children who do not attend school, the moment what are the conditions which regular attendance of those children a Bill on this subject ought to fulfil. I who attend irregularly, and the attend- say that, in the first place, it should be ance throughout the school age of those simple and clear, so that all the parents who now only attend one, two, three, or in the country may know what the law four years. Since the year 1870 no less is. It should be equal in its operation a sum than £1,606,298 has been ex- in different districts, and equal also in pended on new voluntary schools and the manner in which it weighs on enlargements. Moreover, in August, children employed in different trades. 1875, there were 1,136 board schools; Again, it should not give a freedom £1,500,000 has been spent by the Lon- to the idle that is denied to workers, don School Board on such buildings, nor should it impose on one trade an while £2,750,000 has been so spent by obligation from which another trade is school boards generally. Some of these capriciously left free. It should be just board schools, including those in London, to the employer, just to the parent, and, may no doubt be filled by the action of above all, it should be effective for its the compulsory bye-laws under the main purpose-the lasting benefit of all powers of the Act of 1870; but the our children. There is also another other schools throughout the country principle which a Bill on this subject remain very thinly attended. The ave- should now fulfil. While not centralizing rage attendance in 1870 was very low, administration, Parliament should, Ï only 1,152,389; being out of all pro- think, boldly and completely take upon portion to the accommodation, which itself the whole work of legislation, and was for 1,878,584 children. The school should not delegate it in any manner to accommodation has increased 67 per local authorities. I will now ask the cent; the teaching staff 90 per cent and House to let me analyze the Bill-pointmore; but the increase in the average ing out what it does and what it does attendance has been less than 60 per not do. First of all it prohibits the cent. These figures show that partial employment of children under the age compulsion in less than half the country of 10; and it likewise prohibits the emis not enough. The average daily num- ployment of all children over 10 who ber of empty seats in 1870 was 726,195, have not obtained a certain educational and in 1875 it was 1,309,244. Although certificate. It repeals the Agricultural there has been an increase of 67 per Children Act, which-in a manner howcent in the school accommodation, the ever imperfect-provided that children number of empty seats has nearly employed between the ages of 11 and 13 doubled. The question we have to solve should attend school 300 times between is, how are we to fill these empty seats? the ages of 10 and 12. What measures, How are we to supply the teachers with then, does this Bill take to secure atscholars, and to secure that the money tendance, and thus to insure a less which has been thus spent on school-wretched standard of attainments, to building shall not be wasted but that it shall be really reproductive? The figures I have given clearly show, I think, that a Bill was necessary; and hence the Bill of the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council on Education. The Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) seems to me to do good service by placing in contrast with this Bill the proposals of the Royal Commission which was appointed by Her Majesty to inquire into the working of the Factory and Workshops Acts, the extension of any of their provisions to other trades, industries, and occupations, and the question of further provisions for improving the education of children. In considering these proposals I shall ask the House to inquire for a

save expenditure on schools from waste, and to fill the 1,300,000 empty seats in our schools? It takes no simple direct measure for this purpose. Let me here remind the House what we did in the Scotch Act but three years ago. It was enacted that—

"It shall be the duty of every parent to provide elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic for his children between 5 and 13," and that, "it shall be the duty of every school board to appoint an officer to ascertain and report what parents have failed to perform the duty."

The hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley) says that parental responsibility is secured by this measure. Yes; but where? There is "parental responsibility" in the Preamble, but you will not find it in any of the clauses. There

