REFORMATORY AND INDUSTRIAL SCHOOL CHILDREN BILL.—(No. 125.) (Hansard, 5 June 1891)

LORD MONKSWELL
My Lords, this is a Bill which has been successfully piloted through the House of Commons by my hon. Friend Mr. Howard Vincent. The Bill is very short and simple, but the changes it proposes to make in the law are great. They are changes, however, which I think your Lordships will unanimously agree should be carried out. The Bill proposes to abolish the right of parents of children in Industrial and Reformatory Schools, where they have been maintained and educated for a time, to have those children home again at the end of their period of detention, which, in the case of Industrial Schools, is until they are 16, and, in the case of Reformatory Schools, until somewhat later in life. Your Lordships will observe that this Bill does not in any way interfere with the wishes of the children themselves. There is nothing in it to prevent children going home if they wish to do so. The only object of it is to prevent parents compelling children, against their wish, to go back to homes where, possibly, they will be taught extremely bad habits, and be placed in circumstances which will lead to their relapsing into crime. The principle of this Bill has been already conceded in a Bill which has passed this Session, namely, the Custody of Children Act; and the measure is substantially a reproduction of certain clauses in the Reformatory and Industrial Schools Bill, which was passed by your Lordships' House last year. I need scarcely say that the present state of the law is really a matter of despair to the managers of schools. They too often see that the care they have taken in the instruction and moral education of the children who have been in their charge has been absolutely lost in the present condition of the law. I observe that in the memorandum to this Bill statistics are given from the well-known Reformatory School at Feltham, 1697 and I may say that I know something of that school, as I am Chairman of the Committee of Management. It is an exceedingly large school, containing over 900 boys. Two hundred of the boys are out on license. I may point out that the statistics put forward from this school are valuable, because we have special opportunities of finding out the future career of the boys for three years after they have left the school. We have an officer whose duty it is to follow up the boys for that period, and there are hardly any of them who escape his vigilance. The statistics are, therefore, absolutely truthful. We find that out of 1,000 boys who are sent back to their homes after the expiration of their period of detention, 169 relapse into crime; whereas of the same number of boys who are sent to some employment by the managers of the school, or are sent elsewhere, and thus preserved from the contamination of their homes, only 69 relapse into crime. That is to say, the law itself in its present condition deliberately makes criminals of 100 out of every 1,000 of those boys who are sent home from that school. Under those circumstances, it is, your Lordships will admit, stating no more than the fact to say that the law itself, after having provided for these children being taken out of the gutter, and for their being fed and clothed and educated at great expense to the public in these schools, obliges them to go back into the gutter;' where so many of them relapse into crime. In Great Britain there are about 1,500 boys sent back every year to their homes from industrial and reformatory schools; that means that the state of things which I have described, namely, sending boys back to become criminals against their own wish, putting them into temptation which they would gladly themselves get out of, affects as many as 150 boys a year. That is to say, the law itself deliberately makes 150 boys into criminals, who, if the law was altered, would be converted into respectable citizens. You may do three things with the boys going from these schools—you can either send them home to their parents, who have, in too many cases, driven them to commit petty thefts in order to get them boarded, lodged, and educated at the expense of 1698 the State; you have parents who get rid of all responsibility towards their children in that way, and who only ask to have them back again for the purpose of getting money—directly the children are able to contribute anything towards the family exchequer they are taken home again. The second thing you can do is to send the boys to places which may be found for them elsewhere than at their homes, that is, into some employment which may be found for them by the managers of the schools, employment where sometimes they can be got at by their old associates. There are some statistics quoted here to which I should like to refer your Lordships. Out of the boys sent to employment otherwise than to their homes from Feltham School who relapsed into crime, the great majority did not relapse into crime while in their employment, but had left their situations at the solicitation of their former companions. Their old associates find them out and entice them away from their employment, and then it is that they relapse into crime. Another thing which you may do with boys is to emigrate them, and so prevent them being contaminated by their old companions and associates. That, I venture to think, is the best plan to take with these boys, and the statistics bear me out as to that, for out of 76 boys emigrated to Canada during the last three years, only one has relapsed into crime. But even here the law does all it can to thwart and baffle us in our endeavours to give these boys the opportunity of making a better future for themselves, for the consent of the parents has to be obtained, and we find that in only one case out of four will the parents consent to the emigration of these boys. There will be no difference of opinion, I think, among your Lordships, as to the beneficial effect of this Bill. I have only spoken as to boys, and I do not propose to say anything about girls, because I have no special knowledge of reformatory and industrial schools for girls; but it must be very evident that the same arguments apply with even stronger force in their case as to the extreme undesirability of sending them back to their old associates. This Bill will undoubtedly do a great deal of good, and there may. on the other hand, be said of 1699 it what cannot be said of many Bills, it is perfectly certain it will do no harm at all, and I hope, therefore, your Lordships will read it a second time. There is only one further observation I have to make: my noble Friend Lord Camperdown has suggested that the Bill might be applied to Scotland. So far as I am concerned, I should be very glad if the Bill could be applied to Scotland; but if there is any danger from delay, or of the Bill being wrecked in the House of Commons by any addition of that kind being made to it, I should ask your Lordships to pass this Bill without amending it as the noble Lord suggests.

