COMMITTEE.

HC Deb 08 July 1857 vol 146 cc1137-50

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clauses 1 to 8 agreed to, with Amendments.

On Clause 9,

MR. BOWYER

proposed to add the following proviso to the clause:— Provided, however, that the regulations of every such industrial school shall provide that a book shall be kept by the managers, in which the religious denomination or church to which every child admitted to such school, or the parents or the father of such child shall belong shall be entered; and that every minister or clergyman officiating in any chapel or other place of worship duly licensed according to law in the parish within which such industrial school shall be situated shall have free access to such book, and also to every child who shall appear by such book to belong to the religious denomination or church of which such minister is a teacher.

MR. ADDERLEY

thought that he had altered the Bill so as to make it satisfactory to every Roman Catholic, not only in the House, but out of the House. He felt convinced that the clause proposed would be destructive of these institutions throughout the country. The best way to avoid the risk of proselytism was to allow free scope to persons of all denominations to provide schools for themselves.

MR. GREGORY

said, that the question now was not one of proselytism, but whether the ministers of religion to which the child belonged should have access to the school, in order to give him religious instruction. At the same time, he admitted that the proviso was liable to some objection.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said that the words allowed not only inspection but interference.

SIR GEORGE GREY

said, that the manager of the schools might not be willing to receive the child coupled with such a condition.

MR. BOWYER

admitted the force of the objection of the right hon. Gentleman.

Motion withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, as were also Clauses 10, 11, and 12.

Clause 13 (Child not to be detained when fifteen years old).

MR. BARROW

proposed, as an Amendment, to leave out the word "fifteen," and to insert instead the word "twelve." He thought that if children were kept at the schools beyond the age of twelve years, they would not be rendered active and muscular and fit to earn their livelihood in future life. It was important for the physical development of the children that they should be released from school at twelve years of age, when the education for labour ought to begin; and if these children were kept at school after that age it would be for the purpose of giving them an intellectual and scientific education. Thus they would, by the aid of the State, obtain an unfair advantage over the honest children of industrious parents.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 23, to leave out the word "fifteen," and insert the word "twelve," instead thereof.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON

trusted the Committee would adhere to the clause as it stood, for it was most desirable that the power of detaining the children in the schools beyond the age of twelve years should exist. This power might not be always acted upon, but it ought to be whenever their detention was essential to their reformation. There were at least two Acts on the Statute-book defining the age up to which childhood should be considered to extend—namely, the Poor-law Act and the Juvenile Offenders Act, and in both the period of sixteen years was taken as the age to which childhood extended.

SIR GEORGE GREY

thought that this Amendment ought to have been proposed at an earlier stage. The second clause, which had been adopted, provided that the word "child" should include any boy or girl above the age of five and under the age of fourteen, and the Amendment now proposed would be altogether inconsistent with that definition of the word "child."

MR. LIDDELL

supported the clause. It should be remembered that those would be industrial schools, and that children would receive in them an industrial training.

VISCOUNT GODERICH

had always feared that the effect of a measure of this nature would be to encourage idle and worthless parents to send their children, into the streets to commit acts of vagrancy, in order, that they might obtain admission to industrial schools; but he thought that many of the benefits which would result from the present Bill would counterbalance what he regarded as its defects. He would, however, vote for the Amendment of the hon. Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow), because he could not doubt that in most districts of this country work could be found for children twelve years of age. He considered, therefore, that children ought not to be forcibly detained in these industrial schools up to the age of fifteen years.

SIR WILLIAM HEATHCOTE

said, the adoption of the Amendment would entirely change the object of the Bill, by restricting its application to children below the age of twelve years.

