HC Deb 13 July 1876 vol 230 cc1399-421

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 6 (Existing local authorities to have like powers with school boards of enforcing by bye-law attendance of children).

MR. MUNDELLA

moved, in page 2, line 21, to leave out "if it is a borough the council," and insert "the local authority."

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

pointed out that the words "local authority" were already used to describe the authority which should put the Act in force. He had an Amendment on the Paper by which, it was proposed, in urban districts other than boroughs, to give the power to the urban authority.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he would withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

then moved, in page 2, line 21, after "coun- cil," to insert "and if it is an urban district other than a borough, the urban authority."

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, the Government had given much consideration to the question, which was not so simple as it seemed, except where the areas of civil parishes were conterminous with the areas of urban sanitary authorities; but if the matter were allowed to stand over until the Report, he would introduce a clause or an Amendment which would substantially carry out what appeared to be the general wish of the Committee.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. KNOWLES

said, he would refrain from repeating the considerations he had already urged as to the necessity of getting children to school everywhere; but to carry out the view he had put Amendments on the Paper, the effect of which would be to make it obligatory upon, instead of optional with, the local authorities to enforce compulsion. He moved, in page 2, line 21, after "council," to leave out "may, if they think fit," and insert "shall." The hon. Member was particular to press on the Committee that, while his object was to make it imperative on Town Councils and Local Boards to enforce compulsion, Guardians would still require to be set in motion by requisition, as proposed by the clause.

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 21, to leave out the words "may, if they think fit."—(Mr. Knowles.)

VISCOUNT SANDON

remarked that this was a large change to propose, because it made it obligatory upon the Town Councils and Boards of Guardians to make compulsory bye-laws.

MR. KNOWLES

Only when they are requested to do so. The words "on the requisition of the parish" would remain in the clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

hoped that the Committee would consider the exact wording of the clause with regard to Town Councils before they dealt with the parishes.

THE CHAIRMAN

said, that the hon. Member for Wigan could not at present propose to insert the word "shall," and his Amendment, therefore, was to leave out the words "if they think fit."

MR. W. E. FORSTER

observed that the Amendment raised three questions—first, whether it was obligatory on the Town Councils to have bye-laws; secondly, whether it was obligatory upon the Guardians to have bye-laws on the requisition of the parish; and, thirdly, whether it was obligatory on the Guardians to have bye-laws without the requisition of the parish, and therefore it was better to consider the Amendment on the separate grounds to which he had referred.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, it was the intention and wish of the Government to follow exactly the procedure and arrangements of the Act of 1870. If the Town Councils asked for compulsory bye-laws they might have them, but they were not obliged to have them. The Government wished to follow the same analogy with regard to parishes which could only have a school board by a popular vote. Thus, if either Town Councils or Boards of Guardians wished to have compulsory bye-laws, they might have them, but need not have them unless they so desired. It was the intention of the Government to adhere to that arrangement, and to leave it to the local authorities to decide whether they would or would not have compulsory bye-laws.

MR. A. BROWN

hoped that the Amendment would be adopted.

MR. ONSLOW

hoped that the Government would abide by the clause, because if the Amendment were adopted we should have universal school boards all over the country.

MR. HAMOND

said, that while he had last Session moved the rejection of Mr. Dixon's Bill for compulsory school boards and compulsory attendance of children at school because he thought Parliament had no right to inflict on the ratepayers the establishment of school boards where there was no deficiency of school accommodation, yet he was quite willing to support a fair scheme by which the attendance of children at school should be secured in a greater ratio than had been secured under the Act of 1870. There was school accommodation for 3,146,000 children, whereas sufficient was required for 4,500,000. Again, the register contained the names of 2,744,000, with an average attendance of 1,837,000 children, which was very unsatisfactory. He was quite in favour of some power being given to the local authorities where no school boards existed. By a previous clause it had been enacted that no children between the ages of 5 and 10 should go to work. What was to become of these children if their parents neglected to send them to school? He considered it most important that some compulsory powers should be given to the local authorities to insist on the children being educated, and therefore he had much pleasure in supporting the Amendment of the hon. Member for Wigan.

