§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESasked whether, in the course of an inquiry into the administration of the Heswall reformatory school and certain charges of cruelty against the Superintendent of the School, it had been established and so found by the Under-Secretary that canings contrary to the regulations and with a cane too large for its purpose had been inflicted; that in the case of twenty-seven boys permanent scars had resulted from canings or birchings; that on one occasion in 1909 the Superinten- 2077 dent kept all the boys in the school standing by the side of their hammocks from ten o'clock at night till five the following morning; and that in the month of November, 1909, he directed some of the boys at the school to throw fifteen pails of cold water over a lad named Palmer; and whether the Superintendent against whom these charges have been established still retains his appointment?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIf the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Report of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State he will find that charges of cruelty against the Superintendent were not substantiated; that the substitution in certain cases of the cane for the legal regulation punishment of the birch was done under a belief that it was a humaner form of punishment; that in two cases during the first five years the Superintendent has inflicted punishment outside the regulations, for which he is censured. On the other hand, he will find that high tribute is paid to the excellent and self-sacrificing work which the Superintendent has been doing at Heswall, to his successful efforts to reduce the number of corporal punishments, and to the very great physical and moral improvement—as testified by external and internal evidence—in the condition of the boys. I am sending the Report to the Managers, but under these circumstances I see no reason to recommend the dismissal of the Superintendent. My hon. Friend has recommended some general investigation into the Government regulations and present practice of Reformatory and Industrial Schools; and I hope shortly to appoint a strong Departmental Committee to investigate these matters.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIGAre we to understand that that part of the question which says that: "On one occasion, in 1909, the Superintendent kept all the boys standing by the side of their hammocks from ten o'clock at night till five the following morning" is not true?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt certainly is true, but the whole matter is fully described in the report, which goes into the matter at great length and in the most minute detail, and which I have now presented as a Parliamentary Paper.
§ Mr. CHARLES CRAIGHow does the right hon. Gentleman justify the retention of the Superintendent who was guilty of conduct of that kind?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLI think if the hon. Member read the report he would be in a better position to put questions on the subject.
§ Mr. W. P. BYLESThe right hon. Gentleman says he has no power to remove the superintendent; then with whom does the power lie——
§ Mr. CHURCHILLThe power rests with the managers of the schools. The Home Office may decline to send any more boys there. But as it is now, however, in a very good condition, I do not propose to adopt that course.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESDid the right hon. Gentleman advise the school committee to dismiss the superintendent?
§ Mr. CHURCHILLIt is a very delicate question, and I have given it very considerable attention, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary gave many days' personal examination to the subject, and we came to the conclusion that we should not be justified in making an example of this officer in view of the circumstances of the case.
§ Mr. ATHERLEY-JONESIn consequence of the answers of the right hon. Gentleman, I shall have to ask leave later to move the adjournment of the House.