HC Deb 17 July 1876 vol 230 cc1495-515

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Administrative Provisions.

Clause 15 (Supplemental provisions as to certificates of proficiency and previous attendance at school).

On the Motion of Mr. RYLANDS, Amendment made in page 6, line 32, after "Act," by inserting— And such certificate shall be granted to the child entitled to the same free of cost or charge to such child, or to the parent of such child.

MR. DILLWYN

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, line 32, after "Act," to insert— Such certificates shall be given by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools at the examination of each school.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that the Amendment was a very important one; but as it would to a great extent be provided for in the Code of next year, which would follow the policy of the present one, he hoped the hon. Member would not press his Motion.

MR. DILLWYN

said, he was quite ready to withdraw his Amendment on that understanding.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

VISCOUNT SANDON

moved, as an Amendment, in page 6, at end of line 39, to insert "certificates of age for the purposes of this Act and," for the purpose of showing that they intended to insist upon certificates of age.

Amendment agreed to; words inserted accordingly.

Clause further verbally amended, and, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 (Certificates of birth for purposes of Act).

MR. BIRLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 5, to leave out "one shilling," and insert "sixpence."

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, he was informed by his right hon. Friend at the head of the Local Government Board that great resistance would be made by Registrars to the proposed reduction. The fee had already been reduced under pressure from the Education Department.

MR. RYLANDS

suggested that the number of certificates being greatly increased, registrars would really have an addition made to their income if the fee were reduced from a shilling to sixpence.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

hoped the hon. Member for Manchester would press his Amendment to a division. The question with him was whether they should demand any fee at all.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

appealed to the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council to concede the point.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that the last thing he wished was to be hard upon the parents in this matter; but, after what he had said respecting the opinion of the Local Government Board, he felt bound to adhere to the clause as it stood.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

opposed the Motion, observing that the point had been very carefully considered, and they were of opinion that the amount should be that stated in the clause.

MR. MUNDELLA

thought a shilling was a heavy charge to be made for the certificate if the parent had to pay it.

MR. MUNTZ

supported the Amendment, as in many cases the question of sixpence was an important matter.

MR. WATNEY

thought the certificate should be given gratis.

MR. BIRLEY

said, he must carry the question to a division, because the charge would be a heavy one on a working man, and they were already putting him under considerable pressure.

MR. HERMON

thought that one shilling was too high a charge, and he hoped it would be reduced.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

said, he should wish to consult the President of the Local Government Board on the subject before consenting to any alteration of the clause in this particular; but he desired to fall in with what appeared to be the very general feeling of the Committee. Perhaps the matter might be allowed to stand over for the present.

After some further discussion,

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER

proposed that the word "shilling" be struck out of the clause, and that the sum to be substituted for it should be left blank until after he had been able to confer with the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board.

MR. BIRLEY

said, he had no objection to that course, but he did not pledge himself to be bound by the views of the President of the Local Government Board.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Clause amended by striking out the words "one shilling," in page 7, line 5, and leaving the amount in blank.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 17 (Penalty for employing a child in contravention of Act).

COLONEL RUGGLES-BRISE

moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 10, after "Act," to insert "after due warning in writing from the local authority," the object being that in the absence of warning no fine should be enforced against persons employing children in contravention of the provisions of the Act. It was but fair that in this matter employers should be placed upon the same footing as parents of children.

VISCOUNT SANDON

opposed the Amendment, as he believed if it were adopted it must lead to very costly machinery to carry it out. Besides, it was really unnecessary. Under one of the earlier clauses of the Bill, the local authority was to give notice to all concerned of the provisions of the Bill, so that employers would have notice.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 (Provision as to bye-laws under Section 74 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870 (33 and 34 Vict. c. 75), as extended by this Act), agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19 (Failure of local authority to perform their duty under this Act).

MR. ISAAC

moved, as an Amendment, in page 7, line 31, to leave out "any persons," and insert "registrar of births and deaths of the district, or other persons." He thought that that would be the best possible appointment when so much turned upon the ages of the children.

VISCOUNT SANDON

objected to the Amendment as being calculated to fetter the hands of the Department.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20 (Provision as to requisition of parish.)

