REFORMATORY SCHOOLS (re-committed) BILL. (Hansard, 30 July 1866)

§ LORD EDWARD HOWARD
moved an Amendment, the object of which was to add "godfather or godmother" to those— parent, step-parent, guardian, or nearest adult relative—who might apply to have an offender removed from a reformatory school that was not, to one that was, conducted according to his religious persuasion.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
appealed to the noble Lord to state on what principle the Amendment was based?

§ LORD EDWARD HOWARD
thought the right hon. Gentleman ought to explain the omission of those who stood next to the parents of a child.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
said, that the point had been raised on the Poor Law 1688 Bill, and the power vested in the Poor Law Guardians, who, however, had nothing to do with reformatory schools. No one ever heard of a Church of England godparent interfering in such a case; Dissenters baptised without sponsors; and, therefore, this was a claim on the part of Roman Catholic godfathers and godmothers. Of these there was no recognized registry, and therefore the priest would declare whom he liked to be godparents. Nothing was better known than that the ministers of no sect, that no class of persons, were so unscrupulous in proselytism as the Roman priesthood. The proposal was a plea for liberality where it was not necessary, and it was part of an organized system of Roman Catholic aggression. It was a singular fact that the Members of that House appeared to be very much behind the intelligence of the world at large upon this subject. This continued Ultramontane system of aggression was felt, and the necessity for resisting it was recognized by the Justices of the Peace and by the Poor Law Guardians of this country. It was perfectly understood in Italy, in Germany, and in France, not to mention other European countries. The agency by which these social aggressions were carried on in this country were well known. One of the principal of these was the Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which advertised its proceedings in bazaars, and other means for the collection of money. All this was done under the plea of charity, but charity was only a plea. This was perfectly understood in Paris—nay, it had been avowed by the members of this Ultramontane society themselves. In a very remarkable work published by M. Cayla, about three years ago in Paris, the passage, of which he would read a taanslation, occurs. After describing this Society of St. Vincent de Paul as a revival of formulary societies, all under the direction of the Jesuits, but under different names, and showing that M. Ozanan, who was called the founder of the society in France, was merely the reviver of this society, M. Cayla writes— Yes! Charity is to the Society of St. Vincent de Paul what the instruction of youth is and ever has been to the disciples of Loyola, a sure means, efficacious, latent, mysterious, but incessantly working for the advantage of Ultramontanism. Frederick Ozanan had at least the merit of frankness the day on which he said to the Florence Conference (of the society, in 1853), 'Charity is the pretext, Catholicism is the aim).' Let us make no mistake. Such a monopoly of charity may become a formidable power, particularly with the avowed aim of causing the idea of the tempo- 1689 ral power (of the Papacy) to triumph; that is to say, Jesuitism, for there is an abuse of language in these words that ought to be observed. The power of this Society of St. Vincent de Paul became so great in France, and so dangerous to the Government, that, when M. de Persigny was Minister of the Interior, he had issued a decree for the suppression of this society; but the decree seemed not to have been permanently effective. To show that this society was and had for some time been operative in this country as in others, he (Mr. Newdegate) must refer to another French author, M. Habenech, who, in 1861, had published a work entitled Les Jesuites, in which he refers to this Society of St. Vincent de Paul, which he calls a sect. It now remains to ascertain to what number of persons this sect amounts; but our knowledge on this point is defective. A member of the society informed me that in France they amounted to 40,000 active and affiliated members: this amount we know to be below the fact. We have only one statistic which we can make use of, which is their receipts, and which, in 1859, amounted to 4,736,241 francs. If we take the numbers given in this statistic, they have as chief seats for Government, or direction, belonging to the Conferences, in France, 831; Belgium, 301; Germany, 98; Sardinian States, 67; British Isles, 27; Spain, 179; Ireland, 42; Low Countries, 75; Scotland, 11; Italy (States of the Church), 26; Algeria, Colonies, United States, Parma, Modena, Malta, Tuscany, 51—total, 1,708. This Ultramontane agency had largely increased since 1861 in this country, as was notorious to every person who chose not to shut his eyes to what appeared in the newspapers—especially the Roman Catholic newspapers—and it was as the representatives of this agency that the Roman Catholic Members of that House were seeking opportunities for its aggression upon and proselytism within the reformatory schools through the intervention of that House. The claims of alleged Roman Catholic godfathers and godmothers would lead to endless disputes, and, as Roman Catholics had reformatories of their own to which children of their faith could be sent, he objected to the Amendment as calculated unnecessarily to introduce discord and confusion in Protestant reformatories.

