EVENING CONTINUATION SCHOOLS.

HC Deb 15 March 1889 vol 333 cc1837-906

* MR. S. SMITH (Flintshire)

had upon the Notice Paper the following Amendment— That it is desirable to establish a national system of evening continuation schools where children who leave elementary day schools at a very early age may continue their education. The Amendment however, could not be put.

The hon. Member said: I am sure that I have with me the sympathy of the great majority of the Members of this House, and that, if it had been possible to have taken a division, I should have had almost unanimous support. As it is I trust the expression of sympathy will have almost as much weight and authority as could be expressed by means of a division. For several years I have sought to bring this matter before the House and to take a division upon it, and, although I have been disappointed, the cause has ripened out of doors so rapidly that a much more favourable judgment can be hoped for now than would have been given a year or two ago. We have now the Report of the Royal Commission on Education which took a large amount of evidence on evening schools, and almost unanimously recommended the establishment of a national system of such schools. I will call attention to one or two paragraphs in the majority report as follows:— That the necessity of having some form of evening school for the purpose of fixing and making permanent the day school instruction is almost self-evident; and that it would be worth the while of the State to spend more money on such schools. That the evening school system should be thoroughly revised; that a special curriculum and special schedule of standards and subjects should be allowed, suitable to the needs of a locality, and that the local managers should be encouraged to submit such schedules to the Department for approval; that the provisions embodied in the code requiring all scholars in evening schools to pass in the three elementary subjects as a condition of taking up additional subjects should cease to be enforced, and that no superior limit of age should be imposed upon the scholars. These were the views of the majority of the Royal Commission, but the minority enforced them in a much more copious manner, and they went much more fully into the question of evening schools. I state this to show how unanimously the Commission was in favour of establishing evening schools. Memorials and resolutions in favour of evening continuation schools have been received from school boards, education associations, trade unions, co-operative societies, friendly societies, chambers of commerce, teachers' associations, and working-men's clubs, colleges, trading associations, and societies engaged in educational work. There used to be an impression that the working-classes were not favourable to legislation of this kind because they desired to get their children to work as soon as possible. I am happy to say that now this feeling is entirely dispelled. I have been in communication for two or three years with many working-class leaders, who insisted strongly upon the necessity for establishing evening continuation schools. I have been in communication with most of the school boards in the country for the purpose of ascertaining the average age at which children left the elementary schools, and I have found it was about 12 in the towns and 11 in the rural districts. In some rural districts it was 10; in some towns 11; in Wolverhampton, with 97 per cent of the scholars it was 11 years six months. I was quite unprepared, when I entered upon this question, to find how young is the age at which our children's education is stopped. In London, where they insist on the sixth standard, for which we owe the School Board a debt of gratitude, the average age of leaving is 13 years, which was probably the highest average in the country. In 1886 of 2,500,000 presented for examination, only 128,000 were presented in standards 6 and 7; 265,000 in Standard 5; 455,000 in Standard 4. The greater proportion did not go beyond Standard 4; and diminishing numbers reached Standards 5 and 6. The fact is, the greater part of the children of this country do not go beyond Standard 4, while a smaller number go to the 5th, and only a small minority at present pass the 6th Standard. This is a miserable state of things. In place of boasting of our great educational progress, we ought to be thoroughly ashamed of it. Of course we are far ahead of what we were before 1870, but then we were in a state of heathen darkness. Our educational attainments are miserably poor when compared with those of Germany, Switzerland, and several other countries. Now what becomes of the little children? Hundreds of thousands of them leave school at the age of 10, 11, and 12. Do they get any further education? As far as I have been able to gather, only 4 per cent receive any further education at all; 96 per cent cease to be educated altogether at the age of 12 or younger, and soon forget most of what they learn. Before 1870 we had a system of night schools which worked well, and the Shaftesbury ragged schools did useful work; but the Education Act killed these; and last year the average attendance at evening schools in England and Wales did not exceed 30,000 children against 4,500,000 in the day schools. What becomes of this enormous mass of children after they have passed out of the day schools of this country, very poorly equipped for life, at the age of 11 or 12? I will quote a sentence, which puts the whole thing in a nutshell, from Dr. Paton, of Nottingham— First we build up at an immense expense a colossal system of primary education, and then see and allow the results of it to be very largely wasted and lost. Teachers speak dismally of the havoc to the fruit of their labours in the first two years after school is left. The garden which by daily culture has been brought into such an admirable and promising condition is given over to utter neglect; the money, the time, the labour bestowed upon it are lost. We cease to educate at the most important, most plastic, most receptive period of life. These are the words of a man who has, I believe, given more attention to this subject than any other in England. Now, many of these children who leave school at the age of 11 or 12 fall into a mode of life which is simply deplorable. They almost live upon the streets, frequenting public-houses and low music halls, where they hear that which is trashy and often worse, and their chief education is the literature of crime. This is the sort of training many of these children get after leaving school; this is the chief cause of the social degradation and the shameful condition of our large towns. The condition of the lower tier of the population—the residuum—is a reproach to us. I have made an attempt at an estimate, and I believe this residuum falls little short of three millions. I believe we have nearly three millions of our population who are on the verge of pauperism, and who are more or less supported by charity. My hon. Friend near me says there are more, but that is my estimate. And what in the main produces this pauperized class, this disgrace of England, and which we have in far larger proportion than any other civilized nation in the world? I will give my judgment as that of one who has spent much of his life in work among them, and I say that neglect of children is the main cause. Of course, I know there are collateral causes, such as the wretched dwellings, drunkenness, the hard struggle for existence. There are many contributory causes, but the one that stands out beyond all others, and which accounts for most of the squalor, degradation, and wretchedness of the English poor is the shocking, the shameful neglect of children. We have a large class of parents in England who are little better than savages; they do nothing for their children; they prey upon them; they treat them as wage earners from the earliest years of their life, and under the degrading influences that surround them these children sink into that state of heathenism in which a considerable part of our people live. There is no way of Christianizing, of civilizing them, except by the State putting them into schools and keeping them there as long as they can be kept. But we allow the children of the poorest class to leave our schools at 11 or 12 years of age, and then they pass through the education of the slums; they sink down into the same state of degradation as that in which their parents live, and in a few years become parents of another crop of the same destitute class, and create another generation of "the unemployed" in our large towns, for this class is always unemployed, and never will be anything else. How should they be anything else? They have never learned a trade; they have no means of living but by what they can pick up in the streets by odd jobs. By the time the children have grown up into youth they are hopelessly condemned to a life of poverty and degradation. We have let go the critical moment for changing their destiny; we have lost the period between 12 and 16 when the character is forming, and when education can be turned to good account, and to our shame we have let these evils repeat themselves from generation to generation. Let me quote a few lines from a writer who has spent his life working among this class and knows exactly what he writes— Year by year (says the Rev. Benjamin Waugh) from 70,000 to 80,000 London children pass out of elementary schools; of these, possibly, the half obtain bonâ-fide occupation. As for the rest—the poorer part, inhabiting, too, the more densely-populated quarters—here is nothing for them but the streets, and the almost certain life of a knave or a fool. It is probable that, every day, not less than 70,000 boys and girls are actually 'hob-jobbing' about, utterly helpless, until they hob-job into gaols, penitentiaries, and reformatories. I think I know Liverpool well—I do not know London so well—and I can say this describes the state of things in Liverpool. There you may see thousands of these children from 10 to 16 years of age half-clothed, half-fed, screaming about the streets, selling newspapers or fuzees or doing any odd jobs. This is the condition of Liverpool as I have known it for thirty years, a veritable scandal to the country. When an American lands at Liverpool, the first thing he notices is the crowd of squalid, dirty children who swarm around him. Their number is far larger in Liverpool than anywhere in Europe, so far as I know it. An hon. Member says in New York you will find as many. That may be true, though it was not my experience, and if it be so, those are the children of the destitute emigrants who have landed there, the sweepings of European towns. I have travelled over almost the whole of America twice, and I can say that nowhere except in New York can you see a score of ragged begging children in the streets. I have travelled in most civilized countries, and have specially inquired into this subject, and I say you can pick up in Liverpool in a single day more of these ragged, dirty, neglected children than you can find in six months in any other civilized country. I have made a study of this question, and I have inquired very specially into the condition of things in Germany and Switzerland. Once before I told the House the results of my inquiry, but as there are now present many Members who did not hear me on a former occasion, I may be allowed to repeat something of what I have said. I went to Germany with the special object of inquiring into the subject. I went through the largest cities, I saw the best authorities on education, and I inquired specially into the condition of the children of the poor. I did not find in any city, not even in Berlin, any sign of the existence of this class of dirty, ragged, neglected children. And yet the average rate of wages is lower than in England, and the struggle for life is very severe. So perfect is their system of education, so thoroughly are the children looked after, that such a thing as the class of squalid, neglected children we are so familiar with does not exist. How is it that in the great German Empire, that in Switzerland and in Scandinavian countries, they have got rid of this pest, this social nuisance that afflicts our country? There are many causes, and one is germane to this question. I found all over Germany that attendance at school was compulsory, almost universally up to the age of fourteen for boys, and so regularly was this rule complied with, that the average attendance of those on the school books was 97 and 98 per cent. whereas our average attendance in England is about 76 per cent. In one school I found 99 per cent of the children in actual attendance. This seems to us almost a miracle. I found there was no such thing as shamming and finding excuses to keep the children from school. If any parent did keep his child from school, he heard of next day, and, if not provided with a proper reason, he was liable to imprisonment within a week. Such is the law in Germany almost all over the Empire. The school teaching, too, is much better than in England; the teachers are of a higher class—a better taught class—than in England, and they occupy a higher social position. But what I especially want to call attention to is this—that I found in every large city a system of evening continuation schools, into which the children went when they left the day schools, and where attendance was generally compulsory, in most towns up to the age of 17. So thoroughly was this system carried out that I found, at the hotels in Dresden, waiters under the age of 17 had to give five hours a week out of their time to attend these continuation classes, and several of these youths were learning two foreign languages. I inquired how it was possible to get such a large attendance of children at night schools up to the age of 17, and I found it was carried out without friction; the people liked the system, and it worked wonderfully well and smoothly. The effect of it is you never see swarms of unruly children in the streets. The streets of the large towns are as quiet in this respect as an English country village at night; there is no noise of rowdy children such as we find in London, fighting, swearing, and using vile language. The child population attend the evening schools, and throughout Germany there is almost no pauper class. In 47 millions of people, and with great poverty among them too, the pauperized class and the professional tramp, such as we have here by the thousand, scarcely exists, and I believe this thorough system of education is the main cause of it. And now, the House may ask, what is the plan we propose to get hold of the children, and get them into the schools? If the House will permit me, I will briefly sketch out the plan we propose to submit at some future time. We, first of all, adopt the recommendation of the Royal Commission, that the age for leaving school in all cases shall be raised to 13. I regard that as one of the most important recommendations of the Royal Commission, and if that alone is carried out it will immensely improve the educational condition of the children in this country. Then we propose that the half-time age should be raised from 10 years to 11 years. In Germany the age for entering factories is 14, and that is also the case in Switzerland; only in some special cases is the working age lowered to 12. But in England we allow children to enter the factories and workshops for half-time at 10 years. It is high time, in my opinion, we raised the age to 11, and the full exemption age to 13. Enormous advantages would accrue from raising the exemption age. We shall prevent the hurry-scurry and scramble there is to push the children through the standards, and get them out of school as soon as possible. Our education is spoiled, to a large extent, by this terrible scramble to get up to the standard; but, if the exemption age is made 13, the Sixth Standard should be made obligatory. Experience has shown that the majority of children who attend regularly can pass it at the age of 12. Here, in passing, let me say I think we begin the education of our children rather soon, and that it is perhaps better to wait until a child is five or six years old than commence at the age of three or four, which is bad for the brain, the sight, and the health of the child. I have no objection to the Kindergarten system in infant schools. The opinion of the German authorities is that six or seven years of age is early enough to commence mental education; their principle is to begin later and continue longer. With us, everything is precipitated to meet the exigencies of poor parents. We propose to make the exemption standard the sixth, as it now is in London and elsewhere. But we know there are a great number of children who will not pass this at 13; and here comes the crux of the situation—What shall we do with the dull, the stupid children, poor and ill-fed, who cannot pass the Sixth Standard at the age of 13? Our proposal is to give two options—either to attend the day-school up to the age of 14, or to pass into the evening continuation school at the age of 13, and continue there until the age of 15 or 16, or until the equivalent standard is passed; and the standard will be there framed in a manner suitable to these dull children. We propose to say to the parent, "Your child has failed to pass the Sixth Standard; will you let him remain longer at the day school, or shall he go into the evening school?" I think, in the great majority of cases, the parents will prefer the evening school and have the advantage of his child's labour for part of the day. They will come to regard the evening school in the light of a relief from the day school. It will not appear to be harsh and tyrannous; it will be a kind of harbour of refuge into which children may go to escape the compulsion of the day school. We propose that when a child gets into the evening school he shall have a totally different treatment to that now pursued. Evening schools have, hitherto, been ruined by pedantry. The Education Department have laid down certain foolish rules about committing so many lines to memory every week, and other things which disgust the children who attend these schools, tired as they are with their day's work. They go to school at night to improve their intelligence, not to go through a course of verbal training. We have almost allowed our evening schools to be ruined by pedantic theories of educationists who have mistaken the object of the schools. We have gone on allowing the mass of the people to grow up deficient in intelligence, owing to the foolish regulations made by the Board of Education, without practical knowledge of the real wants of the working classes. I feel very strongly the folly of going on year after year in this hopeless, fruitless manner. We propose to make our evening schools as cheerful, as bright, and attractive as it is possible to make them. We can do much in this way to secure a large attendance; we will make it a recreative movement, so that children themselves will be delighted to attend; they shall be bright, cheerful, and attractive, with calisthenics, musical drill, handwork, object lessons, history and geography, taught in an interesting form, everything we can do to encourage and develop the training of eye and hand. We mean these schools to have a partially technical character; we wish to appeal to the eye and hand as well as to the mind. We hope to make the schools so attractive that very little compulsion will be required, or only for the first few weeks, and when the children get into the way of going to these schools, they will regard it as a great deprivation to be kept away from them. We wish to carry out the suggestions of Mr. Heller, who drew up the recommendations in the Minority Report of the Royal Commission, and allow a wide discretion in management, having no cut-and-dried system, but an elastic course of instruction adapted to the trade or industry of each locality. It would be ridiculous, for instance, to give in an industrial centre like Bradford and in a rural parish the same kind of teaching. It may be asked what are we going to do about Voluntary Schools? In regard to Board Schools there is no difficulty. We have the buildings, and the bulk of them are idle in the evening, and they might just as well be open as shut. Wherever there is a School Board a sufficient number of evening schools can be provided to meet all requirements, but in rural districts where there are no Board Schools there is some difficulty. I would propose that in the first instance we make evening schools obligatory only in Board Schools and optional in Voluntary Schools. I should be most happy if Parliament went further and made them obligatory upon Voluntary Schools, but in the present state of public opinion we can hardly take this step. I know there are many cases in which clergymen in rural districts have admitted the desirability of opening evening classes in Voluntary Schools and would welcome an Act of Parliament to compel the attendance of children in such schools during the winter months. Of course there is not the same danger from moral corruption in the country as there is in great towns, so if we fail for the first few years in developing the system freely in rural districts, yet we shall have done much by inaugurating the system in towns. I propose that these schools should only meet in the winter months, not in the summer, so as not to interfere with field labour; and I think that three nights in the week would probably be sufficient in the earlier stages of the movement, probably two hours in the evening, or six hours during the week. Ultimately, perhaps, we might extend the hours. I should think the present scale of grants is and would be nearly adequate to support the schools. If I am mistaken in this, at all events a grant of 16s. or 18s. per head would, I am told, be sufficient to carry on evening schools where you have a large number of children. Of course, it is not necessary to open every Board School for the purpose, probably, one in four would be sufficient. Then arises perhaps the greatest of the difficulties, the creation of a staff; but I would not meet it by employing the day teachers, their work in the day is too severe to allow of it. But there are a good many retired teachers who would be willing enough and perfectly competent to conduct teaching in the evening for six hours in the week at a reasonable remuneration, and I think we might rely upon a considerable amount of voluntary teaching. But whether we secure voluntary teaching or not, I would follow the recommendation of the Minority Report of the Commission that it is not desirable that the head teacher of a day school should be required to undertake the charge of the evening school, and that the additional duty though not forbidden, should be rather discouraged especially in towns. Without committing myself to details I hope I have said enough to commend the scheme as a practical one. Knowing the sympathy and support it has received throughout the country, I am rather disappointed that I am unable to carry my proposals to the test of a Division. I believe that in this House there is a general approval of my scheme, and that if members were left to vote freely according to their preference I should have a large majority in my favour. I have had almost as much support from the other side of the House as from my own. I hope I maybe allowed to mention that we have a Bill prepared and ready, and I hope that at an early date I shall be enabled to introduce it to the House. I trust then that the Government will see their way to permit that Bill to pass the Second Beading unopposed. It has been most carefully framed after years of consideration with the view of meeting every difficulty. I know that I can rely on the sympathy of several members of the Government, and especially on that of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has always been an advocate of education. I well recollect the speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered some years ago. Towards the close of it he spoke of the ladder provided by the State by means of which children were to climb up from the elementary schools to the universities. The right hon. Gentleman went on to point out that owing to the want of Continuation Schools the ladder had been left hanging in the air, and it was impossible for the children of the working classes to get on to the lowest rung. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Government to help us in this matter. In doing so they will be conferring a great honour on themselves and performing a truly patriotic act. I believe that in passing an Act of the kind I have sketched the Government will double the value of our educational system, and do more for the cause of social reform than has been accomplished by any Measure passed since the great Act of 1870. I beg to thank the House for the patience and attention with which it has listened to me.

