[BILL 155.] COMMITTEE. (Hansard, 11 July 1876)

MR. J. COWEN
explained that he had on the previous evening moved to report Progress in order that several Gentlemen who had not spoken might have the opportunity of further urging the Nonconformist objections to the Bill. These Gentlemen had not come down at that early hour, and probably they thought, as he thought, that further remonstrance on the part of the friends of non-sectarian education would be hopeless. He did not wish to give a factious opposition to the measure; and, as the front benches on both sides of the House appeared to have agreed as to the course to be taken, he left it to them to arrange matters between them.

§ MR. STORER
said, he thought that this subject had been viewed too much from an urban point of view. The agricultural ratepayers were, in point of fact, paying upon their incomes seven or eight or ten times more than those of the towns, and yet this Bill professed to make the rural districts contribute out of their Imperial taxation towards the educational expenses of the towns, which were much richer in proportion than the country districts. He hoped the Government would take some notice of this fact.

§ MR. MUNTZ
said, he thought they had met to discuss the Education Bill, and not the question of rating, and therefore on that point would only say that the towns paid an average of 3s. 7d. in the pound, whereas the rural districts paid only about 2s. 6d. or 2s. 8d. in the pound. Some extraordinary statements had been made in the course of last night's discussion to the prejudice of his constituents, and from these statements the House might also infer that Birmingham was a nest of heathens. He was, therefore, anxious to say that among the members of the Church of England, the Roman Catholics, and the Dissenters of Birmingham were some of the most eminent men in this country, and that the school board had merely tried to carry out a system for religious education which had worked satisfactorily to 1284 all sects for 12 or 14 years in New South Wales and South Australia. They had only undertaken the work of secular education, allowing certain times for religious instruction. The plan had failed because the Church of England and the Roman Catholics refused to carry it out. But the school board were not to blame for endeavouring to introduce a system which existed, under the sanction of the Imperial Government, in another part of Her Majesty's dominions, and which was there approved by the Church of England, by Roman Catholics, and even by Buddhists. At any rate, he did not wish, it to be thought that the Birmingham School Board consisted of a body of men who wished for no religion. As to the Bill, he had hitherto supported it, but hoped that now in Committee Amendments would be introduced which would render it more palatable.

§ MR. WHEELHOUSE
said, he desired before the House went into Committee on the Bill to call attention to a fact that seemed to have been overlooked. He was very anxious that something should be done for national schools, and that the voluntary schools and the national schools should be placed by this Bill on a better footing than at present, so as to avoid the difficulty into which they were now in danger of drifting—namely, that voluntary, national, and other school committees, although they had provided buildings and expended, large sums on school houses, would never be able either to hold their own or to recoup themselves. No doubt some hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that it was advisable everything should be handed over to the school boards that permeated the country. He differed entirely from that view. He was anxious that religion should be taught in the schools, and there could be no question in the minds of most hon. Members on both sides of that House that while possibly some persons might object to the use of the Apostles Creed, the Lord's Prayer and the Ten Commandments ought to be taught in every school. He was one of those who would never dissociate religion from secular instruction. There ought to be in every school at least the option to the parent to send the child to a purely secular school, or to one where he would unquestionably receive religious instruction. The Bir- 1285 mingham School Board had been very much, reprehended for the course they had taken. He was not there to find fault with them, but he did complain that the National School Committee should not have the power to keep in their own hands so much of their own money as would educate their own children, and to allow the school board money to be so used that it might be applicable to education in which religion was taught along with the ordinary instruction.

§ MR. PEASE
said, he should not have joined in this discussion had it not been for the attack made on the previous night by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Mr. Hubbard) on the British and Foreign School system.

THE CHAIRMAN
said, the hon. Member would not be in Order in replying to the speech to which he referred.

