SCOTCH EDUCATION CODE, 1891. (Hansard, 16 March 1891)

§ (1.16.) MR. FINLAY (Inverness, &c.)
I beg to move— That an humble Address he presented to Her Majesty, praying Her that Article 133 of the Scotch Education Code, 1891, be amended by adding at the end thereof the words 'or who are under 14 years of age.' The limit age of the compulsory scale, as the House is aware, is 14, and after that 1177 age, whatever standard a boy may have reached, he cannot be compelled to attend school. As the Act at present stands, it exempts from the payment of fees all boys who have not yet passed the Fifth Standard. A boy may pass the Fifth Standard some time before he is 14. Looking at the Returns, it would appear that some boys pass the Fifth Standard at the ages of 10, 11, 12, or 13 As soon as a boy passes the Fifth Standard his parents have to pay fees, as the Act now stands, in respect of his continued attendance at school. It is thought by many that, in the case of the children of working men, it is quite sufficient that the parent should lose the wages which might be earned if his child were taken away from school, without having to bear the additional burden of the payment of fees merely because his child has passed the Fifth Standard. The practical effect of the existing provision of the Act must necessarily be somewhat to discourage the continued attendance at school of children who have made good progress with their books. I submit to the House that it is not necessary that there should be, so to speak, a sort of premium put upon backwardness—that it is not desirable to make the parent feel that if his child makes progress with his studies the result will be that he will have to pay fees from which he would have been exempt if the child had either been stupid or idle. I therefore propose that children shall be exempt from the payment of fees up to the age of 14, at whatever standard they may be. If an Amendment of this kind were carried, we should at last have reached a solid standing-ground in the matter of the payment of fees.

§ *(1.22.) MR. HOZIER (Lanarkshire, S.)
I do not suppose that for many a long year any measure has received so great a share of approval as the measure of the Government respecting free education in Scotland, and the best proof of that concurrence of approval is that 1178 on every platform in Scotland there is a sort of rivalry as to who deserves most credit for that measure. In my opinion, two names stand out prominently for special credit in connection with the measure. The name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who by his admirable management of finance enabled a large sum to be devoted to the purpose, for without the money we could have done nothing; and that of Mr. Craik, the Secretary of the Scotch Education Department, who evolved the scheme for carrying the proposals into practical effect, as without an equitable scheme the proposals would have been doomed to failure. Now, I cannot help feeling that those two benefactors would add considerably to the great benefits they have already conferred on Scotland if they could see their way to carrying into effect the proposal just made by my hon. Friend. At present education is free as far as it is compulsory. It is compulsory until Standard V. is passed or until a child reaches the age of 14. But a clever child passes Standard V. at the age of 11 or 12 or 13, and as a very valuable circular, issued by the Scotch Education Department, on the 27th of January, says—"The age shows a tendency to become lower year by year." The clever child, therefore, is only educated free up to the age of 11 or 12 or 13, while the duller child is educated free up to 14. The clever boy is thus handicapped, and it is proposed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Inverness to remove the handicap. As the circular of January 27th says— Complaints have of late frequently been made that children leave school as soon as they have passed the minimum standard required by law for exemption. How is this difficulty to be met? Let me say at once that I will be no party to any further compulsion being put on the parents. The tendency to remove children from school is due to two causes. In the first place, the services of the children are needed at home, or the children are required as wage-earners for the family; and, in the second place, parents are naturally tempted to withdraw their children 1179 from school as soon as they are required to pay school fees. The circular of the 27th January proposes to establish a "merit certificate" to be obtained— By an examination differing in kind, and not merely in degree, from that required for a bare pass in Standard V. The prospect of this certificate will act as an inducement to the parents to keep their children at school, as it will have a current value throughout the whole of Scotland, and will become a passport to special employment But there still remains the question of the payment of fees which acts as a temptation to parents to remove the children as soon as fees become exigible. I can well imagine that the Table on page 12 of the Return marked C.—6281 may be quoted to show that the children on whose behalf we speak are few in number: for it appears that 88.05 per cent. of the scholars in the public schools pay no fees, and no doubt a considerable proportion of those who do pay fees according to this Table pay fees in special fee-paying schools, which we do not propose to touch. Therefore, the proportion of those who at present pay fees in the regular schools is small. Even if we grant that, I do not think that in a matter of this importance we ought to be met with the axiom, "De minimis non curat lex." But, as a matter of fact, I think that we have a right to consider that those very figures afford a strong argument in favour of our contention, for we may fairly maintain that there would be an infinitely larger proportion of children paying fees in the higher standards if it were not for the tendency to remove children as soon as fees are exacted. To sum up, let us put no further compulsion upon the parents, but let us offer them every inducement to keep their children at school. I beg to second the Motion.

§ *(1.29.) MR. W. H. SMITH
I have listened to the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, and to my hon. Friend 1180 behind me, with great interest and with considerable sympathy with the object they have in view. But I wish to point out that the Government have undertaken to make proposals with regard to education as affecting England, Scotland, and Wales in the course of the present Session, and that, therefore, it would be extremely inconvenient to affirm a portion of the programme before we are able to lay the whole of our plans before the House. If this Motion were carried, a very considerable burden would be imposed on the rates, because the amount assigned, so far as the Government contribution is concerned, is strictly limited. I hope that the proposal that the Government will have to make will entirely satisfy hon. Members on both sides of the House, and therefore I would ask my hon. and learned Friend to postpone this Motion. I will for this purpose move the adjournment of the Debate; and I will undertake that if the proposal we shall have to make with regard to education should not satisfy the hon. and learned Member and his friends, then we will give him an opportunity of resuming Debate on his Motion.

§ (1.30.) MR. MARJORIBANKS (Berwickshire)
I do not wish to offer any opposition to the Motion for adjournment. I only wish to say that the proposition as put forward by the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution, does not meet the requirements of the case. It is not enough that clever boys should be educated free in the higher standards, the proper course is to free all the standards.