MR. FAWCETT

thought it a significant circumstance that this Amendment should have been moved by an hon. Member on the Conservative side and supported by two Members of the same Party. The hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. Onslow) had endeavoured to obscure the question by introducing the bugbear of universal school boards; but the Amendment would have the effect of preventing such a system from coming into operation. The only argument of any weight which had been used against the Amendment was that it went further than the Education Act of 1870, which only established permissive compulsion; but the country had made progress on that question since 1870, and if they were not now to advance beyond the provision of that Act, why was the present Bill brought in at all? The Amendment under discussion was rendered all the more necessary by the Amendment which the Vice President of the Council had accepted the other day on the suggestion of the noble Lord (Lord Frederick Cavendish) relating to half-time. If stringent precautions were adopted against children between the ages of 5 and 10 being sent to work, it was most essential, in the interests of children, that equally effectual security should be taken for getting them between those same ages into the schools, otherwise they might be neither learning nor working, but only running about the streets. No man possessed more practical knowledge on the subject than the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Knowles), who came to that House fresh from his labours on the Factory Commission; and it was therefore to be hoped that hon. Gentlemen opposite would pay some deference to his opinion.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he had always frankly acknowledged that there was much to be urged by ton. Gentlemen opposite in favour of a system of universal bye-laws, but he had also said that neither he nor the Government could support them, but took a totally different view. This matter was fully argued out on the proposition of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella), the question then before the House being whether the recommendations of the Factory Commissioners for the establishment of universal bye-laws should be carried out or not. The hon. Member for Wigan made an able speech on that occasion, and voted against the Government. [Mr. KNOWLES: I did not vote.] He was glad the hon. Member had shown his fidelity to his Party. ["Oh, oh!"] He thought there was nothing to be ashamed of. At all events the question was decided by a very large majority, and he objected to re-opening it. The hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Hamond)said that under this Bill children would be kept away from work till the age of 10, but it contained no provision which required their attendance at school. The hon. Member had overlooked Clause 7. If the local authority did their duty, and if the Education Department did their duty—which he hoped would not be disputed—no child of the age of 5 years or upwards could be habitually absent from an elementary school.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, this Amendment was not exactly the same as that of the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella). He (Lord Frederick Cavendish) supported it on the ground that if universal bye-laws were not established great injustice and inequality would be the result in various parts of the country. Thus, where school boards existed and bye-laws were in force, an employer of labour could obtain the labour of children under the half-time system. In a neighbouring parish where there were no bye-laws, children could not be employed half-time. Was it just that such a difference should exist in two neighbouring parishes with reference to the labour of children?

MR. RITCHIE

said, he had read the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors, and found that a large majority of them were agreed that direct compulsion was necessary. It would be a bad thing to have compulsion in one district and not in another. He thought that direct and indirect compulsion might work well together. The noble Lord said that if he accepted the Amendment it would leave the law in a curious state; but would it not be easy to insert a clause assimilating the Town Council to the local authorities?

MR. MUNDELLA

hoped the noble Lord would see his way to the acceptance of this Amendment, which differed from that proposed by himself. The Amendment which he moved was that the whole of the recommendation of the Commissioners should be adopted. If the employers of labour on the other side of the House did not support the Amendment, he believed the time would come when they would regret it. The Bill as it stood was permissive for education, prohibitory for employment, and by-and-by it would be found that, owing to the negligence of their parents, thousands of children who ought to begin work would not possess the necessary certificates, and the farmers and millowners who employed them would be fined for doing so. He maintained that this would fall harder upon the farmers than upon anybody else. Why should Parliament go the roundabout way of requiring the local authorities to put these principles into force? It was the constituencies legislating for Parliament, instead of Parliament legislating for the constituencies. The supporters of the Amendment had a large majority of the clergy with them in this matter; whilst one half of the noble Lord's own party were ready to vote against him.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he was rather an "old-fashioned person," but he remembered when hon. Members opposite had a deep respect for parental authority, and when it was unusual for them to deprecate an appeal to the opinion of the constituencies. All this was changed. The hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) wanted the Committee to pass an absolute law to shield him from his constituents, lest he should be reproached for favouring an arbitrary law. He (Mr. Newdegate) rejoiced that the noble Lord proposed to leave the discretion in the hands of the local authorities. He himself was not in favour of forcing children into schools of which the parents disapproved.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

regarded the Amendment as merely an embodiment of the principles of the clause of which the noble Lord had given Notice. It was useless to pass the Bill at all unless some steps were taken to render it effective. If one district left its children uneducated, the whole country would be the sufferers.