§ MR. PEASE
said, he would accept the ruling of the Chairman, and make no further allusion to the right hon. Gentleman's speech. With regard to the Bill itself—passing its Preamble—there were in the House three classes of educationalists. There were the advocates of secular education, who were divided into two sub-sections; one represented by the hon. Member for Merthyr (Mr. Richard), who, on religious grounds, declined to have anything but secular instruction in schools supported by the State, and the other—who were a small section of those who took an interest in the subject—composed of those who believed in no religious education at all. On the other side of the House there was the school of dogmatic Scriptural education. He belonged to a school of ardent friends of religious education, which he believed was common to the majority of the people of this Kingdom, and which, under the Education Act of 1870, had become the religious education of a large proportion of the children of this country. Between 40 and 50 school boards only, of which 28 were in Wales, had declined to have Scriptural education in their schools. Therefore, Scriptural education was carried on by about 1,000 school boards, and it was of the undenominational and general character which he thought the House would be willing to support. The great majority of the people of this country were op- 1286 posed to State funds being devoted to dogmatic religious instruction, and the secular educationalists were a small minority. During the debate on the Act of 1870, 20 teachers from the National Schools Society, 20 from the British and Foreign Schools Society, and 20 from the Wesleyan School Board conferred together and reported that, putting aside the creeds and catechisms of the Wesleyans and the Church of England, the religious education was practically the same in all these schools, and this was the unsectarian religious education of about 1,000 school boards. Consequently, he maintained that the system of the British and Foreign Schools Society had not been a failure, and that it was the only one which could be generally approved by the House.

§ MR. SAMPSON LLOYD
stated that the late Birmingham School Board, of which for three years he was Vice Chairman, had adopted an undenominational system of religious instruction, so simple that no parents objected to it; but the new board had abolished the unsectarian plan. The result was that 6,000 children were receiving from voluntary sources on two mornings in the week religious teaching of a certain kind, under no public authority or responsibility, and the children attending other schools, with accommodation for 7,000 children, never once in the whole year heard a word as to their duty to God or their neighbours. This might be copying an Australian system; but he hoped the House would see the change in its true colours. So far from the Birmingham School Board being pioneers of education, as some people regarded them, they ought rather to be considered to have served the less pretentious, but still useful, purpose of scarecrows to frighten the country from secular teaching, into the adoption of a better and more truly liberal system.

§ MR. MUNTZ
explained that under the Australian system he had mentioned the education given was secular except on one day in each week.

§ LORD FRANCIS HERVEY
hoped this irregular discussion of Australian systems and Birmingham squabbles would not be continued, and that the Committee would proceed with the consideration of the Bill.

§ SIR HENRY HAVELOCK
did not accept the ruling of the noble Lord 1287 that this discussion was irregular. He wished to remark that this question was not in a stage where it could be considered to be settled. Hon. Gentlemen opposite represented the opinions of a considerable section of the country, but they did not by any means represent the opinions of the majority. Those who shared his views were content to wait for a better time. The tendency of the Bill was to check the further adoption of school boards where they were not at present established. He did not pretend to say whether or not that was a fair solution of the education difficulty. He believed the education given by the State in State schools, while every facility was given to all denominations to carry on the religious instruction of their children, was what the country would have to come to, but they would have a great deal to get through in the interval.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
desired to express his thanks to the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Cowen) for the handsome manner in which he had refrained on that occasion from pressing the views which he and some other Gentlemen opposite held in favour of secular education in order not to cause any further delay in going into Committee on the Bill.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
appealed to the hon. and learned Member for Oldham (Mr. Serjeant Spinks) to postpone the Amendment of which he had given Notice for Clauses 7, 8, 9, and 10, to take effect immediately after the passing of the Act, for the attendance at school of children habitually neglected by the parent, or habitually wandering and consorting with criminals and disorderly persons, and attendance at industrial schools. The Government were preparing with great care Amendments for the formation of day industrial schools, which he hoped to be able to submit to the Committee in two or three days' 1288 time. He therefore asked the Committee not to pass any judgment on the question until after they had considered the Government Amendments, and also that his hon. and learned Friend would not press his Amendment until the subject was ready for full discussion.

§ MR. SERJEANT SPINKS
said, he readily assented to the request of the noble Lord.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
asked the noble Lord if he intended to postpone also Clauses 7, 8, 9, and 10?

