*LORD MONKSWELLMy Lords, in venturing to criticise the action taken by the Home Office with regard to the emigration of children from reformatory and industrial schools, I wish at once to state the exact nature of the objection. I do not suppose for a moment that the Home Secretary is not actuated by the very best intentions; I do not for a moment allege that he has acted illegally, in the strictest sense of the word—no doubt he has acted in accordance with the letter of the law; but what I allege is that the Home Secretary has exercised a statutory discretion in direct contradiction to the plain intention of Acts of Parliament: that he has allowed the view and opinion of the Home Office to prevail over the view and opinion which has been sanctioned by the Legislature in more than one Act of Parliament. There has been a long-standing and serious divergence of opinion between the Home Office and the Managers with regard to the ultimate disposal of children from reformatory and industrial schools, as to whether the wishes of the parents should prevail over the wishes of the children. The Home Office, in upholding the right of the parents to take back their children when the time of their detention has expired, has acted in a way that is the despair of Managers who are condemned to see hundreds of promising children relapse into crime by being exposed to temptations which the children themselves, if they possibly could, would have avoided. Now, this action of the 1257 Home Office, as I have on several occasions explained to this House, has led to the most deplorable results. The statistics show conclusively that the surest method of destroying all the good that is done for these children at great expense and with great trouble in these schools, is to send them back to their old haunts and to their old associates; and it is hardly a matter of controversy among the Managers of these schools that the best result is obtained by emigration, which takes them entirely away from their old haunts and associations, and gives them an excellent opportunity of starting afresh in life under the best possible conditions. In spite of the accumulation of evidence of the disastrous consequences that have ensued from children being sent back to their parents, the Managers of these schools have never been able to shake the belief of the Home Office in the sacred right of parents to wreck the prospects of children whom they have abandoned to the care of charity or of the State. Up to the present year, I fully admit that the Home Office had the right to its own opinion, just as much as the Managers had the right to theirs; but, my Lords, the question is now put on an entirely different footing. Up to last year the Legislature had taken no part on either side in this contest—it had stood aside and, as it were, kept the ring for the combatants. But last year the situation was entirely changed; the Managers invoked the Legislature to their aid, and the Legislature passed two Acts of Parliament to say that if parents did not undertake the obligations of their position they should no longer have the rights of parents. The Legislature said, in these Acts of Parliament, that parents could not claim the rights of parents while they refused to exercise the duties of parents. Now these Acts, as it seems to me, ought to have done away in the minds of the officials at the Home Office with any idea that they were in any way compelled by the law of England to regard the wishes of the parents rather than the wishes of the children—that they ought to pay an extravagant and, I venture to think, a deplorable deference to the wishes of the parents in the ultimate disposal of these children. Now one of 1258 these Acts of Parliament had express reference to reformatory and industrial schools. This Act is a very short one indeed; it was passed last year, and is as follows: It is called—
An Act to assist the Managers of Reformatory and Industrial Schools in advantageously launching into useful careers the children under their charge.Therefore, there is no doubt with what object this Act was passed. The Act says:—If any youthful offender or child detained in or placed out on licence from a Certified Reformatory or Industrial School conducts himself well, the Managers of the school may, with his own consent apprentice him to, or dispose of him in, any trade, calling or service, or by emigration, notwithstanding that his period of detention has not expired, and such apprenticing or disposition shall be valid as if the Managers were his parents. Provided that where he is to be disposed of by emigration, and in any case unless he has been detained for twelve months, the consent of the Secretary of State shall also be required for the exercise of any power under this section.Your Lordships will see that this Act, though it gives the Home Office a veto as to emigration, still mentions emigration in connection with other modes of disposing of the children, and it puts the Managers in the position of the children's parents, not only as regards other methods of disposing of them, but also as regards emigration; and the Act, as it seems to me, is clearly meant to alter the law as to emigration and to give the Managers of the schools greatly increased powers of emigrating these children. And I may call your Lordships' attention to the fact that, as regards other methods of disposing of the children, it entirely revolutionises the law by doing away with the veto that existed in the Home Office. Now the Managers of industrial schools naturally thought that when that Act was passed, what they conceived to be the spirit of the Act would be given effect to by the Home Office; and they thought that as they themselves, the Managers, had been put in the position of parents, the Home Office would have been as chary for the future in interfering with the discretion of the Managers as it had been in the past in interfering with the discretion of parents. But, my Lords, the Home Office did not take that view, and they 1259 determined as to emigration to make this Act a complete dead letter; and not only have they made it a dead letter with regard to emigration, but it would seem, from the terms of a Circular which I hold in my hand, which was issued last August after the passing of this Act, that the Home Office consider it their duty still further to rivet