HL Deb 13 July 1893 vol 14 cc1434-9

Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.

LORD LEIGH

, in moving the Second Reading, said, though the Bill contained only two clauses, it was an important measure to amend the law relating to reformatory schools. Under the Act of 1866 (29 & 30 Vict., c. 117, s. 14) Magistrates were compelled to send children to prison before they could be admitted into reformatory schools. Most reformatory managers were of his own opinion—that prison was not a proper place for children to be sent, as they thereby lost their self-respect, and were materially affected in after-life. The intention of the Bill was to do exactly what had already been done by another measure relating to Scotland, passed this Session; except that, while the Scotch Act left it optional with Magistrates, the present Bill made it illegal to send children to prison. Leaving the power optional would entail unfair and unequal sentences, as Magistrates by no means agreed upon the question; and the result would be that in the same reformatory there would be children who had passed through prison associated with those who had not. Clause 1 raised the age at which children could be sent to reformatory schools from 10, under the old Act of 1886, to 12, increased the minimum period of detention from two years to three years, and provided that no offender should be kept in a reformatory after reaching the age of 19 years. At present offenders might be kept there until nearly 21.

Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Leigh.)

LORD NORTON

said, the Bill was proposed in substitution for one he lately introduced; but, on its not being accepted by the Government, it had not been pressed to a Division at a late hour, and was allowed to drop rather than interfere with other business, there not being a quorum in the House. His measure proposed that child offenders sentenced to imprisonment should, if possible, be sent to any fit place of imprisonment rather than to a common gaol, and that in suitable cases for boys whipping should be substituted for imprisonment. His Bill also sought the better enforcement of parents' contribution to the cost of their children's maintenance, so that they should not make a profit by throwing them on the public; and it provided for getting children earlier out of school to work. He was not satisfied with the present Bill; and he intended to move to amend Clause 1 by providing that the school should not be treated as an additional or alternative penal treatment, but as a separate provision of education; and to amend Clause 2 by the omission of the words forbidding any sentence of imprisonment, and substituting words providing that if sentenced to imprisonment a child should not be imprisoned in a common gaol if any other place were available. Wherever there was a decent home the child should be sent back to it after punishment, and educated at a National school. It was undesirable to continue the consciousness of criminality in children's minds through the whole of their period of education, and so to hinder their future employment, which, after all, was the main object of giving them an education, the neglect of which had led to their committing crime. If these offenders were not to be punished at all, cadit quœstio, and there was no necessity for reformatory schools; but if convicted of the commission of a second offence they ought to be punished, and then better educated. He would, therefore, propose cell-confinement, and for boys a whipping in preference to imprisonment, that having been the conclusion arrived at by a Royal Commission, and being also the opinion of all the Justices in England, to whom the point was referred. If he could get those two alterations made in the Bill in Committee he would have no objection to its passing.

THE EARL OF ONSLOW

said, that one of the arguments used in support of the Bill was that Magistrates had no hesitation in sending children offenders to prison. His experience of reformatory schools differed from that. He happened to be President of a reformatory in the South of England, and knew that, in many cases, Magistrates, finding that they could not send children to a reformatory, rather than send them to prison allowed them to go scot-free, and so many a young rascal escaped altogether.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

My Lords, this is a Bill of some importance, and I think it should not be passed without the House considering what it really affects. In the first place, it alters the law. It prevents children being sent to prison at all before being sent to a reformatory school; and it also provides that— The Court may direct that the offender be taken to a police cell or lock-up, or to any other place, not being a prison, which the Court thinks fit. and the occupier of which is willing to receive him, and be detained therein for any time not exceeding seven days, and so on. I am not at all certain that it is a desirable thing that there should be power to detain children in a lock-up or police cell in which some other person may be confined, and of which some person may be in occupation who is not responsible to the public, but who is willing to receive these children. The principle of this Bill is that there must be a second offence before the child can be dealt with. The principle on which my noble Friend proceeds is that you are not to put a taint upon the children by sending them to prison for a few days, but the taint upon the child is its criminality. These children are distinct from the children who are sent to industrial schools. Children who are sent to an industrial school have not been criminals beforehand, but have become involved through some fault of their parents or guardians. The children dealt with in the present Bill are criminals, and the suggestion that the whole taint of criminality lies in their being sent to prison is hardly correct. The difference is mainly one of name only, for reformatories are really prisons. In this country, in the prisons, there are separate means of taking care of juvenile offenders, and this taint is not contracted from the position in which they are placed. It seems to me there is much more harm in their being locked up in a police cell, or in some other place kept by some person who may be willing to receive such children, but over whom there is no control. Under the Scotch Act the Magistrates have power to send children to prison before sending them to a reformatory school. That practice has never, so far, been abolished, and I think the House should be very careful in abolishing a practice which has worked well. Children who have been imprisoned and have gone to a reformatory have obtained employment afterwards, just as much without taint as though they had never been convicted of criminality. The objection seems to me, I confess, merely sentimental, that prisons are worse than these places to which the noble Lord proposes the children should be sent. A reformatory itself is a prison.

