COMMITTEE. [Progress 17th July.] (Hansard, 18 July 1876)

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
moved, in page 3, line 23, after "sent," to insert— To a certified day industrial school, or if it appears to the court that there is no such school suitable for the child then. The object was to prevent as much as possible the indiscriminate committal of children to boarding industrial schools. Of course, if day industrial schools should not be accepted at a future stage it would be necessary to strike out the Amendment.

§ Mr. ONSLOW
moved, in page 3, line 24, after "school," to insert— but, if the Court shall consider that the parent of a child has shown reasonable excuse for non-attendance, the court may at its discretion grant such compensation to the parent as it may think fit, such compensation to be paid for by the summoning authority. The object of the Amendment was to remove a great hardship felt by poor people under the Act of 1870—that even when they had satisfied the magistrate that there was reasonable excuse for the absence of the child they received no compensation whatever for the loss of their day or half-day at the Court. He begged to point out that even in our large cities where a parent had to go perhaps not further than the next street, at all events never to any great distance, to answer the summons of the Inspector, 1529 and when he had satisfied the magistrate that he had good cause for not sending his child to school, great hardship had arisen. How much more hard would it be on a parent similarly situated in the rural districts, who perhaps would have to walk five, six, and seven miles, and often, perhaps, would have to hire some conveyance, to get to the nearest magistrate's office. Surely it was not too much to ask that the parent should not be deprived of his day's wage, owing, it might be, to the carelessness of an Inspector.

§ Mr. WHITWELL
suggested that the Amendment could not be entertained on this clause.

§ Mr. MELLOR
supported the Amendment. The parent was justly entitled to compensation under the circumstances for the loss of his day's work; but he wished it had gone further and said that it should be paid out of the pocket of the summoning officer.

§ Mr. RYLANDS
said, it would be a great mistake to accede to the Amendment. If carried it would weaken the enforcing of the Bill.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
said, the addition of the Amendment would make the clause contradictory. The clause was based upon the assumption that there was no reasonable excuse for the non-attendance of the child.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, the Amendment involved a very serious matter. He sympathized with the wishes of the hon. Member to relieve parents from any apparent hardship, but this was an extreme course to adopt. He felt certain that the local authorities at present carefully watched these cases, so as to prevent the infliction of unnecessary hardship, and he doubted if the Bill would work well from the introduction of the Amendment, because the local authorities would always feel in terror of being in the wrong. Then, again, the compensation was not defined. The Amendment would be productive of every kind of difficulty. He asked the hon. Member not to press it.

§ Mr. FORSYTH
said, the proposal would introduce a new principle into the law. Summonses and offences were dismissed daily, but who ever heard of compensation being given in consequence?

Mr. PAGET
sympathized with the Amendment, but he concurred in its withdrawal as being then irregular.

§ Sir EARDLEY WILMOT
also appealed to the hon. Member to withdraw the Amendment. At a future stage he would be prepared to give its principle his support. It was a new proposal to compensate persons who had been wrongfully accused, but Lord Brougham had said that every man wrongfully accused in this country ought to be compensated. It had been said that such a provision as that proposed by the hon. Member for Guildford would restrain summoning officers from doing their duty; but, on the other hand, it would operate salutarily in preventing the power to summons being oppressively and harshly

§ Mr. ONSLOW
said, he would withdraw the Amendment, and bring up a new clause at the proper stage of the Bill embodying the Amendment.

§ Mr. TORR
moved, in page 3, line 28, to leave out "such penalty as aforesaid," and insert "penalty not exceeding, with the costs, ten shillings," for a second or any subsequent non-compliance with the order of the magistrate, as well as order the child to be sent to a certified industrial school.

§ Mr. RATHBONE
supported the Amendment.

§ Mr. J. G. TALBOT
said, although local experience seemed to support the Amendment, the Committee must be guided by general experience.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
, considering that 5s. penalty was the limit fixed by the Act of 1870, did not think it would be safe to increase the amount.

§ Mr. BIRLEY
said, it appeared to be a general opinion that four weeks was too long a period in which to prohibit the local authority from repeating a complaint of non-compliance with the order of the court. He moved, in page 3, line 35, to leave out "four," and insert "two."

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
willingly accepted the proposed alteration.

§ Mr. BRISTOWE
appealed to the Vice President to consider whether the 1531 same excuses should be allowed on a second occasion as on the first. He would not put down an Amendment for the Report if the noble Lord did not think it could be entertained.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
thought that reasonable excuses must be equally valid on all occasions.