§ THE EARL OF COURTOWN
As the noble Lord has stated that the Earl of Camperdown has suggested that the Bill should be amended by being made applicable to Scotland, I would make the same suggestion with regard to Ireland. I am not very well acquainted with any such schools in that country, but unless the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill objects, it appears to me that what is desirable to be done in England and Scotland would also be desirable for Ireland.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN
The Bill appears to me, from what I understand of it, to be a very good one, but I confess I do not know what is meant by the saving clause that the Bill is not to apply to Scotland or Ireland. I should be very sorry to do anything to imperil the passing of the Bill, and if it is stated that embodying any Amendment of that sort would be fatal to the Bill, I should not press it; but I own that at the present time I think some reason ought to be given why a Bill, which appears on the face of it to be a good one, and to be equally applicable to other parts of the three Kingdoms, should not be extended to Scotland.

§ EARL STANHOPE
I think this is a most useful Bill, but I deprecate its being extended to Scotland and Ireland. As my noble Friend Lord Camperdown will see, there is a very long list of measures waiting for consideration in the House of Commons, and I think even such a small Bill as this would, if any delay arose, run the risk of not being passed this Session. There- 1700 fore, though I agree with my noble Friends who have last spoken that this Bill should be extended to Scotland and Ireland, I think it would be better for this Session to allow it to apply only to England. As a manager myself of an Industrial School in Kent, I may say that I think this is a most valuable Bill for the purpose of enabling managers of these institutions to apprentice boys, without their parents having power to exercise a veto on their being apprenticed, and also for enabling managers to emigrate boys to Canada or elsewhere. I am sure this is a most useful measure; and I am confident that every manager of an Industrial School will hail the Bill with pleasure.

§ LORD DE RAMSEY
My Lords, the Secretary of State assented to this Bill in the other House on the distinct understanding that if it were found possible to introduce a Government measure dealing with Reformatory and Industrial Schools, this Bill should stand aside so that the subject might be dealt with as a whole; but, unfortunately, the chance of passing such a measure appears to be a rapidly diminishing one, and this Bill being virtually a reproduction of the 17th clause relating to Reformatory Schools, and the 21st clause relating to Industrial Schools in the Government Bill, the Government hope that this Bill may be read a second time. It is only part of a measure which it was hoped would be a very valuable one, but to obtain a part of it is better than having none at all. The clauses mentioned are based on the Report of a Royal Commission, and the principle of them has already been assented to by your Lordships. With regard to extending the measure to Scotland there is no objection whatever if it is thought well to apply it to that country; but as regards Ireland I hope the noble Earl who made the suggestion will defer the question until a further stage.

§ THE EARL OF COURTOWN
I do not press it.

§ LORD DE RAMSEY
Under these circumstances, I hope your Lordships will give the Bill a Second Reading.