HC Deb 14 July 1858 vol 151 cc1431-6

Order for Committee read.

House in Committee.

Clause 7 (Manner in which Juvenile Offenders are to be dealt with.)

MR. GROGAN

said, he entertained an objection to the wording of the clause. The idea of requiring a profession of faith from young destitute children, who had either lost or been deserted by their parents, and whose heads were not as high as the table, was perfectly absurd. There was no such provision in the corresponding Act for England, and he should therefore move that it be expunged, with a view to insert words directing that the juvenile offender should be sent to such a Reformatory as his parents or guardians should select, with the permission of the magistrates before whom the conviction had taken place.

Amendment proposed,— In page 3, line 42, to leave out from the word "offender" to the words "previous time," in page 4, line 7, in order to insert the words, "or to such Reformatory as the parents or guardians of such offender shall select, with the sanction and permission of the Judge or Justices before whom such offender shall have been convicted first had and obtained for that purpose: Provided also, that the;" and after "imprisonment," insert "to which such offender shall have been sentenced.

MR. BAGWELL

said, he hoped that the hon. Member would not persevere with his Amendment. The object of the framers of the Bill had been to prevent everything in the shape of proselytizing by either the one party or the other; and the intention was, that there should be one Reformatory for Roman Catholic children and another for Protestant children.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, that gentlemen of the strongest Protestant opinions in the south of Ireland were in favour of the separate system, and there was not the slightest fear that Protestant Reformatories would not be established under this Bill. The measure would be a curse instead of a blesing if magistrates were not strictly prohibited from interfering with the religion of Roman Catholic or Protestant children.

MR. GROGAN

said, he fully concurred in the propriety of keeping the children of different religious persuasions separate from each other. The words which he proposed to insert in the clause would, he thought, give the greatest freedom of choice to parents and guardians, with the consent of the Judge, as to the particular Reformatory the child was to be sent to. Formerly, when deserted children were found in the streets, the Roman Catholic police of Dublin always placed them in charge of Roman Catholic nurses, who had them baptized according to the rites of their own Church. His Amendment was also intended to prevent the renewal of that practice.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, that abuses might have been committed by zealots on both sides; but this measure had been studiously drawn with a view to banish suspicions which would be fatal to the well-working of these institutions. The offenders to whom the Bill applied would be of fourteen, fifteen, and even sixteen years of age; and there would be no difficulty in ascertaining their religious persuasion.

MR. VANCE

contrasted the words of the Amendment with the original clause, for the purpose of showing that the former would render clear and intelligible what was vague and uncertain in the latter. The clause spoke of the religion in which it might appear that a child had been baptized. How could a child appear to be baptized? Supposing there was no distinct evidence of the child being of any religion, he thought that it should be considered a child of the State. He believed that if the clause were to pass in its present shape it would lead to a system of proselytism of the worst form.

MR. SPAIGHT

said, he trusted that this Bill, which had been very favourably received by the whole community in the South of Ireland, and which was very much needed, would be allowed to pass.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause,"

The Committee divided:— Ayes 42; Noes 15: Majority 27.

MR. GROGAN

said, he would then move to leave out that part of the clause which would give an appeal from the decisions of magistrates. He thought the language of the clause imputed to magistrates conduct with which they were not chargeable.

MR. BAGWELL

said, he should support the power of appeal.

MR. GROGAN

said, the law was not so in England, and the object of their legislation was to assimilate the law of both countries.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

said, it was not unreasonable to give a power of appeal in these cases. Every magistrate might make a mistake, and inserting those words did not cast a slur upon their conduct.

LORD NAAS

said, he saw no reason why an appeal should not be allowed.

MR. BARROW

supported the clause, and said he thought it would lead to an improvement of the English law in that respect.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 8 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15 (Power to Magistrates to order Parents to contribute to the support of their Children to the extent of 5s. a week).

MR. P. O'BRIEN

said, he thought the clause required some explanation, as 5s. a week would be a very large sum for a man who only earned 9s. or 10s. a week to contribute.

MR. BAGWELL

said, the object of the clause was to prevent parents getting rid of their children in order that they might be supported and educated at the public expense. He thought it might well be left to the discretion of the magistrates to ascertain whether the parents of children were able to contribute to their support.

MR. WALPOLE

said, he hoped the Committee would not consent to any proposition to omit the obligation imposed by the clause upon parents.

Clause agreed to, as was also Clause 16.

Clause 17.

MR. BLAKE moved, in page 8, line 30, to leave out the words "House of Correction or Common Gaol," and insert the words "Debtors' Prison." His object was, that parents failing to contribute to the support of their children, should be sent, not to the common gaol and treated as felons, but confined in the debtors' prison.

MR. J. D. FITZGERALD

objected to the Amendment.

MR. BAGWELL

said, he wished to intimate that the promoters of the Bill would permit the latter part of the clause, rendering parents liable to imprisonment for the non-payment of their children's maintenance in a Reformatory, to be struck out on the Report.

MR. SPAIGHT

said, he would go further than the Amendment, for he thought there was no necessity for incarceration whatever. If it was proved that a man had no goods or chattels, what was the use of imprisoning him?

MR. BLAKE

said, he should, nevertheless, press his Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the clause."

The Committee divided:— Ayes 94; Noes 1: Majority 93.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, the division was taken between two gaols, but he thought incarceration unnecessary. There was quite sufficient protection to the public in the fact that the parents had property to be seized for any arrears that might arise, and he thought the poor of Ireland would not risk the loss of their furniture for the non-payment of a few shillings a week towards the maintenance of their children in Reformatories.

MR. SPAIGHT

said, he fully concurred with the last speaker. The clause was so penal in its nature, and so oppressive to the poorer portion of the population, that at the proper time he would support its omission altogether.

MR. BRADY

considered that it would be harsh to send a man to prison and make him herd with convicts because he had not contributed to the support of his child. He would, therefore, appeal to the author of the Bill to give up the power of imprisonment altogether.

MR. BAGWELL

said, he was willing to substitute "ten days" for "three months," but he could not go further.

MR. BARROW

said, the question now before the House was how long the party should be imprisoned. He thought three months was an extravagant period, and he proposed to substitute ten days, as in the English Bill. It was found from experience that short terms of imprisonment were more efficacious than long ones.

Amendment proposed to leave out the words "three months" and insert "ten days."

MR. BLAKE

opposed the Amendment. He said that in the town which he represented (Waterford), there was a model lodging-house, and some tradesmen clear in £l or £1 10s. a week, had sold their furniture and gone into that model lodging-house, defying their creditors, who were without a remedy. He would not send debtors into the same gaol with felons, but he would send fraudulent debtors to prison.

MR. P. O'BRIEN

objected to a man being imprisoned in a common gaol for a debt. He should move an Amendment to that effect on the bringing up of the Report.

MR. STAPLETON

said, he could not conceive anything more repugnant than the proposition contained in the clause to send the parent to a felon's gaol. However, he understood that the noble Secretary (Lord Naas) had agreed to omit the latter part of the clause.

LORD NAAS

said, he thought that, if the period were limited to ten days, there could be no possible objection to the clause.

MR. GROGAN

thought that if imprisonment were done away with it would be perfectly futile to attempt to make the parent pay.

Amendment agreed to; Clause agreed to.

Remaining Clause agreed to.

House resumed; Bill reported, as amended, to be considered To-morrow.

Back to