MR. BIRLEY

said, he did not think the Amendment was of any material importance, since by the subsequent clauses they provided for the compulsory education of children between 5 and 10. He would remind the Committee that the House, by a very large majority, had decided in favour of indirect as opposed to direct compulsion.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that the basis of the arguments adduced in support of the Amendment was that the whole country was unanimously in favour of direct compulsion. If that were so, the local authorities who might be taken to reflect the public opinion of their districts would have ample power under this Bill to enforce compulsion. All that the Bill said was that the local authorities should not be compelled to enforce compulsion in places where it was neither required nor desired. It was in accordance with the spirit of English law to leave much to local self-government, and he protested against this attempt to force the country to adopt one uniform cast-iron mould in the education of its children. The noble Viscount who had charge of the Bill had intimated that he would propose a clause that it was the duty of every parent to send his children to school, and undoubtedly it was; and if he failed to do so, there were pains and penalties to punish him: but he considered the duty should not be delegated to Town Councils to compel parents to do so. If the penalties failed to compel the parent to send his child to school, then the State should say—"We will take the child and send him to an industrial school." On the whole, he preferred the proposal of the noble Lord to the Amendment which had been moved, because the only logical conclusion that could follow upon the adoption of the Amendment was the sweeping away altogether of direct compulsion.

COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE

hoped that the noble Viscount would accede to the Amendment, and thought it unnecessary that any wish should be expressed by the ratepayers on the subject. With regard to Poor Law Guardians, they were elected annually, and if they failed to do their duty, it was in the power of the ratepayers not to re-elect them.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

observed, that he thought every hon. Member who had considered the question would take the same view as the hon. and gallant Member who had just spoken. He (Mr. Forster) believed it would be found by all who had had to deal with the practical work of education—no matter whatever might have been their abstract opinions as to compulsion up to the present time—that if the Bill was to pass, as the noble Lord desired it to pass, that it would turn out vastly more convenient and more to the comfort of the local authorities that this matter should be settled by Parliament—that Parliament should lay down the rule that there should be in every district bye-laws in regard to compulsory attendance. Those were matters deserving the consideration of the Committee. He did not know that local authorities would be the best to commit the power to. Undoubtedly it was true that there might be a feeling in the country in favour of bye-laws; but there were districts in the country where the inhabitants might not be in favour of bye-laws. As the Bill stood at that moment, no child above 10 years of age could work unless in some employment under the Factory Act. He thought too much might be exacted unless they had bye-laws, and that the Bill might operate very unfairly. He could not help thinking that if his noble Friend had, in framing the Bill, put himself in communication with those hon. Members on both sides of the House who had given much attention to the subject of education, he would have derived much advantage from their opinions. He considered it would be far better if the noble Lord had so framed the Bill that children would be eligible for employment. He wished it to be borne in mind that in 1870 the Government did not establish, and did not intend to establish, the principle of permissive compulsion. What they did was to establish experimental compulsion. They had tried the experiment, and it had answered. With regard to Scotland, they had not experimental but absolute compulsion. He found that before the Act was passed the average attendance at the schools was 40,000, and that the increased average attendance since the passing of the Act was 80,000.In some large towns throughout the country they had school boards, but in Preston they had not. With regard to the average attendance of children in the National Schools in Preston, it was under 5,000, while there appeared on the roll 14,000. Now that difference was because the Preston National Schools had no bye-laws. If the passing of these bye-laws depended upon some merely temporary feeling on the part of the Guardians or other local authorities, and the enforcement was left to capricious and fitful temper, the whole thing would become a sham, and it would be still more unfair to parishes in which school boards existed and were in earnest in doing the work they were appointed to do. The only way to avoid this would be to require the enactment of bye-laws everywhere: but the noble Lord might say that that was provided for by Clause 7, and need not be introduced into this clause. He thought the noble Lord would put too much strain on Clause 7. His (Mr. W. E. Forster's) objection to that provision was that it would lay down a hard-and-fast line as applicable to the entire country. He hoped that the Amendment would be accepted by the Government as the best substitute for that direct compulsion which was so needful.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that the question before the Committee was whether the principle of universal compulsion should be adopted. While admitting that there was a great deal to be said on both sides, he could not but think that the adoption of universal bye-laws would be a mistake. The Government started from this position—they did not think that the principle of direct compulsion would be a good thing in itself. No doubt a great evil was to be met, but to say to every poor man that his children were, under all circumstances, to attend school every day would be a bad and undesirable thing. The presumption adopted was that if the prudent, thoughtful, industrious parent knew that the temptation of his children's earnings under 10 years of age was removed from him, they would recognize their duty, and the consequence would be an avoidance of the evil of putting the whole of the working classes of the country under the bonds of direct compulsion.