VISCOUNT EBRINGTON

considered that some discretion should be left to the managers of industrial schools with regard to the disposal of the children committed to their charge. He did not think it advisable that the inmates of such schools should be educated in any trades or professions which would enable them to compete at an advantage with the children of honest and industrious labourers, who were unable to educate their children for the highly-skilled and better paid description of labour; Moreover, if they were taught trades above those which were paid at the lowest rates, it would be an inducement to parents to watch over their children with less care, if they were placed in a better position if they went astray than if they had not gone astray. He would apply the same principle as was applied to the education of pauper children.

MR. AKROYD

said, the Bill provided for children who had no previous education at all. It was founded not on philanthropic principles, but on the instinct of self-preservation of society. If those children were to be reformed, they should get some industrial training.

MR. BARROW

said, that in his opinion, if a boy near twelve was brought before a magistrate, some other place than an industrial school was better fitted for him.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, he thought it would be a most cruel proceeding to declare that at the age of twelve years the unfortunate children who were the inmates of these industrial schools should be driven from the only homes where they could seek refuge. He approved the provision of the second clause, that children might be committed to these schools up to the age of fourteen years; for, although they could not be compulsorily detained beyond the age of fifteen, those children who entered the schools at the age of fourteen would receive a year's training, which it was to be hoped would prove advantageous to them in after life. The way to guard against the abuse of parents neglecting their children that they might get into these schools was, to make the parents pay for their children, as much as they would cost at home.

MR. BARROW

said, that on the bringing up of the Report he would be prepared to move that the word "twelve" should be substituted for the word "fourteen" in the second clause. The object of his Amendment was, not that children should be turned out of the schools at twelve years, but that they should not be detained against their own wills and their parents, after that age.

MR. RIDLEY

said, under the Bill a child might be separated from its parents for eight years; he thought that rather too long a period, and would therefore support the Amendment.

MR. SPOONER

said, he saw no reason why the Committee should adopt the Amendment. As the clause stood, it would merely provide that children who had no one to take care of them might be detained in the school up to the age of fifteen. It was surely not desirable that a child who had nobody whatever to look after him should necessarily be discharged from one of those establishments immediately on his attaining his twelfth year.

MR. BOWYER

remarked, these institutions were called industrial schools, but they had as yet got no information as to what branches of industry were to be taught in them; the education ought to be such as would fit the children for such employments as were most general in the districts from which, they came. A child in the mining districts, for instance, ought to be taught mining in these schools—if they taught him shoe-making he would not be able to earn his living as a miner. The Bill involved a principle entirely new to the law of England, and it drew no distinction between a child who had committed one slight offence and the habitual vagrant, and shut them up in a prison-house for years.

MR. E. BALL

said, that the hon. and learned Member spoke as if they were going to take children whose parents were able to keep them, and dragging them away from the fond care and comfort of home to shut them up in what he called a prison-house. The reverse was the fact, they were going to take children that were lost, and were living in a state of vagabondage. It was not a punishment, but an act of mercy.

MR. BAGWELL

said, the managers of industrial schools were placed to a certain extent in loco parentis, and therefore considerable confidence should be reposed in them. He did not think they ought to be required to turn children out of the schools when they arrived at the age of twelve years, and he hoped, therefore, the Committee would agree to the clause as it stood.

MR. PAGET

opposed the Amendment, observing that, as the industrial schools would be to a great extent dependent upon subscriptions, it was not probable that children would be detained in them for a longer time than was thought absolutely necessary. It was true that when children arrived at the age of twelve years a certain value attached to their labour; and he might observe that he had found employment for several boys of that age among the farmers of his district three days a-week, the alternate days being spent by them at school. This plan had been attended with very beneficial effects in the case of boys of somewhat indifferent character.

MR. ADAMS

preferred the period of fifteen years, provided by the clause, to the period of twelve years, proposed by the Amendment. Considerable experience in the administration of criminal justice satisfied him that the most dangerous period in the lives of young persons was that between the ages of twelve and fifteen, when they were so near the adult period of life that they became the companions of older and frequently of ill-disposed persons. He thought, therefore, it was most unadvisable to facilitate the discharge of children from these schools until they were fifteen years of age.