LORD NORTON

No.

THE EARL OF CRANBROOK

Well, a prison means a place one cannot get away from—a place where the law says a person is to stay, not according to his own will, but according to the will of the law. Children are in prison in a reformatory, a lock-up, or a police cell equally. I remember Mr. Justice Maule once saying, in a case where a witness had been giving evidence strongly against a prisoner, when the prisoner said, "Get away with you, you false man "; and the witness asked whether he was to be so treated. "The prisoner can't get away; you can, and you had better do it." That is the difference. This is contrary to the Report of the Commission, and is, I think, taking a merely sentimental objection where the criminality is the stain and not the prison.

LORD VERNON

said, he hoped their Lordships would excuse him for not having risen at once to say a few words. If he had done so they would have lost the speech which the noble Earl had just made on the subject. He was instructed, on behalf of the Government, to say that they fully approved the action of. the noble Lord in bringing forward this Bill, in so far as it assimilated the law of this country to that of Scotland; but the Government did not approve of that portion of the measure which related to the subject of making imprisonment illegal. They considered that it was far better that the law in England should remain as it was in Scotland under the recent Act, and that it should be left to the Justices to decide whether a child should go to prison or not. Children who were sent to gaol were not allowed to consort with old criminals or other prisoners, though, no doubt, there was the disadvantage that the child was apt to be stamped for the rest of his life as a gaol-bird. The Government did not, however, consider that a sufficient reason for changing the law, and they were willing to accept the Bill if the noble Lord would accept the Amendment which they would propose.

LORD NORTON

wished to say he had never protested against children being sent to some kind of prison other than a common gaol if any better place could be found to send them to. The other clay he saw a child, handcuffed to a grey-headed old sinner, being taken to the common gaol by a policeman. That was against his feeling in the matter, and his protest was against keeping up in penal schools the taint of criminality throughout the whole of the youthful offender's education.

VISCOUNT CROSS

The noble Lord must remember that there is only one kind of prison; and if a person is sent to prison, whether it is the common gaol or any other kind of prison, it is one and the same thing. One of the great objections I have to this Bill is that you are going to imprison a child nobody knows where, in a place kept by nobody knows whom. If a child goes to the ordinary prisons he is under the strictest rules in a place where the Justices have power to go and see that everything is right; but, in the other case, I think you are running the risk of doing great harm to the child.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)

I would remind your Lordships that this very provision to which the noble Viscount has alluded has been included in the Act with regard to reformatory schools in Scotland, which, I think, has passed through Parliament, and which certainly has passed this House. I think the safeguard is that the Magistrate must satisfy himself that the place to which the child is committed is a fit and proper place. We had considerable discussion in Standing Committee on this subject. I sympathise very much with those who think that children should not be sent to prison. I do not agree that there is no stigma arising from it, and still less do I think it right that children should be allowed to consort with old offenders; but that is absolutely impossible in well-conducted prisons. The object of these reformatory schools is to enable the children to lead honest lives in future. They are not for the purpose of punishment. I think, therefore, that some such form of Amendment as my noble Friend proposed should be accepted.

THE EARL OF BELMORE

said, with regard to Ireland, the Committee should pay attention to the point raised by Viscount Cross as to the places to which the children should be sent. In Ireland the only place to which they could be sent would be the lock-up or police station, and some provision should be made with regard to food, treatment, and other matters. Otherwise there would be considerable difficulty.

LORD LEIGH

said, it would be entirely in the discretion of the Court. In his own county he would most undoubtedly send a convicted child direct to the reformatory itself to be kept there. No difficulty would arise in the Midland Counties in finding suitable places, whatever might be the case in Ireland.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.