HC Deb 22 November 1906 vol 165 cc1010-2
MR. J. WARD

I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has made inquiries into the committal, at Gateshead, of William Maughan, aged six, to an industrial or penal school for ten years; whether he can give the number of such similar committals of infants under six years of age throughout the kingdom last year, and say whether, in the case of William Maughan, it was a first offence, and if not, how many previous convictions had been recorded against him, and what was the nature of his offences; and whether the father is bound to pay 1s. 6d. per week for such detention; and, if so, whether, in view of the present wages of the father and the number of his family, he proposes to take any action in the matter.

MR. GLADSTONE

I have made inquiry into the case referred to. The number of children under six years of age committed to industrial schools in 1905 was seventy-five. Industrial schools are in no sense penal schools, and the boy Maughan was not convicted but committed to be brought up in the school because he was found begging in the streets and his home surroundings were of a very unsatisfactory nature. He had not been previously committed or convicted. The father was ordered to pay 1s. 6d. a week while the boy is in the school; he has the right to apply to the magistrates to reduce this sum if he desires to to do; and I cannot take any steps in the matter. The course adopted by the Court in committing the boy to the school was, I consider, in the boy's best interests, but I shall have periodical reports made to me upon the case.

MR. J. WARD

Arising out of that Answer, I would like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is aware that at this Police Court in Gateshead during last year, although there were only seventy cases in the whole country since May last, parents have been proceeded against for arrears under similar orders where children have been kidnapped and have suffered imprisonment amounting in the aggregate to forty-five and a half months in one year.

MR. GLADSTONE

I will consider the facts which the hon. Member has given me, but if he wishes to put a fresh Question perhaps he will give me notice.

MR. J. WARD

I wish to ask whether during his investigation of this case the right hon. Gentleman has not become painfully aware that this appears to be a regular practice of this Court and probably there are more convictions of this description——

* MR. SPEAKER

Order, Order! The hon. Member ought to put that on Paper.

MR. BOWLES (Lambeth, Norwood)

Is it a fact that parents can be and are sent to prison for failure to pay these fines running week by week, and may I ask whether the Tight hon. Gentleman is aware that at this particular Court parents were sent to prison at the rate of one per week in the last year.

MR. GLADSTONE

I am not aware of that particular practice at this Court. As to the general question of the hon. Member, that raises a question affecting industrial schools generally, and I cannot deal with it in the form of an Answer to a Question.

LORD ROBERT CECIL (Marylebone, E.)

The right hon. Gentleman has not said whether they can be and are sent to prison for not paying these arrears.

MR. GLADSTONE

I believe that is so.

MR. J. WARD

I wish to ask whether it is possible for magistrates to send a boy —a baby of six years of age—to a reformatory for ten years with no convction whatever against him.

MR. GLADSTONE

That is a question arising under the Act. I am not prepared to say that the Act in every respect is perfect. It is true that this boy had committed no offence, but I take it that the action of the Court was in the direct interest of the boy, because his whole surroundings were distinctly unsatisfactory and he had been sent out by his father to beg in the streets.

MR. BOWLES

What was the charge against this unfortunate parent on which he was deprived of his child for ten years?

MR. GLADSTONE

I have not the terms of the charge in my mind. I think there is a misapprehension in the minds of some Members. This case was an industrial case and not a reformatory case.