COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 19 June 1867)

§ MR. BAGWELL
said, this was a kind of supplementary Reformatory Bill which enabled the authorities to take up vagrant children and put them in industrial schools where they would be maintained at the public expense. The principle was good, but the means of carrying it out were wrong. Under the present law parents who neglected their children were liable to punishment. Nor was it fair that paupers in workhouses should be maintained out of the poor rates, and the expense of maintaining these vagrant children be thrown upon the county cess. Some provision might be made by which these children should be taken to the workhouse and brought up there, but he could not support a plan for taking these children and putting them in a sort of second reformatory.

§ MR. VANCE
said, he agreed in thinking this a very objectionable Bill, and there would have been many remonstrances from Ireland against it but for the way in which it was drawn. It professed to follow the English Bill on this subject, but the circumstances of the two countries were very different. There was such a mass of pauperism in Ireland that if this Bill were carried out in its present state the rates would be increased to a burdensome extent. Beyond that the country generally would be put to expense, as under the Bill the Commissioners of the Treasury were empowered to contribute money for the maintenance of these vagrant children. He objected to the Bill, also, because it would give an impetus to monastic institutions. The result of the working of the Bill would be that in the city of Dublin at least the monastic schools would be increased at the public expense. The grand juries of counties, on the other hand, would not be ready to adopt it. The rates already being 8s. in the pound, he moved that the House go into Committee on the Bill on that day six months.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
seconded the Amendment.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, that the monastic school of Ireland received the support of every friend of industrial education. They 118 were, indeed, the best institutions in the Empire for the education of the people. His hon. Friend (Mr. Bagwell) was mistaken in supposing that vagrant children could be sent to the workhouses under this Act. The workhouses were not and could not be made industrial schools. He was not aware of any law compelling parents to support their children. In England juvenile vagrancy had been almost put an end to by the establishment of industrial schools in 1851. Statistics showed that there was a large and increasing amount of juvenile vagrancy in Ireland, which called for a measure of this kind to meet it. The law of England in relation to industrial schools ought to be extended to Ireland so far as it was applicable to the circumstances of that country. The benefit which the Bill proposed to confer upon the children of the poor ought to outweigh any considerations urged on the part of the ratepayers. It was absurd to say that the Bill would be a premium on the desertion of children by their parents; for the latter, if they were living in the country, would be liable for the support of their children in these industrial schools. In Committee a clause might easily be inserted in the Bill for dividing the rate for the support of those institutions between the landlord and the occupier.

LORD CLAUD HAMILTON
said, he admitted that it was an inconvenient course to oppose the Bill at that stage, but the necessity for doing so arose from the fact that the hon. Member who had charge of the measure (The O'Conor Don) withheld all explanation of its objects and his reasons for introducing it. In moving the second reading, he only addressed the House at the close of the discussion, when he quoted from a Report with respect to juvenile delinquents in Ireland in a manner calculated to create an erroneous impression on the subject. The criminal statistics of Ireland were not unsatisfactory. Tramps and vagrants, untainted with actual crime, could not fairly be included among juvenile delinquents. There were institutions in existence ready to receive these young persons — the poorhouses, large buildings almost empty, but having attached to them schools, masters and mistresses, chaplains of all denominations, and a machinery available for giving industrial instruction. Why should not the existing appliances now dormant be utilized, before they saddled the already highly-taxed people of Ireland with heavy burdens for additional 119 establishments? He regarded such legislation as both ridiculous and unnecessary. He traced a great portion of the evils of Ireland to the lack of common sense views and a practical spirit among so many of its representatives.

LORD NAAS
said, that from all he could learn he was bound to state that he did not think there was any very general demand for the measure, or any great necessity for it in Ireland. The opinion of many gentlemen actively engaged in working the reformatory system in that country was that the reformatories now in existence were sufficient to meet the requirements of the case, and that it was not necessary for the general well being of the country to supplement them by industrial schools. But seeing that a Bill similar to the present was in force in England, and believing that there was no very substantial reason for preventing the measure from being further discussed, he was disinclined to oppose its going into Committee. The principles on which the measure rested had been sanctioned by Parliament for England and Scotland, and it had not yet been shown that they were inapplicable to Ireland. If in Committee it should be found that there were any Amendments necessary to render the Bill more suitable to the peculiar circumstances of the country, he should support them. No doubt vagrancy existed at one period to a great extent in Ireland, arising probably from the poverty which existed there; but it had greatly diminished, if it had not nearly disappeared. He was of opinion that the provisions of the Bill would be adopted only in large towns, and that the great apprehended expense from its general adoption throughout the country would act as a bar to its operation. As a further cheek it was provided that before any institution could be established the proposal must receive the assent of the grand jury, and must also be ratified by the Chief Secretary, so that there was little danger of useless expense being incurred. The Bill was entirely permissive, and though he did not anticipate that advantage would be largely taken of its provisions, still he did not think there was a sufficient reason for impeding its further progress.

THE O'CONOR DON
said, he had to express his acknowledgments to the noble Lord for the spirit in which he had met the measure. He was ready to accept suggestions for its improvement in Committee. As to the course he had taken in 120 conducting the Bill to its present stage, it had been before the House for a considerable time, and not a single notice of amendment had been given. It was simply the extension to Ireland of a legislative measure which had been tried and approved in England. In introducing the Bill at an early period of the Session, he had fully explained its purport, and regarding the measure as one of a simple character, he had not thought it necessary to offer any observations in moving the second reading. If there had been anything unusual connected with the measure, it was the opposition now offered to the Speaker leaving the Chair.