HC Deb 07 March 1884 vol 285 cc862-4
MR. J. G. TALBOT

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether his attention has been called to a Memorial addressed to the School Board at Bradford, signed by over fifty medical men of that town, in which they pray the Board to direct that home lessons shall not be enforced on children under ten years of age; and, whether he proposes to take any steps to limit pressure upon children of tender age in this direction?

MR. MUNDELLA

Sir, I have seen the Memorial in question, and I have read some of the statements made on its presentation as to the prevalence of brain disease among children. I find, however, that these statements are not corroborated by the Registrar General's Returns. I have every confidence that the Bradford School Board—which is an exceptionally able one—will exercise wisdom and discretion in dealing with the subject of over-pressure. In the Code which I have laid on the Table, it will be found that we have taken special precautions to prevent children being over-worked in schools—first, by directing that exceptionally dull children, or children who are weakly in body or delicate in health, or who have suffered from prolonged illness, shall be withheld from examination; secondly, by making it incumbent on managers that during the year prior to examination such children shall not be unduly pressed; thirdly, by enabling children who have failed in two subjects, or twice in one subject, to be re-examined in the same Standard. We shall also direct Her Majesty's Inspectors to see that these rules are carried into effect. But we are of opinion that no regulations which we could lay down would be effectual unless parents, teachers, and managers co-operate with the Department to protect the children. There are nearly 5,000,000 of children on the rolls of public elementary schools in Great Britain, and it is impossible for a central Department to lay down hard-and-fast rules for the guidance of local authorities as to the due amount of instruction that may be given with safety to every child.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

asked whether the statement made by Dr. Alexander in bringing the Memorial before the Bradford School Board was untrue? The statement being that within the last three weeks he had seen no less than three cases of brain disease, one fatal, brought on by over-work in schools.

MR. MUNDELLA

said, he did not know anything about Dr. Alexander's statement. What He had himself said was, that the statements as to the prevalence of brain disease during the last 15 years were not corroborated by the Registrar General's Returns.

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would make special inquiry into the serious allegations contained in the Report of Dr. Alexander?

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that whenever a case came before him he had ordered special inquiries to be made; but he could not undertake to inquire into the statements made by Dr. Alexander where the cases were not specified.

MR. J. LOWTHER

asked whether the right hon. Gentleman would not inquire what the specific cases were?

MR. MUNDELLA

said, that he could not undertake to do so.

MR. STANLEY LEIGHTON

asked the Vice President of the Council, Whether the Report of the Government Inspector on the case of Emma Rowley, a scholar in the British School at Cheltenham, who died of inflammation of the brain, confirms the evidence of Dr. Moseley, given at the coroner's inquest— That the lessons which the deceased had to learn at school, coupled with the time devoted to study, was too great a mental strain for any healthy child of seven or eight years to bear, and, looking at the state of the deceased, the strain was much more severe. That he thought the mental strain she had to hear most certainly hastened her death; and, whether it is true that the coroner, in his charge to the jury, declared— That the evidence went far to confirm the growing feeling amongst the public that children were too severely taxed as far as their education was concerned?

MR. MUNDELLA

Sir, we have received the Report of the Government Inspector, which does not confirm the opinion of Dr. Moseley, who is said to appear not to have any acquaintance with the requirements of the Code which he pronounces to be excessive. I must remind the House that Dr. Moseley stated at the inquest that Emma Rowley was suffering from inflammation of the right lung, and that the base of the left lung was congested, as well as from inflammation of the membranes of the brain, and that, at the post-mortem examination, "he discovered tubercles on the brain—in other words, that the primary or predisposing cause of the child's death was tubercular meningitis." Although the coroner is reported to have made the declaration quoted by the hon. Member, the jury, in their verdict, avoided all reference to mental strain, and stated that no blame attached to the teachers or the school authorities.