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

proposed the omission of the latter part of the clause, which was to the effect that the requisition might be accompanied by representations made by resolution as to the nature of the bye-laws desired by the parish, and that in making and approving the bye-laws regard should be had to such representations. He thought it was going quite far enough to delegate the making of bye-laws to Boards of Guardians, and that it was going too far to ask ratepayers in public meeting to decide on these difficult questions. If the matter were left to individual parishes they would in one Union have various inconsistent bye-laws.

Amendment proposed, in page 8, line 17, to leave out all the words after the word "Board," to the end of the Clause.—(Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth.)

VISCOUNT SANDON

objected to the Amendment, and as to the clause explained that its only effect would be to enable the locality to express its wishes; as, for instance, whether there should be half-time or full-time attendance. Hitherto the school boards had full power to make bye-laws, and the result was there was infinite variety in the manner in which they had exercised the trust.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

admitted that the clause called upon the locality to do more than it was required to do at present, and he thought that the section to which the Amendment applied would considerably fetter both the School Attendance Committee and the Department itself. There was no doubt that any representations made by the ratepayers would be felt, and would have their full weight with the School Attendance Committee.

MR. PAGET

said, it was only maintaining the individuality of small places.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

said, school boards were amenable to ratepayers, but all the members of a School Attendance Committee would not be so amenable.

MR. ASSHETON

supported the provision.

MR. DILLWYN

thought it unworkable.

MR. A. MILLS

said, the more local wishes were expressed the better.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, that the Education Board would be placed in a strange position if they had to approve of all the various bye- laws which each separate parish might think fit for itself. The Guardians were quite competent to settle bye-laws without receiving instructions from each one of their vestries. He would ask whether regard was to be had to representations in favour of employing children under 10?

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, the 7th clause of the Bill would prevent that. He was afraid that the views of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was "the old, old story"—the same proposal, in fact, which they had discussed fully earlier in the Committee and negatived—that the Boards of Guardians should be able to override the wishes of the ratepayers. He must adhere to the clause as it stood, and give the ratepayers the power of saying what sort of bye-laws they would have.

MR. BRISTOWE

supported the Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he would make a proposition which he hoped would be accepted by the noble Lord. The paragraph as it stood in the Bill went further than the noble Lord intended, and virtually meant that however absurd the bye-laws proposed by the ratepayers were, the Education Department would be obliged to assent to them. He suggested that the clause should read thus— And in making and approving bye-laws the School Attendance Committee and the Education Department shall consider the nature of the representations made to them.

SIR CHARLES W. DILKE

thought that to adopt the suggestion would be to give up the whole point for which they were contending. Their objection was to any parish meeting being called upon to deal with the details of the bye-laws.

VISCOUNT SANDON

thought that it would be as well to adopt the form of words suggested by the right hon. Gentleman; but in his opinion, they were covered by the clause as it stood.

MR. RODWELL

observed that in all legal proceedings the words "regard shall be had" meant no more than "be duly considered."

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, the only question was, whether it was desirable to give the parish meeting authority to make representations as to the nature of the bye-laws which they required. The Amendment suggested by the right hon. Member for Bradford would make the point clearer, and therefore might be adopted by the Committee.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that if the Education Department were to approve of the representations made by the parish, they would often have some very curious bye-laws to approve, and, if not, they would introduce an element of contention between the Guardians and the parish.

Question put, That the words 'The requisition may be accompanied by representations, made by a resolution passed in like manner, as to the nature of the bye-laws desired by the parish,' stand part of the Clause.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 125; Noes 62: Majority 63.

Amendment (Mr. W. E. Forster) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 (Officers of local authority); and Clause 22 (Provision as to powers and expenses of school board), severally agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 23 (Expenses of local authority other than school board).

On the Motion of Viscount Sandon,Amendment made in page 8, line 32, at commencement of Clause, by inserting— A school attendance committee under this Act shall not incur any expense, or appoint, employ, or pay any officer without the consent of the council or guardians by whom the committee were appointed; and where they are appointed by guardians also, of the Local Government Board, but with such, consent may employ and pay any officer of such council or guardians.