Question put, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the Clause,"

The Committee divided:—Ayes 169; Noes 59: Majority 110.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 14, (On application of manager, the parent may be summoned and ordered to pay according to his ability).

MR. BARROW

proposed an Amendment limiting the period during which the parents should be called upon to pay for their children to twelve years instead of fifteen. In many cases the child would be able at that age to contribute to the support of the family, and it was bad enough to deprive the parents of such contributions without obliging them to pay for its support, In many cases the parents were not to blame for the child's misconduct, and they ought not to be subject to fine and imprisonment unless they could in some way be connected with that misconduct.

Amendment proposed, in page 4, line 32, to leave out the word "fifteen" and insert the word "twelve" instead thereof.

MR. NEWDEGATE

reminded the hon. Member (Mr. Barrow) that, by clauses 11 and 12, the magistrates—if satisfied that suitable employment could be found for a child—had the power to order his discharge from an industrial school before the expiration of the time for which he had been sent there.

MR. KENDALL

said, he apprehended the moment this clause was passed into a law, there would be a number of kindhearted persons who would seek to fix no small part of our social evils entirely on those runaway boys, who would consequently be hunted from one end of England to the other; and, in that crusade, they would doubtless have the sympathy and assistance of the police. He submitted that if, under this Bill, they chose to take a man's child into one of these industrial schools, and to mulct his earnings—at a time, it might be, when he was already sufficiently pinched—to the extent of 3s. a week for that child's maintenance and education, such a man would become soured, and should such compulsion become at all common, it would give rise to a good deal of unpleasant feeling among the industrious classes.

MR. WALTER

said, he thought the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend the Member for South Nottinghamshire (Mr. Barrow) was a reasonable one, and, although he voted against his hon. Friend on the last division, he should support him on the present occasion. After the education and training which a child would receive in any of these industrial schools, he should be able to earn something by the time he was twelve years of age; and he, therefore, submitted that it would be unreasonable to call on the parent of such a child to contribute to his maintenance after he had attained that age. The only difficulty likely to arise from the proposition of his hon. Friend would be in cases where a child was not committed to an industrial school until after he had attained the age of twelve. Such instances, however, would probably not be numerous in comparison with the ordinary run of eases. The great majority of children seat to those institutions would, no doubt, be committed long before they had attained that age, while some would go there at a very tender age; and therefore he did not think that any practical hardship would arise to the managers of those schools by exonerating a parent from contributing to the maintenance and education of his child after it had attained the age of twelve years.

MR. A. MILLS

said, he thought this was a vital clause in the Bill, and that the proposed modification of it was not desirable. It did not appear to him that there was any good ground for apprehending hardship to parents from the operation of the clause as it stood. He contended that the refusal of parents to contribute to the maintenance of their children in these schools, when they had the ability to pay, was a difficulty which the Legislature was bound to meet. There were instances within his own experience, of parents in the receipt of 30s. a week, who scornfully refused to contribute a single sixpence towards keeping their children at school. He should, therefore, support the clause in its integrity.

MR. BRISCOE

supported the Amendment. He reminded the Committee that a boy, at the age of fifteen, might receive a commission in the army, and contended that a person ceased to be a child long before that age, and ought to be in a position, when there was a necessity for it, to earn something towards his own livelihood, and to assist his parents.

MR. MILES

said, that the criminal law had declared, in repeated instances, that childhood extended up to the age of sixteen; and, that being the case, it would be absurd to declare, as would be done by the adoption of this Amendment, that a boy of thirteen was capable of maintaining himself. He did not consider that any in-jnry would be inflicted upon the parents of such children when they repeatedly saw, in the reports of cases before the police magistrates, parents earning from 40s. to 50s. a week refusing to contribute a farthing towards the maintenance of their children, He thought that, considering the law already recognised the age of childhood as extending to sixteen, that they should not emancipate the parents from their responsibility of supporting and providing for their children under that age.