MR. HAYES FISHER (Fulham)

I cordially concur in the Resolution which the hon. Member opposite placed upon the Paper, but I rather regret that the hon. Gentleman should have taken what I deem to be a somewhat too gloomy view of the present state of things, particularly with regard to parental responsibility. I cannot say that I entirely share his views on the subject of compulsion. But there are within the four corners of the Resolution many practical points which deserve the consideration of the Government, and it is to those points I wish to address myself, before my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council rises to reply, during the short time I shall occupy the attention of the House. It may be thought that too great a demand is made on the Department to which it would be necessary to go for the money to carry the scheme of the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) into operation. But I think, although we may not be able to satisfy altogether the requirements of the right hon. Member, we may, nevertheless, do something between the maximum demands he makes and the minimum of other hon. Members, who, at the same time, are earnest friends of education, and are ready to do everything in their power to encourage any laudable effort in that direction. Now, what is the real evil that the resolution of the right hon. Member for Flintshire is intended to meet? The evil of our educational system is that it has failed, notwithstanding the enormous expenditure incurred, to fix the knowledge acquired by the children in their minds. The resolution of my hon. Friend is one way of stopping the mental and moral leakage of our children. It is incredible folly to spend £7,000,000 every year in pouring knowledge into the minds of our children, and then to refuse to secure for ourselves by a little additional expenditure the full value of our money. In London alone 80,000 children pass out of the schools every year, but only 4 per cent continue in any way a systematic education. If examined at the end of the first year those children will be found to have lost half their knowledge, in the second year to have lost two-thirds, in the third the whole of it will be found to have gone, while in the fourth year after leaving school it will be found that their minds are replete with the noxious garbage picked up in the purlieus of London. The Registrar General points out the vast number of people who have gone through the ordinary curriculum and yet are unable to write their names when they come to be married. Every one, after listening to the speech of my hon. Friend will admit that there is a practical remedy. Polytechnics and schemes for extending University lectures are splendid in themselves, but they have been designed rather to meet a different age of life altogether. What we want is to fill up the gap between the age at which children leave elementary education and the age at which they are capable of educating themselves and of getting some benefit from the science and art classes. The night schools are undoubtedly failures. No hon. Member will deny it. If it is denied, I would ask hon. Members to turn to the report of the Education Commissioners, where they will find over and over again evidence which points to the decay rather than to the advance of the evening school system. If they have not been such a failure in London as elsewhere, it is due to the efforts of the Recreative Evening School Association, by means of which so many people are struggling to educate the poorer parts of London. The Rev. Mr. Diggle, the Chairman of the London School Board has made this statement:— Throughout England and Wales only 32,000 scholars in night schools were qualified by attendance for examination. Of these, 4,138 were qualified in connection with the evening classes under the London School Board. It is satisfactory to notice that whilst elsewhere in England and Wales night schools are apparently either stationary or decreasing in number, the evening classes under the Board have been steadily increasing during the past year, and for some of this improvement, and for much valuable help, the Board are indebted to the energetic exertions of the Recreative Classes Association. Why is it that evening classes are successful here and not in the country? The Recreative School Association have discovered that the failure in the system of night schools is owing to their not being attractive, and I agree that the great failure is due to the pedantry of the Board of Education. Perhaps hon. Members will not be prepared to go as far as I should in the direction of compulsion, but I believe it is generally agreed that the minimum exemption for half-time should be 11, and for whole time 13. But without imposing compulsion at all, the Education Department could do very much in carrying out our ideas in regard to the moral and physical development of the children. It may not be desirable to use any form of compulsion in order to secure the attendance of children at night schools, but short of that, the Education Department ought to offer every kind of attraction to induce the children to attend school voluntarily, and continue their education. What the Board can do has been well pointed out by the hon. Member for Flintshire, and I will only give one further illustration. What I would impress upon the Department is that they should carry into effect the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission. In order to show how impossible it is to fill our English schools at the present moment, let me take a case from the Commissioners' Report. The Report says:— We have endeavoured to find out the causes of this comparative failure, and we learn that, in the opinion of many witnesses, a chief cause is to be found in the insufficient encouragement of evening schools by the Education Department; and one of Her Majesty's Inspectors agreed, in the view that if the Government encouraged such schools with more liberal grants they would increase in number. We are told in particular that evening schools need more freedom in respect both of classification and of subjects of instruction. The Code makes it obligatory on evening schools earning a grant that they must be examined in the three elementary subjects. In like manner a girl cannot join the evening cookery class without making 24 attendances at the evening school, and without being presented for examination in the standard subjects. This requirement is said to deter many girls from attending the cookery classes. What we ask from the Board of Education is greater freedom. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire is correct or not when he says that the present special grants are sufficient. At all events they might be divided among more subjects. At a Conference of the Recreative Evening Schools Association, held in this House, it was resolved— That the following subjects be added to the list of specific or class subjects in the Code;—(a) for girls—laundry work, household needlework, including making, mending, and (b) for boys—designing, modelling, wood-carving, or other hand work; (c) for boys and girls—drilling and calisthenic exercises, surgery, and such subjects, industrial and others, as in the opinion of the local managers, are rendered necessary by the special needs of the locality; that on the subject of cookery a grant of 2s. for 20 attendances be given, instead of 4s. for 40; that these subjects may be taught in classes irrespective of standards; that the present restriction of the number of additional subjects to two be abolished, and that instead of English being a necessary additional class subject, that the selection of such subjects be left to the local managers; that the three R's be no longer compulsory for those evening scholars who have passed the fourth standard or are over 13 years of age. I do not feel disposed to take up the time of the House further, but I hope I may elicit many opinions from hon. Members sitting on both sides of the House. But I will most earnestly impress on the Vice President of the Council the desirableness of carrying into effect the recommendations contained in the Report of the Royal Commission, the folly of making the three elementary subjects compulsory, and the necessity for greater freedom. The local managers should have the option of submitting subject schedules to the Board, and I would even ask for more money, because I do not think that the present grants are sufficient. I trust that my right hon. Friend the Vice President of the Council, who I feel convinced concurs in the spirit of this Resolution, will be prepared to give practical effect to the opinion it expresses, which I believe to be that of the House generally. We may not be able to correct the evil under which we are suffering for the present generation, but we may do much to improve the mental and moral condition of their children, who will form the next generation.

* MR. HOWELL (Bethnal Green, N.E.)

I do not think it needs any argument from any quarter of this House to impress the Government with the absolute necessity for taking this subject in hand without further delay. Of course, the Government may have some difficulty in dealing with the matter. It may be supposed that the Government will have to find more money in order to carry out the plan suggested by my hon. Friend; but that question, I think, has already been answered. We are now losing a great deal of money which is set apart for education simply because we do not spend a little more for the purpose of perfecting the system. I have had something to do with this question for some years. The hon. Member for Flintshire has referred to the memorials which have been sent to the Prime Minister and the Education Department. Those memorials have been most numerously signed by large and important bodies of men who are practically engaged in the work of education like our Board Schools and other educational establishments, and from other bodies who are engaged in trade. Perhaps I may be allowed to refer to some of the letters which have come into my possession, and here let me say that out of something like 4,000 different bodies who have been addressed on the subject, not more than seven or eight absolutely refused to sign the memorial, and even in those cases the refusal was only because there was a feeling that some of the details contained in the memorial could not be carried out, or they were not prepared to endorse them at the moment. The Secretary of a large Trade Society numbering nearly 30,000 members writes:—"I have got the petitions agreed to by my council and sent in as directed." Other large Trade Societies and a Society representing a considerable body of miners write in similar terms. Working mens' clubs all over the country have sent in Memorials. Almost every body appealed to has unanimously signed the Memorial, and only in a few eases has there been any hesitation about one or two details. I think that this fact ought to encourage the Government to take the matter in hand and see whether something cannot be done to push it forward. The unanimity which has been manifested in this House to night ought to encourage them for once to throw aside Party politics and agree upon something which is to benefit future generations. So far as compulsion is concerned I am afraid there are a great number of persons to whom compulsion is absolutely necessary, and although it is right and proper that a child should honour and obey his parents, yet it is also right that parents should do their duty by their children. If parents fail to do their duty the State ought to step in and compel them to do it. In a great majority of cases, no compulsion would be required, especially if a proper curriculum of education is provided. It will be my duty to-night to take the chair at a very popular institution in London—the Polytechnic. The way in which the children are attracted to that institution at the present moment and the way in which they are taught is perfectly marvellous. I have had the pleasure of going through the rooms and of seeing the system of education carried on there, and it was most gratifying to witness the large number of young persons who evince a desire to attend the evening classes. I am not quite sure that I am accurate, but, as far as I can remember, the Secretary told me that the applications to go into the school are much greater than the facilities for accommodation can make provision for. I went into one of the classes where lessons were being given on geography. The lessons were made as attractive as possible by the aid of the magic lantern, and I am perfectly satisfied that a considerable amount of sound and useful information can be given to children in a way to excite their interest and attention. If we can by any means provide something in our schools that will be attractive to the children, and keep our boys and girls away from the music halls and other haunts—I was going to say of vice—but at any rate where vice abounds, I think we shall have done a great deal of good. The most important thing is to keep the children under good influences between the ages of 12 and 16 or 17. When they leave school at about 12 or 13 years of age and go back to poverty-stricken homes, in some cases where vice is in the ascendant, how is it possible for a child to resist the evil influences that are brought to bear upon him? Keep the child under the influences of school for two or three years longer, and you will find that the better side of his nature becomes trained so that he is able to resist the evil influences even of a bad father and mother. I know plenty of instances where it is being done now. Cases have come under my own knowledge where the drunken habits of the parents have been resisted by the voluntary abstinence of the children, and where the children have left home and gone into other institutions of their own accord. I think we should do something to encourage that state of things all over the United Kingdom. I am quite in favour of extending the age of children in elementary schools, but I would not curtail the age. In very many cases the school-house is a much brighter and more comfortable place than the home, and I am in favour of getting them there at the earliest possible moment. The hon. Member for Flintshire spoke of Liverpool as a town with which he is better acquainted than London. I know both towns very well, but London much better than Liverpool; and I must say that of all the towns where it is necessary for something to be done it is this great Metropolis, with its nearly five millions of inhabitants. I am quite prepared to pay tribute to the London School Board for having done its best, under difficult circumstances, to give encouragement to voluntary education, and to bring the children into the schools. I sincerely trust that the Government, if they cannot see their way to bring in a measure themselves, will support any measure that may be brought in by the hon. Member for Flintshire, so that something may he done this Session to commence this great work.