MR. PELL

moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, at end of Clause, to add— Provided always, That relief or money given under this Act for the payment of school fees in any parish where the local authority is the board of guardians shall not be paid out of their common fund, but shall be a separate charge on each parish; and the board of guardians shall issue their precept to the overseers of such parish requiring the overseers, within a time limited by the precept, to pay the amount of the separate charge specified in such precept to the board of guardians, or to some person appointed by them; and the overseers shall comply with the requisition of such precept by paying the sum required out of the poor rate of such parish.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that the Government would endeavour to meet the views of the hon. Gentleman by a proposal to be brought up on a later stage of the Bill.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 24 (General and local committee of local authority), postponed.

Clause 25 (Clerk of guardians, and application of Acts to guardians), verbally amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 26 (Effect of subsequent appointment of school board).

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 32, after 1870, to insert— Provided, That after the passing of this Act a school board shall not be formed for any school district in which there exists efficient and suitable provision for the elementary education of all the children resident in such district.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, that was by no means a trifling proposal, as it was opposed to the programme he laid down in introducing the Bill, when he stated that every district would be able, as at present, to have a school board if it wished it—the object of the Government being to allow the country to choose either the school board system of the Bill of 1870, or that of the present Bill, the choice being left absolutely to the people of a district, provided always that they did their duty in providing proper school accommodation, and in securing the proper instruction of the children, as made necessary by this Bill. It would be, therefore, entirely contrary to the views of the Government to say that it should be impossible for any district to have a school board, if by a popular vote it desired to have one. Consequently, the Government would offer a decided opposition to the Amendment.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

objected to the Amendment, which, if adopted, would effect a great change in the Bill, and reverse the principle laid down in the Act of 1870, and be a retrograde step in the course which had been pursued for the last three or four years. He thought the Government had taken the proper course in regard to the present proposal.

MR. SAMPSON LLOYD,

in supporting the Amendment, remarked that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Greenwich stated, when the Bill of 1870 was introduced, it was intended, not to destroy, but only to supplement the existing system.

MR. CHARLEY

also supported the Amendment, on the ground that school boards should be called into existence, not for the purpose of supplanting, but of supplementing, voluntary exertions. He feared that the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council did not sufficiently appreciate the feeling on that side of the House, the Members of which did not think that the Bill would sufficiently carry out the object for which, so far as education was concerned, they were returned. Gazette after Gazette was filled with announcements of the formation of new school board districts, although it was the policy of the Conservative Party to maintain and extend the voluntary system.

DR. LUSH,

believing the Bill meant the absolute destruction of school boards, and the transfer of the education of the country entirely to denominational schools, said he should give his most strenuous opposition to anything which would destroy the alternative which some districts now possessed of having school boards if they pleased.

MR. HAMOND

contended, on the contrary, that the Amendment, instead of destroying school boards, sanctioned them wherever they were required, although it disputed the supposition that it was necessary to have school boards where there was ample public elementary school accommodation in any district. At the present moment there were no fewer than 500 school boards in England and Wales with not one single school among them. He maintained, therefore, that those school boards were entirely beyond the Elementary Act of 1870. The object of the present Bill was to give local authorities greater powers to do what had hitherto been proposed to be done illegally by the school boards. He hoped the Government would give way on this point.

MR. GATHORNE HARDY

contended that if the argument of his hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle was good for anything, this Amendment was entirely unnecessary. If school boards had been illegally created they could be set aside. By the Act of 1870 an application from the Town Council or ratepayers would clearly compel the Education Department to give them a school board, and though the Bill provided another mode of dealing with the question, yet its whole principle was that the ratepayers should be left to decide whether they would prefer to elect a school board in preference to relying on the Town Council or Board of Guardians. What was asked was that these bodies should be left to act for themselves. It was not the fact that school boards did not put compulsory bye-laws into operation in districts where there were only voluntary schools, for in Stockport there was not a single school which was not upon the voluntary principle, and yet compulsory bye-laws were in force there. What Her Majesty's Government desired was to respect the individuality of the school districts, and to leave them to act as they thought proper with the view of enforcing attendance.