MR. MASSEY

said, this question had been substantially decided by the vote at which the Committee had just arrived, and it would be manifestly inconsistent, after having determined that no child should be detained in any industrial school beyond the age of fifteen, to say that the liability of his parent to contribute to his maintenance in such school should cease after he had attained the age of twelve. Why such liability should cease at that age was to him (Mr. Massey) perfectly incomprehensible. The principle of legislation in this matter was, that sufficient time should be allowed to operate upon a child in an institution of this kind, and those best acquainted with the subject urged that two years was the shortest possible period necessary for that purpose. He hoped the House would not stultify itself by agreeing to the proposal.

MR. PEASE

said, he thought it a great hardship, not only on the children themselves but on the parents and other children, that the children in these industrial schools should be detained in them for a period of three years after they had attained an age when they might be expected to assist in the maintenance of themselves and the family remaining at home. He begged to remind the Committee that cases might happen in which not one only, but three or four members of a family might be placed in institutions of this kind; and, he asked, who then would be left to assist in supporting the rest of the family at home? He had many and strong objections to this Bill, but he was opposed to this clause in particular, and would therefore support the Amendment before the Committee.

Question put, "That the word 'fifteen' stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 161; Noes 78: Majority 83.

LORD EDWARD HOWARD

took exception to words in the clause by which, over and above the 3s. a week which a parent was to contribute to the maintenance of his child in an industrial school, he was to be charged with the payment of other "expenses incurred respecting the child, and also the expenses of conveying the child to school." He objected to that part of the clause, because the expenses mentioned in it were unlimited, and because the payment of them would press heavily upon the poorer classes.

MR. ADDBELEY

assented to the omission of the words objected to by the noble Lord, and the words were expunged accordingly.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill; clauses 15, 16, and 17 agreed to.

Clause 18, Penalty not exceeding £5 on persons who shall induce children to abscond or remain away from school.

MR. BRISCOE

complained of the provision as being unnecessarily severe. A single justice ought not to be empowered to inflict so heavy a penalty.

MR. ADAMS

thought magistrates might fairly be vested with a discretion on such a point.

MR. BARROW

condemned the wording of the clause as singularly vague and loose, and as worse than the wildest of judge-made law.

MR. ADDERLEY

said, it had been drawn up by Sidney Turner, a very high authority on such questions.

MR. BOWYER

said, that three hours had already been occupied in Committee on this Bill, and it was now time to adjourn the discussion. There were various other Bills on the paper, the second of which was the Tenant Right Bill; and as many hon. Members were anxious to hear the statements which they expected would be made on that measure, he begged to move that the Chairman now report progress.

MR. ADDERLEY

appealed to the House against this Motion as being an indirect attempt to defeat a measure of which the hon. and learned Gentleman had not the courage openly to move the rejection.

MR. GREGORY

hoped his hon. and learned Friend would not persist in his intention. As regarded the Irish Tenant Right Bill, he believed that the proposer of it intended to make a short statement preparatory to withdrawing it.

Motion for reporting progress withdrawn.

MR. COX

thought it very hard that poor parents should be liable to a fine of £5 merely for inducing their child to remain at home, and moved that the maximum penalty be 40s.

Ultimately this Amendment was withdrawn; and Mr. ADDERLY subsequently undertook to embody it in the Bill before the bringing up of the Report.

Clause agreed to, as were the remaining clauses.

MR. ADDERLEY

then proposed the insertion of the following clause, in lieu of clause 5, (children taken into custody for vagrancy may be sent to school while inquiries are made.) When any child is taken into custody on a charge of vagrancy, under any local or general Act, the justices, on receiving satisfactory proof in support of such charge, may, if the parent of the child cannot at once be found, and provided there be any certified industrial school, the managers of which are willing to receive him, order the child to be sent to such industrial school for any period not exceeding one week, and shall direct due inquiries to be made, and notice to be given to the parent or guardian of the child, if any can be found, or to the persons with whom the child is or was last known to have been residing, the circumstances under which the child has been taken into custody, and that the matter will be inquired into at the time and place mentioned in the notice.

