July 23rd, 1901:AT THE turn of the 20th century, the Irish Party at Westminster strongly and successfully opposed moves by the British government to give factory inspectors powers to inspect the Magdalene laundries run by nuns in Ireland.
MP John Dillon proposed that reformatories and industrial schools run by religious institutions should be exempt from factory inspectors. The Conservative government’s home secretary Charles Ritchie set out the background to his Factory and Workshops Acts Amendment Bill at a parliamentary committee meeting and explained why he eventually capitulated to the Irish party’s wishes.
The home secretary (Mr Ritchie) explained that the matter had been postponed to the present occasion in the hope of some amicable agreement being made with respect to the inspection of charitable and religious institutions. The question first arose in connection with the Bill of 1895, when the Irish members were the principle objectors to the proposal that these places should come within the purview of the factory inspectors, their objection being based on the belief that inspection would destroy all discipline. He believed the proposal would be satisfactory . . . [and] that the difficulty with the Irish members was removed.
He was surprised, however, to receive another communication from the Irish party soon after asking for an interview. The interview took place, and the result of it was to make quite clear that the Irish party would not accept the proposal in the Bill, and in justice to them, he should say he had received communications from others, not in Ireland and not of the same religious faith, objecting to the proposal on much the same grounds.
To meet these objections he put down an amendment which practically left it to the discretion of the secretary to decide whether there should be exemption in these institutions or not, according as the discipline to be maintained might be interfered with or otherwise. That proposal was not accepted. The Irish members were anxious that the law should simply remain as it was. The honourable member for East Mayo (Mr Dillon) had asked were there any scandals to complain of in the management of these reformatory institutions in Ireland.
He (Mr Ritchie) wished to say that this question had nothing whatever to do with his action in regard to the Bill. His mind was a complete blank on this point.
It was not a question of scandal or no scandal. It was simply this – he was firmly persuaded that there was no equitable reason why laundries, no matter what the institutions in which they were carried on, which competed in the open market with other laundries, should not be subjected to the same regulations.
What was the position now? The honourable member for East Mayo and his colleagues left the committee in no doubt as to what the result would be if the proposal were adhered to. There were, therefore, two courses open to the committee – either to adopt the amendment the government had placed on the Paper, or to accept the amendment moved by the honourable member for East Mayo. To adopt the former course would mean in all probability the loss of the entire Bill.
The conclusion he (Mr Ritchie) had come to, after very great hesitation, was that, having regard to the great interests involved in the passing of the measure, the only course the government could take was to accept the amendment of the honourable member for East Mayo. (Irish cheers.)
http://url.ie/21vg