§ MR. MONSELL
thought the Committee would be very glad to get rid of these religious discussions. The hon. Gentleman 1690 had spoken of an organized system of aggression; the only question which they ought to consider was whether there ought not to be some organized system of defence. It was notorious that a number of Roman Catholic children in the metropolis were being brought up in the Protestant religion contrary to the wishes of their parents, and all that was asked was that this should be remedied. God forbid that any attempt should be made to interfere with the religion of Protestant children. He did not believe that any Member of the House, except, perhaps, the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, would say that a system of proselytizing children was legitimate on whatever side it was attempted. If the hon. Gentleman wished to proselytize in this way, let him get up boldly and say so; but, if not, he surely could not object to so reasonable a proposal.

§ MR. KNATCHBULL - HUGESSEN
thought it did not matter much whether the words proposed were inserted or not, as in any case application might be made to the Secretary of State, who would judge whether the transfer should or should not be made. He was inclined to think that the words should be inserted, but did not think they ought to raise a religious discussion on the subject.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, that if this Bill merely applied to England, he might not object so much to the Amendment; but, as the Bill also applied to Scotland, he wished to point out how the words proposed to be inserted in the clause would injuriously affect the interests of the poor in Scotland. Persons unconnected with any church, or who had never joined any church in Scotland, went to the Roman Catholic priest in that country to have their children baptized. If the children did not belong to a particular denomination they could not be baptized according to the Protestant faith, but the Roman Catholics thought they were conferring a benefit by baptizing the child. The consequence of this was that in many large towns there were a very large number of children baptized according to the Roman Catholic faith, merely because their parents did not belong to any particular Protestant denomination; and if these words were inserted the result would be all the nominal godfather's and godmother's of the children might claim them as being Roman Catholics, merely because of their having been baptized by the Roman Catholic priest. This 1691 would act injuriously to the interests of the poor people, who did not belong to any particular Protestant denomination in Scotland, and whose children had consequently to be baptized by the Roman Catholic priest, and therefore he trusted that the words would be either refused altogether, or the operation of them would not be extended to Scotland.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
remarked that it was altogether a mistake to suppose that the names of godfathers and godmothers of Catholic children were not entered in the register of baptisms. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire had asserted that priests would themselves assume to be godfathers and godmothers.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
explained that he had only said they would claim to be godfathers.