* SIR R. TEMPLE (Worcestershire, Evesham)

I rise once more to pay my tribute of approbation to the philanthropy of the hon. Member for Flintshire. I have done it so often that hon. Members may think I am painting the lily. Nevertheless, I entreat the House to remember that, although there is a general consensus of opinion upon the abstract propositions of the hon. Member for Flintshire, the statements which have been made are of an academic character, and that a certain amount of practical application is necessary. Therefore, with the permission of the House, I propose for a few moments to offer a running commentary upon the remarks of the hon. Member from a Metropolitan point of view. The hon. Gentleman said that he would not attempt to press the Resolution to a Division. I am afraid that, however he might feel disposed, he could not do so under the Rules of the House. Nobody, however, challenges the expression of opinion contained in the Resolution. The hon. Member says that it is desirable to establish continuation schools all over the country. I suppose that nobody denies that proposition. It is one of those propositions which nobody can deny. To the various Memorialists mentioned by the hon. Member I would say, "If that be your opinion, why do not you act up to it?" Now, I am thankful to the proposer and seconder of the Resolution for the tribute they paid to the efforts made by the London School Board. The fact is that while outside society is memorializing, and the House is debating, the London School Board is acting: we are men of action. There may be some Boards who are not doing as much as they ought. I have no objection to the hon. Member's (Mr. S. Smith's) strictures being addressed to them, but I do claim exemption on behalf of that great Corporation which I have the honour to represent, the London School Board. The hon. Member for Bethnal Green (Mr. Howell) said that for a long time the evening classes in London, as elsewhere, were failures. That description cannot be applied to the evening classes which now exist. The evening classes in London are not all they might be, but they are already something very considerable, and therein I gladly acknowledge the assistance and cooperation we have received from the various societies which are promoting evening classes. Reference has been made to the term "education." Let me ask hon. Members what is meant by education? I am sure some listeners would gather from the speeches of certain hon. Members that the speakers think education consists in the imparting of knowledge, and that such knowledge as is afforded by the system of elementary education may pass in at one ear and go out at the other. That may be, but I am anxious to remind hon. Members that education does not consist of knowledge alone. There are in our elementary system influences of a moral character; there are the disciplinary and humanizing influences and the recollections of our school buildings in contrast to the misery and degradation of some of the children's homes. These things are not forgotten—they last as memories through life. Then the hon. Member for Flintshire said a great deal about our children running wild about in the streets. What he said may be very true as regards the evening, but I submit it is not correct as regards the day. Judging from the hon. Gentleman's speech, one would suppose that the children of the Metropolis are running wild about the streets at all hours of the day. That is really not the case, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will admit it, because in the very next breath he spoke of children being treated too much as wage earners. If it is so, it is impossible that the children can be running about the streets in the day time. It is the fact that children are apt to run about wild in the evening, and this is one of the greatest of the many reasons for the establishment of continuation classes. Again, the hon. Gentleman spoke of parents being neglectful of their children. There is unquestionably another side to the question. There are parents who are neglectful, but there are others who pay attention to their children in a manner which makes them examples to all classes of society, and these parents are to be found amongst the very poorest classes in the Metropolitan area. It is my duty to constantly inspect the children of the poorest classes in the poorest schools in the poorest parts of ths Metropolis, and I am therefore able to declare that for one mother who neglects her children there are scores who manage somehow or other to send their children decently to school. Mothers who themselves are starving manage somehow to keep their children in something like physical condition; women hardly able to afford decent clothing for themselves contrive to send their children respectably clad to school. Only this week I have seen, in the poorest parts of London, cases which came under the category. Such parents certainly deserve every praise which can be bestowed on them. The hon. Member seemed to think that in London and in our great industrial centres the children are uncared for, and he alluded to the care taken of children in Berlin. Any outsider listening to the hon. Gentleman would suppose that little or nothing has been done in London to bring the children into the educational fold. Will the House be surprised to hear that at this moment, within the Metropolitan area, there is a house-to-house visitation, so that no child of any class, sort, or condition of life can possibly escape education? Every child is accounted for. Even the children who sleep out under arches are brought up before a Committee of the Board and sent either to a reformatory or an industrial school or a truant school. There is not a child who escapes going to school so many times a year. What is the average attendance? More than four-fifths—more than 80 per cent—so it is really not just to our countrymen, and to our organization, to indirectly imply that the children of the humbler classes are uncared for. Then, the hon. Member drew moving pictures of the sorrows and the miseries of England, and attributes them all to the want of education. I am sure the House will say that the statement of the hon. Gentleman was tinged with exaggeration. ["No, no!"] If it was not, the hon. Gentleman's remedies, the extension of the age of compulsion from 11 to 13 years, and the establishment of continuation classes for children up to 14 and 15 years, are very small remedies for such a wide-spread and deep-seated a disease. Either the disease is exaggerated or the remedy is insufficient. Then, the hon. Member spoke in very complimentary terms of the elementary school teachers in Germany, and drew, as I understood him, a comparison between the German teachers and the teachers in England generally, somewhat unfavourable to the latter. But the hon. Gentleman is not the only Member of the House who has travelled. I am myself a traveller—perhaps a greater one than he; and I assert that our teachers—certainly those in London and in great centres like Liverpool and Birmingham—are a very highly trained and competent body of people. Our teachers, whether male or female, have a great deal of force of character, power to command, and aptitude for enforcing discipline which cannot be surpassed by the teachers of any nation in the world. After all these very powerful descriptive passages the hon. Gentleman proceeded to develop his plan, which really amounts to this—that the period of compulsory attendance should be somewhat prolonged, and that every child should be obliged to pass a higher standard than that which is now made obligatory. Neither I nor any educational authority would have any objection to these proposals, provided only that the people will stand them. I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that while parents on the Continent of Europe are willing to let their children remain at school for a long time without earning wages, British parents insist upon their children earning wages at a tender age. Now, in justice to my country, I should like to point out that, with respect to the labour of women and children in factories, England compares most favourably with all other nations.

MR. MUNDELLA

Not children.

SIR R. TEMPLE

I speak subject to correction, but that is certainly my impression. Then the hon. Gentleman spoke of our infant schools in terms of disparagement. He seemed to think that children ought not to go to school till five years of age. It is commonly admitted all over London that the infant schools, in which children are brought into training from three to five years of age, are the means of diffusing a blessing upon the people. The infant schools are very popular with the parents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) will admit it is far more easy to induce universal attendance between three and five years of age than it is in the subsequent period of life. I am sure that if the hon. Member for Flintshire were to inspect some of our Infant Schools in London, see the little children going through their Kindergarten exercise, and notice the tender maternal care taken of the children by the head and assistant mistresses, he would admit that our Infant School system is one of the jewels in the educational crown. Then the hon. Member alluded to the standard to be followed for evening classes. I heartily agree with him although here again I think he spoke in somewhat too severe terms of what he called the pedantry of the Education Department. He thinks the curriculum is unattractive. That is admitted to be the case by every person who has had anything to do with the matter, but on previous occasions I have stated in the House that the School Board of London is not at all at fault. We find ourselves hampered by the regulations of the Educational Code and have repeatedly drawn the attention of the Education Department to the matter and prayed for relief. We were told relief could not be afforded pending the Report of the Royal Commission. That Report has been presented; we are still without relief, but we trust that the New Code will enable us to make our classes thoroughly attractive. But when the hon. Member for Flintshire spoke in such interesting and eloquent terms of the singing, calisthenics, musical drill, and the like, I thought he was drawing a picture of what is going on at this moment under the School Board for London. This special instruction is actually being given all over London. Inasmuch as allusion has been made to my late colleague, and still my friend, Mr. Heller, may I inform the House that he was for many years Chairman of the Evening Classes Committee under the London School Board. Something has been said about the cost of the evening classes not exceeding 15s. per scholar. I think that is certainly sufficient; the work is being done now in London for that sum. More than half the cost is received from fees, and that receipt is to us a very essential part of the system. I apprehend the hon. Member for Flintshire would put the whole charge on the public, either upon the rates or the Treasury, or upon both in combination. The hon. Gentleman made a very pertinent inquiry. How is the staff to be provided? He rather deprecates the ordinary day school teachers being employed in the evening schools, but may I remind him that by so employing the day school teachers, we effect a great economy, and economy, surely, is a very essential element in the calculation. It is a most expensive thing to employ teachers for this work alone; besides, I cannot admit it is impossible for day school teachers to do the work. The work for the teachers in Board Schools is not excessive. ["Oh, oh!"] It begins at 9 o'clock and goes on till 12 o'clock; then there are two hours' recess, and afterwards the school is open from 2 to 4.30, possibly on some occasions to 5 o'clock. [Mr. PICTON: Then there is evening work and preparation of pupil teachers.] The preparation of pupil teachers has nothing to do with the matter, in London at least, and considering the elementary nature of the instruction and high educational qualifications of the teachers, it is not a fact that the teachers have much in the way of preparation over night to undergo. As a matter of fact, many teachers do give private instruction in the evening. I assure the House we shall not find the slightest difficulty in getting clever and physically strong young teachers, both male and female, to take charge of the evening classes, and in this way saving a great deal of money to the public revenue. Lastly, I must urge the question of finance. At present our educational charges are as large as the people can bear. The school rates and taxes are becoming highly unpopular, and there is the greatest danger that if the rates are enlarged to any appreciable extent, education may become unpopular and a great movement put back. I entreat all friends of the evening class system to try to make the cost as small as possible. We, educational men, thoroughly recognise the soundness of principles enunciated to-night—namely, that instruction should not end at 12 or 13 years of age, but that a child having learned not only knowledge but moral discipline—having also been educated in habits of thrift and temperance—may come under the beneficial influence of continuation classes for a certain number of evenings in the course of the year.

* SIR LYON PLAYFAIR (Leeds, S.)

The hon. Member for the Evesham Division (Sir Richard Temple) commenced by saying he was about to paint the lily; but I think, before he ended his speech, he had so besmirched the lily that there was little of its lustre left. He endeavoured to show that my hon. Friend the Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) had brought forward an impracticable or useless scheme. I quite agree that we must take care to satisfy the country that the proposed expenditure will not be wasted. But what my noble Friend and those who support him contend, is, that the expenditure of the country upon education which is now getting very large, is an unproductive expenditure, that we are wasting a large portion of our expenditure by not continuing the education of our children when they leave our elementary schools with a taste for further knowledge; that the little knowledge they gain is quickly rubbed off in the wear and tear of life, and is of little use in their future career. My hon. Friend contends that unless you proceed with the children's education you are wasting the treasure and resources of the nation. I recollect years ago, when we first began to seriously take up the question of education in the House in 1870, and for years afterwards, we found that very few indeed—not 30,000—children went into the higher Standards and received an education that was capable of being continued in after life, and experience showed that unless a child passed Standard 4, in a few years amid the wear and tear of life, the whole value of education was gone. But do not let us depreciate what we have done. Since then we have done a great deal in education. Very few children now pass through our schools who do not pass the Fourth Standard, which, in all towns except Bradford, is now the standard for labour. Do not let us depreciate what we have done since 1870; we have done much. But we have still a great deal left to do. As my hon. Friend has shown by statistics, the great bulk of the pupils come out of the schools at the age of 12, and I would ask hon. Members to consider what knowledge our children would possess in our own position of life, and with the advantages we have, if they were turned out at 12 years of age to take part in the battle of life. Even with our own children there would be but miserable armour of knowledge for the struggle; but what can the children of the poorer classes get at 12 years, but a thin veneer of learning that, unless continued and strengthened, can be of little effect in after life? It is because our educational expenditure is unproductive, because so much of it is wasted; it is in order that the children we have taught up to the age of 12 may continue their education that Evening Schools, Science and Art Classes, and Technical Schools are proposed. I do not wish to pose as a prophet, but in the discussions upon the Bill of 1870 I pointed out that the night schools would become a complete failure under the Act, because they were designed to give elementary instruction to neglected children, but gradually as your children became educated night schools ought to have been made higher schools, useful and attractive continuation schools, where children could learn the use of hand and eye in preparation for pursuing the industrial arts of life. We did not do that; and the night schools went dragging on in a system of mere verbalism, which the children do not care for and find no advantage in, and now are in the miserable condition of having an attendance of only 30,000 in all England. I have always regretted the division between the Scotch and English educational systems, because Scotland does not get the advantages England has, nor England the advantages of Scotland. So completely separated are the two Administrations that here in England you do not know what is going on in Scotland. What has been done there with night schools is, they have been converted into higher schools, and the result is that the attendance bears that proportion to population that 60,000 or 70,000 would represent in England. I support the Resolution of my hon. Friend, and do so in a much broader sense than he does. I think continuation schools are excellent if you have the sense to make them attractive to the growing intelligence of youth, for the training of hand and eye unencumbered by verbalism, opening two new gates of knowledge—sight and touch. They make the scholar very much more intelligent, and much more useful in life but more than that, I look upon these schools as the means of inducing children to go still further; that they should not lose their time, but go on to the Science and Art Schools—supported with so much expenditure and with so much usefulness—and the Technical Schools of the future. And here I would like to ask the Vice President what has happened to the Technical Education Bill which has been mentioned in two Queen's Speeches, and which we are all anxious to see become a reality? For three years a Technical Education Bill has been before the House, and twice it has been promised in the Speech from the Throne, but we do not yet know what particular Bill is to be laid before us. As leading to the Science and Art Schools, and the Technical Schools, I want to see these continuation schools established. I regard this as a matter of urgent national interest. We see competing nations spending their treasure to a far greater extent than we are, and spending it without stint, to create a trained intelligence among their workmen. We are not accustomed to rely on all expenditure from the central authority, nor do I know that Technical Education should rely on State support, but we ask the Government to show us how they will allow localities to spend for themselves as well as what aid they will give in order that our present educational expenditure may not be wasted, as now it is, in part from want of these schools. With this view I thoroughly support the Resolution of my hon. Friend, only considering it a road to a much higher and more important education, which will put us in a position to give that intelligent training to our working classes which will enable them to keep their position in the competition of the world.