The

It

is nothing in the clauses declaring that | with these children proposed by the it is the duty of a parent to send his noble Lord-where there has been conchildren to school. I hope, therefore, tinuous, habitual, and inexcusable negthat in Committee the House will adopt lect by parents-shows that he himself the Amendment of my right hon. Friend views their case as exceptional. So far, the Member for Bradford (Mr. Forster). then, we have nothing but these perI was glad to hear my hon. Friend the missive bye-laws. Indeed, I think this Member for Manchester say he was pre- Bill in its permissiveness outdoes the pared to accept that Amendment; and efforts of the hon. Member for Carlisle I hope that when he said that he ex- (Sir Wilfrid Lawson). It is more perpressed the views of many Gentlemen missive than the Permissive Bill. opposite, who, I am willing to say, are hon. Member for North Northumberquite as earnest as Members on this side land (Mr. M. W. Ridley) says that in their desire to secure the attendance where there are rural school boards of children at school. What are the those school boards do not pass byewants of the parents on this subject? I laws. Well, this may be true in many think a parent wants the same advan- cases; but surely that is the strongest tages for his child as for a Scotch child. argument which the hon. Member could Moreover, he requires that the law in have adduced against permissive byethe next parish should be the same as in laws, and in favour of our doing his own parish. He does not want the in this House what we are proposing law to press more hardly on the trade to delegate to local authorities. in which his child is employed than it is the strongest argument against our presses on the trades in which his neigh- leaving any option to local authorities. bour's children are employed. He wants The Bill, therefore, only provides for as strict a law for the idle as for the direct compulsion by bye-laws, that working children. I think the parent is, for bye-laws in places where may fairly say to us also-"Do not tell school boards choose to adopt them, me in 1881 when my five year old child in places where Town Councils choose becomes 10 that he must not work be- to pass them, and in places where cause he has no certificate, unless mean- Boards of Guardians are requested by a while you plainly say to me, 'you must meeting of the ratepayers of a parish send him to school.'" I believe that all to pass them for that parish. I am not these demands of the parent ought to be surprised that hon. Members opposite carefully considered in legislating on admit that there is little or no direct this subject. I will separate the children compulsion in this Bill. During this into two sets-the children who are pre- debate attention has not been directed vented by the Bill from working and to sub-section 2 of Clause 20. It appears the children who are at work. What from this sub-section not only that does the Bill do to secure that either Boards of Guardians are not to adopt set shall attend school? I might almost compulsory bye-laws unless the ratesay it does nothing at all. Work is payers ask them to do so, but the Guarprohibited at the age of 10, unless a dians are to adopt such sort of bye-laws child has obtained a certificate. Now as the ratepayers like to ask them to what is there in the Bill to insure that adopt. Ratepayers may say what kind the child shall obtain a certificate or that of bye-laws they desire, and Boards of the child shall not consequently be kept Guardians are to have regard to such idle till 14, neither at work nor at school? wish. For example, the ratepayers may The 7th and 8th clauses of the Bill apply wish that the bye-laws should not touch only to children whom the noble Lord children engaged in labour, or engaged called "wastrels "-a word with which in some particular kind of labour, or Members from the North of England should not affect children above the age are perfectly familiar. I do not propose of 10; or they may wish that children to include these clauses in my analysis, should be allowed to be employed at as they only apply to cases of vagrancy home at any age, or that children who or crime, or of continuous and habitual, have passed a very low standard should as well as inexcusable neglect on the be exempt from the operation of the part of parents. I look upon the case bye-laws. In the same Union, thereof the "wastrel" children as an entirely fore, there may be districts with effective exceptional case, and the mode of dealing bye-laws, other districts with half

Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth

hearted and ineffective bye-laws, and | years old-"Your child shall not work; districts with no bye-laws at all. You he has no certificate," if you have not may have visitors in one parish and no before said "Your child shall go to visitors in the next parish. Children school, so that he may obtain his labour engaged in a particular trade in one pass." This system of endeavouring to parish may escape all compulsion what- secure education before work by reever, while in the next parish this trade quiring certificates at a certain age as a may be under the influence of strict condition of work, has been tried and bye-laws. You will have stringent bye- found wanting. There was such a prolaws here, no bye-laws there, and weak vision in the Coal Mines Act. The eviand useless bye-laws elsewhere. I do dence laid before the House showed that not think that any one fairly considering the Act failed to secure the education of this subject can deny the injustice to the boys engaged in coal mines, and one children under 10 years of age which main reason why it was a failure was such a diversity in law would produce because of this illusory requirement. in different districts of the country, The same attempt was made unsuccessmore especially in districts of the same fully in the Agricultural Children Act. county and even of the same Union. The system is condemned by Mr. TufTake the case of a child who is unedu- nell, who was one of the Commissioners cated in a parish where the ratepayers appointed to inquire in 1869 into the ask for no bye-laws, and who at the age subject of the employment of women of 10 goes to a town, as is often the and children in agriculture. I will read case. I happen to live in a manufac- the condemnation of this system of certuring district, in which, however, there tificates by the Royal Commissioners on are large tracts of country given over the Factory and Workshops Acts. They to agriculture. In one parish there say, speaking of the system as developed may be no manufactures at all, while in the Agricultural Children Act— other parishes teem with factories. In this district there is one school board, and plenty of parishes that would be under the Board of Guardians. Take the case of a child uneducated in one of these rural parishes who, at the age of 10, is taken by his parents to Burnley to be employed in a factory. Having no certificate, that child will not be allowed to be employed; and, fortunately, in Burnley he will come under bye-laws which will oblige the parent to send the child to school. But suppose that, instead of going to Burnley, he goes to one of the little towns, of which there are plenty in the district, which are not in a school board district, and in which there are no bye-laws. At the age of 10 this child will neither be allowed to work, because of the general law, nor will he be sent to school, because of the absence of bye-laws. Such a state of things will involve the grossest injustice not only to the child, but to the parent. It will be unjust also to the employer; and being unjust to employers, it will be injurious to the country. I think I have pointed out strongly the effect of the permissive nature of the bye-laws as regards children under 10. Passing now to another point, I feel that we cannot dwell too often on the injustice to parents of saying to them, when a child is 10