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
Yes.

§ MR. HARDCASTLE
moved, in page 1, line 21, after "ten years," to insert— Unless any such authority as is hereinafter in this Act referred to as the local authority shall have granted a certificate in writing certifying that such child has attained the age of nine years, and that the employment of such child is upon grounds which the said local authority has investigated and found sufficient: Provided, That the employment into which such child is taken is such that the child while employed will attend school half time. The Amendment had been suggested to him by men of great practical experience, which had convinced him that the Act would operate most prejudicially on certain portions of the population, residing especially in Manchester and Salford. The clause laid down the hard-and-fast line that under no circumstances should a child less than 10 years of age be allowed to work at all. The experience of the Manchester School Board was that unless the clause was modified in the way he proposed it would furnish no inconsiderable number of occupants for the new industrial schools, towards the building of which the Government proposed to contribute. In many instances, when women as well as their husbands were employed in factories, they had to leave their homes at an early hour, and had no opportunity of seeing that their children went to school. The consequence of this was that many of these children became truants; whereas if they were allowed to go into some employment. 1289 upon condition of attending school half-time, they would be reclaimed from those truant habits, while they would be usefully occupied, and at the same time their instruction would be going on. He wished it to be distinctly understood that the Amendment was intended to meet exceptional cases, which, however, not unfrequently arose in the manufacturing districts.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
said, there might be exceptional cases of hardship under the operation of the clause; but if the Amendment were adopted it would practically fix the age up to which a child could not be employed at nine years, and it would be impossible to maintain the limit of 10 years, owing to the pressure which would be brought to bear on the school boards, and this part of the Bill might as well be abandoned.

§ MR. MUNDELLA
said, that the Factory Act of 1874 fixed the age for work in textile factories at 10, and it was only just to put all other industries on an equality, and not give an advantage to one over another. In the interest of the great mass of the Lancashire manufacturers, he hoped the noble Lord would not give way on this point.

MR. ASSHETON CROSS
said, the Act of 1874 had been found to work very well. The only objection to it was that other employments were not under its provisions. One of the objects for which the Royal Commission was issued was to inquire not only into the operation of the Act, but to see how far other industries ought to be subjected to the same restriction.

§ MR. BIRLEY
thought there was some misapprehension as to the object of the Amendment, which was not intended to undermine the clause, but to make the compulsory system gradual, instead of forcing all persons at once into the extreme limits contemplated by the Bill. It would facilitate education by an extension of the half-time system in certain cases under a continuance of the present law.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
said, this Amendment would restrict the very stringent rule laid down in this Bill, not at the request of the parents, but on good grounds being shown by them to the attendance committee that it should be done. He should support the Amendment.

§ MR. HERMON
said, the Amendment would inflict injury upon Lancashire, for its effect would simply be to produce a demand for the labour of children too young to enter the factories, and to counterbalance the benefits conferred by the Factory Acts, which had done great good. He hoped it would not be pressed.

§ MR. WHITWELL
opposed the Amendment, urging that children outside the factories would be under less efficient supervision.

§ MR. CLARE READ
moved, after "ten years," to insert— 3. That the child being of the age of nine years has made 250 school attendances in each of the previous four years, and since it reached the age of nine years made 250 school attendances, or had received a certificate fixed by Standard 4 of the Code of 1876.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, the Amendment was based on a misapprehension of Clause 5 as it would stand after the Amendment of which he had given Notice. After the opposition offered to a similar proposal on behalf of the manufacturing interest, it would be unfair and inconsistent on the part of the Government to accede to a similar request from their agricultural friends. As a matter of fact, children in the agricultural districts were often employed in the mornings and evenings in light labour, while they attended school during the day, and were thus able to earn 1s. 8d. a-week.