§ SIR GEORGE BOWYER
said, that assertion was quite as absurd as the other. There was no such thing as a priest standing as godfather to children in his own parish, the whole question was whether this clause were to be carried into effect or not. As to talking of the guardians of these children, you might as well talk of their bankers. With regard to the children referred to by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, if their godfathers and godmothers were not Catholics, they would of course not require them to be sent to Roman Catholic reformatories.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
could not help thinking that rather more was made of the expected operation of the clause than it really deserved. The Committee should remember that the 12th clause, which had been passed, provided that the authorities should endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion to which each juvenile offender belonged, and so far as possible, selection should be made of a school to which to send the child, which was conducted in accordance with the faith of the religious denomination to which the child belonged. The authorities, however, in the absence of any guide, might make some mistake; and the object of this clause was to rectify any such error, by enabling the parents or guardians of the child to come forward for that purpose. He would move two Amendments to the clause which he hoped would carry out the desired object and meet the views of the Committee generally. He moved, in place of the words "parent, step-parent, or nearest adult relatives," contained in the clause, the insertion of the words "parent, step- 1692 parent, or guardian; or if there be no parent, step-parent, or guardian, then the god-parent, or the nearest adult relative." The next Amendment would be, having allowed those persons to go before the Justices to show to what denomination the child belonged, to give power to the Justices that they "shall, upon proof of such offender's religious persuasion, comply with the request so made." He believed those Amendments would solve the difficulty and make the clause quite fair.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, he should not hesitate to support the Amendments proposed by the Attorney General. He regretted that the subject of godfathers and godmothers had been introduced into the discussion. They were not to be found in the Irish Reformatory Act. As the clause had been drawn up by the late Home Secretary, with the approval of the Under Secretary, in order to meet the claims of the Roman Catholics, he thought there could be no reason for altering it. He was as desirous as any man that justice should be done to the Roman Catholics; but he did not concur with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick, that the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel was required to protect Roman Catholic children from contamination. ["No, no!"] [Mr. MONSELL: I never said that.] He had taken down the right hon. Gentleman's words, and he understood them to be, "The object we have in view is not to interfere with Protestant feeling, but to protect the Catholic children from contamination." [Mr. MONSELL: No; from proselytism.] He would at once accept the right hon. Gentleman's statement of the word he had used. He did not, however, think, that the Amendment was required to protect those children from contamination. ["Oh, oh!"] He begged pardon—from proselytism. The hon. Member for Dundalk had ridiculed the idea of casting any suspicion on the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. Now, he did not himself know anything of the constitution of that society, but seeing that it had been condemned by the Catholic Government of France, he thought the hon. Member was not justified in saying there was no ground for caution in respect of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul. No one would object to the suggestion of the Attorney General; but he thought the Amendment of the noble Lord was not called for.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
observed, that in the 1693 framing of the Bill there was a desire to introduce as little innovation as possible in the law as it now stood. At this period of the Session it would be impossible to make such innovations, especially on religious points, in respect of which the House of Commons was so sensitive. He thought the proposition of the Attorney General would meet with general approbation; but he trusted that hon. Members would refrain from attempts to alter the law.

§ MR. CANDLISH
thought it safer to adhere to the clause as it stood.

MR. HENLEY
hoped the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel would be withdrawn. He was extremely sorry it had been proposed. The object of the clause was to enable magistrates to transfer from a reformatory not in connection with his religion to one in connection with the religion to which he belonged any child who, in the first instance, might have been sent to a reformatory of the former class. He thought any magistrate would act on the clause as a matter of course.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the question before the Committee was not the suggestion of the Attorney General, but the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel, and the question was should that Amendment be withdrawn.

MR. BRUCE
suggested that as in the Roman Catholic Church the names of the godfathers and godmothers were registered with the names of the child and its parents, the testimony of the former as to the child's religion would be the most valuable that could be given next to that of the parents.

§ MR. KINNAIRD
asked the right hon. Gentleman whether he forgot that there was such a country as Scotland, where among the great mass of the people there were no godfathers nor godmothers.