§ Mr. A. BROWN
moved, in page 4, line 6, to leave out all after "accordingly" to end of clause. The words so omitted would be "unless the local authority think that it is inexpedient to take such proceedings."

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, that the Bill would be perfectly complete without this clause; but it had been thought desirable to give a locus standi, so to speak, before the local authority to benevolent persons who interested themselves in these poor children, and who, if children were neglected, might go to the local authority without the charge of meddling. If, however, the Amendment were adopted, and if it were made compulsory on the local authority to take action upon the representations of the "common informer," a state of things would arise that would be intolerable, and lead to many dissensions. His own opinion was that this clause would be very useful, but only if the words to which objection was taken were retained. He could not consent to retain the clause at all if the words, as proposed, were omitted. He must therefore decline to accept the proposal of his hon. Friend.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
agreed with the noble Lord in thinking that the local authority must be allowed a discretion, and not be compelled to take proceedings upon the representations made to them.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
moved, in page 4, line 18, to leave out "public elementary," and insert "certified efficient." 1532 Also in the same line to leave out the words, "or the said industrial school."

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
moved the omission of Clause 13, and stated that he would lay on the Table to-night the terms of the clause he proposed to substitute.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
moved, in page 4, after Clause 12, to insert the following Clause:— Day Industrial School. (Establishment, &c. of day industrial schools.) If a Secretary of State is satisfied that, owing to the circumstances of any class of population in any school district, an industrial school in which children are not lodged is necessary or expedient for the proper training and control of the children of such class, he may, in like manner as under "The Industrial Schools Act, 1866," certify any such industrial school in the neighbourhood of the said population to be a certified day industrial school. Any child authorized by "The Industrial Schools Act, 1866," or by this Act, to be sent to a certified industrial school, may, if the court before whom the child is brought think it expedient, be sent to a certified day industrial school, and may during the period specified in the order be there detained during such hours as may be authorized by the rules of the school approved by the said Secretary of State. A certified day industrial school shall be deemed to be a certified efficient school within the meaning of this Act. In the case of a day industrial school,—
(1.) A prison authority within the meaning of "The Industrial Schools Act, 1866," and a School Board shall respectively have the same powers in relation to a certified day industrial school as they have in relation to a certified industrial school; and

(2.) There may be contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the custody, maintenance, and training of children sent by an order of a court to a certified day industrial school such sums not exceeding one shilling per head per week, and on such conditions as a Secretary of State from time to time recommends; and

(3.) Where a court of summary jurisdiction orders a child to be sent to a certified day industrial school, the court shall also order the parent of such child, if liable to maintain him, to contribute to his maintenance and training in the school such sum not exceeding two shillings per week as is named in the order; it shall be the duty of the local authority to obtain and enforce the said order, and every sum. 1533 paid under the order shall be paid over to the local authority in aid of their expenses under this Act; if a parent is unable to pay the sum required by the said order to be paid, he shall apply to the guardians, who, if satisfied of such inability, shall give him such relief as will enable him to pay the said sum or so much thereof as they consider him unable to pay; and

(4.) The managers of a certified day industrial school may, upon the request of a local authority and of the parent of a child, and upon the undertaking of the parent to pay towards the maintenance and training of such child such sum, not less than one shilling a week, as a Secretary of State from time to time fixes, receive such child into the school without an order of a court; and there may be contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament in respect of that child such sum, not exceeding sixpence a week and on such conditions as a Secretary from time to time recommends.
It shall be lawful for Her Majesty from time to time, by Order in Council, to apply to a certified day industrial school the provisions of 'The Industrial Schools Act, 1866,'and the Acts amending the same, with such modifications as appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or proper for adapting such provisions to a day industrial school, and bringing them into conformity with this section; and such Order may provide that a child may be punished for an offence by being sent to a certified industrial in lieu of a certified reformatory school, or may otherwise mitigate the punishment imposed by the said Act. It shall be lawful for Her Majesty from time to time, by Order in Council, to revoke and vary any Order in Council made under this section. Every such Order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament within one month after it is made if Parliament be then sitting, or, if not, within one month after the beginning of the then next Session of Parliament, and while in force shall have effect as if it were enacted in this Act.

