HC Deb 09 August 1881 vol 264 cc1382-3
MR. PASSMOER EDWARDS

asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in considering the Memorial sent to him on the 17th June 1881, by William Atkins, praying for the release of his daughter Rebecca Atkins, from custody under the amended Industrial Schools Act, the careful consideration of the facts included any testimony offered by the relatives of the child; if, considering the Report of Assistant Police Commissioner William Harris (85,386), and dated 29th April 1881, to the Chelsea Vestry and the resolution of the Vestry at a subsequent date, he will now accede to the prayer of the said Memorial; and, whether he approves of the apprehension of children without summons or warrant, and of the conduct of the police in this case, who prevented the child seeing her parents during the ten days of her confinement before the order of detention was made by the magistrates?

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT

, in reply, said, this matter was not, as seemed to be suggested by the Question, a subject connected with the police at all. It was a proceeding by the School Board under the Act of 1866, which gave power to any person to bring before two Justices a child under the age of 14, who was either in the condition of begging or wandering about without proper abode. Last year that clause had been extended to the case of female children of tender years, who were found in brothels, with the effect of saving them from degradation and crime. Under that Act proceedings were taken in this case by the School Board officer. The police had nothing to do with the matter, except to give evidence as to the character of the house in which the child was found. The magistrate was satisfied with the evidence, and the child was ordered to go to an industrial school, and he had no reason to think that the proceeding was an improper one. As far as he knew, there was nothing to complain of in the case; but, of course, if there had been any mistake as to the character of the evidence, and if the evidence were refuted, it would form a ground for the discharge of the child.