* MR. YOUNG (Christchurch)

I ask the indulgence of the House not only because this is the first time I have trespassed on its time, but because I have had something to do with boys in the early years after they have left school, and also because I may express views upon this question that may not meet with great favour in any quarter of the House. I have nothing to say against the principle of evening schools; everyone, I suppose, is convinced that when our children leave school at twelve or thirteen years of age their education is by no means complete, and I would be prepared to agree with the hon. Member for Flintshire in extending the time of compulsory attendance at day schools to thirteen years. But that is not the point we are discussing to-night. I believe that these continuation schools wonld do much to give a higher education to our children, that they would enable that education to be completed, and I am quite prepared to admit that between the ages of 13 and 16 is just the time when the mind begins to expand and to appreciate the instruction offered. No doubt, to a certain extent, higher education has been neglected in this country, and, in consequence, foreign nations have been running us close if they have not been outstripping us in the industrial race. But what I do object to in the terms of the hon. Member's Resolution is the use of the word "National." I am quite aware of the importance attached to this by many hon. Members, who think that not only elementary but higher education should be controlled, supported and directed by the State. But I must protest against the unlimited adoption of this principle in regard to higher education without very careful consideration. We know very well the large appetites of many hon. Members and of some right hon. Members, too, for the expenditure of public money for educational purposes, and as a "National system of evening continuation Schools" means in the first place a system supported by the State we may well ask with some alarm what limitis to be put upon this doctrine of National support? Whatever the state of our National finances may be, I think, we ought to pause before taking action that may tend to check the responsibility of parents for the education of their children, and discourage those voluntary agencies which have done a certain amount of good in the past and are now doing a great deal more to supply what is lacking in this respect. Education is a very important matter, no doubt, but there are many other important and necessary things not provided by the State; food, clothing, shelter, medical attendance, these are all matters of primary importance, but individuals are left to obtain them for themselves and their families, or to get them from those who will sup- ply them. No doubt, an exception was made in the case of elementary education, but I do think we ought to pause before extending that principle to an indefinite degree. As a matter of fact these evening schools as has been pointed out by the hon. Baronet (Sir R. Temple) do exist to a great extent, and what exists in London may very well be extended to other large towns in the country, and, indeed, it is admitted on high authority that there is hardly a large town where Technical Schools do not exist, and where provision is not made for education in science under the Science and Art Department. It may be true that the ordinary night schools are not so well attended as they might be, or so well as they were attended some years ago. Why? I should like to quote Dr. Paton who has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Flintshire, and he is an authority who I know will be respected by those who take an interest in this subject. He was examined before the Royal Commission on Elementary Education, and he said the whole system of education at the day schools was such as to deter boys from attending evening schools, and when they have passed the exemption standard they fling up their caps and cry, "Catch me going to school again!" It is the principle of compulsion to which I take principal objection in reference to this Motion. It has been introduced in the case of elementary education, and there are a good many people who think it has not been altogether a success. You have a gigantic staff to compel attendance at a cost of £30,000 a year in London, and there is an opinion, that has penetrated even the London School Board itself, that this compulsion has not been worked altogether satisfactorily, and has not been productive of the happiest results; and now you propose to extend this principle to children of more advanced age, whom it would be still more difficult to bring into school. We may be asked to look at the Continent, and, of course, we there see the compulsory principle introduced. Why, there is one place where the lads working in a large factory for 12 hours' daily are made to attend evening school up to the age of 18, but I should like to know whether the people of this country are disposed to sanction the introduction of such a principle on any large scale here? I do not believe they would, and I should be sorry if they were. It is all very well to refer us to the Continent, but I do not think we are bound slavishly to imitate Continental models when we know that our habits and character are so very different from those of other nations. I think it would be a fatal mistake to adopt a system of compulsion in higher schools just because it has been adopted and been found to answer among other nations. Boys leave school now, say, at the age of 13, and most of them go to work of some kind, and some of them work long hours; they come home tired in the evening and want rest. Now, set up classes for these boys which shall be bright and attractive, and invite them to come in, and you may be doing them a benefit just at the time when it will be most advantageous to them. But compel them to attend, and you make that distasteful if not odious to them, which should be a pleasure and a boon; you are cramming them with knowledge with the effect very often of permanent injury to the health; you may possibly turn out a very superior wage-earning machine, but it is at the expense of all the higher qualities of the man—and the woman too. I may seem 20 years behind the time, perhaps, but I believe I express the opinion of a certain number of the working classes and of a good many of the already over-burdened tax and ratepayers, and some of the best friends of education, who will agree with me when I say that the cast-iron method of thrusting knowledge down the throats of the people is not the real way to promote the cause of education in the highest sense—that, however important it is to have the working classes instructed in science and art, as well as the ordinary branches of knowledge, there is another side to their nature which ought not to be left out of account—and that by this constant and evergrowing interference on the part of the State in matters of individual and family concern, you are doing your best to destroy that spirit of freedom, self reliance, and self respect which have helped to make our nation what it is.

* MR. F. S. POWELL (Wigan)

I have felt it my duty to make many visits to schools in manufacturing towns, and I have given some attention to this subject. If the hon. Member for Flintshire will allow me to express an opinion, I think he takes too gloomy a view of the condition of our town population. I do not believe he exaggerates in the slightest degree the condition of things in the town of Liverpool, and I confess as a Lancashire man I look with the greatest regret and the deepest sorrow on the condition of Liverpool. The reason for it I think is not far to fetch. You have in the great city of Liverpool no occupation for girls or women. If you pass from Liverpool to one of our great manufacturing towns, say Wigan or Bolton, you find the whole of the population that in Liverpool would be running about the streets, a source of anxiety and discredit to all, are in Wigan and Bolton occupied day after day in the great factories of those towns. I do not think that anything is gained by exaggeration in this matter. I believe on the contrary, that a cause is greatly weakened when statements are made which do not stand the test of severe examination. I do not believe myself—he hon. Member for Flintshire will pardon my friendly criticism—hat there are three millions of people in the country on the edge of pauperism; I cannot think that a tenth of the entire population of England and Wales are at the door of the workhouse. I think in that as in his more general statements the hon. Member is not supported by facts, and in his inferences has gone beyond the truth. With reference to the popular opinion in favour of some movement of this kind, there was one omission in the speech of the hon. Member for Flintshire. During the last few weeks an important and representative body of churchmen, who met to consider how the National Church can best discharge its duties, passed an emphatic Resolution in favour of a system of continuation schools. I think it is only due to my co-religionists to say what they are doing in that particular. I think the real argument in favour of the hon. Member's proposition is that laid before the House by the right hon. Member for Leeds (Sir L. Playfair). We have a gigantic machine, a system of the most elaborate character, teachers trained with the greatest care and accomplished in their art; we have millions of chil- dren gathered together, and yet we allow them to be removed from this most careful and elaborate method of instruction just at the time when they are beginning to take advantage of it. Of this there is no doubt, and the more the case is rested on this argument the more it will be supported and the more speedily the matter will be settled. I do not in the slightest degree believe that the education of our young children begins too soon. It is a delusion to think that the infants collected in the schools are subjected to a painful process of instruction until their lives are made unhappy and school hours a period of misery. On the contrary the years spent at school are happy years, and the hours passed in our schools are hours of enjoyment to young children and among the happiest hours of a child's life. I need not describe the scene in an infant school as I have often witnessed it; anyone who cares to do so can visit a school, and after he has done so I am sure he will agree with me. But the real difficulty is the age at which children leave school, and I may mention a remarkable circumstance which has a bearing upon this point. It is a fact that now in some of our manufacturing towns children pass through the standard which gives them exemption from school attendance at so early an age that they are not allowed to enter upon factory labour. This is the almost incredible condition of things, and shows how machinery does occasionally get out of order. The effect is that many of these children pass 12 months or more in a condition of idleness: the bye-laws of the School Board cease to have effect, because the standard is passed, but the Factory Act remains in operation, and the boy is not permitted to work. So children idle away a year or more of the most precious years of their life, because parents are unwilling to continue sending them to school, and compulsory attendance has ceased. Another fact to be borne in mind is the great reluctance of magistrates to enforce the bye-laws when a parent who does not attend as he ought to the education of his child is summoned before the magistrate by the School Board or School Attendance Committee. The mother comes forward with a story not always true, which excites sympathy, the case is dismissed, and thus the efforts of the school authorities to secure attendance are discouraged. Night schools hare comparatively failed, and some years ago I had a correspondence with some clerical friends, who expressed regrets in regard to the decay of these schools which were fast ripening into despair. They have been conducted in a half-hearted fashion, rather to the prejudice than the advantage of education. They have failed, because of the nature of the subjects taught; because successive Governments have made injudicious requirements, and because of the difficulties of securing an efficient teaching staff. I confess I do not think we can expect day school teachers to add night teaching to the labours of the day. In the case of London I believe teachers in elementary schools are free from the necessity of instructing pupil teachers. In my judgment, to require a teacher who has been at work during school hours to also instruct pupil teachers is to subject these teachers to an excessive amount of pressure. Whether you can supply deficiencies by means of a voluntary staff, or whether you might accomplish your object by exempting teachers from half their day labour when they engage in night school teaching, I will not venture to say, but I do say that it is quite impossible for teachers to do both, and there should be no attempt to induce a teacher to conduct a night school as well as a day school. As to compulsion, I confess that my opinion—an opinion formed, with considerable regret, under the pressure of observation—is that we are at the edge of a period when there will be an objection to compulsion on the part of parents, just as there has been a reluctance on the part of magistrates to carry the compulsory law into effect. I deeply regret so retrograde a condition of public opinion. Some years ago I embarked in an education campaign with a strong feeling against compulsion. I argued against it before large gatherings of working men, and I found, to my great surprise, that my arguments were not well received by the working men. I arrived at the conclusion on which I have acted ever since—namely, that working men are in favour of compulsion, and that it is our duty to press on them in a friendly spirit that which they believe to be, and that which we know to be, an advantage and boon to them. That being the case, I think we ought to be very careful lest we press the movement too far. I do not think it would be prudent in the interest of the continuation schools to make them compulsory. There are two difficulties which meet; and the first one is the fatigue of young persons after the day's labour. Sometimes the school may not be near the home—it may be very far distant. Some of the factory workers walk a considerable distance to their factories, because the labour of the household is not exclusively factory labour, and the young persons have to seek their livelihood as best they can, often at a distance from home. And, secondly, you have that which I believe to be a most valuable duty on the part of our young girls, and that is, assisting in the management of the household. That I always regard as a technical education of the most valuable character, and I do not think the House will act with wisdom—and I am sure it would not act with mercy and consideration—if it were to pass a compulsory law to prevent the young women of our working classes from assisting their mothers in the management of the home. I think, Sir, these remarks are quite sufficient to show that the time for compulsion has not yet come, and that we ought to be most tender and careful how we advance in that direction. There is one further remark I would make, and that is that I do not think that sufficient recognition has been given to work actually done. If you come to our town—I am speaking now of the North of England, with which, by this time, I hope I have some acquaintance—you will find that some of our schools are well occupied at night. You will find various classes under various names to young boys and young women. Sometimes there is a certain degree of technical education, sometimes there is some debating society, sometimes there is some music taught of a more or less valuable character, sometimes there are lectures given on subjects of deep interest, and, altogether, there is far more to continue education given to these young persons as they become more advanced in life than might be thought by some who have not carefully investigated the subject. There is one other point in which I think we do indulge in too much depreciation and that is, when we do not fully acknowledge the abilities of our teachers. I believe we have in the teachers of our elementary schools a most splendid class, both of men and women. I ought to know something of them, having to do not only with schools, but also with some of our great training institutions; and I believe, if there is any class more than another which is elevated by a sense of duty and who pass their lives in devotion to their work, it is the elementary teachers of this country. I am quite sure that those who conduct this education in the training colleges are most anxious to develop that education in such manner as the country may require. It was only the other day I had an opportunity of making inquiry from a gentleman who is competent to give advice on such a matter, and he said that he feels assured that our training colleges at this moment are in such a state that it would be easy to engraft upon them any amount of technical education that the Government might propose. I feel we are indebted to the hon. Gentleman opposite for bringing this matter before the House. The discussion will have been of service, not only to the cause but to the country, and though to night no definite result may arise from the Motion owing to the rules of the House, yet the cause is being advanced, the way is being prepared, and the day is coming when a definite result will follow and be a great benefit to those whom we desire to advance by these discussions and these organizations.