The O'CONOR DON
said, that as no one else had risen to make any remark on this clause, he felt bound to say that he entertained grave objections against the proposed system of industrial day schools in which the children would be partially supported. This clause, if passed, would not only alter one of the essential principles of the industrial schools, which was compulsory confinement therein, but would also completely alter the character of the board schools, as it would take out of them the class of children for whom they were originally established. It was for the education of this very class of children for whom these day industrial schools were to be set up that most of the board schools had been erected. 1534 Moreover, the new system would add enormously to the rates of the country if it were brought into operation to any great extent.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, that it was no doubt a very important change that they were proposing; but it was a change recommended by several important school boards of great weight, and experience, and by some of the highest authorities connected with the urban population. There was hardly, he believed, a single boarding industrial school now in existence which had not strongly memorialized Government in favour of this experiment. The clause was fenced round with great caution. The Secretary of State could not certify a day industrial school unless he were satisfied that owing to the circumstances of any class of population in any school district, an industrial school in which children were not lodged was necessary or expedient for the proper training and control of the children of such class. They might be perfectly sure that the Home Secretary would be exceedingly careful not to give certificates to too large a number of these schools. There were, besides, very stringent provisions respecting the payment for the children, which were to be recovered in almost all cases from the parish, the localities being given for the first time a direct interest in getting them. He, in concert with, the Government, was of opinion that this was one of the most important changes which could possibly be introduced. He did not wish to take to himself or the Government the credit of the scheme itself. The real credit of it belonged to many benevolent people outside the House, and amongst whom he must mention the honoured name of Miss Carpenter, who had tried day industrial schools under disadvantageous circumstances, and with marked success. Day industrial schools were used in Scotland largely, the result being that the small gutter children had been almost entirely got rid of. The plan of course only affected the town population, but it proposed to meet the case of a class which was the despair of the school boards, had eluded hitherto all our legislation, had only been very partially affected by the efforts of good and benevolent people, and which was the disgrace and the danger of our modern civilization in all our great 1535 cities. It was absolutely necessary, therefore, to try some fresh, method of dealing with this class. This scheme had succeeded marvellously as far as it had been tried by private individuals. It was now proposed to give further encouragement to individuals and school boards to establish such schools—only where the Secretary of State thought they were necessary. It was avowedly an experiment, but he trusted, in consideration of the magnitude of the evil, with which all their efforts had so far been unable to cope, and which must be dealt with, that the Committee would agree to try it.

Mr. W. HOLM
Shaving had experience of the system in Scotland, thought this clause would prove most beneficial.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
saw great dangers in the clause, as it would, hold out a temptation to magistrates to send children upon very slight excuses to these industrial schools; a new class of industrial schools would spring up all over the country, instead of the old ones getting filled, and thus the country would be saddled with very heavy expense. He would like to hear from the noble Lord what the opinions of the Inspectors, and especially of the Rev. Sydney Turner, were on the matter.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, that the Rev. Sydney Turner, the late Inspector of Industrial Schools, had spoken in the very strongest manner in favour of these industrial schools, both as likely to check expense and as affording the best way of dealing with the children in question.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
asked how far these schools would combine industrial training with school teaching?

§ LORD ESLINGTON
, while acknowledging the benefit which the industrial schools had conferred, could not but be struck by the extension of the system proposed in this clause. He should like to know how his noble Friend proposed to recover from parents the pay for which they were liable. At present it was collected through the police; but he thought it was very objectionable to employ the police in matters of education. It would be very desirable if some other agency could be employed for the collection of these sums.

§ Mr. A. BROWN
said, that the clause of the noble Lord deserved the support of the Committee for its combination of school teaching and industrial training.

