MR. T. M. HEALYI beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that the Nenagh magistrates recently committed to industrial schools the children of two widows, on the ground that they were destitute, and without visible means of support; will he state by whose orders the children were turned out of the schools, and were afterwards dropped out on the railway platform at Nenagh without anyone to look after them (their mothers having left), and without having a home to go to; were any steps taken beforehand to quash the magistrates' order as illegal, and is there any official machinery for superseding such orders without appeal or resort to legal tribunals; is he aware that the Nenagh justices then a second time committed the children to industrial schools, on the ground that they were found wandering, and not having any house or settled place of abode or proper guardianship or visible means of subsistence; was this commitment an act within the jurisdiction of the justices; if not, was it quashed by any competent tribunal; does the order remain on record as a valid commitment, and by what authority did the Castle officials once more command the managers of the schools of Birr and Galway to turn the children out; is he aware that a lad of eleven years was in consequence deposited for the second time on the platform at Nenagh, having neither a home nor friends to go to, and that the sisters of mercy in charge of the Birr Industrial School refused on the second occasion to turn out the little girls; will he state who is the official responsible for overruling a legal decision; on what powers is he proceeding; and do the Government propose to take any steps in the matter.
§ THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. G. W. BALFOUR,) Leeds, CentralThis question appears to refer to the cases of four children, three girls and a boy, who were committed to industrial schools by the magistrates at Nenagh Petty Sessions on the 25th February last, the ground of commital stated in each case being that the child was destitute 182 and an orphan. The orders of committal were not only contrary to fact, the mothers of the children being alive, but were bad in law, since they were not in accordance with the form prescribed by Statute. The magistrates were afforded an opportunity of amending the Orders, but the Chairman stated it was impossible to amend them so as to bring the cases within the Act of Parliament. In these circumstances I had no alternative but to direct the discharge of the children. This was done by me on the 10th of April. The boy left the school on the 26th of April; he was accompanied by one of the Christian Brothers to Limerick and there handed over to a person to be conveyed to Nenagh. On his arrival at Nenagh he went to his sister, who was in domestic service. On the 29th of April an application was made to the magistrates for his recommittal, as well as for the recommittal of the three girls who, I may observe, were still detained in the industrial school and were not, as a matter of fact, discharged from the school until the 5th of May. On the 6th of May the magistrates recommitted the four children on the ground that they had been found wandering and had no visible means of subsistence. The mothers of these children, who on the occasion of their first committal were described as orphans, disappeared when the order for their discharge was issued on the 10th of April. Having carefully reviewed all the facts of the cases, I was forced to the conclusion that the situation of the children in having on the second occasion been found wandering and without visible means of subsistence was the result of an arrangement deliberately designed to qualify the children for admission to an Industrial School, and did not arise from a natural course of events. I, therefore, again exercised the authority vested in me by the 33rd Section of the industrial Schools Act of 1868, by ordering the discharge of the children. Neither of the Orders was quashed. One was on the face of it bad and made without jurisdiction, and the other was obviously procured by the contrivance I have mentioned.
MR. T. M. HEALYWhat tribunal decided that these Orders were bad in law? On what ground does the right hon. Gentleman presume to exercise the authority of a court of justice?
§ Mr. G. W. BALFOURThe Industrial Schools Act gives the Chief Secretary absolute discretion to discharge children.
MR. T. M. HEALYBut what tribunal decided that the Orders were bad in law? What tribunal has power except the Court of Queen's Bench?
§ MR. G. W. BALFOURThat is not the question. The Chief Secretary has the power.
MR. T. M. HEALYThat is not my point. The magistrates made the Orders, and the right hon. Gentleman has stated that they were bad in law. The right hon. Gentleman is not the law. The only court with power to review the Orders is the Court of Queen's Bench. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks the Orders are bad in law, why does he not direct his Attorney-General to quash them?
§ MR. G. W. BALFOURThe Chief Secretary is actually empowered to discharge the children. Of course he acts on the advice of his legal officers.
MR. T. M. HEALYI ask what tribunal decided that the magistrates' order was bad. I did not ask the right hon. Gentleman whether or not he had power to discharge the children, but by what authority he decided that the decision of two magistrates was bad in law?
§ * MR. SPEAKERThe right hon. Gentleman has answered the question.
§ * MR. SPEAKERHe has said that no Court overruled the decision of the magistrates, but that he has acted under an Act of Parliament which empowered him to discharge the children.
MR. T. M. HEALYI will call further attention to this matter. I do not question his discretion to discharge. What I have questioned is his right to describe the Orders as illegal. Is he a new Removable Court?