§ MR. SANDFORD
moved, in page 1, line 21, to omit that portion prohibiting the employment of a child— who, being of the age of 10 years or upwards, has not obtained such certificate either of his proficiency in reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic, or of previous due attendance at a public elementary school, as is in this Act in that behalf mentioned. The hon. Member said, the clause as it stood would interfere with labour in a most objectionable manner. The object which the Bill arrived at was that a child should learn to read, write, and cipher, and if it did not learn to do so, having been at school from the age of 5 to 10 years, it was probable that it would never, learn. To prevent such a child. 1291 from obtaining employment in the agricultural districts between the ages of 10 and 14 would be intolerable. The labour question was difficult enough at present, and instead of endeavouring to increase they should do all in their power to lessen the difficulty. Much as he was opposed to compulsion, he should prefer it to the system proposed by the clause that a limit of 10 or 12 years should be fixed up to which a child could not be employed, provided he were left free after that age.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
contended that agricultural children could not be dealt with in the same way as manufacturing children in towns. It was much better, in his opinion, that they should have compulsory education of children between the ages of 5 and 10 years than that they should be prevented from earning their livelihood between the ages of 10 and 14. He quite believed that this portion of the Government Bill would break down altogether in the agricultural districts. Why should children between the ages of 10 and 14 be prevented from working because they had not attended school a certain number of times between 8 and 10 years? He should like to hear some explanation on this point from the noble Lord who had charge of the Bill, because he felt quite assured that if the provision objected to became law it would cause much dissatisfaction among the agricultural classes.

§ COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE
supported the Amendment, and said he had always been favourable to direct compulsion. He should be sorry to interpose any obstacle to the passing of the Bill; but if his hon. Friend below him went to a division he should vote with him on the principle that he was in favour of direct, as distinguished from indirect, compulsion.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, that the Amendment really raised the question between direct and indirect compulsion. Now, the Government had taken their stand upon the proposal that they had made, that they should not apply direct compulsion in all cases. They proceeded upon the presumption that the great majority of well-doing industrious parents, if the temptation of getting their children's earnings were withdrawn from them, would do their duty without being embarrassed by attendance officers. If 1292 they adopted the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon, and did away with the labour pass, they must adopt the other alternative and go in for universal compulsion, which meant universal inspection and universal school authorities. He was very glad to find that which he had never doubted—that there was so much earnest zeal for the promotion of education among those who were connected with agriculture; but then he regarded that portion of the Bill against which the Amendment was directed as essential, and he could not therefore consent to depart from it.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
observed, that the 10th clause of the Bill as amended by the noble Lord would practically introduce a measure of direct compulsion. He had no doubt that the labour pass would be of considerable advantage, and should be sorry if it were disregarded. He could not vote for the Amendment; but he hoped that some provision might be made for a half-time system between 10 and 14.

§ MR. STORER
said, that if the age of 12 years were substituted for 14 they would get out of the difficulty. Many lads were so dull that they would never pass Standard IV. even if they were kept at school till 21 years of age.

§ MR. WHITWELL
opposed the Amendment, believing that the clause would operate beneficially.

§ MR. EVANS
remarked, in reply to what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Member (Sir Walter Barttelot), that the half-time system had been found to work beneficially in the case of agricultural children.

§ MR. CLARE READ
said, he would support the Amendment. As it at present stood the clause would allow children between 5 and 10 to wander about idle for half of the year. If the Amendment were carried he hoped that something more definite would be done for children between 5 and 10.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
observed, that hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed now to be in favour of universal compulsion. He (Lord Robert Montagu) was not so easily converted, and would therefore vote against the Amendment of the hon. Member for Maldon.

§ MR. WILBRAHAM EGERTON
suggested that, in the clause defining child, the word "fourteen" should be left out, and the word "twelve" substituted.

§ MR. RITCHIE
said, that if the concession now asked for were made in the case of agriculture, the same relaxation should be made in the case of children employed in manufactories under the Factories Acts.

§ MR. HENLEY
deprecated one uniform law applying to poor families under all circumstances. He should therefore hesitate to support the Government on this question. The first necessity of children was to eat, and the parent's first duty was to feed them. If these halffed children were forced to school—especially one in which they were taught no religion—they would be very apt to lay their hands on what they could. An enactment of this sort should not be too sweeping; there should be some modification in the case of large families or the children of widows, and he should support the Amendment.