§ Mr. PELL
feared that the result of the clause would be to lead parents to evade their obligations by tempting them to neglect the education of their children in order to gain the advantage of food in these day industrial schools. On the whole, unless the proposal were materially altered, he should be inclined to oppose it; and one alteration which should be made was to make this a local, not a Union charge, as country parishes would receive no advantage from day industrial schools.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
said, the Committee were rather in the dark in this discussion. What would a day industrial school be? What industrial training would it afford? What food would be given to the children? Would there be half-time schooling? He could hardly make up his mind upon the clause until he was told what sort of school was contemplated.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, these day industrial schools would be almost identical with the lodging industrial schools, minus the lodging. A certain amount of industrial training would be given, exactly as in the lodging industrial schools, a good deal of latitude being purposely left with the Secretary of State and the able Inspectors to adapt the regulations according to the diverse requirements of various localities. Clothing might be given just as in the lodging schools, and one simple meal in the day would be provided. Something had been said as to the difficulty of recovering fees from the parents, and to meet this objection the interest of local authorities was stimulated by making the fees when recovered payable to them. It would not be expedient to appoint new officers to collect these fees. There was no fear that these day industrial schools would spread very much. The assent of the Secretary of State would be necessary, and the contributions of the State would be very small, being limited to 1s. per week per child, which was very much what the feeding of the children would come to. The rest of the money would come from the parents or from Boards of Guardians, or from voluntary contributions. The suggestion of the hon. Member (Mr. Pell) that this expenditure should be localized was a valuable one, and he should be willing to provide in the clause that it should not be spread over the whole of a large 1537 Union, for being mainly an urban affair the cost ought to be confined to the particular community benefited. It was believed, however, that day industrial schools would diminish the number of children in the lodging schools, and so diminish expense. It might appear strange to say so; but it was better that many of these children should not be taken altogether out of their homes and shut up for four or five years within the walls of an institution which, however well managed, was something of a hothouse for the children of the labouring poor. Something had been said about uncontrollable children, and Parliament was bound, if possible, to meet this difficulty. Here was a case mentioned to him by a London police magistrate:—A dock labourer was bound to be at his employment at an early hour, and to continue there, or he would lose his means of subsistence. The man might be a widower with four or five children, who did not go to school, though he urged them to do so. What possible means had such a man of seeing that his children went to school? The magistrate said it almost broke his heart to have to fine such a man 5s. The clause would meet the case of such uncontrollable children, as well as the class of what had been called Arab or gutter children, and as it would secure that the burden of the State should be small, that parents should be made to pay if they were able to do so, and that the charge should be a local, not a Union charge, he thought there was great hope of its proving a very valuable provision in the Bill.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
said, this experiment, though promising good results, was attended with considerable danger. The noble Lord had stated that school boards were most anxious to have this power; but why not give them also the power of putting their hands into the public purse? He would certainly move to strike out the second section of the clause.

§ SIR WALTER BARTTELOT
said, he thought it was quite proper that when a man was utterly incapable of controlling his children, as in the case of the dock labourer put by the noble Lord, they should be sent to an industrial school; but he could not see the propriety of allowing those children to return to the home of such a parent 1538 every afternoon. This would be a very mischievous provision if the parent was not obliged to pay the sum charged under the clause. He thought they were going a little too fast. They should be more tentative in their legislation, otherwise they might create a burden and an expense which would become intolerable.

§ Mr. RATHBONE
said, he hoped the clause would be guarded effectively by self-acting precautions. These day industrial schools should be obliged to comply with the same requirements as to inspection and results in the board schools.

§ Mr. TORR
remarked that, despite all the efforts of the school board and the vast machinery brought into operation by it there were something like 40,000 children in Liverpool still outside the control of any school—of these a large number of the worst class could only be won by means of such a clause as the one now proposed, which was specially applicable to the large towns and not to country districts. The parents did not give them any food, and the children were left to beg or steal it. The only way to get at them was to offer them a school with one meal of food a-day. He supported the clause.

§ Mr. A. MILLS
said, he hoped that some efficient machinery would be devised for extracting the payments due from parents for keeping their children at these day industrial schools. He regretted to find that the present board schools in London had displaced and disestablished the ragged schools. Although the London School Board had provided school accommodation for 120,000 children, there were said to be at this moment more gutter or wastrel children in London than there were six years ago. This clause appeared the only means of providing for them. Board schools were reluctant to take in those children because they were irregular in attendance, and brought them neither money nor credit; and what was to become of them he did not know. He certainly would support this clause.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
hoped the clause would be accepted, though he candidly confessed he had considerable fears as to the result. The most that could be said in its favour was that it was an experiment; but as far as he 1539 could see the Government were fully justified in making it. A good deal would depend upon the regulations made by the Secretary of State, yet he had confidence that these regulations would be of such a character as to make the clause successful. Something like a similar proposal had been submitted to himself and the Marquess of Ripon, who saw its advantages but did not like to assume the responsibility of its adoption. It appeared that the cost to the State for each child was to be 1s. a-week or £2 12s. a-year, which might represent a considerable sum in the aggregate. The speech which most alarmed him was that made by the hon. Member for Liverpool (Mr. Torr). It appeared that with all the efforts made by the school board of Liverpool—and no school board had worked harder—there were 40,000 children whom they had not been able to reach, owing to the peculiar nature of the population; and the hon. Member looked to this clause to bring them in.

§ Mr. TORR
said, that there were in Liverpool about 40,000 children afloat, but nothing like that number could possibly come under the action of this clause.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
said, it might not be possible to get the whole of these children into the schools; but if the clause were sensibly to diminish the number in Liverpool and other seaports it must act by tens of thousands. The danger was lest these industrial schools should not be a deterrent, but a temptation to the parent. Parliament was about to offer to the hard-working poor not only to relieve them of the care of their children, but to supply them with food cheaper than they could obtain it, and all that the child suffered was the disgrace of a guasi-imprisonment, which disgrace would be soon diminished if many children entered the industrial schools under this clause. It was, in fact, a system of out-relief, and the danger was that it would be a temptation to the hard-working poor to make use of it, and that it would discourage those who did not. The greatest care would therefore be necessary in the precautions observed until it was seen how the experiment succeeded. He trusted that the Education Department would not commit itself too far, so that if it were found that these dangers were real 1540 it might retrace its steps before any harm was done.