* MR. GEO. DIXON (Edgbaston, Birmingham)

I thank the hon. Member for Flintshire for the admirable manner in which he brought before the House the subject of evening schools, and I listened with the greatest pleasure to the speeches which followed. There have been criticisms upon matters of detail, and upon some side issues, but it is quite evident that, upon the main point, the House, so far as can be gathered, is in favour of the Motion. But it is not merely this accidental debate in the House of Commons which shows the progress which this question has made. We have been told by those who ought to know that in the country there is a strong feeling in favour of the establishment of these evening schools—in fact, that the feeling is unanimous. Now, Sir, as having long been connected with School Boards and their management, and as having been chairman of a School Board in one of the largest provincial towns, I may claim to have a practical knowledge of this important question, and of the difficulties in the way of carrying out our wishes. That difficulty lies exclusively with the Education Department. By a slight alteration in the Code, the power which is now sought for could be given in a moment. The Education Department would willingly make the alteration I believe; I believe it desires it, but behind the Department is the Treasury. And it is the duty of the Head of the Treasury to resist the expenditure of the public funds unless the strongest possible case is made out. Now, I do hope the Treasury will come to the conclusion that the strongest case is made out, a case sufficiently strong for them to act, when there is such evidence as has been brought before the House tonight, and when you find that the working classes, who are seriously affected, are the most anxious to have this alteration. Now, what is the alteration required in the Code, in order that our object may be attained. At the present moment the Code insists that is is essential that children attending the evening schools should be taught the Standards, and unless they are they cannot be taught any additional subject. None of those subjects in the Science and Art Department which they are so eager to learn, can be learnt unless they go through the drudgery of learning the three "R's," which in many and the most important cases they have already learnt in the elementary schools, and are perfectly familiar with. Now, Sir, if that condition were to be withdrawn from the Code, our wishes would be granted. We ask for no more additional contributions from the State than those claimed from the Science and Art Department. No doubt we should be glad to have additional grants, and we shall hereafter ask for them. There is at the present time a literally burning feeling in favour of giving that kind of teaching which educates the hand and eye in the use of tools. All desire that. And, if that were given in evening schools, there would be no grant for it. But while we should be glad to have that grant, it is not so essential as what we have asked for—that the simple alteration should be made in the Code of not insisting upon children who attend evening schools going through standards which many of them have already learnt. I believe the reason why this condition has not been withdrawn is because the Education Board has not become fully sensible of the fact that the country desires its withdrawal. The working men are very desirous of having these night schools, and are anxious that when the manufacturers receive young persons into their works they should insist on their going to night schools, so that they might learn the art or science connected with their trade. But there are no such schools to go to, and therefore the working men and the Trades Unions insist on the necessity of establishing them. We have one very good school in Birmingham, but our large towns are extending over such enormous areas that one school does not suffice. We have established recreation classes, but they do not cover the ground, and we are obliged to rely to a great extent, if not mainly, on volunteers, who, for the most part, are ladies and gentlemen who have not had experience of the work, and who have to be trained to it; and who, when they have acquired knowledge and ability, find their task so enormous a strain upon them that they may fall away We consequently have no confidence in the continuance of these voluntary efforts. In the legitimate demand we are now making we have behind us the whole of the people of this country, and I do not see how the Government or the Education Department can justify resistance to it. If the School Board be not the proper body to entrust the power to, then let the power be given to some other body. What we want is that the thing should be done. My own impression is that if the power were given to the School Board by a simple alteration of the Code we should find that the local authorities would promote these schools to a very large extent, and in a very few years experience will show what the wants of the community may be. The expenditure at the commencement would be comparatively small. The Government would be afraid of any great addition to the general cost of education; but I would urge on the Government the importance of this question of increased education to the working classes, believing that the cost, even if it were for the moment to appear great, would be trifling compared with the enormous advantages that would be derived. The working men earnestly beg that you will supply them with that educational help which they have not hitherto been able to get. This has been from no default on their part; it is because the schools have not been there for them to send their children to. When a boy leaves an elementary school at 13 years of age he has not acquired any knowledge of the art or science of the work he will have to do in after life; of this he knows almost nothing, and in many cases absolutely nothing; and the parents all say, "Let us have the means of sending these children to a night school, where they can get the information they require." It is not necessary that they should go every night in order to acquire this technical education; attendance two nights a week for a couple of hours would be sufficient. I trust that, whatever he may do in connection with this important matter, the right hon. Gentleman will receive from me the assurance that, in any steps he may take in this direction, he will have the whole of the people of the country enthusiastically behind him.

* MR. J. G. TALBOT

I think that every Member of this House, without distinction of Party, has every reason to be thankful to the hon. Gentleman who has brought this important question forward, and in the few remarks I shall offer I desire to express a general approbation of the Resolution. I am very glad that this debate will not end in a Division, because, if it were, my right hon. Friend below me might have felt himself compelled to have voted against it, lest the Government might otherwise have been committed to this particular course. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this discussion has referred to the recommendations of the Royal Commission upon which I had the honour of sitting last year on this subject. Now, in my opinion, there is considerable necessity for caution with regard to compulsion in conncection with attendance at night schools. As to the necessity of continuing education after the usual school age there cannot be two opinions, and all the hon. Members who have spoken have agreed on that point. The difficulties are two: first in regard to compulsion, and then in regard to expense. Compulsory evening classes would be especially objectionable in the rural districts. For my own part, I am strongly in favour of every encouragement being given to the establishment of evening classes; but I think that the principle of compulsion ought not to be applied. There are two chief objections to these schools being made compulsory, especially in the rural districts; in the first place it would interfere with the labour market, because boys who have been working in the fields all day, can hardly be expected to attend classes every evening; and, in the next place, the difficulty with regard to girls would be even greater. On this point Archdeacon Barber, for 12 years Diocesan Inspector in the Diocese of Oxford, when before the Royal Commission, was asked (Question 49,779)— Should you be prepared to say whether you thought it a feasible plan to require compulsory attendance in evening schools?—A. I should hardly think that it was feasible. Question 49,780— That must apply specially to rural districts?—A. Yes. Then the Rev. F. Synge, who was appointed by the Education Department to the Norwich district in 1869, and has been there ever since, and was made Chief Inspector of the Eastern Division in 1886, was asked (Question 58,330)— You would not think it desirable that there should not be evening schools?—A. I think that some of the most useful of the evening schools, are those which it would be impossible to inspect and assess grants for fairly, and that they do their work much better, being free from all Government restrictions. Question 58,334— We have had a considerable amount of evidence before the Commission very strongly in favour of much greater encouragement being given to evening schools; and it has sometimes been suggested to the witnesses that, though they might be comparatively easy for boys, they would be very difficult to organize for girls, owing to the necessity for caution as to their being out late at night?—. I think that it would be exceedingly difficult to organize them so that they would not be a greater evil than good. Question 58,335— Would you apply that remark to country schools, as well as to town schools?—A. Yes; I think so. Question 58,336— And perhaps even more to country schools, because of the long distances and the unfrequented lanes they would have to pass?—. Yes; I think so. Those who know anything about rural districts will admit that to compel children over the age of 13 to attend evening schools would be nothing less than insanity, and, in fact, it could not possibly be done. A system of compulsory attendance at evening schools must apply equally to both sexes, and the House, before it comes to a decision, must carefully examine the question as it affects the girls. I believe the universal feeling of the Royal Commission was that it was absolutely impossible to enforce compulsory attendance at night schools on girls. Of course, it is comparatively easy for boys in great centres of industrial occupation to be compelled to attend, but when you come to deal with rural districts the physical difficulties in the matter are exceedingly great. The districts are scattered, and it is almost impossible for boys who have been at hard work in agricultural pursuits during long hours to be compelled to attend night schools. I therefore hope that the House will not be led away by philanthropists to enforce a system of compulsion, which, if pushed too far, might have a disastrous effect in alienating public feeling in rural districts and producing a re-action which we might have to deplore. And then, too, there is the matter of expense. When the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Education Department and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer come to address themselves to this subject they will have to make up their minds to dip their hands pretty deeply into the taxpayers' pockets. In the first place, the existing staff of school teachers will not be adequate for the additional labour which will be involved. I do not say this as an argument against continuation schools, but it is a matter which the House and the country should deliberate upon before rushing too hastily into this work. I hope, if we undertake the work, it will, indeed, be organized on a liberal scale; I am not speaking from a pecuniary point of view only, but as against that system of payment by results, which is universally denounced by the best friends of education, and which will be specially to be deplored if it is applied to evening schools. I think Her Majesty's Inspectors, instead of looking to see if the schools pass given standards, should, in the case of evening schools, see that the schools are kept in good order, that the young people are really improving themselves, that the apparatus is satisfactory, and that the schools are doing good work. Do not let us, in fact, be tied down to that miserable system of earning so much money by so many passes, which is the bane of the day schools. An hon. Member suggested that it would be economical to employ the day teachers in the evening schools. No doubt we should thereby spend less money, but we might exhaust our material; and I do not think it would be wise to trust to that means of supply alone. I congratulate the House and the Government on the tone of the discussion.

* MR. W. F. LAWRENCE (Liverpool, Abercromby)

I can add little that is fresh or new to that which has been said, but I venture to address the House as an hon. Member fully alive to the importance of the subject. The hon. Member who introduced this matter has entitled himself to the thanks, for many years, of the people of Liverpool by his liberal hand and his liberal thoughts, and I am quite certain that I express the feeling of my constituents in extending to him, on their behalf, thanks for bringing this matter forward. Two hon. Members have referred to the squalor of the City of Liverpool, and those who do not know may think that, in some measure, its squalidity is owing to the want of action on the part of the School Board or of the Corporation. Now, I speak in the knowledge of many hon. Members when I say that the educational authorities of Liverpool are foremost in the educational battle, and also that the great Corporation of that city has been foremost in extending sanitary improvements throughout its length and breadth. The hon. Member who introduced this matter referred to the squalor to be found in the City of New York, and he attributed it, in a great degree, to the foreign element introduced from outside quarters. I think he would have been equally accurate if he had gone on to state that the squalor of the City of Liverpool was also, to a large extent, attributable to the outside element brought into its borders. In classical history we read of a certain people who were doomed to pour water into vessels without a bottom, and sometimes I think, when I look round the streets and courts of Liverpool, with which I have been intimately acquainted all my life, that the authorities of Liverpool are very much like those unhappy people, who, after all their efforts, find that a great deal still remains to be done. I cordially approve of the Motion before the House, and perhaps I do so more cordially because it keeps clear of details; but I think that, even about the details, there will be a large amount of common agreement, and when the question comes to be reduced into practice, we shall find hon. Members on both sides of the House combining to further the better instruction of our children who are growing into men. I cordially approve of the proposal to extend the school age of children, and I am quite in favour of promoting continuation schools, which, I feel convinced, will do a great deal to bridge over that time when children are turned loose from their regular schools to enter on the battle of life. It seems to me the real crux of the whole thing is the matter of compulsion. I myself would strongly deprecate trying to compel these children to go to the evening schools. I believe, with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University, that, whether it be in rural or in urban districts, compulsion is practically impossible. You can neither punish the child by imprisonment or fine for playing the truant from evening schools, nor can you punish the parent who, because the child does not come back after work, is unable to send him to school. I therefore think that the compulsion would break down, and that it would be a thousand pities that it should be tried. We have been told that, in the City of London, at least £20,000 or £30,000 is spent yearly on compulsion; and the hon. and gallant Baronet, who so ably represents the London School Board in this House took to his Board great credit for the way in which they swept the streets of London. But if I may make a remark, I should say that in the Bermondsey district the streets are by no means adequately swept of waifs and strays. Indeed, I think compulsion works very indifferently in the South and South-East of London. Then, again, in connection with this matter of continuation schools, the question of expenditure must be very carefully considered. I am perfectly ready to spend a considerable sum toward the further promotion of the education of those on whom we have already spent money; but it must be remembered that in the upper classes a vast amount of private money is wasted by well-intentioned parents in sending boys to school and college who had better have gone to work, and I submit that the State is not justified in sending a large amount of money on children over the age of 14 years, unless those children show, by their zeal in coming voluntarily to school, and by making some small payment, that they are worthy of the expenditure which the State is asked to incur for them. I am quite prepared to give each child who shows a desire for increased knowledge some opportunity of improving himself. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire spoke a great deal of the squalor and misery that arise from the neglect of parents, and he attributed it to many causes; but to my mind he omitted the one underlying cause of that misery and sorrow which exists among our people, and it is the indiscriminate management of the Poor Law system, which for centuries has done so much to demoralize the character of our people. I think, by a strict administration of the Poor Law, the miseries of our people would be greatly alleviated. And now let me return for a moment to the question of the condition of Liverpool, with a view of showing that the illiteracy is due to the outside element. After the Election of 1885 some very interesting statistics were published, and from these it seems that in the Toxteth Division, which is represented by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for the Colonies, there were only 12 illiterates; in the Everton, which is the largest division in the city, there were only 17; in my own division, a good representative division in the heart of the city, combining all sorts and conditions of men, there were only 89; but in the Exchange Division, where the Irish element largely predominates, there were 339 illiterates, while in the Scotland Division, repre- sented by my brilliant colleague, with whom I too often have to differ—and this, too, is a very small division of the city—there were no less than 428 illiterates. Now, I need not point a moral from this; I think it is sufficient to show that the squalor of Liverpool is not owing to laches on the part of the authorities, but that it is due largely to the introduction of that outside element which it would be inhospitable for us to refuse to receive.