§ MR. ISAAC
said, that direct compulsion was not required in the borough of Nottingham, and he should support the Bill as it stood.

§ MR. J. K. CROSS
thought there should be direct compulsion up to the age of 10, and then there would be no occasion for the cruel enactment that children up to 14 should not be allowed, under certain circumstances, to earn their own living. He doubted whether the fear of punishment four or five years hence would force parents to do their duty at present.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
observed, that the clause imposed a penalty on any person employing a child under 10 years of age unless it could be proved that he had acted in good faith, in which case the penalty would fall on the parent. He believed that such penalty would be unworkable, and moved, in page 1, line 23, after "certificate," to insert "of age and." The enactment without some such security would be inefficient and worthless.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
admitted the necessity of some bonâ fide arrangement of the nature pointed out, but thought it might be more conveniently introduced into the 15th clause.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
moved, in page 1, line 25, to leave out" public elemen- 1294 tary," and insert "certified efficient," in order that schools that were giving a sound education might count equally with the public elementary schools.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
moved, in page l, line 26, at end, to add— Unless such child is employed, and is attending school in accordance with the provisions of the Factory Acts, or of any bye-law of the local authority sanctioned by the Education Department, regulating the attendance at school of children who are necessarily and beneficially employed. His object was to exempt from the necessity of a certificate persons employed under the Factory Acts or attending schools in accordance with bye-laws framed by any of the local authorities. He contended that such certificates were unnecessary, and would be practically inoperative, as they had been in the case of the Mining Acts; while, according to the Report of Mr. Tuffnell, in 1867, the enforcement of such certificates would compel Inspectors to visit every parish, and every school in very parish, four times every year, in order to examine the children. It would be a great advantage in such cases to make employment and education simultaneous, under the half-time system. If they accepted his Amendment it would not in any way affect those districts where compulsory education was now carried out, and he trusted, therefore, that the noble Lord would not object to it.

§ MR. J. K. CROSS
supported the Amendment on the ground that it might open the way to the adoption of the principle of half-time in the agricultural districts.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
expressed his gratification that the Amendment had been moved, and declared his readiness to vote for it. The proposal was one that went in the right direction, and he was sure it must commend itself to the mind of everybody.

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH
also supported the proposal. If adopted it would be extremely valuable in the agricultural districts. He hoped the Government would support it, as it would tend to carry out their own principle of compulsion.

§ MR. KNOWLES
hoped the Amendment would be adopted, if only for the sake of uniformity.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
would also express a hope that the Vice President of the Council would accept the Amendment. He did not like to relax the stringent provisions as to education that were necessary; but unless this Amendment were adopted it would be impossible to work this clause. They were all agreed that these children between 10 and 14 ought to be working to a certain extent, and it was important that no obstacle should be thrown in the way of a child earning its own livelihood after 14. What he and the noble Lord desired to effect was that between these ages a child should be allowed to go both to work and to school until it had had schooling enough, when it should be allowed to devote itself to work altogether. The noble Lord said the child must either have had schooling enough or must show a sufficient number of attendances; but, through the fault of the parent and not the child, he might not have had the proper number of attendances, and there would be several cases in which the child would not be able to pass the Standard or the attendances. What ought to be done in such cases? The child ought not to be prevented from working. He would not deny that the desire to get hold of the labour pass would affect the minds of parents; but the Legislature ought not to subject ignorant and neglected children to the additional calamity of idleness.

§ MR. HERMON
thought the proposal was a step in the right direction, and ought to be embodied in the Bill.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, that the balance of argument was in favour of the relaxation of the clause in accordance with the wish of the noble Lord, but he could not promise to make any amendment to Clause 7 in the same direction. He was happy, on the part of the Government, to accept the improvement of the Bill proposed by the noble Lord.

§ LORD FRANCIS HERVEY
remarked that the provisions affecting the employment of children were scattered up and. down the Bill in such a way that it would be somewhat difficult for the poor people to whom this applied to apprehend them.