§ Mr. W. H. SMITH
said, there was no doubt that this must be regarded as a tentative clause. The Committee had to deal with a great educational, social, and moral difficulty, which had escaped all the efforts hitherto made by persons interested in the education of children in our great communities, and this was an attempt to overcome the difficulty. There was a provision that the parents should contribute not more than 2s. a-week to the cost of the maintenance of their children (Parliament contributing 1s.), and that, he thought, would check the temptation to abuse the benefits conferred by the clause, while at the same time the clause would give the authorities in large towns like London and Liverpool opportunities and means of getting these gutter children into school, which they never possessed before. The Bill did not profess to deal with vagrants any more than with canal children. A large expenditure upon these industrial schools would, of course, be a very grave matter, and the Government could not consent very largely to increase this source of expenditure. There might also be a danger lest the clause should remove from the parents a proper sense of responsibility. The Government, however, thought that this was an experiment that ought to be tried, and if it did not succeed it would be their duty to consider whether there was any better mode of dealing with this difficulty.

The O'CONOR DON
said, that if the committal of children to the industrial school were to be regarded as a penalty, he should like to know how that penalty was to be enforced.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
must decline to go into this question further than it was dealt with by the clause.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
moved to omit the second sub-section, namely— There may be contributed out of moneys provided by Parliament towards the custody, maintenance, and training of children sent by an order of a court to a certified day industrial school, such sums not exceeding one shilling per head per week, and on such conditions as a Secretary of State from time to time recommends.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, there was no reason why the State should not make contributions to these schools, inasmuch as it at present contributed towards the support of public elementary schools. These day industrial schools would be doing a work which he might say the Education Department had failed to do, and it would be hard, therefore, to say that they should have no State aid whatever.

§ MR. W. E. FORSTER
pointed out that the sub-section did not distinctly state whether the payment of 1s.a-head by the State was to be met by a local contribution. He thought that there ought to be that security, otherwise they would be putting these industrial schools in a different position from that in which public elementary schools stood. In the case of the latter they proceeded on the principle that every shilling given to them by the State should be met by a shilling from the locality, and unless they adopted the same principle in dealing with day industrial schools there would be a strong inducement to everybody in a locality to increase the number of these schools, and shift the teaching of children entirely on to the State. His noble Friend the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Frederick Cavendish) was going too far in proposing practically that there ought not to be anything given out of the taxes to these schools.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, that, as the Government shillings would not cover the cost of the schools, additional money would, of course, have to be found elsewhere.

§ Mr. LYON PLAYFAIR
suggested that the provision in the Scotch Act with reference to this point might advantageously be inserted in the Bill.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
thanked the right hon. Member for the suggestion, and said he would look into the matter before the Report, in order to see whether the Scotch clause could be introduced.

§ Mr. FAWCETT
complained that this clause would introduce two most serious innovations. Under it Imperial funds were to be given to schools independently of their educational efficiency, and were also to be devoted to the relief of those necessities which arose from the negligence of careless or improvident persons. He trusted that the noble Lord 1542 would accept an Amendment providing that these schools should be treated in the same manner as ordinary elementary schools, and that the State grant should be met by a corresponding contribution from the locality.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
feared that all chance of success with these schools would be destroyed if they were dealt with under the regulations applying to public elementary schools. These schools were, in fact, transition schools, intended for a class of children who could not be reached by the ordinary system. He should be prepared to enlarge the conditions on which the State aid was to be allowed.

§ LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICE
saw difficulties in the clause, but hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
said, that the clause introduced a new principle, and they should be very careful in the application of it. He suggested that there should be some such regulation as this—that the amount to be given should depend upon the results of education. The scholars would, perhaps, earn some 15s. or 16s. a-year, and this could go in reduction of the direct contribution from the State.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
admitted that certain educational conditions should be fulfilled, and these would be expressed upon the face of the clause.

§ Mr. MUNTZ
recognized this as a noble effort to meet a great want. It was amusing to hear these children spoken of as though they had parents who could be made responsible for them. The children who would be provided for in these schools had no parents at all, or none who took care of them; they seemed to swarm under the archways and in the alleys of our great towns as though they came there by spontaneous generation. It would be a great pity if the proposal were marred by any attempt to carry out abstract theories. The Government proposed to draw these children by means of offering them something to eat; they had to catch them as they would catch any other animal. If they went into a field to catch a horse they would find it better to take with them some corn rather than a whip.