MR. KNOWLES

said, before they divided he was anxious to explain the simple meaning of his Amendment. Wherever he had gone as a Commissioner he had found among all classes a feeling that, though direct compulsion might be undesirable, there must in some shape be compulsion, and the object of his Amendment was to compel Town Councils and Board of Guardians to adopt bye-laws when they were requested to do so by the ratepayers, whom they represented.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 206; Noes 165: Majority 41.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

moved the omission of the words "on the requisition of the parish," as he considered that the Guardians ought to be allowed to make compulsory bye-laws, if they should think fit, in the same manner as the Town Councils would be entitled to do.

MR. A. MILLS

thought that each district should be left to exercise its own freedom in framing compulsory bye-laws. If hon. Members knew how difficult it was to carry out compulsory rules they would not be so eager to enforce them. He should oppose the Amendment.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that if these words were not omitted the local authorities would be prevented from framing bye-laws.

Amendment negatived.

MR. MUNDELLA

moved, in page 2, line 23, to leave out "but not otherwise," which would allow the Guardians to frame bye-laws without first receiving a requisition from the inhabitants of the district.

Amendment proposed, in page 2 line 23, to leave out the words "but not otherwise."—(Mr. Mundella.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that the Guardians should be allowed to make bye-laws without receiving a requisition.

VISCOUST SANDON

said, the Government must adhere to the words, as they desired that the community, or people of any school district, should have the power of saying whether there should be compulsion or not.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

supported a system of compulsory bye-laws as best calculated to carry out the objects of the Bill.

MR. J. G. TALBOT

could not understand why, when a parish was doing its duty, it should not be let alone.

SIR THOMAS ACLAND

contended that the majority of the Boards of Guardians should be able to decide whether there should be compulsion or not in all the parishes which they represented, or in some parishes there would be compulsion and in some not.

MR. HAMOND

was sorry that the noble Lord had refused to leave out these words, as by so doing he would be following the lines of the Act of 1870.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, that Town Councils were elected by the inhabitants of the towns while the Guardians were elected by the ratepayers of parishes spread over a large area.

MR. GREGORY

pointed out that the inhabitants of a school district ought to have the power of saying whether there should be compulsion or not.

MR. EVANS

remarked that Town Councils were elected by wards, which was similar to Guardians being elected by parishes.

MR. LYON PLAYFAIR

said, the Bill contained compulsory clauses, and he should therefore support the Amendment.

MR. MUNDELLA

pointed out that the more compulsory bye-laws were needed the less likelihood was there of a requisition for them being forthcoming from the parish. This would especially be the case in some of the "God-forsaken" parishes in the agricultural and mining districts.

MR. HAYTER

said, he could not understand why the elected authorities should have to refer back to the electors one of the most important questions on which it was their duty to decide.

VISCOUNT SANDON

repeated that his opposition to the Amendment was because it was based upon the principle of direct compulsion, which in this particular case he did not consider necessary.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 86: Majority 39.

