poor that is, where voluntary schools, which are mainly Church schools, cover the ground, and required."-[3 Hansard, ccxxiv. 1572.] where, therefore, a board school will not be The fact was that the Bill of the hon. Member for Birmingham was supported by the whole of the Nonconformists; it proposed direct compulsion that you should not build another additional school, but force the children into the existing Church schools; and yet the Government were now told by the hon. Gentleman that the present measure did exactly the same thing, though through the agency of the Boards of Guardians, and that there was to be an agitation throughout the land against its provisions, and that they would be obliged to build unsectarian new schools in every town. He could not understand the position taken up by the hon. Gentleman or the Nonconformists. He could not, however, help hoping that wiser councils would prevail, for the hon. Gentleman and his Friends must feel that the measure of the Government was framed in no sectarian spirit. He, at all events, in the speech which he made in introducing it, avoided saying anything which could excite the slightest feeling on their part, and he contended that the position which they appeared to be about to take up was totally untenable. There was another important point which had been touched upon in the course of the debate down two agents of its own to any school accommodation, my Bill will have no locality, to pay them out of the rates, operation except to enforce compulsion. I only and to keep them there two years, insisted upon by the Act of 1870, school boards ask that, in addition to what is at present inorder to see that indirect compulsion shall be formed in those districts where there is was strictly carried out in that locality. already a sufficiency of school accommodation He should have thought, if there had been any fear about the matter, it would have been that their Bill was too strong. If, however, the words of the clause were found too feeble, they might be strengthened with advantage; but he should have thought there was scarcely a loop-hole through which a child could escape. He had been told compulsion had failed in the Mines Act and in the Agricultural Children Act. The answer to that was, that there they had no enforcing authority, but here they had a stringent enforcing authority. The hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) was opposed to several of the leading provisions of the Bill, among others, he said he was against the payments proposed to be made to " district" schools. Whether they would succeed in that respect he (Viscount Sandon) could not at present say. Now there was extreme difficulty in hitting off what was a "poor district school, but he adhered to the view that it was unjust, because a district was poor and and could get but little local help, it should therefore be deprived of the Government grant. He thought the principle on which he had gone was a sound one. The hon. Gentleman went on to say that he would gladly accept the local authority proposed, if they gave them all the powers of school boards. That was a very serious matter, and he should entirely demur to the proposition that he referred to that which related to Boards of Guardians were fit to be the managers of schools and to carry out all the work of education. Then there was the solemn threat of the hon. Member-which was a serious matter coming from him-that if the Bill were carried they must be prepared to have a great agitation throughout the country which would result in the establishment of unsectarian schools in every school district. Surely that opened up quite a new view of the case, and different from that taken by the hon. Member in his Bill for universal school boards and universal compulsion. The hon. Gentleman said, in speaking on the 9th of June last year "Let it be clearly understood that, in all those districts where there is a sufficiency of Viscount Sandon the Industrial Schools. So far as they were concerned, the question involved was one which would of course require a great deal of discussion in Committee. He adopted the Industrial Schools, but hon. Gentleman must be aware that when a certain point in compulsion was reached, their action was liable to be absolutely foiled. It was impossible to fine and fine ad infinitum, and it was equally out of the question to imprison. The Government were therefore of opinion that some handling of Industrial Schools in the matter might be found to be very useful. It might, however, be matter for consideration, though the Government had formed no opinion on the point, whether some modifications with respect to those schools might not be introduced into the Bill. The truth | however, on the present occasion enter was that the subject was one in which into the details raised by his hon. Friend, every alternative treatment possible nor could he give any pledge on the must be adopted. One mode of treat- part of the Government with respect to ment would not suffice, and it was ne- them. A great number of important cessary that they should have many matters had also been raised by his right strings to their bow, because they had hon. Friend the Member for Bradford to deal with a multitude of evils. Hon. (Mr. W. E. Forster), which it would, he Gentlemen, he might add, on both sides thought, be on the whole wiser not to of the House, including the hon. Mem- deal with at present. There were ber for Berkshire (Mr. Walter), the