MR. PALK

thought this clause was a great improvement on the former one, and felt greatly indebted to the hon. Member for his efforts to conciliate the opponents of the Bill.

Clause agreed to.

MR. ADDERLEY moved the substitution of the following for Clause 7— The justices may forthwith, if the parent be found, or, otherwise, at the time and place mentioned in the aforesaid notice, make full inquiry into the matter; and may, if they think fit, discharge the child altogether, or deliver him up to his parents, on their giving an assurance in writing that they will be responsible for the good behaviour of the child, for any period not exceeding twelve months; and, in default of such assurance being given, may, by writing under their hands and seals, order the child to be detained for such period as they think necessary for his education in any certified industrial school, the managers of which are willing to take charge of him; provided, however, if within the county where the child was taken into custody, or any adjoining county, there shall be any certified industrial school conducted on the principles of the religious persuasion to which the parent of the child in the opinion of the justices shall belong, and the managers of which school Shall be willing to receive him, such child Shall be sent to such last mentioned school and not to any other. If the child, after such assurance as aforesaid being given, be brought up again on a similar charge, within the period for which the parent has become responsible for his good behaviour, the justices may inflict a fine upon the parent, not exceeding forty shillings, should it be proved, to the satisfaction of the justices, that the last mentioned act of vagrancy has taken place through the neglect of the parent. This clause, he said, he proposed in order to meet the objection of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire. That right hon. Gentleman objected to the security which was previously required from parents; all that was now provided for was the requiring a written form of assurance from parents that they would endeavour to secure the good behaviour of the child for twelve months, and if, through their negligence, he was again brought back, they were to be subject to a penalty of 40s.

MR. BARROW

thought that primâ facie evidence of vagrancy might be sufficient in the first instance to justify the remand of a child; but before he was committed to custody for a long period a formal conviction would be indispensable.

MR. ADDERLEY

deemed it one of the principal merits of the clause that it avoided the necessity for a conviction, and only required that "satisfactory proof of the charge" should be given to the justices. At the suggestion of the Home Secretary he had adopted the words of an analogous provision in the Summary Jurisdiction Act.

MR. BOWYER

objected on constitutional grounds to the wording of the clause. They ought not to call upon a parent to enter into any species of recognizance for the good conduct of his child until it had been legally convicted of some offence. Unless they insisted on such a formality they would have no safeguard against an arbitrary exercise of power by magistrates. The hon. and learned Gentleman then moved the insertion of words limiting the operation of the clause to cases in which there had been a previous conviction.

MR. BARROW

objected to the infliction of a sentence of confinement upon the child, together with a liability for its maintenance on the part of the parent, until a formal adjudication, capable of being appealed against, had taken place.

MR. MASSEY

concurred with the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Bowyer) that a conviction was a necessary preliminary to calling on the parent to give an assurance for the good behaviour of his child. Without an adjudication by the magistrates at this stage of the case the whole proceedings would be irregular and anomalous.

MR. PALK

reminded the Committee that the Bill was not a penal one, but was intended to provide for the education and care of destitute and vagrant children. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Dundalk would alter the whole scope and tenour of the measure.

MR. COBBETT

, while respecting the benevolent object of its author, could not help viewing the Bill as a very imprudent one. It was open to very grave objections, which only grew upon them as they proceeded with its discussion. He, therefore, begged to give the hon. Member for Staffordshire full notice that on the order for the third reading he meant to move the rejection of the measure. He would suggest that the Bill, after passing through Committee, should be reprinted, and an opportunity given for full consideration.

MR. MILES

quite agreed that before the parents were called upon for recognizances there should be an adjudication.