MR. SANDFORD

moved, in page 2, line 26, at end of clause, to add— Provided that any bye-law made under this section shall not apply to any child whose parent has delivered to the clerk of the local authority an objection in writing signed by such parent, and objecting to the compulsory attendance at school of such child. According to the Bill, as it stood, the children of Nonconformists and Roman Catholics would be compelled to attend the schools. He should be told that there was the Conscience Clause, under which there was to be no direct religious teaching; but could they not raise religious questions by historical and other subjects? How would a member of the Church of England like his child to be for eight years under the tuition of a Nonconformist teacher? And how, then, could they expect a Nonconformist or a Roman Catholic to submit his child to a system of religious instruction, with which he totally disagreed? He believed that if the Bill passed in its present form it would raise a storm of religious fervour, which would agitate the whole country from one end to another, and it was for that reason he offered his Amendment in a spirit of conciliation.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he had no doubt the hon. Gentleman was perfectly consistent in proposing his Amendment, but he must oppose it, because, if adopted, it would entirely neutralize the operations of the bye-laws; for they would have parents—careless and neglectful parents—starting up in all directions to take advantage of the proposed exemption.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

supported the Amendment, and said, he hoped it would be pressed.

Amendment negatived.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

said, that under the Bill, the Nonconformist agricultural labourer would have no alternative but to send his children to a Church school, and there would be no end of religious strife. To meet that objection he moved, in page 2, after line 26, to add— Provided, That no bye-law made under this section shall compel any child to attend at any school with regard to which an objection, on grounds of conscience, made in writing and signed by the parent of such child, has been lodged with the clerk of the local authorities.

THE O'CONOR DON

moved, after the word "section" in the Amendment, to insert "or any section of The Elementary Education Act, 1870,"so that the provision should apply equally to school-board schools. He believed that many persons had as strong an objection to sending their children where no religion was taught as others had to sending their children to the schools of a different religious denomination, and unless the addition which he proposed were made to the Amendment it would not meet the objections of the former persons.

MR. PEASE

thought all these Amendments were uncalled for, as sufficient security had been taken that no one's principles should be outraged in sending a child to an elementary school.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE

strongly pressed the logical necessity that the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland should accept the Amendment of the hon. Member for Roscommon as the necessary complement of his proposals. The argument was unanswerable, that if the conscientious scruples of those who feared to be entangled in the teaching of some fixed principles of belief with which they disagreed, ought to be respected, a fortiori, the scruples should be respected of those who feared the influence of no belief at all. For his own part, little enamoured as he was abstractedly of Conscience Clauses, he was able, as society was constituted, heartily to accept the Conscience Clause as on the whole a workable compromise, and the best for all sides. He would vote for the hon. Member for Roscommon's words, in order to place the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland's scheme before the House in a complete shape, but when it came to the main question he would have to vote against the whole Amendment.

MR. RICHARD

supported the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland. A parent ought to have the power of withdrawing his child from a school in which religion was taught contrary to his conscientious opinions and belief. The Amendment ought to be inserted as a protection of the rights of others.

VISCOUNT SANDON

trusted that the Committee would not accede to the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland, which would be absolutely ruinous to the cause of education, and do a serious injury to the morals of the people. It would enable a parent to allege conscientious objections, though he might entertain none, in order to get his child exempted from attendance at school. Such a proposal could not be seriously entertained by any Assembly, however zealous it might be to protect the rights of conscience.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

said, he would accept the Amendments of the hon. Member for Roscommon and incorporate them in his Amendment, and then take the sense of the Committee upon the amended Amendment. He contended that it was absurd to suppose that parents would withdraw their children from school on frivolous grounds.

MR. BULWER

said, he objected to the consciences of Nonconformists alone being considered in this matter. If the Amendment was agreed to, how, he asked, would the children in districts where only one school existed be educated? It not unfrequently happened, as he knew, that an ill-conditioned fellow would, to "spite the parson," as he called it, absent himself from the village church. This Amendment would enable such a man still further to indulge his ignorant spite, and, pleading conscience, to withdraw his children not only from the church, but from the school. No parent ought to have such an excuse put into his mouth by Act of Parliament for neglecting to educate his children.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, the parents of children of conscientious Dissenters had every security in the Conscience Clause. They would not take advantage of the proposed Amendment; advantage would be taken by those only who had no consciences at all. The Bill would become a dead letter if a man when summoned before the magistrates for neglecting to send his child to school could evade the law by the production of a document drawn up by some acute person.

