SECOND READING. (Hansard, 27 July 1857)

§ THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY
said, there were a great many institutions in the country for the reception of criminal children, and it was very desirable to encourage the establishment of industrial schools to which vagrant children should 436 be admitted who would otherwise be trained in habits of vice. This object was proposed by the Bill of which he now had charge, and which was originally introduced in the other House by Sir Stafford Northcote, but was afterwards (Sir Stafford not being returned to the present Parliament) taken up and passed by Mr. Adderley. The provisions of the Bill were entirely of a voluntary character, but these institutions would be entitled, on being duly certified, to the receipt of grants from the Privy Council. Parents were made responsible for the good behaviour and might be called upon to contribute to the maintenance of their children while in these schools. He hoped their Lordships would feel no hesitation in giving this Bill a second reading, and in Committee such alterations could be introduced as were thought necessary.

LORD BROUGHAM
said, the loss to this and every other good cause by the non-return of Sir Stafford Northcote to Parliament was great, but his place, so far as regarded this measure, had been well supplied by Mr. Adderley, who in carrying the Bill through the other House had struggled successfully against considerable difficulties. As to its details there might be some doubt, but there could not be the least with respect to its principle. A noble Friend of his (Lord Stanley) whose absence from this House he rejoiced at, inasmuch as he could not sit here until his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) was no more, had taken a very active and useful part in the discussion upon this Bill, the subject of which was very minutely considered at the great meeting at Bristol, over which Lord Stanley had with such ability presided. He (Lord Brougham) hoped there would be no objection to the second reading.

§ THE EARL OF DERBY
entirely approved the principle of the Bill, but as probably he should not be in the House when it was in Committee, he wished to call attention to the definition of the word "parent," which was made to include any one upon whom an order of affiliation had been made. That certainly was introducing a new definition into our law, and he thought the point worthy of consideration.