hon. | figures, which he hoped to give when Member for Manchester (Mr. Birley), proposing the Estimates, but which did and some others, had made speeches not affect the Bill. His right hon. which were highly favourable to the Friend went on to say that he thought Bill. The hon. Member for Maidstone he (Viscount Sandon) overrated the (Sir John Lubbock) too, though he criti- labour part. He would remind the cized some of its provisions, showed he House that under the right hon. Genentertained a warm feeling for it, as well tleman's own Act a child could not go as the right hon. Gentleman the Member to school without a certificate; but, at for the University of Edinburgh. The present, the parent alone could be prohon. Member for Roscommon (the secuted, and not the employer who emO'Conor Don) had raised a point about ployed an uncertificated child. He hoped which there was considerable difficulty, the present Bill would prove still more but that difficulty could be met by in- efficacious. Then with regard to the sisting that schools which were not enforcing authority, he saw that the public elementary schools should submit right hon. Gentleman still had a weakto a rigid inspection, while he could ness for universal school boards. Well, assure him that there was no intention the Government could not go with him of inflicting a wrong on any denomina- to that extent. That subject must, as tion. It would, however, be impossible far as the present Government was conto allow attendances at non-efficient cerned, be considered closed. The Goschools to pass. The objection of the vernment believed that the proposed enhon. Gentleman was, at the same time, forcing authority represented the people one which he quite admitted was well thoroughly, and it became a matter of deserving of consideration. As to the over-sensitiveness to say that that authoobjection raised by the hon Baronet the rity must in no way be connected with the Member for Maidstone, with respect to management of schools. If we were to the attendance, that also he admitted ostracize the managers of all the existing would be a great blot on the Bill, if it schools in country places we should be could not be met; but he must confess shutting out the best people who cared he saw no danger of girls slipping out for education, and who were the most of its meshes. The conditions as to likely to get the children into the schools. labour would, he thought, meet their He would now rapidly run over his obcase as well as that of the boys, as the jections to the proposal of the hon. Memclause dealing with the matter was in- ber for Sheffield. The point which the tended to be very stringent. He re- hon. Member raised was, as to whether it gretted, he might add, that the House was wise that we should put the whole of was not fuller when his hon. Friend the our working population into bondage as Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Clare to the daily attendance of their children, Read) made his long and able speech. because some of their number were inHe could not sufficiently admire the different and negligent. The hon. Member generosity with which the hon. Gentle- for Hastings (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) had man said that he would even rejoice asked why Parliament should not do the that his own Bill should be repealed, forethought for the parents? That was and as there was nobody more conver- exactly the thing which the Government sant with the wants of the country, and objected to, for they did not think it nobody more anxious that its children right or healthy that Parliament should should have education, his testimony in do the forethought for the parents of favour of the measure of the Govern- the country. They held that to be one ment was most valuable. He would not, the false principles of legislation, which was doing a great deal of harm in the present day, when Parliament was asked to do the forethought of the people in regard to food, drink, and morals. The House must not be led by the hon. Member for Sheffield into this most dangerous course. The issue was a broad and a clear one. It was not a question of a little more of direct or a little less direct compulsion. The question was, whether we should put the honest, laborious, and duty-doing parents into bondage for the sake of the negligent ones. Direct compulsion meant that so many attendances at school should be necessary, and that the not keeping them was a crime. The Factory Acts Commissioners, of whom he wished to speak with the greatest respect, made a recommendation of a system of direct compulsion such as existed nowhere else. They said that the attendance at school of all children ought to be compulsory up to the age of 18, and they recommended a full-time attendance of five hours daily, or of 25 hours a-week and half-time besides. If, however, this recommendation were compared with the English Act of 1870 and the Scotch Act, it would be found to be much more stringent than anything already enacted. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford stated that there were very few children absent from school in places where school boards existed. But the fact was that in London there were something like 180,000 children not in attendance at school, 25,000 at Liverpool, something like 16,000 at Birmingham, and a large deficiency in all other school board places. He believed, however, that under the proposed system of indirect compulsion the number of attendances would be greatly increased. The Ragged School Union had ascertained that there were a very large number of children in the streets during school hours. When they saw the agents of the society taking notes, the children imagined they were school board people, and rapidly disappeared; but when, soon afterwards, a Punch and Judy was sent into the district, the streets swarmed with them again. He thought that all these stories about the completeness of the work done by the school boards must be received cum grano, and it was at least open to doubt whether the school boards were doing their work so thoroughly and efficiently as had been Viscount Sandon stated. Some interesting remarks upon the subject would be found in the Reports of the Inspectors, which would be in the hands of hon. Members in a few days. He himself only saw them a few days ago, after the present measure had been prepared. One of the ablest of the Inspectors, speaking of Gloucestershire and Somersetshire, Mr. Moncreiff, said the action of the school boards had done little or nothing to prevent irregular attendance; and, comparing the country districts without school boards with the towns, he stated that the percentage of the attendances in Gloucestershire was to the city of Bristol as 156 to 10. Yet the same gentleman admitted that the Bristol School Board was by no means a bad one. Next came the evidence of Mr. Wilkinson, another Inspector, who was familiar with Staffordshire. This gentleman said that the action of the school boards had in some respects tended to increase the difficulties of education, because parents now sought to send their children only just often enough to avoid being summoned. Direct compulsion, therefore, was not as easy as it was represented to be. Every means should be used for procuring the attendance of the children, instead of confining ourselves to one means, and we should not use a pressure which in the long run might retard instead of promoting the end they all had in view. If labourers and artizans were so greatly in favour of compulsion why did they not vote for it in their several districts, and why was it necessary in every school board district to have such armies of visitors to force their children to school? The greatest caution was necessary when you interfered with the poorest of the population, lest by suddenly cutting off the earnings of their children, upon which they in part depended, you should produce a dangerous reaction against the education you sought to give. He was not alone in this view, which was sometimes supposed to be confined to benighted Tories, country gentlemen, or clergymen, who knew nothing of these matters. Canon Norris, who for 15 years was one of the best Inspectors of the Education Department, was earnest in pressing forward indirect compulsion, but in his book, The Education of the People, he said "When I hear politicians invoking a system of compulsory education as the panacea for all our social evils, I often wish 1 could take them to educate the child with this view. into one of our poor village homes and let them This important change would be secured there try to work out their plan for a single week. Go into any one of those cottages where by the Bill. To sum up, school boards there are two or three children between the ages would be kept exactly as they were, of 9 and 12. They are returned in my political with the same functions, but with the friend's statistics as idle,' being 'neither at enormous assistance of indirect comschool nor at work.' But what is the fact? They are as indispensable to the home life of that cottage as if they were earning 38. or 4s. aweek. One is going errands, most necessary errands, with the father's meals, to the apothecary three miles off, to the village shop. Another collects half the fuel they use, or acorns for the pig, or manure for the garden, and all in their turn mind the house, 'mind the fire,' mind the baby while the mother is out.' We must think twice or thrice before we roughly try to apply compulsory school attendance to such a home as that. To require those parents to give up their children's services would be simply tantamount to requiring them to keep a servant girl, at a cost of 2s. 6d. a-week, out of an income of 12s. a-week." pulsion. Local authorities everywhere would be armed with the power of protecting children from the negligence of parents or the pressure of employers. Then a strong pressure would be kept on the local authorities themselves, through the power of the Education Department to declare them in default if they did not do their duty, a power which might be set in motion by the Inspectors or by other complainants. Then there was direct compulsion if the locality desired it, just as in the case of school boards at present, and, again, there was the labour pass. He believed The late Prince Consort, in 1857, thus the parent would not like to risk the treated the same topic "What measures can be brought to bear upon this evil (of non-attendance at school) is a most delicate question, and will require the nicest handling, for there you cut into the very quick of the working man's condition. His children are not only his offspring to be reared for a future independent position, but they constitute part of his productive power, and work for him for the staff of life. The daughters especially are the handmaids of the house, the assistants of the mother, the nurses of the younger children, the aged, and