§ Mr. LOWE
said, that before they gave a large grant out of the Consolidated Fund towards creating a particular 1543 class of day schools, they ought to be sure that they were doing right. They were now really applying the rules of industrial schools to a totally different kind of school. An industrial school was a modified prison intended for children who had committed offences. They were described as beggars, wanderers who had no home, and who were destitute. Nothing could be kinder than to take poor children found in that position, and put them in a place where they would be taken care of, and the contamination which they would naturally give to each other might be checked by a proper system of discipline and watching. But whoever heard of such a proposal as the present before? They were to gather together these children with the hypothesis on their minds that many of them had no one to take care of them, and slept under bridges and arches, and after keeping them at school one part of the day, and administering to them a prison discipline in fact, they were then to turn them loose at night to go into fresh vice and misery. That was a proposition so monstrous that he could not allow it to pass without entering his humble protest against it. If it was worth while to do anything at all, it was surely worth while to do the thing thoroughly, and provide that these children should be kept out of tempation and subject to proper discipline.

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, that the right hon. Gentleman had spoken as if this subject was entirely new, and had never been thought of till the present time; but there were a great number of hon. Members in that House who knew very well that this matter had been engaging attention for many years. Some 20 years ago he joined with others in calling attention to the wants of this particular class of children and they were met by the authoritative and official assertion that such a class did not exist. They were told that they were speaking of criminals, and that they must go to reformatories. Meanwhile, excellent and benevolent people had substantiated the fact that there was such a class and had striven to meet the wants of these children. The school boards having failed, as they were told, to meet the case of these children, it was necessary somewhat to modify their system in order to get at them, and these day industrial 1544 schools were now proposed as an experiment. The Government had endeavoured to frame their proposal in conformity with that which those who had been engaged in this work as a labour of love for many years had found to be the best line of action. He admitted that the system of day industrial schools must be introduced with great caution, in a very tentative manner, and subject to such conditions as would prevent abuse.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
said, that he could not vote for the Amendment of his noble Friend; but in supporting the clause he must not be understood to be debarred from making further proposals upon the subject.

§ LORD FREDERICK CAVENDISH
, yielding to suggestions, said, as the Vice President had admitted that greater securities were required, he would wait until the Report to see how they were provided.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
proposed that the grant should not exceed the contributions of managers.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
did not like to commit himself to that off-hand, but he would consider it.

§ Mr. J. G. TALBOT
proposed that the minimum contribution of a parent should be 1s. a-week.

Mr. ASSHETON CROSS
said, that was the original proposal of the Bill, but inquiry had shown that the lower sum of 9d. would be far more readily obtained.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
moved, in page 9, to leave out Clause 24, and insert the following clause:— (Provisions as to school attendance committee and appointment of local committee.) Subject to the provisions of this Act the council or guardians may from time to time add to or diminish the number of members of a school attendance committee appointed by them. A school attendance committee appointed by guardians shall act for every parish in the union which is not under a School Board. A school attendance committee may, if they think fit, appoint different local committees for different parishes or other areas in their district 1545 for the purpose of giving the school attendance committee such aid and information in the execution of this Act as may be required by the committee appointing them, but any such local committee shall not have power to make any bye-laws or take any proceeding before a court of summary jurisdiction under this Act. A local committee may consist of not less than three persons, being, as the school attendance committee appointing them think fit, either wholly members of such committee or partly such members and partly other persons. The provisions contained in the Second Schedule to this Act shall apply to every school attendance committee and local committee appointed under this Act.

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
moved, in page 1, after Clause 3 to insert the following clause:— (Declaration of duty of parent to educate child). It shall be the duty of the parent of every child above the age of five years to cause such child to receive efficient elementary instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and if such parent fail to perform such duty, he shall be liable to such orders and penalties as are provided by this Act. The noble Lord reminded the House that there had been a general feeling in the House in favour of such a declaratory clause, and the Government had since determined that it was desirable to insert it.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
thanked the noble Lord for the clause, which he preferred to his own Amendment, and hoped would be agreed to unanimously.

§ Mr. BERESFORD HOPE
hoped that this unnecessary clause would be dropped. It was in itself a truism, and he could not witness with satisfaction the adoption in England of a form of legislation of which the precedent could only be deduced from the doctrinism or despotism of the French Revolution. The duty referred to was one of natural law, and. could only be weakened by being imported into a statute; while grammar, no less than more sacred matters, suffered by the introduction of rhetorical and sentimental expressions into Acts of Parliament. This clause would justify the vagabond father in saying that the law did not require him to clothe and feed his child; because, having consulted the statute in which his whole parental duty was laid down, he could only find a reference to mental aliment.