MR. RIDLEY

thought that the penal element had been admitted into the Bill to such an extent that its nature had been altered and rendered very objectionable.

MR. STAPLETON

said, the Bill created an entirely new offence. Parents guilty of no offence might be ordered to make a money payment, and on non-payment be sent to gaol as criminals. Such a provision was without parallel in the whole statute law of England. It might be a man's misfortune to have a truant child. It was not the parent but the child who was to be convicted, and upon that the parent was to be punished. He objected to this multiplication of offences.

MR. MASSEY

said, the offence of vagrancy was known to the law, and punishable by law, but before the parent could be held to recognizances the child must be convicted.

MR. ADDERLEY

objected to the general principle of the Bill being discussed in Committee.

MR. COX

, on the part of those who objected to the principle of the Bill, said he desired to alter the Bill as far as possible in accordance with their views.

MR. ADDERLEY:

I assent to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. COX

said, his objection went further. The parents were to give recognizances for the good behaviour of the child. That was unreasonable. The Bill, in truth, was a Bill of pains and penalties. It was a Bill to extend the period of imprisonment for vagrancy. The clause allowed imprisonment for such period as the justice thought necessary. He should move that it be added "not exceeding six months."

MR. ADDERLEY

assented to the Amendment.

MR. MILES

objected to the Amendment. It really involved this—that there should be no detention in a reformatory beyond six months.

MR. MASSEY

said, the hon. Member appeared to misunderstand the object of the Bill, which was simply to substitute detention in an industrial establishment for detention in a gaol. The Amendment, if carried, would frustrate the intentions of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

MR. ADDERLEY

proposed the following new clause, which was agreed to— If the child, after such assurance as aforesaid being given, be brought up again on a similar charge within the period for which the parent has become responsible for his good behaviour, the justices may inflict a fine upon the parent not exceeding 40s., should it be proved to the satisfaction of the justices that the last-mentioned act of vagrancy has taken place through the neglect of the parent.

VISCOUNT GODERICH

proposed the following clause, which was also agreed to— The time during which any child shall he lodged in any certified industrial school under this Act shall; for all the purposes of the Act of the 9th and 10th years of the reign of Her present Majesty, chap. 66, and of every Act incorporated therewith, be excluded in the computation of the time therein mentioned.

MR. GREGORY moved, after Clause 8, the insertion of the following clause— 1. And be it enacted, That no order of the manager or managers of such Industrial Schools, nor any bye-law, shall compel any inmate of any such school to attend or be present at any religious service which may be celebrated in a mode contrary to the religious principles of such inmate, nor shall authorize the education of any child in such school in any religious creed other than that professed by the parents or surviving parent of such child. 2. Provided also, that it shall be lawful for any officiating minister of the religious persuasion of any inmate of such Industrial School, officiating within the parish in which such Industrial School shall be situated, at certain fixed hours of the day, which shall be fixed by the managers for the purpose, to visit such schools for the purpose of affording religious assistance to such inmate, and also for the purpose of instructing such inmate in the principles of his religion. The clause, the hon. Member said, was copied from the new Poor Law Act. He had altered the clause in phraseology, requiring the managers of the schools to keep a book describing the religious persuasion of the child or his parents, and to permit teachers of that persuasion to have access to these schools.

MR. RIDLEY

complained that he had been unable to hear the clause read. From what he gathered of its import he considered it to be highly objectionable and should therefore oppose it.

MR. HENLEY

observed that many of the children to whom this Bill would apply had no religion at all, and was it intended that they should have no religious teaching?

MR. MASSEY

thought that if a child stated he belonged to no particular religion he would be put down as a member of the Established Church. He thought the clause was one which required more consideration than time would allow upon this occasion, and would suggest that it should be withdrawn for the present and be brought up on the Report.

MR. GREGORY

expressed his willingness to accede to that recommendation.

Clause withdrawn.

House resumed.

Committee report progress; to sit again To-morrow.