HL Deb 11 April 1889 vol 335 cc194-202

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

EARL BROWNLOW

I ask your Lordships to give a Second Reading to this Bill, which is founded upon the Report of a Royal Commission which was appointed to inquire into the condition of certified Reformatory Schools, and to report what amendments of the law were expedient. This Commission was a very strong Commission, presided over by Lord Aberdare, who was assisted by a very strong list of noble Lords. They took a great deal of valuable evidence, and sent in a very full and luminous Report, which it is hardly necessary to say has been exceedingly valuable in the framing of the Bill now before the House. At the present time there are in England and Scotland 56 reformatory schools. Of these 55 are established entirely by voluntary agencies, and one—and that one in Scotland—was established by the Glasgow Juvenile Delinquency Board. These schools, representing a national and philanthropic work, though established by voluntary agencies, are entirely under the sanction and control of the State. This condition of things the present Bill does not propose in any way to alter. The object of reformatory schools is to place young criminals of both sexes under such careful educational restraint as may tend to wean them from the vicious courses into which they have fallen upon the very threshold of life, very often not by their own fault, but through the neglect and carelessness of their parents and guardians. The Bill does not involve any great change of principle from the existing system. In the Bill introduced and read a first time last year, there was a provision in Clause 3 that the inspection of reformatory schools should remain as before under the Reformatory School Inspectors, but that there should be a further concurrent power of inspection given to Her Majesty's Inspectors under the Education Department. This proposal of dual inspection excited such opposition on the part of school managers and others, that it has been considered unadvisable to insist upon it. There therefore remained two alternatives, one to leave matters as they are, the other, to hand over these Reformatory Schools entirely to the Inspectors of the Education Department. Now, it certainly seems undesirable to remove young delinquents altogether from the control of the Home Office, and the Inspectors of the Education Department have no experience of reformatories or boarding schools. It is therefore proposed that these schools shall remain under their present Inspectors. If, however, it be thought that a higher standard should be reached, the Government will be glad to consider any suggestions in Committee. Clause 9 deals with the question of imprisonment. Opinions are divided as to whether children should always be imprisoned before being sent to a reformatory. On the one hand it is urged that the school should not be considered a punishment, and that the child should realize that punishment was over. On the other hand, it is urged that imprisonment necessarily has an injurious effect on the child. The Bill meets the difficulty by vesting a discretion in the magistrate; and Clauses 10 and 11 provide for the infliction of punishments other than imprisonment. It is provided that, in lieu of sending a youthful offender to a reformatory school, the Court may— (a) adjudge that the youthful offender, if a male, be whipped; (b) adjourn the case on the parent undertaking to punish the youthful offender to the satisfaction of the Court; (c) fine the parent any sum not exceeding one pound; (d) order the parent to pay to any per.. son injured by the offence compensation not exceeding five pounds; (e) order the parent to give security for the good behaviour of the youthful offender. No commitment to a reformatory school is to be made of children under 14 years of age, unless a previous conviction is proved. Then, power is given to the Secretary of State to order the discharge of any youthful offender from a school, but it is also provided that— Where a youthful offender is discharged from a certified reformatory school, either on the expiration of the period of detention originally allotted to him, or in pursuance of an order of discharge by the Secretary of State, he shall, during a period of two years from the date of his discharge, remain subject to the conditions specified in the First Schedule to this Act, and if, during that period, he fails to conform with any one or more of the conditions on which he was discharged, he shall be guilty of an offence against this Act, and shall, on summary conviction, be liable, in addition to any other punishment, to be ordered by the Court to be sent back to the same or another certified reformatory school, and to be there detained for any period which the Court may thin k fit, not exceeding two years from the expiration of the original period of detention. This provision will obviously be of especial value in the case of girls. Clause 20 provides that where a youthful offender has conducted himself well he may be, with his own consent, apprenticed to any trade, calling, or service (which would include enlistment in the Army) or be disposed of by emigration, notwithstanding that his period of detention has not expired. Clause 24 provides for a contribution by the Treasury to the various expenses, including the expense of emigration. County and Borough Councils are also to contribute. The only other provision which it is necessary to mention to your Lordships is that in Clause 27, which will enact that— The parent of a youthful offender detained n a certified reformatory school shall be primarily liable to pay for his support and maintenance therein. At the present time the parent is only made liable for a sum not exceeding 5s,. a week; but, if it be clearly proved that the parent can afford it, there can be no reason why the parent should not be made liable for the whole cost of maintenance of the child. I have endeavoured, my Lords, as briefly as possible, to lay before you the principal changes proposed by the Bill. It is not a very complicated measure. It is much shorter and simpler than the Bill which will shortly be before your Lordships dealing with industrial schools. I now ask your Lordships to give the Bill a Second Reading.