the sick. To deprive the labouring family of their help would be almost to paralyze its domestic existence." loss of the child's labour when the time for it would come, because the child did not make all the attendances. And next we had the very strong clause which dealt with negligent parents and wastrel children. Well, then, we had got simplicity of working in the Bill. All the parent had to do when he wanted to send his child to labour was to present a pass, and all the employer had to do was to ask whether the child had got one, for as the age would appear upon it there would be no further difficulty. Then we had the dunce pass, the standard pass, and the honour pass: and in that Such an opinion, coming from one in-way emulation among the children was timately acquainted with the domestic provided for. Very little persuasion life of Germany, and with its school would be necessary to induce the child regulations, was well deserving of con- to attend regularly and do its work well. sideration. As to the Amendment, the Another advantage was the concentration Government must once for all decline to of duties upon existing authorities, the adopt it, and thereby to put the labouring object being to throw as much work population in leading-strings as to the upon them as they would be able to daily life of their children. The Bill perform efficiently, and as would add to might be amended in various ways. It their dignity without multiplying local might be desirable to put in some de- bodies. In that way were combined claration of the parent's duty, though economy with efficiency. Another point general declarations of this kind ap- of great importance was that private peared almost useless in the face of the adventure schools, which were the curse Preamble. Considered as a whole, the of the country, would be very quietly, Bill would alter the position of all the and almost insensibly got rid of. The parties concerned towards education. parent would not send his child to a The negligent parent, who now kept his school where he might not get sufficient child at work, would hereafter find the education to pass the Standard, and greatest difficulty in getting work for besides, where attendance would not him without education. The employer count. Lastly, the great reaction against who now tried to get the child to work our educational system would be avoided. for him, would thus find it his interest["No, no!"] Yes, direct compulsion Question put: The House divided:-Ayes 309; Noes 163: Majority 146. AYES. Colebrooke, Sir T. E. Corry, hon. H. W. L. Crichton, Viscount Cuninghame, Sir W. Adderley, rt. hn. Sir C. Cole, Col. hon. H. A. Bates, E. Dickson, Major A. G. had been pressed as far as it could; | the effect would be that in a few years people were beginning to rebel against not a child in the country would be it, and unless by this measure we an- without a sound education. ticipated the growing dissatisfaction, that dissatisfaction might prove dangerous. Theorists might consider the measure illogical, half-hearted, insufficient. These were some of the epithets hon. Gentlemen opposite thought fit to apply. It was quite time the Government had been asked by some of the members of the Birmingham League to take courage and do their bidding. Some of the extreme friends of voluntary schools had also told them to take courage, do their bidding, and repeal the Act of 1870. As to taking courage to do the bidding of the League, all the electors throughout the country had told the League that the country was not with them. As for some of the entreaties of his hon. Friends who took an opposite view, there was no sufficient sign that the country was with them to justify any Government in taking up the conclusions they advocated. The Government, in his opinion, might rest with confidence upon their measure while they had the good opinion of such men as the hon. Member for Berkshire, the right hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh, and the hon. Members for Manchester, Exeter, and Norfolk, who had all acknowledged the vigour of this Bill; and it had been acknowledged in other quarters too. Because if that Bill was that weak and inefficient measure which some people pretented, why did the hon. Member for Merthyr say it was going to occasion a revolution? He quite admitted that the measure was cautious and moderate. He, for one, charged with the responsibility of the Department to which he belonged, would be sorry if he brought forward a measure which was not cautious, and which did not err, if anything, on the side of moderation, when he knew the enormous interests at stake. The Government offered, then, to the sober sense of Englishmen, not to the theorists, the members of the League, or to the extreme partizans on either side, a which was consistent with the freedom of Englishmen, and with the freedom of individuals, but which, while consulting that freedom, would show no mercy to the wrong-doer who injured his child by depriving him of the education to which he was entitled, and he believed that Viscount Sandon measure Boord, T. W. Bourke, hon. R. Sir W. Elliot, Sir G. Elliot, G. W. Elphinstone, SirJ.D.H. Errington, G. Eslington, Lord Ewing, A. O. Fellowes, E. Finch, G. H. Forester, C. T. W. Forsyth, W. Foster, W. H. Gardner, J. T. Agg Gardner, R. Richard son Garnier, J. C. Gilpin, Sir R. T. Goddard, A. L. Goldney, G. Clive, hon. Col. G. W. Gordon, Sir A. H. Gordon, rt. hon. E. S. Gorst, J. E. Goulding, W. |