. Peel Dawson) objected to the expense this would cast on the county rates. He had no desire unnecessarily to increase the county rates, but the question really was not what will this Bill cost, but is it worth the cost? He maintained that it was. In an economic point of view he maintained that it ought to be supported. By taking up unfortunate vagrant children and rearing them in the habits of industry you diminish the danger of having to support them afterwards as criminals. Moreover, these children should be in some way supported, either by the 1754 proceeds of beggary or pilfering, or in institutions such as he proposed. If supported in either of the former ways, they would have to be supported entirely at local expense; if in industrial schools a grant would be received from the Treasury. He maintained, therefore, that the Bill proposed a relief not an addition to local burdens. He thought he had now answered all the objections coming from the other side, and would not detain the House much longer. He might, however, mention that the experience of the last few years justified the expectations of those who supported reformatory and industrial schools. These institutions had now for some years been tried in Great Britain, and were declared successful by the inspectors. About 75 per cent of those discharged from reformatories were known to have turned out well, and the same might be said of the industrial schools. Nor did the reformatories in Ireland show a different result. Out of all those discharged from one of the largest reformatories in Ireland—namely, Glencree, only twelve were re-convicted of crime, and out of 163 discharged all over Ireland in 1865, only three had relapsed. The results of the past legislation were therefore eminently satisfactory, and he felt sure the House would not refuse to extend to Ireland the benefits of those industrial institutions now carried on in Great Britain.
§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUEthought the House greatly indebted to his hon. Friend (The O'Conor Don) for bringing forward this Bill, to which the real ground of opposition was not its interference with the national system—an argument which would not bear the slightest examination—but the lamentable prejudice of many persons of the Presbyterian denomination in Ulster. He never anticipated that that prejudice would have been stated so broadly and with so little excuse as it had been in relation to this Bill, when in the mouth of the hon. Member for Londonderry (Mr. Peel Dawson), it took the form of a horror of the system of proselytism. No one in that House would more cordially than himself join in the condemnation and detestation of the system of proselytism between the different communions in Ireland, which was, in fact, one of the greatest curses under which that country lay; but he must say, speaking candidly, and believing what he said to be the truth, that system of proselytism, although practised sometimes in an unjustifiable manner by 1755 all communions was, he thought, practised by the Catholic Church in a less systematic and aggressive manner than by the Protestant Establishment. The danger of proselytism, however, was no argument against the Bill. Its provisions prevented such a danger by enacting that children should only be sent to industrial schools under the exclusive management of their own denomination. His principal object, however, was to inquire from the Government whether they had formed any opinion as to the merits of this Bill. He hoped the Home Secretary would state the views entertained by the Government as to the extension of the industrial system to Ireland. He ventured to anticipate that they would not wish to make a distinction between the three kingdoms in this respect, or argue that what was good for Scotland and England was not good for Ireland; especially after the conclusive statement so carefully and accurately made by his hon. Friend in support of the second reading of the Bill.
§ MR. WALPOLE,having been appealed to by the right hon. Gentleman to say what the Government thought of this Bill, felt himself authorized to state, for himself and those Members of the Government he had consulted on the subject, that he could see no reason why the Bill, which was good for England and Scotland, should not, in principle, be extended to Ireland. The only doubt which suggested itself to his mind as requiring consideration was as to some of the reasons which had been stated in relation to vagrancy and quasi-offenders in Ireland. But the references made by the hon.. Gentleman who moved the second reading of the Bill to the criminal statistics of Ireland had removed his doubts upon that point. There were other questions as to the amount of charge and the mode of charging for the establishment, which might require some further consideration in Committee than he had been able to give. But, reserving himself on these points until he could confer with his noble Friend the Secretary for Ireland, he should offer no objection to the second reading.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Main Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed for Tuesday 26th March.