MR. MUNDELLA

expressed satisfaction with the declaration of the right hon. Gentleman, and said that, if they did not stand fast upon the point, it would be fatal to their Bill and to the character of the education to be given. School boards were intended for more purposes than merely supplying school accommodation. In Manchester, in 1869, the state of education was deplorable, though there was ample school accommodation. The fact was, that there were no bye-laws to enforce attendance; but the result of having a school board was that attendance had nearly doubled.

MR. HERMON

said, he should vote against the Amendment.

MR. DILLWYN

rejoiced at the declaration that the Government did not countenance the reversal of the policy of the Act of 1870. He gave credit to the Government for good intentions in the measure they had brought forward, but it had rather the appearance of being intended to strike a blow against school boards throughout the country.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU

trusted that the Amendment would not be pressed to a division, for if it was, he must vote against it. If, as he hoped, the Bill should work well, the ratepayers would never have recourse to the expensive machinery of school boards.

LORD FRANCIS HERVEY,

replying, to objections, said that the Amendment had been very much misunderstood. It would not at all touch existing school boards, as it was entirely prospective in its nature. It was also idle to say that the Amendment was contrary to the Act of 1870. The only functions of school boards were compulsion and the provision of accommodation together with the maintenance of schools. Of these functions the latter was ex hypothesi voluntarily performed, and the former was conferred by the Bill on other authorities; if, therefore, they failed in their duty, a school board was not likely to discharge them. An important object of the Bill was to supersede the necessity of forming school boards for the sole purpose of compulsion, and the Amendment would further that object; it would enable the country with greater ease to avoid the creation of these noxious and unpopular bodies. The Amendment would leave the principles of the Act of 1870 in perfect integrity, while it would be a step, though a small one, towards the consolidation of local machinery.

MR. STORER

said, the Amendment would act very beneficially in rural districts by preventing their running into unnecessary expense. There were many districts where school boards had been formed and nothing further done.

MR. MUNTZ

said, it would be a great mistake to alter the present law for the sake of two or three particular cases.

Amendment negatived.

Clause, as amended agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Legal Proceedings.

Clause 27 (Application of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 86, ss. 23–4 to penalties &c).

MR. BIRLEY (for Mr. Hardcastle)

moved, as an Amendment, in page 9, line 40, to add, after "thereto," the words— And every person who shall fraudulently obtain, or enable or procure any other person to obtain payment or an order for payment from any school board or local authority, or expose any school board or local authority to the pay- ment of any school fees, shall be liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a period not exceeding three months, with or without hard labour.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

said, he should be disposed to accept the Amendment, if it were amended so as to contain the punishment named in it for obtaining from a school board payment, or order of payment, or remission of payment of a school fee.

Amendment to said proposed Amendment agreed to.

MR. GREGORY

moved to omit the words "with or without hard labour," which he said would make the punishment excessive, especially as it was for a new offence.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

urged that even three months' imprisonment without hard labour would be an excessive punishment. It was a very severe clause, and it ought to be well considered by the Committee before it agreed to the infliction of such a penalty.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

considered the offence with which the clause proposed to deal quite as bad as that of obtaining money by false pretences. Moreover, as the Amendment provided that the imprisonment should not exceed three months, it would be in the power of the magistrates to mitigate the penalty.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

said, the House ought to consider that the class of persons to whom the clause applied was a very numerous and poor class, to whom a small temptation of the kind would come often with irresistible force. It was no worse an offence than for a person to go to the overseer of the parish and by, in some degree, misrepresenting his condition obtain out-door relief, when perhaps with a little economy he might be able to do without it. It was said that three months was the limit of the penalty; but these cases would come before a great variety of magistrates, some of whom might not be very judicious, and who would be subject to varying moods, and might sometimes think it necessary to make a severe example. He thought the punishment of a fortnight's imprisonment would just as completely deter any person from the commission of this offence as a punishment of three months, which he considered to be too severe for such a slight offence. He should therefore propose to substitute 14 days for three months' imprisonment.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

thought, perhaps, the justice of the case would be met by a maximum punishment of a fortnight's imprisonment with hard labour. He would therefore assent to the proposal of the right hon. Gentleman.