upon the children the chains which they had already empowered their parents to place upon them. This Circular of the 25th of August, 1891, after quoting the Act says, that Mr. Matthews has thought fit to require that in all cases of disposal by emigration the consent of the Secretary of State will depend, among other matters, upon the written consent of the parent being forwarded to him, unless it can be shown that such consent may, through parental neglect or misconduct, be dispensed with; that is to say, the Managers must prove affirmatively neglect and misconduct on the part of parents. The Managers think that they should not be obliged to do this; they consider that the mere fact that the parent has parted with the control of his child, by making over his child to these schools, is primâ facie proof that he has not exercised the functions of a parent as they ought to be exercised, and that the boot ought to be on the other leg—that the parent ought to be obliged to show affirmatively that he is a parent who is well capable of looking after the welfare of his child. My Lords, what I want to point out is this: that it is a very strange thing that the first Circular that is issued by the Home Office after this Act has been passed, with a view to giving Managers further control over the disposal of the children, is in much stronger terms than the previous Circular of 1885; for the previous Circular of 1885 did not say that in order that the wishes of the Managers should prevail, in all cases misconduct on the part of the parent must be proved; it merely said:It is desirable that in all cases a careful inquiry should be made into the character of the parents and the condition of the home.Therefore I say it would seem as if the Home Office had read those Acts of Parliament so as further to fetter the discretion of the Managers and the children rather than to give the 1260 Managers and the children greater discretion as to their ultimate disposal. My Lords, I now come to the recent acts of the Home Office under that Circular. There were nine cases in which the parents of children who wanted to emigrate from the two industrial schools, Feltham and Mayford, with which I am connected, refused their consent to such emigration. In eight cases out of the nine the veto of the parents was upheld; the ninth case was a case of illegitimacy. Therefore in every case of a legitimate child the veto of the parent was upheld, and I hope that those eight children who are legitimate may not have cause to regret to the last day of their lives that they had the misfortune to be born in wedlock. It is clear, as I venture to think, that the Home Office has disregarded the intention of the Legislature; but I think that the matter becomes even plainer on referring to the "Custody of Children Act" passed in the same year; for that Act declared in Section 3 thatWhere a parent has allowed his child to be brought up by another person(that is subsequently explained as including a school or institution)—"at that person's expense, or by the Guardians of a Poor Law Union, for such a length of time and under such circumstances as to satisfy the Court that the parent was unmindful of his parental duties; the Court shall not make an order for the delivery of the child to the parent, unless the parent has satisfied the Court that, having regard to the welfare of the child, he is a fit person to have the custody of the child.It seems to me that that Circular goes against the plain spirit of the Act of Parliament in compelling the Managers to prove affirmatively that the parent has misconducted himself when, under very similar circumstances, that Act says that it rests on the parent himself to show affirmatively that he is a person who ought to have the control of his child. Now I really think that it is time that this nightmare of parental control should be no longer allowed to paralyse philanthropic effort. My Lords, I hope the House will strengthen the hands of those who wish to induce the Home Office in fit cases to allow their children to emigrate. As to the action of the Home Office, perhaps I ought to say 1261 further that I have only been able to get detailed accounts of these children in one case. I have had short notes in the other cases, which I have sent on to the Home Office; I have not kept a copy of them, and, therefore, I cannot quote them to your Lordships; but I may mention, with regard to one of the cases put down in these short notes, that the note made by our inquiry officer is that the child's home was wretched, and that the father was not in a condition to find him any employment. With regard to another of these boys, I have the whole report of our inspector in my hand. The boy's name is Foster, and I may mention to the House that the payment that his father ought to make for his schooling is very greatly in arrears; and with regard to the other cases, where the Home Office have sustained the objection of the parents, I have good reason to believe that in some cases the parents have made no payment at all, in other cases very small payment, and I believe I am right in asserting that only in one case was any substantial payment made by the parent. As to Foster our officer reports:—I saw the father at his work, a carman in the employ of the Local Government Board at Sutton, Surrey; he has been there seven or eight years; a widower. The house was locked up—I was told he was seldom at home: He has two children depending on him, living with his mother-in-law, a very respectable person, who said there was not the least prospect for the lad at home only to get into trouble should he return.Yet this is a boy who is very anxious to emigrate to Canada and the Home Office said he was not to go. I hope I shall have the sympathy of your Lordships' House with me. I hope the Home Office, on further consideration, will act in accordance with the views of the Legislature; I hope that they will cause reasonable facilities to be given for the emigration of these children who want to go, and whom the Managers want to send, abroad; and I hope they will have regard to the wishes of those who take great interest in these children, who have most reason to know in what way the welfare of those children can be best advanced. My Lords, I beg to move that the 1262 Papers relating to such refusal be laid upon the Table of this House.