VISCOUNT SANDON

suggested that the hon. and gallant Member for Sunderland (Sir Henry Havelock) should accept the Amendment upon his Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Roscommon (the O'Conor Don), and then take the division upon the two together.

Question put, That the words 'Provided, That no bye-law made under this section or any section of 'The Elementary Education Act, 1870,' shall compel any child to attend at any school, whether board school or otherwise, with regard to which an objection, on grounds of conscience, made in writing and signed by the parent of such child, has been lodged with the secretary of the School Board or the clerk of the local authorities,'—(Sir Henry Havelock,)—be added at the end of the Clause.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 25; Noes 128: Majority 103.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 7 (Provision as to order of court for attendance at school of child continuously and habitually neglected by parent or habitually wandering and consorting with criminals or disorderly persons).

VISCOUNT SANDON

moved, in page 2, line 30, to leave out "continuously and," which had reference to the neglect of the parent. He retained the word "habitually," which immediately followed, because it was deemed very important to make the clause strong in its application to the parent who habitually neglected to provide elementary instruction for a child above the age of five years, who under the Act would be prohibited from being taken into employment—such instruction as would enable the child to obtain a certificate.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. A. BROWN

moved the omission of the word "habitually," to which the noble Lord the Vice President had just referred; because if it were retained it would open the door to greater latitude than ought to be allowed.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

considered that the clause as it now stood would only give the magistrate the power to convict in cases where there ought to be a conviction, and on that ground he should vote against the Amendment.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

considered the clause might be so modified as not to be objectionable, and yet sufficiently stringent.

VISCOUNT SANDON

affirmed that the Government attached the greatest possible importance to the retention of the words, and refused to again take up the time of the Committee in arguing the question at length.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought the retention of "habitually" would cause very great difficulty to the magistrates in carrying the clause into effect.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that in all these cases considerable licence must be allowed to the magistrates, and cited as an analogous case the use of the word "grossly" in the Scotch Education Act.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

pointed out that in the Scotch Act the meaning of the word "grossly" was clearly defined. He asked the noble Lord fairly to consider the point which had been raised before a future stage of the Bill.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he could not hold out any hope that the Government would re-consider the question of retaining this word.

LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE

was in favour of leaving the word in the clause, as otherwise an offence would be created where no real offence had been committed.

SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

was of opinion that the word ought to be struck out.

MR. GORST

observed, that the word "habitually" was not now in Acts of Parliament. What amount of neglect constituted habitual neglect would require to be decided by the magistrate.

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

supported the Amendment, on the ground that children should be sent to school before the neglect became habitual.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

hoped that his hon. Friend would not divide the Committee on the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

MR. BIRLEY (for Mr. Hard Castle)

moved, in sub-section 2, page 2, line 37, after "authority," to leave out— After due warning to the parents of such child to complain to a court of summary jurisdiction, and such court may.

VISCOUNT SANDON

objected to the Amendment, on the ground that the matter might be left to the discretion of the magistrate.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. BRISTOWE

moved, in page 2, line 39, to leave out "may, if it think fit," and insert, "shall, if satisfied of the truth of such complaint." The Amendment would, in his opinion, be a very important one, and would operate satisfactorily at petty sessions.

VISCOUNT SANDON

thought the Amendment unobjectionable, and agreed to it.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. BRISTOWE

moved, in page 2, line 40, to leave out "in such regular manner as is specified in the order." He explained that many difficulties might arise as the clause appeared in the Bill, as the Court of Summary Jurisdiction would have power to direct in what method the child should attend school.

VISCOUNT SANDON

agreed that the Amendment would be an improvement to the clause.

Amendment agreed to.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

moved, in page 3, line 2, after "expedient," to add— Such order shall contain the provision in the Elementary Education Act, section seven, sub-section one, that the child is not required to attend any religious observance or any instruction in religious subjects, or to attend school on any day exclusively set apart for religious observances by the religious body to which his parent belongs.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

hoped the Amendment would not be pressed; it would add a new difficulty to those already existing.