§ Mr. J. G. TALBOT
thought it was contrary to the scope of English legislation to say, as was done by this clause, that it was the duty of every parent to do so and so for his child.

§ Mr. CHARLEY
moved to amend the clause by omitting the words "above the age of five years."

§ VISCOUNT SANDON
said, he would now move that the Chairman report Progress in order that he might have an opportunity of making a statement with regard to a new clause which the Government had decided to bring up, instead of Clause 13. That clause, as the Committee would recollect, was a subsidiary clause, and one which he stated the Government felt some little doubt about, although the injustice, and consequently the evil to be dealt with was so very serious a one, that the Government felt, and he had stated so when he introduced the Bill, that it must be dealt with. He had then showed that there had been a great rise in the cost of schooling during the last live years. It had been clearly proved also that the pressure brought to bear upon the country by the Government, by means of the requirements of the Codes, which demanded highly-trained teachers, made it exceedingly difficult for the small and poor schools to get on. The Government insisted on a very high standard of education, which meant very highly-paid teachers, and in various ways they had raised the cost of education. He had accordingly brought forward a clause, which was known as the Poor Districts Clause. After a good deal of consideration and consultation, it had been found since that clause had been before the public that, although it met a good number of cases, still its operation was very unequal; for while it gave aid to districts which did. 1547 not particularly need it, other districts were left out in which the aid was wanted. The Government had, therefore, thought it better to abandon that somewhat complex scheme. He would again remind the House that the great rise in the cost of education had been pressed upon the Government from various quarters, which were specially informed on these matters, and the facts adduced could not be denied. It had been brought strongly before them by persons connected with education; and the London School Board, by a resolution passed by a large majority, had represented very strongly that the great rise in the cost of education was acting injuriously upon many of the best schools in London. So that, on futher examination, it was found that the Government proposal was increasing largely the cost not only of the schools in the poorest districts, but in ordinary places, so that many good voluntary schools were likely to be extinguished—a thing looked forward to with alarm by some of the largest and best school boards—and the burdens on the local rates would be unduly increased in the cases of board schools. The total cost of schools was 35s. per child on the average. To cover this cost the child was able to earn from the State a considerable amount for average attendance, singing, good discipline, reading, writing, and arithmetic, history, geography, grammar, and needlework. That was the sound ordinary education, which the public wished the children should receive. The amount that could be earned by a child in a school of that class was 17s. 6d. but that represented a very first class national or board school. There were other payments made by the State for extra subjects, in science, botany, mechanics, languages, &c, which would enable a school to earn more than 17s. 6d. per head; but these might be considered the luxuries of education, which ought not to receive the same aid from the State as what might be called the necessaries of knowledge. As the House was aware, at the present time the State in many cases made considerable deduction from the earnings of the child. It did not necessarily, by means of its proficiency, bring to the school the 17s. 6d. net, because if the locality did not provide one-half of the cost of the school or meet the Government subsidy by 1548 fees and subscriptions, what the teaching of the master had enabled the child to earn was cut down. The State had adopted the plan of payment by results, but it had never worked the plan out thoroughly, or pursued it to its logical conclusion; and although the results were as good as the State desired, if the fees and subscriptions did not meet the Government grant, then the State cut down the payment which the child earned. When there were no school board schools the plan acted uniformly, and all suffered alike; but under the present system it acted very unequally because it did not affect the board schools. These schools had the pockets of the ratepayers to put their hands into, so that the masters and mistresses of the board schools were in a much better position than were those of the voluntary schools. The former felt that they could educate their children without any of those deductions. They had nothing to do with the fees of the parents or the liberality of neighbours, while the masters and mistresses of voluntary schools had the fear of those dreadful deductions constantly hanging over their heads, which took away the incentives to exertion, and were a constant disappointment and vexation to the best teachers and managers, and affected them not in proportion to their exertions, but to the poverty of their district. The present system, therefore, was a great check and discouragement to the teachers, and the proposal he had to make on behalf of Her Majesty's Government would, he believed, be hailed with enthusiasm by all the teachers in all the schools. It was clearly essential, if they held to their present system, to make some provision by which a subscription should be insisted on from every school in the country, as it was clearly wrong to allow the rich schools to be supported entirely by fees and the State—and to require from the poor districts the aid of subscriptions, just where there was most difficulty in getting any. But such a course would give rise to very serious difficulties. As he had said, about 9 per cent of the British and Wesleyan schools in England, and nearly 2 per cent of the Church