§ Moved, "That there be laid before this House papers relating to the action of the Home Secretary in refusing permission to certain children in industrial schools at Feltham and Mayford to emigrate to Canada."—(The Lord Monkswell.)
§ *LORD DE RAMSEYMy Lords, I venture to second the hope expressed just now that your Lordships will endeavour to induce the Home Office to carry out the spirit of the Legislature. I hope that I shall have no difficulty in a very few words in showing your Lordships that the Home Office have continually done that during three successive Governments. The noble Lord who has brought this matter before you founds his case, so far as I understand it, on the right of School Managers as before the right of parents to emigrate the children, and that there is to be no veto; but that whether it is liked or not by the parents those children are to be emigrated. But that is the very point which your Lordships decided last year, and it was the very object of the power being given to the Secretary of State to use his discretion in cases of parents not agreeing to their children being emigrated, and that the Secretary of State might use his power to veto the verdict of the School Managers. How did this matter arise? It was when the Government of the Party of which the noble Lord is a member was in power, and when two Circulars were issued by the then Home Secretary. The first Circular was in consequence of the Secretary of State discovering that children were then emigrated without their parents' leave. A second Circular was then issued to say that, although the Secretary of State would not allow children to be emigrated without their parents' leave, that was not to affect the case of dissolute or bad parents. The third Circular, and the one which I think the noble Lord seems to complain of most, was issued last year, and was simply calling the attention of the reformatory and industrial schools to the Act, which, as a Bill, was brought in by Colonel Howard Vincent, and really was part of the Bill of the Government, calling the attention of 1263 the reformatory and industrial schools to what the Legislature had done. I daresay the noble Lord was not pleased with that Act; but, if Parliament in its wisdom has already decided that a veto as regards these cases is to rest with the Secretary of State, surely it is rather early, a year after, to ask your Lordships to alter your mind. The noble Lord has hardly, I think, fully stated to this House the numbers in this one particular case to which he refers. I presume he has taken the two schools together, Feltham and Mayford.
§ *LORD DE RAMSEYThat makes the noble Lord's side of the question better. But, if your Lordships will take Feltham alone, we shall find that, out of 31 names that were forwarded to the Secretary of State for emigration, the Secretary of State only put his veto upon six. Now the procedure in this case is very simple, and I should think nothing could be fairer or better to the parent, to the children, and to the community at large. Upon the Secretary of State receiving the names of these children he sends them to the Inspector of Reformatory and Industrial Schools, who again sends his officer to investigate into each case. In these six cases the parents objected to their children being emigrated; in four of those cases the parents were distinctly respectable and of good character; in the other two cases there was nothing whatever against them. Now, my Lords, I ask you are we, some of us parents, to allow the children of poor and respectable parents, with nothing in the world to be said against them, to be emigrated against their parents' wish? Surely there is some justice in the decision that Parliament arrived at last year to give the veto to the Secretary of State on School Managers who would commit such an injustice. I think that the more the noble Lord opposite looks into this matter, the more he will find that the Home Office is distinctly inclined to second him in his well-known good works. He has taken up the view in this case that the Secretary of State is opposed to him. In that I beg to assure him most can- 1264 didly that he is entirely in the wrong. If he thinks that the powers imposed upon the Secretary of State have been abused, then I am afraid my explanation will not satisfy him; but he may rest confident that it is only in the cause of justice and of freedom to the parents and to the children that the Secretary of State will issue his veto against the emigration of children in these cases.