LORD ABERDARE

The noble Lord is quite right in saying that this Bill is, in the main, a Consolidation Bill. I rather regret that the recommendation of the Commission in favour of inspection by the Education Department has not been adopted. The noble Viscount opposite, who has filled the office of Home Secretary, must know how difficult it is to get a good selection of schoolmasters for reformatory schools. The Commission considered that the only way of overcoming that difficulty was by giving the appointment of masters to the Education Department, and giving the inspection of the teaching, so far as it was not technical, to the Education Department also. They were of opinion that the friction arising from the dual inspection would not be so great as was apprehended by some. When the Royal Commission was appointed, there was a general impression that a great many children were sent to reformatories who ought to be sent to industrial schools, and to industrial schools who ought to be sent to reformatories. A great effort has been made to reduce the number sent to reformatory schools. With respect to boys under 12, who, in the opinion of the magistrates, have been leading criminal lives, and the record of whose conduct is well known, I do not think that such boys are proper subjects for industrial schools. But I remember well that Mr. Baker, one of the greatest authorities on this subject, stated before the Royal Commission that offenders of that class have not only diminished in number, but were also exhibiting less atrocity of character. They were altogether more manageable. The number of reformatories has been lessened by two since last year, while industrial schools have greatly increased. That is encouraging. The boys who should be sent to reformatories are boys of hardened character. The enforcement of payment by the parents in England, and especially in Scotland and Ireland, has had a very beneficial influence. In Scotland the Returns show that there are a number of defaulters. In a prosperous country like Scotland there is no reason why parents should not be obliged to pay. I am anxious to interest the County Council as a contributory in the matter. As the noble Lord has said, there are a number of matters which will require careful discussion in Committee, and, no doubt, when that stage is reached it will be found possible to improve the Bill in many respects.

*LORD NORTON

The measure now before us deals only with reformatory schools, but the other half of the subject relating to industrial schools, promised after Easter, was before the House last Session, and we know, therefore, that both Bills are almost in the same words. There is no difference be- tween the schools provided by each: the only difference is between the classes of children sent to some or other of them. The second clause of the Bill before the House enables a Secretary of State to increase and multiply the classification of the subjects of these schools, and a conference of managers has suggested no less than four kinds of reformatories — for incorrigibles; for offenders who have been in prisons; for those who have not; and for very immoral girls. Two more classes of reformatories have been suggested—for troublesome cases from other schools; and for truants. Finer psychological distinctions have also been suggested, such is the tendency to multiply institutions by those who are deeply and scientifically interested. But, after all, the treatment of children in similar schools must be much the same, and though convicted children should be separated, no one can see any difference practically in the treatment of them at a reformatory or of others at an industrial school. It is a mere fancy, even if it were desirable, that any school should be made specially correctional during a child's whole education. A penal school is a horrible idea. Medicine cannot be mixed with dietary during all childhood. In the Government's view that children in both reformatory and industrial schools should be educated in a distinct Police and Home Office Department of Education, these two Bills, should be one, only indicating the description of children to be kept separately in each denomination of the schools alike provided for both. I have a Bill standing also for Second Reading which deals with both, but my Bill proposes to put all schools under the School Department. The children convicted of a crime are, after suitable and adequate punishment, proposed to be sent separately to reformatory schools; children found begging, homeless, or thrown in company with thieves are proposed to be sent to industrial schools. The Government division of the subject into two Bills will give this advantage—that the industrial school half cannot, at all events, be any longer divorced from our National School Department under any decent pretence whatever. To educate homeless and neglected children penally must cease to be a scandal to this country. Two reasons were given by the Commissioners for still continuing some of these schools under the Home Office, and they seem both extremely bad reasons. They thought the Home Office must take charge of industrial schools apart, because it was connected with the judicial and police system of the country and with the administration of prisons, as if schooling of unconvicted outcasts could have anything to do with judgment and police or schools with prisons. The other reason was that the Education Department was not fit to superintend industrial training; and that diet and domestic care of children belonged more to the Home Office. But this is just what the Education Department is now proposing to undertake for national schools in general, and, if unfit, the Department should be made fit, and not schools taken away from it to another office as more fit. Pauper children who are of the same class are boarded and educated without the stigma of police control. The Commissioners were driven to half abandon their strange reasoning, and to commend industrial schools to the joint care of both the Home and Education Departments. In this dual government they seem to have failed of official acquiescence. But they fully admitted that no reason whatever existed for day industrial schools being taken out of the School Department, or being distinguishable from schools already in it. It is the dislike of that Department as too literary, and the desire to have an independent management—though that would still be possible under separate inspection—that make the Managers cling to the Home Office as an escape from interference. It is a great improvement in the present Bill that County Councils will have power to establish and maintain all these kinds of schools, and to enforce parental liability, and for the ultimate disposition of children whom they will have educated in loco parentis. The 10th clause, for alternative treatment of reformatory subjects by whipping, fining parents, and taking security from them for better conduct of their children is admirable, and properly distinguishes the penal from the educatory treatment—for the latter sending children home whenever there is a decent home for them to go to, so that parents may not absolutely make a profit by the misconduct of their children. I think, my Lords, there are many good points in this Bill, but certainly it seems to me that before adequate justice can be done to its discussion we must have before us the other half of the Government scheme, and I shall, therefore, beg to postpone my own Bill.