Amendment (Mr. Gregory), by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (Mr. John Bright) agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 28 (Exemption of employer on proof of guilt of some other person).

MR. ONSLOW

moved, as an Amendment, in page 10, line 23, to leave out from "representation" to "conviction," in line 25. It was the part of the clause which provided that where an employer, charged with taking a child into his employment in contravention of the Act, proved that he had used due diligence to enforce the observance of the Act, and either that some agent or workman of his employed the child on the production of a false certificate, or on the representation by the parent that the child was of a proper age, and that the employer had taken all practical means in his power to prosecute such agent, workman, or parent to conviction, the employer should be exempt from such penalty. The hon. Member contended that it would be a hardship to require the employer to find out whether a child taken into his employwas really what he had been represented to be, and that the duty of prosecuting the persons in fault should be left altogether in the hands of the Inspectors. If it were not so, great inconvenience, to say the least of it, would often arise to the employer of labour if he had to go about the country hunting up evidence in order to obtain a conviction.

VISCOUNT SANDON

observed that the words in question were taken verbatim from the Factory Act of 1844, and he thought it would be desirable to retain them.

MR. JOHN BRIGHT

said, he thought the proposition of the hon. Member a very reasonable one. He was not sure that those words were to be found in the Factory Act, but he was quite certain of this—if they were in the Act they had never been put in force. If the words had not been found necessary under the Factory Act, they ought not to be inserted in this Bill. They were antiquated, and he hoped the noble Lord would not retain them.

VISCOUNT SANDON,

having referred to the Factory Act, said there appeared to be considerable doubt in the matter. He should, therefore, act on the suggestion of the right hon. Gentleman and adopt the Amendment.

MR. GORST

said, there was this difficulty about the declaration of the age of children, that in many cases children were not registered, and in such cases it would totally preclude them from getting employment.

MR. WHALLEY

pointed out that the Act was still experimental, and therefore should not be too harsh.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Miscellaneous.

Clause 29 (Adaptation of 36 & 37 Vict. c. 86, s. 3, respecting pauper children to this Act).

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH,

referring to that part of the clause relating to relief out of the workhouse being given by the Guardians by way of allowance to the parent of any child above the age of five years, prohibited from being taken into employment, or required to attend school, moved that the additional provision should be inserted that such child should be one who had not passed the Standard of reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic fixed by Standard III. of the Education Code of 1876, so that it should be a condition for the continuance of relief that elementary education should be provided for the child. He would not enter into the controversy of why the Standard of education was lowered to the out-door pauper, but he thought that children who were to obtain employment should have attended school more than 125 days in two years. His object was to insure that all children should be required to reach Standard III. in these respects, instead of being reduced to Standard II., as they might be if the clause was not amended as he proposed.

Amendment proposed, In page 11, line 3, after the word "who," to insert the words "has not passed the standard of reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic fixed by standard three of the Education Code of 1876, or who."—(Lord Frederick Cavendish.)

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, the regulation only applied to out-door pauper children in districts. He understood that Standard III. was to be the class in all pauper schools. The object was to bring all the children into the same category. He always received the proposals of the noble Lord with attention, but the noble Lord was the one person who had taken the opportunity of saying things which he must have known were likely to be personally disagreeable to him, and he must say that, after the way he had received his Amendment, and those of hon. Gentlemen opposite, he thought he was entitled to receive different treatment at his hands.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

said, the clause made no distinction whatever; and even in the case of such children, it was a mockery to give them so low an education. For years the instruction of that class had been, he might say, disgraceful, and a mockery of the word.

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, that no one had been more willing than his noble Friend (Lord Frederick Cavendish) to acknowledge the willingness of the noble Lord opposite to receive Amendments from all parts of the House, and no one was more sanguine as to the effect of the Bill. This, however, was really an important point. Should pauper children, whether in-door or out-door, in urban or in rural districts, have the same elementary education as other children or not? He quite agreed with his noble Friend that all children should be kept up to Standard III. The real question before the Committee was whether these children were to have an education which might be supposed to be worth having, or whether they were to have an education which was worth nothing at all for the next two years, because the Second Standard did not secure that a child should be able either to read or write.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

regretted that anything which he had said should have given the noble Lord opposite cause of complaint. It was completely unintentional on his part, and he thought that he was paying the Bill a high compliment in saying that this was the only retrogressive clause in it.