§ MR. FAWCETT
feared that the effect of the Amendment would be to encourage parents in wilful neglect in sending their children to school because they would say "Our children will obtain work 1296 whether there has been the requisite number of attendances or not." The result would be to entirely destroy the system of indirect compulsion between the ages of 5 and 10. If this was done to the extent proposed they should have some security that the system of direct compulsion between those ages should be strengthened.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
reminded his hon. Friend of the important Amendments already made in the Bill, and of the provision made for the attendance of such children.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
moved to add at the end of the Clause— Provided, that a list of Public Elementary and other Schools where efficient elementary instruction is given (whether such schools are or are not in receipt of grants provided by Parliament) shall be annually published by the Committee of Council on Education; and that the list so published, or any supplementary list published during the year, on the request of the local authority or of the managers of a school, shall be sufficient evidence that every school so named is an efficient elementary school. There were 534 Catholic schools, and he knew not how many Nonconformist, which might be affected unjustly in this way. If a school were inspected, and the Inspector reported that it was not quite efficient, it would have to be shut up; but if proper efforts were made it might be made efficient, say within 10 months. He thought justice required that such a case should be met. If he received a proper assurance from the noble Lord opposite he would not press the Amendment.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
thought it was hardly necessary to insert such a provision, because he did not think the local authorities would be rash enough to close a school such as the noble Lord had described. If, however, he found on further consideration that further provision was required he would be happy to meet the views of the noble Lord.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
called the attention of the noble Lord to the position of the canal children throughout the country. He was not going to propose any Amendment, because he believed the noble Lord had the case under consideration. He knew how difficult it was to ascertain precisely the residences 1297 such children, of whom there were a great number, chiefly located in the canal boats.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
admitted the importance of the subject. Though he thought these children would to a certain extent be caught under the operation of the Bill, yet he was afraid that great numbers of them would succeed in eluding its provisions. In fact, they were a class of children with whom it was extremely difficult to deal, and he was disposed to think that the best course to pursue would be to postpone the further dealing with our canal population until the time when his right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department would have to legislate with respect to the various labour suggestions of the Factory Commissions. If, meantime, he found any opportunity of dealing with the question he should be glad to do so.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
was of opinion that it would not be well to defer dealing with the subject for so long a time.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
moved, in page 2, line 5, to leave out from "district," to "in this Act," in line 10, and insert— By a committee (in this Act referred to as a 'school attendance committee') appointed annually, if it is a borough, by the council of the borough, and, if it is a parish, by the guardians of the union comprising such parish. A school attendance committee under this section may consist of not less than six nor more than twelve members of the council or guardians appointing the committee, so, however, that, in the case of a committee appointed by guardians, one-third at least shall consist of ex-officio guardians, if there are any and sufficient ex-officio guardians. Every such school board and school attendance committee. They were anxious, if possible, to attach the best people in the district to Boards of Guardians and to Town Councils. He trusted that, indirectly, this would strengthen the district local government of the country, and that change, he hoped, would add very much to efficiency.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
thanked the noble Lord for having introduced into the Bill an Amendment 1298 substantially such as he had himself proposed, and expressed his confident opinion that it would be found to work well throughout the country.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
was very glad the noble Lord had made this alteration, and that he had not adhered to the proposal that authority should be given to persons not of the local authorities. The noble Lord had up to this time completely fulfilled his promise that he would listen to proposals for improvement from all parts of the House. He would suggest whether there were not some districts where it would be almost impossible to secure the proportion of one-third of ex-officio Guardians.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
thought it would be well to follow the precedent that had been adopted for guidance.

§ MR. PELL
said, that from his experience ex-officio members were not so willing to act as elected members.

§ MR. PEASE
said, he was much pleased with the alteration proposed to be made in this section. As the clause stood it would not work well.

§ CAPTAIN NOLAN
objected to the committee consisting of one-third ex-officio Guardians. He did so because it was likely to make a precedent for Ireland, and there it would not at all work well.

§ MR. CLARE READ
said, it would be better to amend the Amendment by providing that, in case an adequate number of ex-officio members could not be obtained, the deficiency should be made up by elected Guardians.