"There is the inherent defect in its principle, if it stands alone, that it presumes a degree of forethought in a parent which is not to be expected from the parents of working children. that his child will require the certificate of A parent must foresee, 12 months beforehand, attendance, must keep it in view throughout the year, must count the number of times he plays truant, in order to be sure that the minimum of attendances required by law shall be made up, and must have faith that the watchfulness of Government will be sufficiently all-pervading to prevent him from finally escaping its requirements.

I beg the House to attend to these concluding words of the Commissioners

"Without affirming that such a provision will always be impossible to enforce, we think it may be laid down that, by itself, it will combine the minimum of efficiency with a great deal of hardship."

Now, the Bill goes farther than the Act which was thus so strongly condemned by Royal Commissioners. That Act required 12 months of foresight on the part of parents. This Bill presumes at least five years of forethought on the part either of parents or of ratepayers. Now, having the Reports of Royal Commissions, and abundant evidence in the Library, and representing in this matter the whole country, why should not Parliament exercise this forethought? Sir, there is one question which has not yet been asked during this debate, and which

-

I wish to put to the Government. I hope | respected by Her Majesty's Government. we shall have some reply to the ques- I am glad to see the right hon. Gentletion Who is to grant these certifi- man the Secretary for War (Mr. Gathorne cates? The Bill says that the Education Hardy) in his place, for, if the House Department is from time to time to make will allow me to do so, I wish to make regulations for the purpose. But I am a quotation to which I am sure the House not satisfied with this provision, and will listen with pleasure-as it does to think the House should have some everything said by the right hon. Gentlefurther information. We have strong man-from a speech made by him in Comevidence and, if it were necessary, I mittee upon the Education Bill of 1870—— could cite the opinion of Mr. Kennedy, "Was their experience of permissive legislaHer Majesty's senior Inspector of Schools tion so favourable that they thought it due to -to show that it would be very objec- the credit of the House to delegate their functionable if schoolmasters were allowed tions to others upon a point so important, and to grant these certificates; that it would to call upon school boards to enact something which they were not prepared to enact themexpose them to strong temptations selves-not to pass bye-laws to carry out in detail and leave a loophole for all sorts of that which the Legislature had indicated, but to abuses. I cannot, then, believe that the perform the work of legislation itself? Was power to grant certificates will be en- that a power to place in the hands of school boards? What would happen? If it were true trusted to schoolmasters. By whom, that the great mass of intelligent working men, then, will it be exercised? It is very who would have votes, were in favour of comdesirable that we should receive an pulsion, then, where they were in the majority, answer to this question before the second school boards would be elected to put in force reading of the Bill. The Bill leaves the the compulsory powers of the Bill; but, on the law as to children whom it will prevent most needed, and where there was less enlightenother hand, in places where compulsion was from working in a state which is unjust ment among the working classes, the school to children, unjust to parents, unjust boards would be elected upon a solemn pledge also to employers, ineffective for pur-held that it was not becoming the dignity of not to exercise their compulsory powers. He poses of general education, unequal, and the Legislature to delegate its authority upon illogical. I come now to the question- a question of such importance. If the ComWhat means does the Bill take or con-mittee meant to have direct compulsion, let them template to secure schooling for those enact it children above 10 and under 14 whom the law allows to work? The agencies upon which the Bill relies for this purpose are scarcely greater, and in one respect are less than those now existing. In one respect they will be less-namely, by the repeal of the Agricultural Children Act. The Bill relies entirely upon the Factory Acts, permissive bye-laws, and Clauses 7 and 8. I will take these in the reverse order. (1) Clauses 7 and may be left entirely out of consideration, for their application is limited to vagrants and criminals, or to cases of continuous and habitual and inexcusable neglect on the part of parents. (2) All that I have said respecting bye-laws applicable to children who are prevented by the Bill from working, applies equally to these bye-laws as regards children during work. But there is another objection to this system of permissive byelaws, and that is the objection to our delegating legislative as distinguished from administrative functions to local authorities. I hold that objection in a very strong degree; but it has also been held by authorities who, I think, will be Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth

8

[3 Hansard, ccii. 1749.] I leave the right hon. Gentleman to answer himself; I think he will find it exceedingly difficult, because those statements are so logical, that I do not believe any Member in this House could answer them. The right hon. Gentleman will say, no doubt, that we had permissive provisions in the Bill of 1870. But that Act was an experiment, and the country at that time was not prepared for compulsory attendance at schools. But now we are in 1876, and can it be said that we are not prepared to attempt it? Well, then, if we are prepared, let us introduce compulsory attendance into our law, and not leave it to the local authorities, who will have plenty of things to bicker about, plenty of things to contend about, without this fruitful source of contention. The Bill continues to rely mainly on the Labour Acts to secure the attendance of working children at school. But the present working of the Factory and Workshops Acts with their various and conflicting regulations for different kinds of labour is highly unsatisfactory. I will not use my own language in condemnation of it,

but I will quote the language of a high | to carry out, that the enforcing authoauthority, and when I finish the quota- rity is still very insufficient, and that tion I will state whose language it is

"Did those Acts give sufficient security that the children of this country went to school? They gave the impression of general confusion, general inconvenience, and very inadequate results. Again, between the different kinds of labour-that of textile factories, of workshops, and of mines-they had constant conflict and confusion, the employers frequently complaining of the injury inflicted on their various industries by the inequalities as to age and other matters; while for the parents nothing

could be more vexatious than to find that on a

change of their abode they were brought under different rules. Why should a parent in choosing a particular industry for the employment of his child be hampered by having to calculate how far his choice would be affected by these conflicting rules? What they wanted in these matters was simplicity and uniformity of arrangement."

there is no hope of efficient education for children under this Act. Mr.

Redgrave, the Factory Inspector, speaking of the Workshops Act, says

"There are very few places, indeed, where the children attend school for half-time;" and he adds, "It is painful to us to be obliged to administer the Act, because we have to be very strict and to require attendance at school when we know that it is next to valueless. It is the constant habit of parents, under the Workshops Act, the school hours being say from 9 to 12, to send their children in from 10 to 12, or from 9 to 11. The whole object is to get some certificate." And so on. I will not weary the House by reading the whole of the evidence; I will merely say it is a complete condemnation of the Workshops Act. And so also under the Mines Act

20 hours' schooling a fortnight is all that is required. Moreover, the Factory

gine. On this point I will quote a few words from the evidence of Mr. Cumin—

"1631. One inconvenience which has arisen is

These most important words were the words of a Member of the Government, the words of the noble Lord the Vice Pre-Inspectors have over and over again sident of the Council in introducing the pointed out that they are not the right Bill. I want to ask the noble Lord where persons to look into the efficiency of in this Bill are the provisions to remedy schools. In my opinion, an opinion the confusion of which he complains? I supported by the Report of the Factory want to know what has been done in this and Workshops Commission, attendance Bill to remedy the defective state of under the Factory Acts should be at the Factory Acts? Then there is an- schools recognized as efficient by the other point which ought to be cleared Education Department. That principle up in this Bill, and that is whether the was recognized in the Factory Act of the bye-laws of the school board, if more Home Secretary passed two years ago, and stringent than the rules of the Factory why the same provision should not be Acts or of the Workshops Act with re-applied to other industries I cannot imaspect to the labour and employment of children, are to override them or not? There appears to be a complete conflict of opinion on this subject. Mr. Cumin, that most inconvenient of all things-a conflict Assistant Secretary of the Education between the Factory Inspector and our Inspector. Department, in his evidence before the The Factory Inspector sometimes insists that Commission, and Mr. North Buxton, of a school is efficient, and we say it is not. the London School Board, maintain that Then we order a school board on the ground of deficiency, and after the school board is up the the school boards' bye-laws do overchildren continue to go to what we call an inride the Factory Acts. The contrary is efficient school, but what the Inspector of Facmaintained by Mr. Chamberlain, Mayor tories calls an efficient school. Then the rateof Birmingham. Why is this point not payers are compelled to build a school, and they made quite clear by the Bill? I may school because you say the school is inefficient, say-It is very hard we are made to build a illustrate the state of the Labour Acts and the Factory Inspector says it is efficient, so by reference to the well-known and now that our new school is of no use.' In this case notorious Workshops Act of 1867, which there is a direct and mischievous conflict." is either a dead letter, or only means 10 last year's Act to the case of all factories?— hours' schooling a week-that is, two Yes; when we ask about it we are told that hours a-day for five days. Mr. Ken- nothing but the grossest inefficiency can authonedy, the senior Inspector, speaks un-rize a Factory Inspector to declare a school favourably of the educational require- inefficient." ments of the Act, and of the insufficiency of the enforcing body. He says the Workshops Act was a nullity when first begun, being left to the local authorities

"1634. You would extend the provisions of

I need not point out how improper and unfair it is to the parents to compel the child to go to school if you do not take security that the school is effi