The Daily Times.
Liverpool, Merseyside, England, 1860-10-03 00:00:00

THE INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS

The minutes of this meeting were read, and amongst
aber items was "aniapplication by the Rev. R. Gibson
for a fray' to he place in the Roman Catholic Orphanage,
Everton Crescent.."---Allowed, subject to the child being
periodically visited by the out-door inspector in com-
mon with other children tenfing the schools.
Mr. WHITTY expressed his deep regret that the
Industrial Schools Committee should have adopted such
a resolution, that the boy should be "' periodically
. ,
visited oy the out-door inspector." He stated be had
some experience in the institution in which the boy
would be placed, and the children there could bear com-
pair'son', in physical appearanc4 and moral training,
with the.childrerr under- the charge of the Vestry. It
was proposed to' fake the boy from the care of the
Vestry, and place him iu!'n chathable institution, and
thus the Vestry would be relieVcd of his maintenance
and all responsibility; therefore it would be a relief to
the parish, and under such circumstances he thought it
was an invidious distinction to stipulate that the
inspector should have the power of thrusting himself
into a private charity, particularly when the Vestry did
not contribute. to the support of the funds, to look after
the. child. He expressed a hope that the committee
would' re--consider the stipulation ; and, in conclusion,
moved fliht that portion of the proceedings be referred
back to the cOrktnittee fOr- re-consideration.
In answer to Ilr.. gyred, it was stated that the chil-
dren placed in Mr. Banner's orphanage from the parish
were not inspected periodicagy".
Mr. Smith seconded Mr. Whitty'S motion.
Mr. BKIRSTOW thought this was au aceptional case,
as the children were under the management of a com-
mittee of gentlemen.
Mr. SATCHELL—NO, priests.
Mr. BAIRITOW—A number of gentlemen who would

'care for their welt-being, and as the vestry did not con-
tribhte'anything towards. it, the inspection had no right
to be thdk: The inspector was appointed to visit the
children that were' sent out to service, and not to such
institutions as these, Pie' also added that Mr. Banner
did not take pauper children into. his orphanage.
Mr. Wurrry:said- that the citil&en did not go direct
as paupers to Mr. Banner's orphanage. Rut when they
were there they were clothed, gad the vestry had to pay
—sometimes the bill amounted to between £3O and £4O.
He could not see the difference. If the parish paid,
then the children were paupers. "
„ .
Mr. PECI4 supported the amendment, on the grounds
that as the children were not inspected in Mr.,Banner's
orphanage' they had no right to be inspected in the
Crescent institution. When the child was taken from
the Industrial Schools, the parties taking him became
responsible for him, and all the vestry's responsibility
was at an end ; but if he was sent back again, then the
Vestry would have to resume its responsibility. -
Mr. TURNEn thought that the committee had been
neglectful of its duty in not having all the children,
whether in Mr, Banner's orphanage or any other,
visited, as the vestry liad a right to see that all the
children were properly cared fol%
Mr. WIIITTY expressed a wish that the Industrial
Schools Committee would not continually be making
such restrictions upon the Roman Catholic
‘applications,
but would act in the same way , towards that religion as
they did towards the Protestants. He thought that they
should act in union with each other, and not antagonistic.
The Rev. Rector CAMPBELL said the vestry should not
Ole up the right of visitation • but in such a case as
the preset he thought it should be enforced. If he
had such a tight, he would not exercise it. If they did
not inspect Mr. &river's institution, they should not
enforce it in this case ; but evhn in that case, as they
contributed to Mr. Banner's institution, and did not
towards this, it was clear they had more right to carry
it out in the one case than the other.

After some further conversation, the board divided,
vihea Mr. Whitty's amendment was lost by six voting
for it Mid eight against it ; the proceedings were there-
fore cord/lyre&