MR. BRUCE
replied that as in Scotland the Roman Catholics were 7 per cent of the population, while in England they were only 3 per cent, there was more reason for some such provision as he had advocated in the former country than there was in the latter.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
observed, that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell) had spoken as if the discussion were due to him (Mr. Newdegate); but he must remind the right hon. Gentleman that it had been raised by the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel and those of other Roman Catholic Members. There 1694 was a new phase of opinion to which these hon. Gentlemen were attempting to give effect in that House, and this was that if on such occasions as the present a Protestant Member ventured to oppose a proposition coming from a Roman Catholic Member, his opposition was treated as an unfortunate instance of Protestant irritability. Every such opposition was to be cried down by some hon. Gentlemen who called themselves Liberal as an insult offered to Roman Catholics. This was a new phase of Parliamentary proceeding. The Roman Catholics were represented as being the most sensitive persons in the world. Well, they were if they had not their own way; but their religion was known to be the most intolerate in the world. He would cite an instance of an attempt at Roman Catholic proselytism which had appeared before the Law Courts not more than some months ago. He (Mr. Newdegate) would read from a summary of the proceedings, which could be authenticated— Mrs. Pettindreigh is the wife of a solicitor's clerk, the mother of a family, and a Protestant. In the month of June, 1861, Mrs. and Mr. Pettindreigh hired the apartments of a Mrs. Kennedy, then occupying No. 50, Carlton Street, Kentish Town, London, and it is important to our narrative that Mrs. Kennedy was a Roman Catholic. There was kindness and apparently friendship between Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Pettindreigh. It was Mrs. Pettindreigh's habit to send her children to the Sunday school. Mrs. Kennedy, without consulting the parents of the children and without their knowledge, took the children to the Fortess Terrace Dominican Chapel, and a girl of four years of age was rebaptized by the priest. The Committee may hence understand how the Roman Catholic priests manage these baptisms. Now, in the case of this child Pettindreigh, no doubt some sort of sponsors were employed. Were such the persons whom the Committee intend to decide the religion of the child if sent to a reformatory or industrial school?
Such was Mrs. Kennedy's zeal for the faith, and such her disregard of parental rights. When Mrs. Pettindreigh made the discovery she was naturally indignant. From that hour Mrs. Kennedy and Mrs. Tigar, also a Roman Catholic, began a system of persecution which they continued for years. Mrs. Pettindreigh was openly charged with almost every moral and some criminal offences; her name was introduced into obscene songs, and these were sung opposite her door. Her children were subjected to every possible kind of indignity, and, in the presence of the mother, one of these women 'opened the little boy's mouth, spat in it, and called it a bastard.' The mother was constantly met in the street with terms of reproach, 1695 opprobrium, and insult, and on one occasion violently assaulted. Mr. Pettindreigh's attempts to obtain protection from police magistrates were unsuccessful. A. series of libels were concocted and written, one of these by a Mr. Charles Morris, which appeared in the columns of a morning newspaper. The matter in due form was brought before the Guildhall Police Court, when Mr. Morris, through his solicitor, admitted the falsehood of his statements, and made the very extraordinary defence 'that he (Morris) had acted entirely on his moral and religious principles, and that he believed he was doing a good action.' The apology and retractation were accepted, and the case ended. The libel by Mr. Morris was a trifle compared with the anonymous libels addressed to the landlords of the various lodgings occupied by the Pettindreighs. One of these libellous letters was the subject of a civil action tried before Mr. Justice Smith in the Court of Common Pleas on June the 30th of last year. This was the case of Pettindreigh v. Tigar. The jury could not agree, the dissentient juror being, it is alleged, a Roman Catholic. On the second trial, the case, by consent, was deferred, and Mr. Alfred Wills was appointed arbitrator. The evidence was voluminous and conclusive against the defendant. At the close of a three days' trial Mrs. Kennedy came forward and avowed herself the author of the libel. The results were, as we stated last week, an award in favour of Mrs. Tigar, and the subsequent conviction at the Old Bailey of her coadjutor, Mrs. Kennedy. The Pettindreighs were subject to persecution of an extraordinary and malignant kind, extending over nearly five years. The facts of this remarkable case have been deposed to on oath, and the witnesses subjected to the ordeal of cross-examination. He (Mr. Newdegate) adduced this case for the benefit of those hon. Members who treated lightly the statement that most unscrupulous proselytism was extensively carried on in this country by the Roman Catholic priesthood and their agents; and for the particulars he referred them to the evidence taken when the subject was brought before the courts in the several trials to which the persecution of Mrs. Pettindreigh and her children had occasioned. The facts were illustrative of a system against which the people expected to be guarded by law. An organization existed in this country, that of St. Vincent de Paul, which had proved very troublesome in the adjoining country of France in political matters, and its evil influence was spreading to a considerable extent. According to the statistics laid before the French Government, there were in the British Isles twenty-seven Conferences in the year 1861, but since then they had greatly increased both in this country and on the Continent. Under these circumstances, the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Arundel would be very prejudicial to the 1696 reformatory schools, and he felt it his duty to oppose it.

§ MR. M'LAREN
objected to the insertion of the words "godfather or godmother," because the god-parents would precede the nearest relatives. Besides, the clause stated that on the application of the godfather not that the magistrate might comply with the request, but that he should do so.

MR. KNATCFIBULL - HUGESSEN
said, it would be the duty of the magistrate to act impartially, and determine, according to the evidence brought before him, whether he should accede to the application of the god-parent.

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
thought that no harm would come of them because they were guarded by the words "upon proof of such father's religious persuasion."

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
wisked to know whether the statement of the god-parents as to the religion of a child were to be received as coming from a guardian.