MR. CLARE READ

said, that last year only 1,400 of those children passed in Standard III. and all the rest had to be kept continuously at school, unless they had complied with the provisions of the Agricultural Children Act.

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

The Committee divided:—Ayes 108; Noes 181: Majority 73.

Clause 30 (Amendment of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75, as to elections to fill casual vacancies in school boards).

On Motion of Lord SaNdon, Clause amended, so as to bring into immediate operation, on the passing of the Act, the powers of school boards to fill casual vacancies.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 31 (Application of 33 & 34 Vict. c. 75, ss. 83, 84, to orders and documents of Education Department); and Clause 32 (Effect of schedules), severally agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 33 (Definition of employment in case of parent).

MR. ONSLOW

moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 3, to leave out "employs," and insert who, "after due warning contiuues to employ."As the clause now stood a parent who employed his child for the sake of gain, without its having obtained the necessary school certificate of proficiency, or had attended a certain number of times at school during the course of the year, should be looked on in the light of an employer, and be liable to the same pains and penalties. Now, he (Mr. Onslow) thought that this was a little too severe on the parent, unless he had wilfully disobeyed the warnings of the Inspector. He therefore thought that the words he proposed to introduce might tend to mitigate undue hardship.

VISCOUNT SANDON

thought the Amendment would so far trammel the measure that he hoped his hon. Friend would not press it.

MR. EVANS

said, that under the working of the Act of 1870 the parents received two or three warnings from the school boards, and he did not think the local authorities would be less sedulous in the matter.

MR. KNOWLES

thought the parents would run the risk of keeping their children from school if they were not required to do so until they had received a warning.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, the provision was exactly the same as that in the Act relating to the education of children in factories.

MR. WHALLEY

emphatically protested against the more than Algerine severity which it was proposed to adopt in enforcing education.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 34 (General definitions).

On the Motion of Mr. W. E. FORSTER Clause amended, so as to provide that the education of a child should commence at five years.

MR. RODWELL

moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 7, to leave out "fourteen," and insert "thirteen."It would not, he said, be for the public interest that a child in the agicultural districts should be kept from work until he was 14 years of age. In favour of his Motion he might say that the age at which a child might commence to be educated in the work which would enable him to earn his daily bread was expressly mentioned in the Act of 1870 as 13. The same age was mentioned in the Scotch Act, and also in the Pauper Children Act, and he thought the proposition a reasonable one, for he protested against a child being subjected to a year's enforced idleness.

Amendment proposed, in page 12, line 7, to leave out the word "fourteen," in order to insert the word "thirteen."—(Mr. Rodwell.)

MR. W. E. FORSTER

expressed a hope that the Government would not accept the Amendment, as it would, to a great extent, do away with the good of the Act of 1874.

MR. KNOWLES

supported the Amendment.

MR. MUNDELLA

hoped the time was not far distant when the children would pass a higher standard in education than at present.

MR. CHAPLIN

found fault with the Amendment, because it did not go far enough. He had an Amendment proposing the age of 12; but he would withdraw it if the Government accepted the Amendment of his hon. and learned Friend.

MR. J. G. HUBBARD

said, he was not interested either the agriculturists or the manufacturers, but the Committee had just passed a clause to inflict severe penalties on the parents if they employed their child in any sort of work until he was 14 years of age. He sympathized with the parents, and supported the Amendment to substitute 13 years for 14.

LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH

urged the Government to abide by the age they had inserted in the Bill.

MR. STORER

said, at 13 these children were hired, and it would be a great hardship to keep them another year in idleness because their parents had neglected their children's education.