* MR. HALLEY STEWART (Lincolnshire, Spalding)

I agree that we should not approach this question from a. Party standpoint, but with the sole desire to alleviate the condition of our more unfortunate countrymen. I approve, in the first place, of the proposal to raise the age for compulsory attendance at our national schools, but I should like to point out, as the representative of an agricultural district, that hon. Members who sit for urban constituencies can scarcely have any idea of how great the pressure is upon the poorer classes, when the children are taken away from their homes at a time when they might earn a large proportion of the wages earned by the family. A child of 12 or 13 can, perhaps, earn half-a-crown a week. Well that may seem a trifling amount to some people, but perhaps it is 25 per cent of what the parents earn, and see how much it represents of added comfort for the entire family. In my own constituency the common wage of the agricultural labour is 2s. a day. How in the world a man, his wife, and five children can pay rent and find food, clothes, and firing on 12s. a week, as well as pay school fees out of the miserable pittance is a problem I have unsuccessfully tried to solve. Therefore, while I am strongly in favour of increasing the school age, I am glad that the parents will be allowed an alternative, for I believe it would be infinitely more advantageous to the poor parents as well as to the scholars themselves to keep children at school between the ages of 12 and 15 years, with an attendance sufficient to keep them in touch with their educational surroundings, than to insist on a close and regular attendance for a single year. I hope that the parents will have this opportunity given them. An hon. Member opposite said it was impossible to expect children who spent their days in the field in agri- cultural pursuits to attend evening schools under a system of compulsion. But why not introduce the system of half-timers? Why not let the boys go to work in the morning and rest during the afternoon? They would then come fresh to their educational studies, which would have a charm for them after their half-holiday. I have done a good deal of voluntary work in evening schools in London, and I know how difficult it is to overcome the natural drowsiness of boys coming into a heated atmosphere from the fresh air after a long and hard day's work. As to the expense of the compulsory system, it has been said that £20,000 is spent yearly in sweeping the streets of London of the waifs and strays. But that is a mere bagatelle, when you come to remember that there is a population of five millions to deal with. I do not wish to make this a Party question; but when hon. Members opposite hold up their hands because an increase of expenditure is proposed in connection with national education, I would point out that there is no difficulty in finding millions when we want to increase the Navy and add to the Army Estimates. We ought not to be alarmed at a little increase of expenditure on our schools. That outlay is, in the long run, absolutely productive, whereas the money spent on the Army and Navy is not; indeed, the latter only increases the class dependent on the labouring community, and abstracts wealth from the population and impoverishes the country, while the money spent upon the education of the people makes them better wage earners and wealth producers. It is a matter for congratulation that while, since 1870, the amount spent on education has increased, the expense of pauperism has decreased and the number of criminals has diminished. In other words, we have forced open the door of our elementary schools and have compelled the children to go in, but in doing so we have closed the door of the gaol and the workhouse to them; and this is a distinct economic advantage, if we look on it from no other point of view. With regard to the pauperism that now actually prevails in our midst, hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to have underestimated the amount of it. My hon. Friend who introduced the Motion stated that he believed the pauper population of this country to be some- thing like three millions. Well, I am afraid that this pauperism is double the number at which he set it. Instead of the number being only three millions, I greatly fear it is nearer six millions. I do not regard the pauper population as only those who, at any one given moment, are in receipt of pauper relief. I maintain that if the condition of a man is such that last year he was a pauper, and that he is looking forward to being a pauper again next year, he is in that state of abject fear, misery, despondency, dread, doubt, and difficulty which necessarily classes him amongst the paupers. If you find statistics which show that when a man's life comes to an end he has no alternative but to be classed with the paupers, I maintain that that man belongs to the pauper class. I hold in my hand some statistics compiled by Mr. M'Dougall, Vice Chairman of the Manchester Board of Guardians, according to which it appears that there are in the City of Manchester, living in a state of actual pauperism, 10.88 per cent of the entire population. But that is not all. The number who actually die in the workhouse, or in receipt of parish relief, is one in every 5.84; that is, more than 17 per cent. of the population die under the shadow of the workhouse at last. It seems almost incredible to think that when you have an audience before you of 1,000 people in the City of Manchester, you can say 171 of these people will die in the workhouse, or at the time of their death will be in receipt of workhouse relief. I do not take these figures merely on the statement of Mr. M'Dougall, Vice Chairman of the Manchester Board of Guardians, but I refer to one of his authorities—namely, the Registrar General's Report for 1879, and I find there that in public institutions, including workhouses, infirmaries, and public lunatic asylums, the deaths recorded were equal to 10.1 of all the deaths in the whole of England and Wales. This does not include those who died in receipt of outdoor relief, nor the many more who die as beneficiaries at home, and in hospitals of benevolent and philanthropic institutions. Therefore, it is indisputable that beyond the 10 per cent of the population which die in the workhouse and other instiutions, those who live in poverty but escape the workhouse at the end of life are also very numerous. This reveals a most miserable state of things, and I am glad my hon. Friend has brought forward one aspect of this case of pauperism, and has made an effort in one direction of relieving it. I do not believe his plan will have the far-reaching effect and influence which he expects. There are many disintegrating causes at work. Education alone will not be enough to relieve us from the miserable position in which we are placed. I look to other social efforts. I look forward to the time when workhouses will be done away with, and we shall have work-fields and workyards where those now driven to the so-called workhouse can earn a livelihood. I look forward to the time when men and women, having a larger share of the wealth they create, will be released from the necessities and troubles which now surround them, and will gladly contribute to the education of others, as we now insist that they shall share better educational advantages from the State.

* THE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Sir W. HART DYKE,) Kent, Dartford

I will not detain the House by enlarging on, or dealing further with the sad and gloomy topics which the hon. Member who has just sat down brought under our notice. I do not admit the correctness of his figures, or the accuracy of the conclusions he has drawn, and I cannot help thinking that he seems disposed to paint the shadows rather too darkly, and to admit too little sunshine into the picture. I would rather go back to the more pleasant aspect of the case. So far as I am concerned I am sure there is no Member in the House who feels the difficulty of the position that I have the honour to hold than I do, or the inadequacy with which I fill it. If there is anything that can encourage a man in my position, it is the candid and generous treatment I have received on all sides of the House, and if I disagree from some of my friends and their conclusions it will be in no hypercritical or contentious spirit, but in an earnest desire to carry out the object of the hon. Member for Flintshire has in view in bringing forward the Motion. It is rather difficult to deal with the formal Resolution on the Paper, be- cause it is partly shadowed or accompanied by a Bill; and between the two there is some divergence. The Resolution refers to those who leave day schools early; but the hon. Member, in his speech, contemplates schools for ex-day scholars of from 12 to 16, and for those who have passed the exemption standard. The hon. Member suggests that the last standard may be taken in the continuation school; but I am strongly of opinion that there would be something hazardous in breaking up day-school life. If you fix a standard of exemption, you ought to secure that the education is completed in the day school. If I had any doubts on the point beforehand, they have been confirmed by the debate. The State has a right to demand absolute security for the value of that for which it pays, and I think we have had ample indications in this debate to show that if the education in the last standard is confided to night schools the security as to that standard will be of an illusory character. The day-school education should be completed at the day school, from which the continuation school should be kept quite distinct. The hon. Member for Liverpool gave a gloomy picture of neglected children in large towns; but the hon. Member appeared to be carried away by his enthusiasm, for, go where you will, to town or agricultural district, there is a general concurrence in the statement that children are now better fed, clothed, cared for, and educated than they were 10 or 12 years ago. The hon. Member has quoted the City of Liverpool with which he is well acquainted, but I maintain that the condition of things there is exceptional, and that people of the knowledge and common sense of Members of this House who are constantly travelling and visiting the large centres of the country will confirm the view I have just expressed. I can speak confidently in this matter of the condition of the children of the wage earning class in the agricultural districts of Kent. And, Sir, when the hon. Member presents to the House his gloomy picture of the state of these unfortunate neglected children in our large towns I would appeal to something stronger and more material than our own observation and experience, I would appeal to the statistics of crime—for, after all, if the picture the hon. Member draws has anything of truth in it, it means infant crime. If these vast numbers of neglected children which he pictured are constantly running about the streets by night, contaminated by everything evil, I say it can only lead to one possible result—namely, infant crime. What is the main result of the statistics? They amount to this, that since Mr. Forster's Act of 1870 was passed our population has increased by one-fourth, and in spite of that increase that our juvenile crime is to-day exactly half what it was in 1870. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman opposite has painted the picture in too deep and fervid a colour. There is perfect unanimity as to the object in view. The House of Commons is unanimous on the subject, and the Royal Commission unanimously reported in favour of encouraging the system of evening and continuation schools. I shall, no doubt, be asked what is the view of Her Majesty's Government in the matter. In reply to this inquiry, I am obliged to contest much that has been said as to the actual position of our evening school system. Many gentlemen, in referring to that system, have dealt only with the bare figures as they appear in connexion with the grants paid by the Education Department; but that is an altogether fallacious view to take. It ignores the vast amount of good that has been done by voluntary effort and in other ways. The minority Report of the Commission, in dealing with this question, was strongly in favour of extending the system of continuation schools. Yet they concluded with some very remarkable observations—hat while they thought the State, through the Education Department, should help these schools as much as possible, and while the local machinery of School Boards should also be directed to their improvement and extension, We are of opinion that this is a branch of education in which we must endeavour very largely to enlist voluntary activity and cooperation. To my mind, taking the view I do of the existing state of things—that is a very encouraging sentence—and, in view of that, I should like to point to another sentence in the Minority Report, in which the Commissioners allude to the systematizing of science and art schools, the expansion of mechanics' institutions, and other agencies. From the first day I entered the Education Department I have given most earnest attention to this question, and the first motive which induced me to introduce a Technical Instruction Bill was that a vast number of youths and others would, under the operation of such a measure, be attracted to evening classes. In addition to the voluntary agencies to which I have alluded, the Recreative Evening Schools Association is doing a vast amount of good in our large towns, and there are also the Science and Art classes. I often think it is too much the fashion to ignore the extraordinary amount of good which these classes are doing. In making these observations I am not pleading against the Motion, nor against any assistance the Government can give to continuation schools, but simply pointing out what is being done by the Science and Art Department, and showing the extraordinary increase which is yearly going on in connection with these classes. At the April, May, and June examinations in 1888, the number of Science Schools examined was 2,035; and up to November last the number of applications sent in by schools for forms in the present year has been 2,212, showing an increase in one year of 200 schools. Take the number of students in the schools. In 1888, the number of students was 113,000; and in the Estimates for 1889–90, the Department Estimates for 125,000—an increase of 12,000 scholars—and a proportionate increase is anticipated in the Art Classes. These figures show that a vast movement is every year going on in connection with these classes at the expense of the Exchequer. As regards evening classes, there is a growth of something like 8 per cent. this year, and there is an increase in the number of students receiving instruction in additional subjects There is another very important element which, I think, we ought to consider in dealing with the question, and that is the one the hon. Gentleman opposite has referred to, technical education. I am glad my right hon. Friend has appealed to me on it, and I hope that before the end of the Session he will appeal to me in still more harsh terms if nothing is done. I am most anxious to carry the Bill dealing with that subject, and although it is not distinctly mentioned in the Queen's Speech, my colleagues in the Government are equally anxious to see the measure passed. There are one or two difficulties in the way, but I hope we shall be able to surmount them; and, so far as I am concerned, I will leave no stone unturned to deal with the question in the present Session. Something has been done to remove the extraordinary hindrance which has hitherto been placed in the way of evening schools by the stringent requirement of the Department as to elementary subjects. It has been discovered that the sooner this restriction is removed the better will it be for the evening schools and for the cause of education. It has been stated that if this hindrance were removed, the 30,000 schools would become 60,000, and I do not regard that an exaggerated estimate. I am not divulging any Cabinet secret if I state that in the new Education Code there will be a provision whereby any scholar who can show that within six months of the time of his appearing in the school he has passed a certain standard, he will not be bothered with any of the elementary subjects, but will be free to be put in additional subjects, as the locality may deem necessary. I hold that in a question of this kind, the common-sense view is to leave the localities to deal with the curriculum as much as possible, although with State aid it is, of course, necessary to have some security that the money is not wasted. I do not say these things in antagonism to the Motion, but simply to show that as far as the Government are concerned they are not blind to the necessities of the day, and that they recognize as one of the chief and most urgent necessities of the day the advance and encouragement of evening and continuation schools in every possible way. As to the standard of exemption in Elementary Schools I am not prepared to join issue with hon. Members. It is a very large and important question affecting not only the educational future of the country, but the labour market. The one commercial centre most affected by the half-timers—Bradford—resents most strongly any interference with the present standard of exemption. I have here a memorial from the school authorities in Bradford which, referring to the hon. Gentleman's Bill of last year, said— As the Bill now stands it would create an impracticable condition of things in Bradford if it did not give rise to an open revolt against the Education Act as a whole. I quote this merely to show that the Government cannot introduce legislation without a due consideration of the whole subject. Then the question of the supply of teachers—one on which both the minority and majority of the Commission insisted—has to be faced in any attempt to provide the continuation schools suggested. I do not agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eve-sham (Sir E. Temple) in suggesting that the day teachers should be employed in the night schools. The teachers are an already overworked body of men having quite enough to attend to during the day. Again, the question of compulsion has to be met in any attempt to deal with the question in the terms of the Resolution before the House. The minority of the Commission were not prepared to advocate the system of compulsion. A State-aided system to be successful ought to be universal; and then there are difficulties to be met in suburbs and agricultural districts, where scholars will have to travel a great distance. Some security ought to be provided that the schools will be successful and that the children will attend. It has been urged, and I am of opinion it would be better to lessen the harshness and asperity of school life and adopt some system more likely to make the schools draw. But then the taxpayers ought to be consulted on the point before they are asked to put their hands into their pockets. They ought to have the chance of asking the question, "Where is education to end and where is amusement to begin in these continuation schools?" Then another question that will rise will be that of secondary education. I do not say whether it is right that the State should pay for it or not; but I maintain that if the taxpayers are to pay for secondary education, it is only fair that they should first be told of the new incubus to be laid upon them. I assure hon. Members on both sides of the House that any measure which may be introduced on the subject will receive the candid consideration of the Government; but as far as legislation during this Session is concerned, I must say that I do not think there will be much chance for it if the present rate of progress is maintained. I should be glad if I could carry a measure dealing with technical education; but, so far, it seems that the Session is to be one for Supply only. Independently of that, however, I, in my responsible position, will do my utmost to promote the cause which has to-night been advocated in the House.

MR. MUNDELLA (Sheffield, Brightside)

I think all hon. Members will feel we are indebted to the hon. Member for Flintshire (Mr. S. Smith) not only for the admirable speech he has delivered but also for one of the most useful and interesting debates we have had for some time. I find myself in agreement with the hon. Gentleman in nearly all the statements be made. I think, however, my hon. Friend underrated the enormous work already done in education, and exaggerated, somewhat, the results which we may hope to follow upon the establishment of continuation schools. How is it that my hon. Friend is able to draw such a deplorable picture of the state of our elementary education after 18 years of work and the large expenditure of money which has taken place during that period? It is not at all difficult to explain. When Mr. Forster brought in his Education Bill there were 3,000,000 fewer children at school than there are to-day. Mr. Forster was so anxious to obtain a recognition of a standard for labour that when the local authorities came to him and fixed a Standard at which children should pass out of school and take employment, he was glad to accept almost any standard they brought, and he did in some instances accept a standard for total exemption as low as the third. But Standard IV. prevails very largely throughout the country, and especially in the rural districts. What has happened? Standard IV. is a standard which, when Mr. Forster passed the Act, was not attainable by children until they were something like 12 or 13 years of age, but now it is commonly attainable by children of 10 years of age. Better the regularity of attendance, better the quality of teaching, and the same children pass the Standards of education, until it has come to this, that clever children in large numbers pass the necessary Standard at an early age, and, especially in rural districts, pass out of school. There can be no more wasteful system than to allow children to pass out of school at 10 years of age, and forget at the time they are about 13 nearly all they have acquired at so much expense. The Vice-President of the Committee (Sir W. Hart Dyke) has expressed his approval of the object the hon. Member for Flintshire has at heart. The Vice-President is always courteous and always sympathetic, but then he has not always got the power to carry out his good wishes and intentions. When hon. Members reproach the Vice-President with the pedantry of his Department, they must recollect that it is not the pedantry of the Education Department that is to be complained of, but it is the parsimony of the Treasury. It is no use blaming the right hon. Gentleman because he does not give a larger amount of grant or a larger latitude to School Boards, but it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is to be complained of. I am glad to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer present, because I want to make a request, which I trust he will find it difficult to refuse. In 1887 the right hon. Gentleman, addressing a large audience in the Free Trade Hall, Manchester, pointed out how important it was that the children of the country should enjoy the advantages of technical education, and hoped the people would not let Irish obstruction stand between them and the education of their children. There is no Irish obstruction now; it is Treasury obstruction. The Vice-President hopes he will be able to carry his Technical Education Bill, but he seems to fear delay in the House. There will be no delay in the House. [Mr. GOSCHEN: Will you see to that?] Let the right hon. Gentleman produce his Bill. We have had it mentioned in the Queen's Speech twice, and two Bills have been laid on the Table, but both have been withdrawn. Why? Because they have been condemned by the Liberal Unionists, supporters of the Government. Let us have a good measure introduced; let us have it soon, and I think I can promise the right hon. Gentleman that it will not occupy many—I will not say days, but hours, to pass. I must say another word in defence of the good work that has been done by the Education Department. My hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) pointed out that only 128,000 children have passed annually the VI and VII Standards. I agree with him that every child who passes out of school should pass the VI Standard, but what was the state of things 18 years ago? When Mr. Forster introduced his Bill, the number of children presented in the VI Standard in any one year was only 24,000. Then the VI Standard was the present V; there was no VI and VII; and what have we done? Last year 265,000 children were presented in the V Standard,(formerly the VI,)and 128,000 children were presented in the VI and VII. That is a marvellous advance, one which must be a source of rejoicing to everyone. I agree with a good deal of what was said by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Evesham (Sir E. Temple). The London School Board are doing magnificent work in the Metropolis. They have done more to civilize and humanize the poor and wretched classes than any other body in the Metropolis. I hope they will continue in the good work, and not flinch because it costs another ¼d. or ½d. in the rate. We are very economical whenever education is mentioned. As a matter of fact we are wasteful, because we do not complete our work. There is no man of business would ever dream of doing his business as we do ours—leaving off in the middle and letting the part we have done perish because we will not furnish the remainder. Now, I am bound to say that while the Motion of the hon. Member for Flintshire refers only to night schools, the hon. Gentleman practicaly impeaches the whole of our educational arrangements. I think he is right, because the arrangements made by the Education Act of 1870 became obsolete by 1880. The Vice President has said that Bradford objects to any interference with the half-time Standard. It used to be Standard II, but now it is Standard III. Will he believe that in Yorkshire, in Lancashire, and in the Midlands there are factory to was in which factory labour is important and where there is Standard IV for half-timers and Standard VI for full-timers. I hope that the Report of the Royal Commission will not be left without Legislation. I trust that we shall raise the age of exemption throughout by law. With the exception of Belgium and Russia, England works its children longer hours and harder than any other country in Europe. In most countries children cannot leave school until they are 14, but in England children are allowed to begin work at 10. Now, while compulsion is necessary for day schools, I think it very doubtful whether it should be applied to the night schools, which should be made attractive. With the widest range of colonies in the world, we want to see our people enterprizing and ready to go out into the world rather than sit at home and starve. Therefore we should teach them the geography and resources of our colonies. Those also who are intended to engage in commerce should have the advantage of being able to learn a foreign language. But, more than all, what is wanted from one end of England to the other is technical education. We are told by everybody—by Professor Huxley, by Lord Salisbury, the Prime Minister, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and by others—how important technical education is for the people, and yet we cannot get a fair Bill laid on the Table. A Bill on that subject might be passed in less time than this debate has taken. Why not refer it to a Grand Committee, as was done in the case of the Railway Bill last year? Again, I entirely agree that it is of the utmost importance to maintain our infant schools. That is a part of our system of which we have reason to be proud. I do not believe any system in Europe can compare favourably with it. My hon. Friend made reference to Berlin, and spoke of the kind of education given there. When I was there some three years ago, and investigated this matter for myself, I was astounded; to find the numbers of children who attended the principal schools in Berlin. There is a school within a few yards of the British Embassy, through which I was told in three years 2,000 scholars under 17 had passed in the higher curriculum adopted, and in the various industries of Berlin they desired to follow. In all the 19 arrondissements of Paris, languages, technical education, art and science teaching, as applied to industry, can be obtained free of cost by any man coming out of the street in any of the schools of the arrondissements. Nothing is more astonishing to an Englishman than to see the sacrifices foreign nations are making to enable their workmen to compete in the production and beauty- fying of manufactures. The Vice-President has assured us that when he lays the New Code upon the Table we shall find in it some of the provisions we are so anxiously looking for, and I can promise him in this matter of the Code that anything that appears there shall have not only our most careful but our most favourable consideration. I know the difficulties of his position in regard to payments by results. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. J. G. Talbot) spoke in a tone of strong condemnation of the system, and is anxious that we should abandon it, but I am surprised to hear from him, an advocate of the voluntary system, a condemnation of payments by results. I want to know how you are going to pay away millions from the Exchequer without having some test of the application of the money. The whole difficulty is a consequence of the voluntary system, whether we like it or not. You cannot pay into the hands of voluntary managers money without exacting some proof that the money is well expended. You may pay it to local authorities, to elected bodies over whom yon exercise supervision, but it is not possible to pay to private persons, however good may be their intentions and however good their management, without some test as to how the money is expended. I only hope the Vice-President will lay, not only the Code, but his Technical Instruction Bill, upon the Table, and I hope it will be advanced with the least possible delay. He may be assured it will be received with the most sympathetic consideration by the House.

MAJOR RASCH (Essex S.E.)

As a Member for an agricultural constituency I cannot help offering a most emphatic protest against the bare idea of continuing compulsory educasion after the age of 13. In towns it may be well and good, but in agricultural and rural districts it would be an absolute and complete fiasco. What the agricultural labourer wants, and what he has some expectation of having, is that his children shall not be kept entirely at school after the age of 12, when they are able to work. Where the agricultural shoe pinches, is not in the fact of having to pay school pence—I believe the hon. Member for Spalding (Mr. H. Stewart) will agree with me—but the fact that the labourers' children are taken away precisely at the time when they are wanted—to use a colloquial expression—"to keep the pot boiling." To tell him that his children are to be kept at school till the age of 23 is to pile up the agony, to put the last straw upon an agricultural labourer's back, when he is extremely ill able to bear it.

* MR. PICTON (Leicester)

I join in the meads of praise which have been so repeatedly uttered concerning the service done to the cause of Education by the hon. Member for Flintshire in introducing this discussion, but I cannot help thinking the discussion has often strayed from the immediate purpose of the Motion the hon. Member has given notice of, and would have moved had the forms of the House permitted. The subject of this Motion is the desirability of establishing a system of Evening Continuation Schools. Now we have heard a great deal about the whole system of Elementary Schools in the country, but we have not heard so much as I would have desired to have heard concerning the especial subject of the hon. Member's Motion. In order to explain the point of view I desire to lay before the House, I will call attention to a phrase used in the Resolution that gives some reason for possible differences between Members who are heartily in sympathy with the hon. Member and the object he has in view. The Motion speaks of Evening Continuation Schools "where children who leave Elementary Day Schools at a very early age may continue their education." Now we ought to distinguish two entirely different things; on the one hand real continuation schools adapted to prolong the normal culture of children, to give them a further amount of knowledge and develop the instruction they have received at day schools up to the age of 13 or 14; and, on the other hand, evening schools to do the work left undone by day schools, in the case of very young children. These are two entirely different things. The hon. Member and others have referred to evening schools carried on in considerable numbers by Continental nations, but these are schools to continue the education and culture children have previously received, and in a measure perfectly received up to the age of 13 or 14. But the very notion of schools held in the evening in which hard-worked young children of 10 or 11 years of age are to attend after some four or five hours' manual labour during the day, and weary their brains with endeavours to master reading, writing, and arithmetic, is wholly foreign to any idea of education in any country on the Continent, and I wish it were foreign to every civilized nation. Hon. Gentlemen have spoken as if it were quite within the limit of human nature for boys and girls of 11 and 12 years of age to go to the evening school, and there weary their young, immature minds after engaging in manual labour during the day. The very idea of the thing is, to my mind, most cruel and inhuman. I would ask fathers of families who know what the burden imposed upon boys and girls by evening after-school lessons is, what they think of such a proposition? Over and over again we have had complaints of the evening study required from boys and girls at high schools. It has been asked is it wise, is it healthy for young children to spend as much as two hours' mental labour in the evening? I know that head-masters and principals of girls' schools have issued instructions to parents that for children of 10 or 12 not more than an hour's evening study is desirable, and for older children not more than two. With what decency, with what pretence to human sympathy, can we propose that young and tender children should occupy four or five hours in manual labour during the day and then attend school in the evening? It is impossible that they can derive any benefit from it. Therefore I cannot sympathize or agree with any portion of the speech of my hon. Friend in which, if I rightly interpreted him, he seemed to favour the idea that we could supply the defects of our system of elementary education in allowing a short time at day schools by sending children to school in the evening. [Mr. SAMUEL SMITH: I did not advocate that.] I am sorry if I misunderstood him, but I can claim some justification from the terms of the Resolution itself—"children who leave day schools at a very early age." That must surely mean children under 12 years, and, if so, I say such children ought not to be allowed to attend schools in the evenings. I deprecate that most earnestly, most emphatically. I am of opinion that proper continuation schools are in the highest degree desirable for boys and girls who leave ordinary schools at the age of 13 or 14. I am very sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Rasch) should consider it necessary to protest against children continuing at school until they are 14. Why, as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) says, in no European nation that boasts any high rank in education is such a thing tolerated as that a child should leave school before the age of 14 unless under very peculiar circumstances, and I trust to see the time come when no child shall be allowed to go to work before the age of 14. I know it is often said that it is very necessary to poor parents that their children should go to work at an early age, but I deny it altogether. I say it is wholly against the interest of the labouring classes that child-labour should be introduced so profusely as it is. It lowers the standard of life; it lowers the standard of expenses a parent is expected to meet, and, therefore, it lowers the standard of wages. If no parent had a prospect of sending his child to work until the age of 14, the standard of wages would rise, for parents would always have to consider and have to regard the necessity of providing for their children up to that age. It is a most short-sighted, unsound view to take of the interests of the working classes, that they should be allowed to send the labour of young, immature children to compete with adult labour—for that is really the meaning of it. Therefore, so far as my remarks are concerned, I wish to deal only with proper continuation schools—schools for young people between the ages of 14 and 17, at which the culture they have received at the day schools may be continued and developed. So far as the Vice President has replied on the subject, I think we may congratulate ourselves very highly on the tone of his observations, and I, as having had some experience in the matter—I as member of the earliest School Board of London for nine years, and for country School Boards after that, besides being concerned in various enterprizes for promoting culture—I say I heard the remarks the right hon. Gentleman made with the greatest pleasure. I congratulate him upon recognizing, as he did, the necessity for considerably more elasticity in the relations between the Education Department and the local managers of evening schools, continuation schools, or others. I recognize also with pleasure the extent to which he approved of making evening schools attractive as a substitution for compulsion. I do not think it possible in this country to apply the principle of compulsion to evening schools. I know it is done to some extent in Germany, but we have other ideas of freedom here than those which obtain in Germany. I do not think the thing is possible. We must make these schools attractive if we would bring young people into them. On one point I cannot help disagreeing with the Vice President; he seemed to desire rather more supervision on the part of the Education Department than is absolutely necessary. He said—"Of course to the Education Department must be reserved the ultimate decision whether the course of education devised for an evening school is wise or not." Well, I know, if the Government are to grant money, they must be consulted, and that their authority must have weight in regard to the curriculum we adopt; but I beseech the right hon. Gentleman to get rid of the superstition that while obscurity reigns outside the Department, but that Whitehall has a peculiarly luminous atmosphere.