§ MR. GATHORNE HARDY
said, the clause empowered the magistrate to send the child to the school connected with the religion of the child's nearest relative, in the event of an application to that effect being made to the parent or next relative of the child.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
asked, whether it would not be much better to adhere to the original wording of the clause? He quite agreed with the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for North Staffordshire, and preferred it to that of the Attorney General.

§ MR. CHICHESTER FORTESCUE
defended the principle of securing the child from being brought up in any religion but that of its parents or next of kin.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
denied being actuated by illiberal feelings in defending the clause as framed by the Attorney General.

§ MR. SYNAN
reminded the right hon. Baronet that he had himself introduced the words "godfather and godmother" into the Reformatory Bill.

MR. HENLEY
moved the omission from the clause of the words "or justices or magistrates having a like jurisdiction," on the ground that it would be very inconvenient to give magistrates who had taken no previous part in the matter power to interfere.

§ MR. AYRTON
remarked that the Bill provided that on discovering the religious persuasion of a child in a reformatory they should have him sent to a reformatory for children of his own religion. But they could not have one magistrate pronouncing judgment and another reversing it.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, the whole object of the clause was to correct a mistake. A boy might be sent to a wrong school because the magistrate had not evidence before him that was clear. It appeared that mistakes had been made, and he knew that many mistakes had been made, and the object was to give time to find out the truth.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, it was most important that the Committee should know who had charge of the Bill. The question of the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets demanded attention, but he could look to no one in particular from whom to expect an answer. Much difference of opinion seemed to exist on the Treasury Bench with respect to the Bill; he had expected, from what had fallen from his right hon. Friend the Member for North Staffordshire, that he would have voted in the same lobby as himself; indeed, the Chairman would be justified in calling his right hon. Friend to the table and questioning him as to whether he had not voted in the wrong lobby by mistake. Under the circumstances, he thought it desirable that the Government should have time to consider the Bill with a view to decide whether they would adopt it or not, and he therefore moved that the Chairman report Progress.

§ SIR ROUNDELL PALMER
defended the clause, and urged that this was a very innocent clause, and that the words objected to were merely to make plain what went before, and gave justices power to amend any mistake that might have been made.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
hoped the right hon. Baronet would not press his Motion for reporting 1698 Progress. This was a very important measure, and he himself did not grudge any time that had been spent upon its consideration. The right hon. Baronet was under an unintentional error in supposing that there was any difference of opinion on that (the Treasury) Bench upon this point. It was one upon which they had made up their minds.

§ SIR ROBERT PEEL
said, that after the appeal made to him he would not press his Motion. The House, however, had a right to know who really had charge of the Bill.

§ MR. WALPOLE
said, he regarded the Bill as one of great value, and he had therefore adopted it, with certain alterations. It was in perfect harmony with the legislation adopted two or three days ago with respect to workhouses.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, it had been found by experience that fourteen days was too short a period for the correction of any mistakes that might have been made, and it was desirable in the interests of all parties, whether Roman Catholics or Protestants, that a little further time for consideration should be allowed. He proposed, therefore, in line 23, to leave out the word "fourteen" and insert "thirty."

§ MR. POWELL
moved an Amendment, the object of which was to keep the law in its existing state. If the clause were agreed to in its present form, it would be impossible to fix the parent or guardian of the child with a weekly charge without going a most circuitous route. He proposed to keep the law in its present form on this subject, retaining a power to the magistrate at the time the child was sentenced to decide what sum, if any, was to be paid for the maintenance of the child during the period it was in the reformatory.

§ MR. AYRTON
thought the clause an oppressive one, and that it would be pregnant with very great evil. They had no right to call upon poor people to pay for the maintenance of their children in a reformatory, when no law existed for people 1699 in other grades of society to pay for their children while in prison for committing a crime.

§ MR. ADDERLEY
said, it was the principle of all the Reformatory Acts that the parents or guardians should contribute to the support of their children. If nothing had to be paid towards the maintenance of these children, it would be an incentive on the part of the parents to neglect their children in order to get them into an establishment where they would be kept free of cost to them.

§ MR. POWELL
would not press his Amendment after what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman below him (Mr. Adderley), but he regretted that any changes in the law should be made which would lead to unnecessary expense.

§ LORD EDWARD HOWARD
proposed an Amendment to the effect that the names of the children should be recorded in a book kept for the purpose.