MR. GORST

said, the Amendment was quite unnecessary. The whole question was covered by the Conscience Clause.

SIR HENRY HAVELOCK

said, the Amendment was not required for the protection of Nonconformist children, but of those neglected children of the Church of England whom it was proposed to catch by the drag-net of this Bill.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, in dealing with these, who were admittedly the lowest and the most degraded of the population, they must be very careful that they did not do anything to put the State apparently in hostility to religious education. It was an Amendment the Government could never accept. They had undertaken that any infringement of the Conscience Clause should be looked after by the local authority; but they could not do this, which really would look to these poor people as if the State was in antagonism to religious education. He thought that hon. Members opposite, who must be in favour of religious education of some kind, would hardly support the Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

maintained that Parliament ought, as far as pos- sible, to let people know exactly what they ought to do.

MR. W. H. SMITH

reminded the right hon. Gentleman that this was a case in which they were dealing with children, with reference to whom opportunities of education were habitually neglected.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 116; Noes 189: Majority 73.

MR. J. COWEN

moved, in page 3, after line 3, to insert— Provided, That no member of the local authority shall sit in the court of summary jurisdiction at the hearing of such complaint. He said that he thought it would be very improper that a member of the body which had control over school matters should sit as a justice to hear a complaint under the Education Act.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that the Law Officers informed him that the rule at Common Law was that this should not be done, therefore no enactment upon the subject was wanted.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,

in reference to the exemptions in the clause, asked what was to be done with the children living on canal boats between the ages of 3 and 14, and he suggested that the reason that there was not within two miles, &c., from the residence of such child any public elementary school open which the child could attend, should not apply to children living on canal objects. His object in mentioning it was to direct the attention of the noble Lord to their condition.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he would consider the suggestion, and see if anything could be done on the Report.

MR. WAIT

moved, in page 3, line 9, to leave out from "necessary," to end of Clause, and insert "or a necessity that shall appear to the court absolutely unavoidable." If the clause were left unaltered, parents would have additional opportunities of evading the obligation of sending their children to school.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought that "necessary domestic employment" ought not to be accepted as an excuse for the non-attendance of a child at school, and he trusted, therefore, that those words would be struck out of the clause.

MR. BRISTOWE

said, it would be very inconvenient to allow excuses different from those contained in the Act of 1870.

MR. RODWELL

was in favour of maintaining the clause as it stood, because everybody acquainted with cottage life must know that there were many cases where children were engaged in "necessary domestic employment," although they would not come within the scope of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Gloucester.

MR. MACDONALD

hoped the noble Lord would consent to the Amendment.

MR. MARK STEWART

objected to the insertion of the words, as they would encourage parents to invent all kinds of excuses to evade the child's attendance at school.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. HEYGATE

moved, in page 3, line 9, to leave out from "necessary domestic" to end, and insert—"or any other cause which in the opinion of the local authority is sufficient."

MR. BULWER

considered that great care should be exercised in the wording of the clause.

VISCOUNT SANDON

thought there was no doubt that it would be running a risk if the words "necessary domestic employment" were retained in the clause. He thought it would be better to cut out those words. If the Amendment were withdrawn, he should be glad if the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. Bulwer) would confer with him on the amended wording of the clause.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

hoped the hon. Member (Mr. Heygate) would not persist in his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

expressed his thanks to the Government for the change they had made in this clause, and hoped it would be a great step in the progress of education.

On Question, "That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill?"

MR. CLARE READ

asked the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council whether it was the fact that if a justice was a member of the School Attendance Committee, he could not be a member of the Court before which the child was brought? If that were so, it would be very detrimental in the country, because it would almost invariably happen that the best and most frequent attendants at the Bench were those justices who would be members of the School Attendance Committee.

VISCOUNT SANDON

would like further to consult the legal Advisers of the Government on that point; but he understood that the Common Law was what the hon. Member had described it to be.

Clause agreed to.

VISCOUNT SANDON

proposed to postpone Clauses 8, 9, and 10, in accordance with a statement which he had made a few days ago. The clause as to industrial schools he hoped would be in the hands of Members to-morrow, and he thought it was highly desirable to consider that clause in connection with these three clauses.

Clauses 8, 9, and 10 postponed.

