[BILL 47.] SECOND READING. (Hansard, 4 May 1870)

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he had long felt that something ought to be done in fairness and justice for a class of persons who could not help themselves, more especially since it—allowing something, of course, on account of the infirmity with which its members were afflicted—was one which might by education be rendered eminently useful, and it was for that reason quite as much as from any sympathetic feeling which he might have for either the blind or the deaf and dumb, that he had been led to propose legislation in that direction. As he well knew the value of time on such occasions, and as he most probably would have, in consequence of the Notice put upon the Paper by the hon. Member for Clitheroe, another opportunity of addressing the House, and as in themselves the clauses evidenced fully the principle and construction of the Bill, it would probably be the better course at once to recapitulate those clauses, leaving statistical information out of the matter for the present; but he could assure the House that he had by him amply sufficient of such statistical results to prove a very; strong case indeed, should it be asked for or desired. The 1st clause, then, provided that wherever a Board of Guardians was asked by the parents of an indigent blind or deaf and dumb child to send it to school, it should be compulsory on the guardians, under certain conditions, to 247 comply with that request. The 2nd clause provided that where the parents had neglected their duty to the child, the Board of Guardians might, if it thought fit, step in and provide the necessary education; and the 3rd clause provided that part of the expense should be borne by the guardians and the other part by the parents, or by some one on their behalf. There was also a clause in the Bill, which provided that every child so sent to an institution should be kept there up to the age of 18 years. The remaining clauses had reference to the inspection of blind and deaf and dumb schools. He trusted that the House would, out of consideration for those whose humble advocate he was, permit the Bill to be read a second time.

§ MR. ASSHETON
said, that in moving that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, he wished the House to understand that he did not object to the education of the blind, but to the particular scheme advocated by the hon. Member for Leeds. The hon. Member, in moving the second reading, had not explained what was meant by the word "poor" which occurred throughout the Bill; but from the context of the measure he (Mr. Assheton) inferred that "pauper" was the correct term. The object of the measure was doubtless good; but he took exception to the means, which he thought not only unsatisfactory but injurious. More than mere details were involved in the Bill. There was the old question of drawing the proper distinction between the dishonest and the honest poor. By one of the clauses, a child of bad character and of dishonest parents was placed in a better position than many children whose parents were honest though poor. With regard to the provision that the Board of Guardians should agree with the parents to pay a portion of the cost of educating the child, he would refer to the 4 &5 Will. IV.—the Magna Charta of the poor—which he took as his stand-point on this question. According to that Act, the Board of Guardians were bound to provide schoolmasters, and the Commissioners were authorized to make such rules for the regulation and management of the poor in workhouses, and the edu- 248 cation of children, as they might think proper, for the guidance of the Board of Guardians; and a Select Committee of that House, sitting from 1862 to 1864, reported favourably of the working of that enactment. The Act of 1862 provided that guardians of a Union might send any poor child to a school, and might pay out of the funds of the Union for the education and clothing of the child such a sum as did not exceed the total amount which would be paid for the relief of the child had it remained in the workhouse during the same period; and the term "school" was interpreted to mean, amongst others, institutions established for the benefit of the blind, dumb, deaf, deformed, and idiotic persons. Such was the present law, and the Committee reported that it had acted satisfactorily. Again, the Bill of the hon. Member had included only the blind, deaf, and dumb. For his own part, if this class of unfortunates should be educated by the State, he saw no reason why the lame, deformed, and idiotic should not be educated as well. Then there was the general question, which had been frequently raised, whether it was the duty of the State to provide education and maintenance for all poor children? If this Bill became law, there would be no need of private charitable institutions. Those who relied upon the doctrines of political economy might prove that it would pay to make blind persons become industrious and money-earning members of the community; and, on the other hand, it might be argued that, as it was the duty of parents to provide for those of their children who became afflicted, so it was the duty of the State to stand in loco parentisto those who had no parents able to support them. He desired to hear the opinions of the Government on this matter; because, if the Bill passed, they would have control over the matter, and, in his opinion, such a large question ought not to be dealt with by so small a Bill.

§ MR. M'LAREN
said, he regarded the Bill as an attempt to do too much good; 249 but he must draw a distinction between the blind on the one hand, and the deaf and dumb on the other. He thought that the blind were deserving of greater commiseration, because being deprived of the faculty of sight they were deprived of one of the means most essential to self-support. In the large institution at Edinburgh the system of allowing the patients to live within the building had been abandoned, and the blind children were encouraged to go to ordinary schools in the first instance, where they derived great advantage from association with other children. The schoolmasters received additional pay for teaching such scholars, which was a very simple matter; and it was found that the cost of such a system was far less than if the children were sent to blind asylums. He thought the Bill contemplated too much expense, and he should be glad to see it referred to a Select Committee, for the purpose of being reduced to smaller dimensions in this and other respects.

§ MR. W. JOHNSTON
approved of the principle of the Bill; but he objected to the machinery for carrying it into effect. In Belfast there was an admirable institution for the blind, at which children were maintained and. educated for £12 a year—a sum very little more than their cost in the poorhouse. It was the duty of the State to interpose between the cupidity or carelessness of parents or negligent guardians, and compel the guardians to interfere on behalf of these afflicted children. He thought that, if the House agreed to read the Bill a second time, it should be referred to a Select Committee.

§ MR. SYNAN
said, he also approved of the principle of the Bill, and he would not have taken part in the debate had not the Bill been extended to Ireland. He desired to point out that the Act recited in the Bill, giving power to certify, did not apply to Ireland; that further, that the Bill did not provide that the institution or school to which a child was sent should be conducted on religious principles according with those of the child's friends. If the Bill was read a second time he should prefer to see it referred to a Select Committee, in order to make its machinery more effective.

§ MR. DICKINSON
said, no one could oppose the Bill without regret, because of the character of its object; but he 250 could not agree to the introduction of Poor Law machinery for the relief of those who did not properly come within its scope. The education of the blind was a matter rather for private benevolence than for public legislation.

§ MR. A. PEEL
on behalf of the Government, hoped the House would not consent to read the Bill a second time. There were insuperable objections to the machinery of the measure. Its whole tendency was to make it compulsory on the guardians to do what they already had a discretionary power of doing. The hon. Member, who moved the second reading, had failed to show any good reason for the interference of the Legislature on this subject; he had confined himself to the sentimental argument that these children ought to be wards of the State. The Bill named £24 as the minimum sum which the guardians might pay for the maintenance and education of a blind child. This was extraordinarily high, for the ordinary cost of a child in a workhouse, or district school, was about £16. It was true that expensive appliances were necessary for deaf, dumb, or blind children; but the sum mentioned would form a very heavy charge on the already overburdened ratepayers. By the 1st and 2nd clauses the guardians were compelled to provide for pauper children; and under the 3rd clause the guardians might extend their relief to children for whom partial contributions were made by other people. The effect of that would be to pauperize and disfranchise the parent. In fact, it was a permissive enactment to bring as many children as possible within the influence of pauper action. Other objections to the Bill were that it did not provide for repayment to the guardians of any part of the sum they might be called upon to disburse under it, even where the parents might be able and willing to contribute towards the support of their blind children; and that there was no reference to denominational schools.