schools, were supported entirely by fees and the Imperial grant. The principle of insisting on subscriptions had long ago, therefore, been abandoned, and the Nonconformist 1549 schools took the advantage of the change, owing, he must say, partly to their own excellence, and also in a great degree to the superior class of children they educated. If, therefore, they insisted that so much should in their ease come from subscriptions as the condition of their receiving the Government grant, they should be imposing a new burden upon a great number of the most efficient schools in the country, throwing them upon their own resources and obliging them to seek fresh sources of income. He must say that he did not believe such a course would be tolerated. He would now state the proposal the Government had to make. Taking as their basis that the by no means sparing education which was provided when the child earned the 17s. 6d. grant as representing a sound and simple education thoroughly good in every way, and such as the country desired, they said—"We will treat this class of schools upon a bold and intelligible footing, and say with regard to the great mass of those schools which give their children that sound education, we shall go simply upon the system of payment by results." To simplify the whole matter they would ask no questions as to where the money came from, but confine themselves to the all-important inquiry, Were the results of the teaching good? If the results were good according to the requirements of the Code; if the schools could show those educational results which the Education Department required to be produced, and if they were properly and suitably conducted, then they would ask no further questions and put no check upon teachers or children or managers in any way. If the schools produced certain results, they would receive the Government grant of 17s. 6d., which represented a good, sound, general education throughout the country. That sum would be paid if it was earned, and he was sure the Committee would agree that Her Majesty's Inspectors might be trusted to see that it was fairly earned. As the Committee were aware, very few children could contribute more in fees, in the great mass of the schools, than 10s. per annum, leaving 7s. 6d. at all events, to be supplied from some other source; thus, as a matter of fact, considerable aid would have to be provided from various quarters, and the principal effect of the change would be to relieve from 1550 their present unjust treatment the poorer schools that could only get low fees and small subscriptions. But the Government proposed to go further, and say—"If any persons choose to establish higher schools, schools in which parents are willing to pay larger fees, or where benevolent persons for the benefit of their poorer neighbours like to give larger subscriptions, where higher subjects shall be taught, we shall put those schools in a different category, and make a higher grant if it be earned, but only on condition of its being met by higher fees or larger subscriptions according to the requirements of the Code." They proposed also to embody in the Bill the arrangement which was accepted by the House last year in respect of rural schools. In the Code it was provided that where the population was below 300 there should be extra grants given of £15 and £10, independent of their earnings. That provision, which was now law, would be introduced into the Bill so as to secure the advantage in question to these small rural schools of 40, 30, or 20 children, which were now more heavily handicapped that any other schools in the land, as they were obliged to have certificated teachers—teachers as efficient as many of the most favoured schools—whose salaries necessarily made these schools far more expensive in proportion than the larger schools. For that reason it was thought right that the State should make some extra provision for them. Such were the proposals he had to lay before the Committee, and he felt confident that the effect of the change, if it were accepted and carried out, would be to give additional vigour to the whole teaching staff of the country, to relieve a great number of the very best schools from unfair and unjust pressure, and he believed, that when its working was fully understood, it would be hailed and regarded by all parties as a valuable amendment of the present system. Looking at it from a broad point of view, he thought that the proposed changes would remove the most fertile causes of discontent, would get rid of one of the most irritating matters connected with the Government grant, for the administration of the Education Department would take away a serious check upon the exertions of the teacher, and give a fresh and healthy impulse to 1551 sound and solid education throughout the country.

§ Mr. W. E. FORSTER
said, that even if there were time remaining for the purpose the Committee were not in a position to discuss the proposals which the noble Lord had just laid before them. He wished to know whether the clause would distinguish between the two classes of schools mentioned—those which were to be restricted to 17s. 6d., and those which were not?

§ THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
said, he would read the words of the clause. It would run thus— Such Grant shall not in any year be reduced by reason of its excess above the income of the school if the Grant do not exceed the amount of seventeen shillings and sixpence per child in average attendance at the school during that year, but shall not exceed that amount per child, except by the same sum by which the income of the school, derived from voluntary contributions, rates, school fees, endowments, and any source whatever other than the Parliamentary Grant exceeds the said amount per child. The effect would be that if the child earned less than 17s. 6d. or 17s. 6d., then the sum earned would be given; but if it earned 18s., then that sum would be granted by the State; but as to the higher grants—the Government grants above 17s. 6d.—they would require to be met by the schools from their own resources.