Clause 11 (Exception to prohibition of employment of children).

MR. CLARE READ

moved, in page 4, line 32, to leave out sub-section 3, and insert— The local authority may, if it thinks fit, issue a. notice declaring the restrictions of this Act on the employment of children to be suspended, for the necessary operations of husbandry and the in-gathering of crops, for the period to be named in such notice, and during such period such restrictions shall not (save as to any proceedings commenced before the date of the notice) be of any force within the jurisdiction of such local authority; Provided, That the period or periods so named by any such local authority shall not exceed in the whole eight weeks between the first day of January and the thirty-first day of December in any year. The local authority shall cause a copy of every notice so issued to be sent to the overseer of every parish within its jurisdiction, and the overseers shall affix the same to the door of the principal church in the parish, and the local authority may further advertise any such notice in such manner (if any) as it may think fit.

VISCOUNT SANDON

thought the period of eight weeks too long; but the Government would assent to the Amendment if his hon. Friend would alter the maximum period to six weeks. Upon the Report he would try to introduce words which would enable Boards of Guardians to make this period elastic, adapting it to the time of hop-picking, or harvest in their various districts.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

put it to the noble Lord whether children under 10 might be employed in hop-picking.

VISCOUNT SANDON

intended that the clause should set free all children for six weeks in the year.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

Children under 10 as well?

VISCOUNT SANDON

Oh, certainly. There would be no danger in that.

MR. MUNDELLA

wished to point out that in every other industry in the country except agriculture no child was to be employed under 10, and then he must be a half-timer until he was 13. Even then, if he did not come up to a certain Standard he must be half-timer until he was 14.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that the difference between town and country was that in the latter six weeks were to be allowed for industrial operations. When the House remembered that the farmers had to deal with harvest, the uncertainty of the weather, and perishable crops, some allowance must be made or farming operations would come to an end. He proposed to make an alteration in the Amendment so as to substitute six weeks for eight, and otherwise to make it fit in with the rest of the Bill.

MR. BERESFORD HOPE,

in accepting the noble Lord's suggestion, said, it was very desirable that the children should assist their parents in hop-picking. Generally speaking, it was better to localize employment so as to keep it in the hands of the respectable peasantry, or else the farmers would be obliged to rely upon a very different class from St. Giles's.

MR. MORLEY

said, that managers of schools in the hop districts thought it quite necessary to limit the time children were employed in hop-picking.

MR. GREGORY

said, that Colleges were closed and homes abandoned for the period.

MR. MUNDELLA

suggested that the time of absence should not exceed eight weeks including holidays.

VISCOUNT SANDON

could not accept the suggestion, but must abide by the Amendment in its present form.

MR. PEASE

moved to report Progress, suggesting that the Government should take time to re-consider the clause.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report Progress, and ask leave to sit again."—(Mr. Pease.)

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he hoped the hon. Member would not press the Motion. The Committee had now discussed the question very fully, and, though there might be hon. Members who wished to speak, he thought a conclusion might be arrived at in a few minutes without re-opening the question to-morrow.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

thought that if Progress were reported the end which the Government had in view would ultimately be more easily gained.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

was of opinion that the Amendment had been sufficiently debated, and he trusted the clause would be agreed to before Progress was reported, else it would be extremely inconvenient.

MR. CLARE READ

said, in the harvest holidays the children were of very little use, for the farmers did not want them then, and the Amendment would only give the farmers the opportunity of employing the children about two weeks in the year.

MR. HAMOND

said, they were debating this clause as if the object of the Bill were to provide labour for the farmers at the cheapest rate, and not to carry education to the rural districts.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 67; Noes 224: Majority 157.

MR. A. BROWN

moved that the Chairman do leave the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Alexander Brown.)

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, the Motion, if carried, would put an end to the Bill. He thought the question under consideration had been brought to a point which would admit of a decision.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

believed the matter could not be disposed of so easily as the right hon. Gentleman supposed; but, under the circumstances, he hoped the Motion would not be pressed.

Question put.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 46; Noes 219: Majority 173.

MR. RYLANDS

moved that Progress be reported.

Motion agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow, at Two of the clock.