MR. WHALLEY

said, he would shortly be attending a council in North Wales known as Eistedfodd, and he believed they would display on that occasion an amount of energy and ability which would show that the very last thing they ought to teach children was reading. In support of that he need only point to the ancient kingdom of Wales, which had produced people more moral, more loyal, and more happy socially than any other portion of this country, or of Europe. He must again repeat that he objected to the Algerine provisions of this Bill. In passing it, they were acting in opposition to experience, and to the opinion of a large proportion of the population of this country.

VISCOUNT SANDON

could not claim for the Bill the character of Algerine legislation. The Government were told from other quarters that their Bill was altogether too mild, and these contradictory views encouraged him to believe that they were hitting the happy medium in the proposals which they made. He could not sympathize with those who, like the hon. Gentleman, thought reading undesirable. If they were all musical there might be something to say in favour of that view. He could not assent to the Amendment, being of opinion that, for the sake of uniformity, which would be a matter of great convenience both to parents and to the employers, the limit of 14 years should be adhered to. The age of 14 had been enacted in the Factory Bill of 1874, passed by the present Government, with reference to children engaged in connection with textile fabrics, and it must be remembered that great numbers of agricultural children were in the neighbourhood of the great centres of industry. It must not be supposed that children were to be kept at school until 14, for, with proper care, most of them would be able to go out to labour at 10 or 11 years of age. It was no unimportant part of the scheme of indirect compulsion that the operation of the Act should extend as far as 14 years, because, if a parent neglected his duty, he would, know that it would be possible that his child's labour might be kept from him until the child was 14. This would also have a great and very important effect in reference to "wastrel" children, who had always been eluding the grasp of our educational legislation, the dealing with whom satisfactorily was one of the objects respecting which he felt the greatest anxiety. He regretted, therefore, that he could not comply with the wishes—which were by no means unnatural—of his hon. Friends, and must adhere, on the part of the Government, to the age of 14.

THE O'CONOR DON

pointed out that in factories a child could not be employed full time until he was 13, whilst under this Bill an agricultural child could be so employed at 11.

MR. CLARE READ

remarked that the factory legislation was based upon the ground of health as well as education, whilst in agriculture it was education alone. He hoped that the Amendment would be pressed to a division; because he feared that the age of 14 would very much tend to damage the cause of education in the country. He contended that if they were to advance gradually and surely, they had better not jump to the extreme age of 14.

MR. RODWELL

said, the whole argument against the Amendment was based upon the fact that the age of 14 had been fixed in the Factory Act. He rested the Amendment upon the injustice and hardship of compelling children to remain until they were 14 years of age in a state of pupillari. He should certainly go to a division, as he thought the concession ought to be made by the Government to those who believed that 13 was sufficient for any of the purposes of the Bill.

MR. HEYGATE

supported the Amendment, on the ground that if the age of 14 were adopted uniformity would not be arrived at.

SIR GEORGE ELLIOT

pointed out that the point in difference was only half-time, or six months between the ages of 13 and 14, and he thought the Government would be acting wisely if they gave way.

Question put, "That the word 'fourteen' stand part of the Clause."

The Committee divided:—Ayes 197; Noes 108: Majority 89.

VISCOUNT SANDON

moved, as an Amendment, in page 12, line 11, at end, to insert as a separate paragraph:— The term 'certified efficient school,' in this Act means a public elementary school, and also any elementary school which is not conducted for private profit, and is open at all reasonable times to the inspection of Her Majesty's Inspectors, and requires the like attendance from its scholars as is required in a public elementary school, and keeps such registers of those attendances as may be for the time being required by the Education Department, and is certified by the Education Department to be an efficient school. This was a school which no one would be compelled to attend, but it was the definition of a certified efficient school which he had promised to give the Committee.

THE O'CONOR DON

objected to the words "not conducted for private profit." He thought the clause would be sufficiently stringent without them.

VISCOUNT SANDON

said, it would be impossible to undertake the inspection of all private venture schools.

Amendment agreed to; paragraph inserted.

Clause, as amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 35 (Provision as to part of a parish); and Clause 36 (Construction of this Act with other enactments), severally agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37 (Temporary modification as to application of Act, and saving for children in employment at passing of Act), verbally amended, agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38 (Repeal of Acts) agreed to, and ordered to stand part of the Bill.

House resumed.

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