THE EARL OF MEATH

I think this Bill will effect a great improvement in the legislation dealing with children of the criminal classes. There are two clauses which I am most heartily in favour of, the one which gives power to deal with girls who are leading bad lives, or are in danger of getting into evil, and the second is that providing for emigration. I am also delighted to find that the sending to reformatory schools is not compulsory, but that there are alternative punishments provided, one of which is whipping. I must express regret, however, that girls were exempted from whipping. I do not see why a girl of 10 or 12 years of age should be exempted. It is most unjust to boys. I am supported in that view by many ladies who have interested themselves in the education of girls. Miss Yonge, the authoress, has written very strongly both to me and to the public Press in this sense, as have also Mrs. Meredith, of the Princess Mary's Homes; Miss Bolton, and other ladies actively engaged in the benevolent work of rescuing children from vice. Charles Kingsley having been for most of his life opposed even to the whipping of boys, declared that his wife's experience had shown him the advantage and necessity of it in the case of children of both sexes. To my mind gross injustice is occasionally perpetrated owing to the present condition of the law upon this subject. I will give your Lordships an instance of my meaning. A short time ago, at Doncaster, a girl who gave her age as 8 was convicted of a theft of money. After she had stolen the money she invited her brother and a boy friend to accompany her to Lincoln. The boys actually did not know the money was stolen until they were in the train. They were all three captured. The brother was whipped with a birch rod; but the girl, the real culprit, was dismissed. Three days after wards she was caught thieving again. The magis- trates endeavoured to send her to a reformatory, but none would admit her, and she was again dismissed scot free. Is this justice? My lords, I call this injustice, and the very apotheosis of sentimental legislation. Such legislation is unjust, contrary to common sense and insincere. I say insincere, for if any of our own girls had at that age been guilty of such a crime we should not have hesitated to have inflicted upon her the proper punishment for a child of that age. Dr. Arnold has said very plainly indeed that in his opinion corporal punishment is of very great service with children of both sexes. Ten newspapers, several of them circulating among ladies, have also lately supported his view. Although I believe whipping to be, under certain circumstances, beneficial to boys, I am almost tempted to vote against that clause because it is unjust to them to limit the punishment to the male sex. Fear is expressed that the infliction of whipping on girls would arouse a sentimental outcry in the country. I believe there is no ground for that fear. The English people are, after all, amenable to common sense; and, in m y view, it is only common sense that a child under 10 years of age, whatever its sex, ought to be whipped.

THE EARL OF HARROWBY

I think the success of reformatory education would be most seriously imperilled if it were transferred to the Education Department. The Education Department is obliged to look principally, almost entirely, to the intellectual side of education. Reformatory teaching requires peculiar qualities, not likely to be found in the ordinary teacher. The work is very difficult and perhaps thankless, and if there is not a sufficient supply of teachers it is probably because they are insufficiently paid. I hope Her Majesty's Government will press the Bill through this Session, as we have already waited for it long enough.

LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH

It is, no doubt, correct to say that the children who are sent to these schools are not criminals, but they differ very much indeed from the children who attend ordinary schools. They have not had honest methods of bringing up, but exactly the reverse. Therefore, the education in these schools must materially differ from that in ordinary schools. The aim must be to wean the child from bad and criminal habits. I hope the Government will adhere to the methods of inspection which are proposed by the Bill. It would be a great misfortune if these schools were left to the inspection of the officers of the Education Department, who might be disposed to take too mechanical a view of their duties.

VISCOUNT CRANBROOK

There seems to be really no opposition to the Second Reading of this Bill, and the principal point referred to in the course of the discussion has been that of where control should be. I differ from the noble Lord's (Lord Norton) views and take a very strong view against removing these schools from the control of the Home Office. It is not necessary at this stage to discuss that question, but I thought it right to say this much, as my noble Friend behind me seemed to think that his views, so far as industrial schools went, met with the acceptance of the Government.

*THE EARL OF MILLTOWN

I should like to ask the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill why it does not extend to Ireland? I notice that provisions are made for extending it to Scotland, and I think the same ought to be done with regard to Ireland. I am especially anxious that the discretionary power given to the Court with regard to sending children to prison before they go to a Reformatory should be possessed by the Courts in Ireland, as I have the greatest objection to young children being sent to gaol when it can be possibly avoided.

EARL BROWNLOW

I certainly cannot consent, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, to the introduction of any clause providing for the whipping of girls.

Resolution agreed to.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to the Standing Committee for Bills relating to Law, &c.