* SIR W. HART DYKE

May I explain? What I referred to was supervision to see no subject was taught that was practically absurd. I always supposed there would be a liberal curriculum.

* MR. PICTON

Of course, I am unable to contravene the view urged that no subject which is absurd should be taught; but I think it is highly improbable that any local authorities would desire to have such a subject taught. All I want to say is this—that human nature is the same in Whitchall or Little Pedlington, but Little Pedlington understands its own requirements better than Whitehall; and there should be considerable room for experience—greater elasticity or freedom—allowed to local authorities in this matter. Another subject referred to is the creation of the evening school staff to be employed; and, as to the cost, various hon. Gentlemen have spoken with some fear, if all the young people are gathered into these schools as we should like to see them. When I heard these remarks, I could not but call to mind those discussions upon which we have recently been occupied. Of course I should not be in order to go into them, but I may refer for a moment to the proposal for granting extraordinary sums for naval and military expenditure. It seems there is no limit to extravagance when these destructive services are concerned; but when the building up of our civilization, the culture of our race, is concerned, parsimony and timidity reign supreme! I suppose I may not hope to live to see the day, but I hope it may be in the time of my great grandchildren, or within a few generations, when more money will be spent on schools than on the Army and Navy. For that end I think we ought to work. If money is wanted for our schools, and we cannot—and we ought not to—raise it by fresh taxation, then it should be economized from money saved out of warlike and destructive expenditure. But I pass from that. There was considerable reason in the discursive allusions that have been made repeatedly during the evening to the system pursued in our ordinary day schools, and many reasons have been given for the difficulties that have been found in working our evening schools as we should desire. It seems to me the chief difficulty lies in the inefficiency of our day school system. It is well known that children do not for the most part—I know there are exceptions—do not leave the day school having passed the Fifth or Sixth Standard, with any enthusiastic desire to learn more. The whole system has been so mechanical, so painful and tiresome, that all but exceptional children are glad to get rid of school, and dread the idea of entering a continuation school. I may be permitted to refer to a principle I have at times enunciated when the subject of education has been before us, the need of moulding, of co-ordinating our whole educational system into a unity—a unity of organic development. In this point of view, infant schools have been rightly referred to. I am sorry my hon. Friend (Mr. S. Smith) does not seem sufficiently to appreciate the work of infant schools; but I am convinced that in the most improved methods of infant school training, such, as Froehel's, we have the proper system which by natural development could be pursued throughout ordinary day schools, and without any detriment to learning in the evening schools, and it would be so attractive to the scholars that there would be no temptation to stay away. We cannot treat one part of our educational system without regarding the whole, and if this leads us to appreciate the necessity for one principle running through our whole system, this discussion will not have been in vain. Though I differ from my hon. Friend on some points, I cannot help congratulating him on what, I hope, will be the fruitfulness of the discussiou he has raised.

* MR. DE LISLE (Leicestershire, Mid)

I have been very much interested in the debate, but I have heard very little in favour of the Motion, and if it had been possible to call a Division I should have voted against the Motion. Had it been possible to move an Amendment to the Resolution, I should have proposed it in this form— That it is desirable to develop the existing system of education by evening schools, where children who have left elementary day schools, not before they have attained the age of 13 and have passed the sixth standard, may continue their education: That I think would express the opinion of the generality of speakers this evening. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield made an eloquent speech in favour of technical education, but I do not think he said anything in favour of the Resolution. In the remarks that fell from the hon. Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) there is much with which I agree. We must all see the gravity of the problem presented. We see the expense of our system growing at a fearful ratio, while we see in our great cities a great amount of human misery. In the development of education lies the best influence on the future of the working classes. Certainly, I should like to see the age of compulsory attendance raised to 13, and no child allowed to leave school until he passes the Sixth Standard. I know the difficulties; I view the future with anxiety, and I feel how sad is the picture the hon. Member (Mr. S. Smith) has put before the House. But in the exten- sion of a true, sound, rational, and Christian system of education, I see the best hope for the future. Education leads to emigration, and in emigration there are the means of escape for hundreds of thousands from lives of misery. I do not, however, think a proposal such as this will assist us. If the Government can see their way to raising the age of exemption from attendance at school and raise the standard of education they will do a wise and just thing; but, on other hand, I do not minimize the difficulties involved in such a policy—Primum est vivere, dein philosophare—and our agricultural classes can scarcely keep their children from starvation in many cases, so that the benefits of education often seem to them to be a cruel mockery. However, I congratulate the hon. Member for Flintshire on having brought this matter before the House, as I think it has resulted in a very useful debate. But, so far as the Motion is concerned, it is certainly one I should have voted against, if it had been in my power to do so.

MR. ILLINGWORTH (Bradford)

I wish to make an explanation as to the position taken by the borough I have the honour to represent in regard to the representation made to the Education Department—referred to by the right hon. Gentleman—in the Memorial that was sent in in regard to the half-time system. I should be sorry if the impression were to get abroad that Bradford is indifferent to education. The House will know that no town in the country interested itself in education with more zeal, and vigour, and liberality at the time of the passing of the Education Act of the late Mr. Forster; but it should be known that nearly half the whole number of half-timers engaged in the textile industry of England are engaged in the district of Bradford. Bradford, therefore, is singled out in reference to this question affecting the great industrial community. I wish the House to understand that if any arbitrary or severe step is taken in raising the standard suddenly and inconsiderately, it will be the death-blow for years to the industry of the town I represent. Our machinery and the character of the industry carried on make it absolutely necessary that young people should be engaged in certain branches of that industry. We have already had a raising of the standard, and I have no doubt that in a moderate time it will be possible to go a step further. An hon. Member opposite aptly quoted the old proverb, "It is necessary to live before you begin to philosophize." Many people come to these towns because they have children. Widows come in large numbers because their children there can find employment. I do not wish to dwell upon this subject, the difficulty of which will be understood by the Education Department, but I wish to remove any misapprehension there may be as to the desire of Bradford, or the Bradford School Board, to do anything to hamper the cause of education. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Flintshire on the discussion he has raised to-night. He has stimulated our desire to see something done on this question—he has done more than that, for he has been instrumental in eliciting from the representative of the Education Department an utterance pointing more to an advancement in education than anything we have hitherto had. I can only say that I think the House and the country are to be congratulated upon there having been an interlude of this kind. I can only hope that the Government, having listened to this debate, will take a somewhat different view from that which seems to prevail at this moment, which is, that the taxpayers are prepared for any extravagant expenditure in ships of war which may go to the bottom of the sea, and only become parsimonious when this question of education is mentioned. For a very small expenditure—only some £150,000—we should be able to offer to children of superior capacity in all parts of the country an opportunity of carrying their education further and of developing gifts which now lie waste, and I am sure the country would never object to the necessary expenditure. I trust the hon. Gentleman the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) will re-echo the sentiments he has expressed, not only to the House, but throughout the country, and that the country will force on this and other Governments the conviction that when they are asked for something like liberality and breadth in the consideration of this educational problem it will not do to be at all parsimonious. If the Government bring forward the Measure foreshadowed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, for which the country is panting, I agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sheffield (Mr. Mundella) that it will be received on all sides with real unanimity.

* MR. CONYBEARE (Cornwall, Camborne)

I desire to congratulate hon. Members generally, on the tone of this debate and on the fact that the discussion has not been altogether left to this side of the House. But, whilst I am content to join in the general chorus of self-congratulation, I am bound to say I have been asking myself while I have been listening to the latter part of this debate, how far there is any prospect of solid results arising out of it. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford has not gone a little too far in eulogizing the right hon. Gentleman the Vice-President of the Council for the speech he has made, not that I have anything to find fault with in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, but I am bound to say that I do not see that what he said advances much the cause of those evening continuation schools, whose establishment we are advocating this evening. It seems to me that the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Council, really amounts to no more than this, that he will introduce certain alterations in the code which will tend to facilitate the working of the existing evening classes, and that, if allowed to do so by his colleagues, and if time permits, he will introduce and carry a Technical Education Bill. I should have been glad if the right hon. Gentleman could have seen his way to have suggested other alterations in the law, which would not have tended to raise our evening classes to a higher level of usefulness and of perfection. I should like to point out one or two directions in which I think that might be done. With regard to expense, I heartily concur with the observations which have fallen from my hon. Friends the Member for Leicester (Mr. Picton) and Bradford (Mr. Illingworth), as to the folly of our continually squandering large sums of money upon hostile destructive purposes, and refusing in a niggardly spirit to spend a few thousands on the immensely important business of the education of our artizans. When I point out that in this country we are spending only a miserable sum of £6,000,000 on education against £30,000,000 on the Army and Navy, whilst in the United States the sum spent on education is at least double that spent on armaments, the House will see at once one great reason why we have to fear the competition of our cousins across the Atlantic, and one great cause why they are so far ahead of us in everything connected with commerce and industry. The more you spend on this remunerative business of education the more you get back. It is absurd to be pottering over a few hundreds of thousands of pounds on this subject of education when we ought to be glad to invest our millions on it. I am certain that if the people of the country, burdened as they are now with rates and taxes, could see that they are now being robbed of millions for worse than useless purposes and that the same millions could be employed on the advancement and developement of their own children, they would not in the least make an outcry when it was proposed so to spend their money; but would be only too pleased to pay whatever amount might be considered necessary. Another matter I desire to refer to is, the question of compulsion. Something has been said as to the impossibility of compelling children to attend night schools. I can only say it has not been found impossible to secure the attendance of children at such schools which already exist particularly in Switzerland. I am not anxious to increase the terrors of compulsion to the parents of children, because I believe that it is not by forcible means, such as prosecutions and so forth, that you can inculcate a true respect and love for your education in patents any more than you are likely to instil into the children a love for learning by frequent applications of the cane. This I believe, that if you adopt that sensible course of instruction which is advocated by the Recreative Evening Classes Association, even though it may be difficult, sometimes, to distinguish between amusement and real education—if you adopt a system thoroughly in harmony with the instincts and feelings of the children—you will have an end to the necessity for compulsion. If you make your teaching sufficiently attractive, you will find your children glad to come to the schools, and their parents delighted to send them. That, I believe, is the true antidote for compulsion. I would illustrate this by pointing to what I myself had experience of before I came to the House to-day. I was visiting one of the schools in the district which I happen to represent on the London School Board, and I found in one of the boys' department, that it was the afternoon for object lessons, and the master was teaching his pupils physical science. The master pointed with pleasure to the fact that on these afternoons when object lessons take place, he has a far higher attendance of children than on any other day in the week. Well, what happened in this school, will happen at evening classes in higher schools. If you teach the children something besides the rules of grammar—which are in the highest degree distasteful and painful to those who have them thrust down their throats day after day—if you infuse into the minds of the children something of a more practical kind, which is just as wholesome, and as calculated to benefit them in future years, you will get rid of the necessity for compulsion. In some of the reports of the best of Her Majesty's Inspectors, you will find statements to the effect that the children who have been the brightest and the most advanced in the infant classes under the Kindergarten system when sent up to the boys 'and girls' branches go back in their work owing to the lack of interest attaching to the subjects taught, and owing to the methods of teaching, This shows the importance of having your curriculum adapted to the age of the child—and I hope that this is a point which the right hon. Gentleman, the Vice-President of the Council will devote careful consideration to. As to the teachers, I have been looking over a report touching the educational system of the City of Boston in the United States which has, perhaps, the highest development of the highest system of education which this world can produce. We find in this Report that the authorities declare in favour of having the best teachers at the night schools. It has been said by the hon. Member for Worcestershire (Sir E. Temple) that we are spending too much on the teaching staff, and that, if we are going to give more teaching iu even- ing classes, it will be necessary to require the teachers in the day schools to work a sort of double shift.

* SIR R. TEMPLE

I said that some day-school teachers work at night voluntarily for extra remuneration. I did not say I would put additional work on them compulsorily, without remuneration.

* MR. CONYBEARE

I know that some of them do voluntarily undertake additional work, and where they do that there is no cause to complain; but I want to point out that there are a great number of young teachers who have been trained at great public cost in our training colleges who never find employment at all. Why should we not avail ourselves of the services of these teachers, who are amply qualified to teach, and who, I am sure, will be only too ready to undertake such employment. I do not desire to go into subjects upon which we are all more or less in harmony; but I should like to recall the attention of the House to the state made by Sir Charles Warren, when Chief Commissioner of Police—and which may be verified by every hon. Member whe will take the trouble to look for himself at the crowds which are very often called, rightly or wrongly "the unemployed"—that numbers of those who meet in the open spaces of London, and who are arrested (and otherwise ill-treated) by the police, are young boys. Is it not of importance to consider that whenever there is a little excitement, political or otherwise, or an opportunity for people to come together, you find the greater number of them consisting of lads who are apparently out of work. It seems to me that this is a consideration bearing on the question, and that we should see if these lads could not be beneficially influenced by making the schools more attractive. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken of the moral results of evening classes, and thinks that you ought not on that ground to compel attendance at night schools. For my part, I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. I think the moral results of night schools are, and will continue to be, in every respect admirable, and there need be no fear that girls' evening schools would prove a failure on this score. It is stated that not only is no complaint made on this ground; but, on the con- trary, those who are familiar with the working of these evening classes say they are conducive to moral results, because, by providing a pleasant and attractive means of recreative instruction in well-conducted and well-lighted schoolrooms, you bring under better influences those who would otherwise be going about the streets. Therefore, I think that the alarm which has been expressed by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen is unreal, and that we may go forward with this work of educating our youth without fear, let, or hindrance, only hoping that Her Majesty's Government will do whatever they can with a view of meeting the general demand for this sort of instruction.