MR. PAGET
could not conceive on what ground it was assumed that ex-officio Guardians would not discharge their duty as members of the education committee.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
moved, in page 2, line 13, after "known," to insert— It shall be the duty of such local authority to report to the Education Department any infraction of the provisions of section seven of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,' in any public elementary school within their district which may come to their knowledge; and also to forward to the Education Department any complaint which they may receive of the infraction of those provisions.' He hoped that this Amendment would commend itself to the Government and 1299 the Committee generally. It was designed to guard against an evil which every Member of the House would wish to see prevented, and in a way that was not open to objection. He did not believe that the Conscience Clause of 1870 had been often infringed. Indeed, he was not himself aware of any such case. But there was great fear of its being infringed, and it was a suspicion which must be treated by the Government and the House as a fact. Some security, therefore, should be provided against such infringement. He could not vote last evening for the Amendment of the hon. Member (Mr. Richard), believing that it would not work well if the schools were put under the management of the local authority. But as the power now to be given to the local authority would benefit the schools by obtaining for them a larger grant and larger fees from the children, it was only fair that the local authority should report to the Education Department if the conditions were infringed upon which their compulsory powers were exercised. The Amendment also provided that the local authority should forward to the Education Department any complaint made to them of the infraction of the Conscience Clause.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
observed, that the Government and all hon. Members on that (the Ministerial) side were as anxious as any hon. Members on the other side could be that there should be no doubt as to the Conscience Clause being strictly and honestly carried out. In point of fact, the cases were very few in the country generally in which there were any complaints of the infraction of the clause; but whenever a complaint was received by the Education Department they immediately caused inquiries to be made into it. They had had two or three cases, and the school had been notified that if the infraction were repeated the annual Parliamentary grant would be stopped, and there was an end of the matter. He thought that the Amendment was a very good one, not for removing any real difficulties which existed; but if it was an additional assurance to persons that their conscientious scruples would not be interfered with, it would have done good work.

§ LORD ROBERT MONTAGU
contended that as no grant was made to certified efficient schools they ought not 1300 to have a Conscience Clause imposed upon them.

MR. PAGET
said, he agreed with the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) that all wished to see the Conscience Clause carried out in the most complete and loyal manner. He feared that the Amendment, if accepted in its present shape, would, oblige the local authorities to report any idle tale or rumour as to the infraction of the clause, and if so it would do great mischief and cause strife where we wanted peace. He would therefore move to amend the proposed Amendment by omitting all the words after the word "authority" in line 2 down to "also" in line 5.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
pointed out that it was not a mere rumour, but an infraction of the provision of the section referred to that should be reported.

§ MR. A. MILLS
said, he could not conceive words more clear than the terms in which the Amendment was drawn. It was satisfactory to the Committee to have the testimony of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford that he had known of no infraction of the Conscience Clause.

§ MR. RICHARD
said, he was greatly obliged to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford for proposing the Amendment, and he was no less obliged to the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) for the frank and generous spirit with which he had received it. It would be a great advantage to give this power to the local authorities.

THE O'CONOR DON
moved, in page 2, line 16, to leave out "and not of," and insert "to assist." If the clause were left unaltered it would throw upon the Inspectors of Factories, and upon them alone, the duty of looking after the children employed in all the smaller workshops, and the consequence would be that in a great portion of the country the Act would be inoperative. The effect of his Amendment was to throw upon the local authorities the duty of enforcing the observance of the law, providing at the same time that the Inspectors of Factories should assist the local authorities in the carrying out of that duty.

§ MR. W. S. STANHOPE
said, some Amendment was absolutely necessary in the mining districts, where the Inspectors had so many important duties and large districts to attend to; thus it would be impossible for them to attend to the schools in the manner required by the Bill.

§ MR. A. M'ARTHUR
said, it was utterly impossible that the Inspectors could do what this clause imposed upon them.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
admitted that it would be imperilling too much the interests of education if they relied solely upon the Inspectors, and he would therefore accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon.