HC Deb 13 June 1888 vol 327 cc62-72

(Mr. Dugdale, Mr. Whitmore, Mr. Wharton, (Mr. Curzon, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Mark Stewart.)

COMMITTEE. [Progress 6th June.]

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 2 (Youthful offenders may be sent to certified reformatories without the imposition of a term of imprisonment).

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 24, to leave out from "by" to end of Clause, in order to add "justices of the peace acting in and for the petty sessional division of the county, or in and for the borough, where the offender was convicted.

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

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 (Temporary detention).

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, it appeared to him that by the clause they were departing from what had been the system of criminal administration. Great care ought to be taken as to the places where persons were to be temporarily detained; in fact, there was an elaborate system by which all prisons were under the supervision of the Home Office. Under this clause there was to be a system of private prisons, which were to be under no supervision, so far as he could make out. He was quite aware that such a system as was proposed was in operation in respect to industrial schools; but he did not think his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Dugdale) would dispute his statement, that there was a broad distinction between industrial and reformatory schools. Reformatory schools were only intended for those against whom there was some charge of a criminal nature. He begged to move the Amendment which stood in his name.

Amendment proposed, In page 1, line 29, leave out the words from "direct" to "therein" in page 2, line 2, and insert "remand such offender."—(Mr. Tomlinson.)

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

MR. DUGDALE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)

said, he could not accept the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend. The clause which had just been passed provided that on a child being convicted, the magistrates might send him straightway to a reformatory school, and Clause 3 was intended to provide for cases where a reformatory school could not be found at the time. His hope and expectation was that when this Bill was passed, Benches of Magistrates would have a register of the vacancies which existed in reformatory schools, so that when a child was convicted of an offence they would know where he could be sent. The clause provided for the temporary detention of a child in some place, not a prison, until a reformatory school could be found to which he might be sent. The effect of the Amendment would be that the child would be remanded to a prison, and that would defeat the whole object of the Bill.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the Nuneaton Division of Warwickshire (Mr. Dugdale) was humane and laudable, but he could not help thinking that his sentiments had run away with him. The hon. and learned Gentleman seemed to have made a confusion between the two classes of schools. An industrial school was a place to which a child whom it was desired to save from crime was sent; whereas a reformatory school was an establishment to which a child already criminal was sent. It was, therefore, wrong to treat industrial and reformatory schools on the same footing. The Bill provided that when a child had been convicted be was to be sent to some undefined place. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson) was quite right in saying that they ought to know something about the place to which children were to be sent, not only in the interest of the children themselves, but in the interest of the community at large. As the child came from the place of detention, there was no hardship in sending him back to a place of detention.

MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)

said, he should like to hear further from the promoters of the Bill as to what place they had in view in which children should be detained. Did the words "not being a prison" refer to the lock-up at Petty Sessional Courts? He was quite sure that if the offenders were not remanded, the only place they could be safely sent to was the lock-up, and he should, therefore, strongly support the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston.

MR. WHARTON (York, W,R., Ripon)

said, he wished to point out that the clause was only permissive; it was not compulsory on the magistrates. If the offence was sufficient to warrant it, the magistrate would order the culprit to be sent to prison, and thence to a reformatory. Their object was to prevent the child becoming what was known as a "gaol bird," and to allow him to be detained at the house of the Superintendent or Inspector, or as the magistrate might decide, until the reformatory school was ready to recive him. That, again, was simply a permissive and not a compulsory power, which they wished to confer on the magistrates.

MR. PICTON (Leicester)

said, there was a tendency among hon. Gentlemen supporting the Amendment to exaggerate the difference as between children sent to a reformatory school and those sent to an industrial school. At a reformatory the children had indeed been convicted of crime, but they were really of the same character as those sent to industrial schools. A largo number of them were very young children, whom it was almost a crime to send to gaol, and there was in the country a growing feeling against this being done. He hoped the Committee would support the clause, and not accept the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson). It was right, in his opinion, that discretion should be given to the magistrates, and if they found before them a boy of 14 years of age, whom it would be dangerous to send to the workhouse, he thought it was well to allow them to send him to prison. On the other hand, in a case where there was considerable hope of improvement in the future, surely it would be a right thing to allow the magistrates to send the child to the workhouse or some other place, where he could be securely kept until he could be sent to the school.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, if, as it was contended, the power was optional, the Bill itself should say what the alternative was to be.

MR. DUGDALE

said, it was practically in the discretion of the magistrate, and the words were taken from the Industrial Schools Act, 1866. By that Act, if there were no poor house at a convenient distance, the child was to be detained in such other place, not being a prison, as the magistrate thought fit. These words of the Act he had incorporated in the present Bill. No doubt, some person could be found to whom the magistrate would be willing to entrust the child for safe custody until a reformatory was ready for him. He would be sent sometimes to a place in the neighbourhood, or sometimes to a workhouse, as the case might be. If they thought that the child ought to be sent to prison, they could send him there; but he hoped that in many cases they would be able to send him direct to a reformatory. A case had occurred within his own knowledge of a boy who stabbed a man in the street, and so nearly killed him that he would have died had he not been within a very short distance of a neighbouring hospital. The boy was sent to prison for 14 days and then to a reformatory; but, from the circumstances, he (Mr. Dugdale) would have been glad if he could have sent him to a reformatory at once, but was unable to do so owing to the state of the law. That case, in his opinion, showed the necessity for a clause of this kind.

MR. WHARTON

said, the hon. and learned Member for Preston did not take note of the fact that a remand was ordered during the progress of a case. But they were dealing here with a case that had been concluded.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, he wanted to know what was the alternative, seeing that the clause was optional? He understood his hon. and learned Friend to say a short time ago that it was a remand, but now he said it was not so.

MR. DUGDALE

said, the clause gave power to detain the offender until he was sent to a reformatory.

MR. TOMLINSON

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman had not shown the alternative to sending him to prison while he was waiting to go to a reformatory.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

said, he did not see the difficulty suggested by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston, because the magistrate, under the Act, would have power if necessary, and if nobody could be found to take charge of the child, to give him a short term of imprisonment in order to keep him in custody. As he understood the clause it gave the magistrate permission to omit the sentence of imprisonment, but it did not prevent him from inflicting it; if he was able to find a person to take charge of the offender it would not be necessary to put him in prison; but if it be necessary he would be able to do so.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARMENT (Mr. MATTHEWS) (Birmingham, E.)

said, in order to meet the doubts of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston (Mr. Tomlinson), he would point out that the Bill did not repeal the existing Reformatory Schools Act, under which the magistrate was called upon to sentence the boy, at any rate, to 10 days' imprisonment or longer, before he ordered him to be sent to a reformatory. In a really criminal case the magistrate would act upon that power, and sentence the boy to imprisonment during the time that a reformatory school was being found. The most obvious place to send him to was the prison, and that remained in the clause. If, however, the boy was one who, as the magistrate thought, ought not to become a gaol-bird, because it would prejudice his chance of improvement and progress in life, the alternative was given to him of sending him to some place other than a prison, while a reformatory was being found which could receive him—not necessarily the workhouse—where he would be taken care of. He thought his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Preston was right in saying that if the boy was under sentence there was no power of remand—to have a remand after sentence was rather a startling proceeding. He might be allowed to say that he was placed in considerable difficulty in respect of this Bill, all the provisions of which he had already included in a much larger measure that he had hoped ere this to have laid before the House. The hon. and learned Gentleman in charge of the Bill would, therefore, excuse him for saying that some of the points of the Bill were unnecessary.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

asked, where was the child to go, supposing that a magistrate sentenced him to a reformatory school, and could not find a charitable institution or workhouse to take charge of him while the school was being found?

MR. J. H. A. MACDONALD

said, the magistrate, before he sentenced a child to a reformatory, might be expected to ascertain whether he could carry out the sentence. By the law in Scotland, which in this matter he supposed to be the same as in England, the magistrate had power to sentence the offender to a few days' imprisonment in order to ascertain some necessary facts. The position of an unconvicted person in prison waiting for trial was quite different from that of a convicted person. The character of the former was not affected in the same way as it would be if he were convicted and then sent to prison.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, the Amendment he was about to propose was intended to modify the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend, who believed he could find a refuge for these young criminals in the workhouse. From the point of view of the Boards of Guardians the Committee would understand that this was not a satisfactory proceeding. He, therefore, asked the Committee to agree to this Amendment, which saved the rights of those who managed workhouses, by providing that no master of a workhouse should be authorized by the section to admit an offender to the workhouse except with the sanction of the Board of Guardians. He had proposed that this should be confirmed by the Local Government Board; but apparently those who represented the Department did not wish to have that duty cast upon them, and, therefore, he would move the Amendment as it stood on the Paper, which he trusted the Committee would accept.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 6, at the end, add—"Provided that no master of a workhouse shall be authorized by this section to admit such offender to the workhouse except with the sanction of the Board of Guardians."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there added."

MR. DUGDALE

said, this was a reasonable proposal, and he was willing to accept it.

SIR ROBERT FOWLER (London)

said, that where a Board of Guardians met once a fortnight, it would be very inconvenient for the magistrate to have to wait for 10 days or more before the offender could be sent to the workhouse.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, it was not meant that the Board of Guardians should pass a resolution in each particu- lar case; it was intended that general consent should be given.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4 (Removal of offender to certified reformatory school).

SIR JOHN DORINGTON (Gloucester, Tewkesbury)

said, there did not appear to be anything in the clause to show who was to take charge of the offender for the purpose of delivering him to the superintendent of the reformatory, and, therefore, he thought that some Amendment was required. It was true that the clause followed the wording of the old Reformatory Schools Act, in which the gaoler delivered the person into the custody of the superintendent; but the gaoler was, at the time the Act was passed, an officer of Quarter Sessions, whereas he was now an officer of the Crown. The offender, however, was not to be placed in his custody, but in charge of someone else—the master of a workhouse or a private individual. Now it was certain that the Reformatory Schools had no staff to send about the country after the boys committed to them, nor had the workhouses any staff to conduct the boys from thence to the reformatory. He would therefore move the insertion of words to meet this point.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 9, after the word "the," insert the words "of the police, who shall deliver the offender into the custody of the."—(Sir John Dorington.)

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

MR. DUGDALE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)

said, the clause had been drawn on Section 15 of the Reformatory Schools Act of 1866, and he could hardly appreciate the difficulty of his hon. Friend with regard to there being no officer of the reformatory to take the child from the person to whom the magistrate delivered him. The Act of 1866 provided that the gaoler, having in his custody any offender, "should at the appointed time deliver him into the custody of the superintendent of the reformatory school;" and he had followed it up by saying that the person to whom the offender was sent— Shall at the appointed time deliver such offender into the custody of the superintendent or other person in charge of the school in which he is to be detained. His hon. Friend wished to put the policeman in the place of the superintendent or officer of the school; but he did not see that there was any great difficulty in the superintendent or officer of the school taking charge of the boy at the place to which he had been sent. There was no harm, so far as he knew, in the police taking charge of the boy, but certainly it seemed to be unnecessary.

MR. J. G. TALBOT (Oxford University)

said, his hon. and learned Friend did not appear to see the force of the Amendment. Supposing that a child was sent under the Bill to the workhouse before going to the reformatory school; as the clause stood, it would be for the officer of the workhouse to take the child from the workhouse, and deliver him at the reformatory school, which might be a long distance away. The object of his hon. Friend who moved the Amendment was that the child on his way to the school should be in the hands of an officer of justice, and not of some casual person in whose care he might temporarily have been. The Amendment appeared to him very reasonable, and he hoped the Committee would accept it.

MR. DUGDALE

said, he perceived there might be a difficulty in the case where the offender was sent from the workhouse to a reformatory school, perhaps in another county, and was, therefore, willing to agree to the Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5. (Expense of conveyance and maintenance).

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

asked if it would not be necessary to bring in a Money Bill to carry out the provision of the clause, that the expense of conveying the offender should be defrayed by the prison authority within the district of conviction?

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

said, he thought the clause was right as it stood; at any rate, in Scotland all the expense of conveying a prisoner to the place where he was to be finally confined was borne by the prison authority of the district in which the conviction took place.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 6 (Escaping from places of detention) agreed to.

Clause 7 (Penalty on persons inducing offenders to escape).

MR. J. G. TALBOT

said, that two months seemed hardly an adequate term of imprisonment to correspond to a money penalty £20, and as the maximum term of imprisonment was rarely imposed, it would end in the practice of only a month's imprisonment being usually inflicted for offences so serious as inducing young offenders to abscond, or harbouring them when they had absconded.

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, leave out the word "two," and insert the word "six."—(Mr. J. G Talbot.)

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

MR. DUGDALE (Warwickshire, Nuneaton)

said, he thought the hon. Gentleman could hardly be aware that two months' imprisonment was the maximum term that could be imposed under the Industrial Schools and Reformatory Schools Acts.

THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. J. H. A. MACDONALD) (Edinburgh and St. Andrew's Universities)

said, he had an Amendment to move to substitute the word "Court" for the word "Justices."

THE CHAIRMAN

said, in that case the Amendment before the Committee would have to be withdrawn.

Amendment by leave withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. J. H. A. MAC-DONALD, the following Amendment made:—In line 11, leave out the word "Justices," and insert the word "Court."

Amendment proposed, in page 3, line 11, to leave out the word "two," and insert the word "six."—(Mr. J. G. Talbot.)

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

MR. TOMLINSON (Preston)

said, that they were entitled to some more solid reason against this Amendment than had been given by his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Dugdale),when he referred to the penalty in the existing Acts. There might be many cases in which it would be worth while to get the boy out of the way; and as he took it that the Bill was intended to be largely acted upon, he thought the Committee ought to support the Amendment of the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. J. G. Talbot), which he should do if it went to a Division.

An hon. MEMBER said, he should like to point out that under the Summary Jurisdiction Act a fine not exceeding £20, or not exceeding two months' imprisonment, was imposed on the person who concealed or assisted an offender to escape. If, therefore, the Amendment were agreed to, they would have in force two Acts of Parliament at variance with each other.

MR. DUGDALE

said, it would be very inconvenient to insert in the Bill a term of imprisonment different from that which was provided under the Act of 1866, and he, therefore, felt bound to oppose the Amendment.

MR. RANKIN (Herefordshire, Leominster)

said, that this was a most merciful Provision, and in the interest of the children themselves, and in order that the system might have a fair chance of working, the penalty on anyone who frustrated the object of the measure ought to be a very severe one. He should, therefore, support the Amendment.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 260; Noes 61: Majority 199.—(Div. List, No. 148.)

Preamble read, and agreed to.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered upon Wednesday next, and to be printed. [Bill 295.]