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYI cannot help thinking that the noble Lord has rather misunderstood what my noble Friend behind me wished to bring before the House. My noble Friend does not for a moment contend that the Home Secretary ought not to possess the veto, or that the Home Secretary ought not to exercise that veto whenever he is satisfied that it ought to be exercised; what he wished to point out to the House was that, according to the view which he takes of the Circular of the Home Office and their action, they appear to be of opinion that the onus must lie upon the Managers of reformatory schools to show that there is a reason why the consent of the parents should not be conclusive upon the matter. What my noble Friend urged is that it ought rather to lie upon the parents to show that they are respectable people, and that the consent ought to be refused. Surely there is a great deal of force in what my noble Friend said. These children were originally placed in reformatories because they were neglected by their parents; they have been taken care of at the expense of the State; and the question then arises whether they are to be restored to their parents or not. Surely the obvious course to be taken by the Home Secretary, who possesses the veto, is not to restore them to their parents if another career is proposed to them by the reformatory school, and against the wish of the children, unless it is clearly shown that the parents are proper persons to receive them. But I rather gather, even from what the noble Lord has said, that the Secretary of State seems to regard it as part of his duty, unless the consent of the parents has been obtained, to exercise his veto.
§ *LORD DE RAMSEYI am glad that the noble Earl gives me an opportunity to explain that; it is quite the contrary. The Secretary of State uses his veto in cases where the parents do object, but yet he may insist on their being emigrated. He does not issue his veto in cases where the parents object and he says those children must not be emigrated; but, in cases where it is proved to him by the double inquiry that the parents are dissolute, and are not fit to have the charge and care of children, the Home Secretary says that those children shall be emigrated in contradiction of their parents' desire.
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYThen I am to understand that, in point of fact, the noble Lord agrees with my noble Friend behind me; he did not say so. If he agrees with my noble Friend that the proper course for the Home Secretary is only to exercise his veto where the parents are unable to show that they are respectable parents and fit to take care of their children, there is no dispute upon the matter. I apprehend that my noble Friend will be perfectly satisfied. But unfortunately, according to what I heard from my noble Friend behind me, that impression does not appear to have been produced upon the Managers of reformatory schools, and I think it is very unfortunate that it should be so. The last Circular issued by the Home Office is certainly very much more peremptory with regard to the consent of the parents than the former one; and, if I might venture to make a suggestion in a matter of this kind to the Home Office, it would be that they should issue another Circular, making it quite clear that the view which the noble Lord has explained to the House is the view of the Home Secretary; and I have no doubt that, when that is done, the Managers of reformatory schools will be thoroughly satisfied.
*LORD MONKSWELLI should like to say a word or two in reply to the noble Lord opposite, because he seemed to labour in some respects under a misapprehension. He says that I object to the Act of 1891. It 1266 was at my suggestion that Colonel Howard Vincent brought that Bill into the House of Commons, and I passed it through this House, because I thought it would give the Managers a great deal more power to emigrate children than they possessed before. Your Lordships may judge of my astonishment when I was confronted by a Circular which tells me that for the future it will lie upon the Managers to prove that the parents are drunken and dissolute, and cannot look after their children; whereas, what we have always contended for is that we should be placed in the same position as the "Custody of Children Act" places other institutions; and that it should be for the parent himself to prove fairly and conclusively to the Home Office that he is a proper person to take charge of his children. My Lords, I should like to know how much these parents have paid.
§ *LORD DE RAMSEYI am quite prepared to show the noble Lord what those parents have paid. He was quite correct in saying that one of them has paid a considerable sum; but other parents have also paid considerable sums.
§ *LORD DE RAMSEYI can give the noble Lord authentic information; I will show him any Papers that he likes to ask for.
§ *LORD DE RAMSEYThere is no objection to Papers being produced.
*LORD MONKSWELLI may mention that I sent the Clerk to the Reformatory and Industrial Schools of the London County Council to Delahay Street to ask for Papers, and he was told that he could not have them. My Lords, I move for the Papers.
§ Motion agreed to.
§ House adjourned at twenty minutes before Six o'clock.