HL Deb 04 June 1875 vol 224 cc1389-95
EARL DE LA WARR

rose to ask, If the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been called to the case of Elizabeth Marks, as appeared in the police report at Guildhall of Saturday the 1st of May, with special reference to the power of School Boards to enforce the attendance of children at school? The noble Earl said, he regarded the case as one of some importance, not only as one of apparent hardship to the person referred to, on whom the operation of the Education Acts fell with some severity, but also as an illustration of the present working of the law relative to compulsory education. The particulars of the case in question had appeared in the public Press, and had been the subject of comment. The point to which he wished first to draw attention was this—the operation of the law in cases of persons in the receipt of parish relief. He did not desire to make any complaint against the officers who administered the law in this particular instance, or in any other similar ones which had taken place as he believed they acted in the manner which they considered to be in accordance with the intentions of the law; but he did wish to know from Her Majesty's Government whether, in future, cases of this kind were to be dealt with in the same manner, and whether there was not some discretionary power in the Educational Departments of the Government of modifying the action of the law where exceptions ought clearly to be made. So far as he could learn, neither the Local Government Board nor the Education Department of the Privy Council had authorized any deviation from what was usually considered to be the meaning of the Act; and it might be, he admitted, doubtful whether they had the power of doing so. In a Circular of the Local Government Board, dated the 30th of December, 1873, the following occurs:— The statute prevents the Guardians from granting any "continuous out-door relief when the child is not placed at a school where such education (i.e., elementary education) can be obtained and is not within one of the exceptions; those exceptions being:—1. That the child is under efficient instruction in some other manner; 2. That the child has been prevented from attending school by sickness or any unavoidable cause; 3. That there is no other public elementary school which the child can attend. It was clear that these exceptions would not apply to the case in question. This Circular was confirmed by another dated the 30th of March, 1874. A Minute of the Committee of Council on Education, dated the 18th of March, 1874, was also to the same effect. It seemed that the interpretation of the law by Her Majesty's Government was, that no out-door relief under any circumstances could be given to any person unless the children between the ages of 5 and 13 were attending school; and it was further to be observed that the Guardians in such cases had the power only of giving such additional relief as might be required for paying the school fees. The words of the Circular to which he had referred were— It shall be a condition for the continuance of such relief that elementary education in reading, writing, and arithmetic shall be provided for such child, and the Guardians shall give such further relief, if any, as may be necessary for such purpose. He could not but think that the operation of this law as thus interpreted and acted upon fell very heavily upon a class, whose adverse circumstances rendered them little able to cope with difficulties. The circumstances of the case of Elizabeth Marks were so well known, and had been so much the subject of comment by the public Press, that it was not necessary he should go into it; he might, however, refer to one other instance in illustration of what he had stated. In The Times of the 7th of May last a case was noticed of a poor woman wishing to keep her child of 11 years of age at home during her confinement. It was referred to the Local Government Board. The reply was— The sickness of the parent did not appear to them to be a reasonable excuse within the meaning of the Act for the non-attendance of the child at school. Surely it could not have been intended that the Act should operate in that way? Could the greatest enthusiast on the subject of education wish that the child of a sick parent should be forced from her during her illness lest the child should lose some little advantage in learning reading, or writing, or arithmetic? And he would urge that there was a social and domestic education which was not to be lost sight of, and there were duties of children to their parents, the practice of which formed an important element of education. He ventured to think there was more real education in a child staying at home sometimes to assist its parents or in earning something for them than in going to school to learn reading, writing, and arithmetic, or it might be to answer the questions of a School Inspector in geography. He had said this much with reference to the compulsory education of children whose parents were in the receipt of parish relief; but the compulsory Education Acts not only applied to that class, but had a general bearing upon those also who were independent and earning their own living. It might, perhaps, not be out of place to refer for a moment to the history of the introduction of the principle of compulsory education into legislation. It was true the principle of compulsory education was to some extent recognized by the Hours of Labour Act and by the Factory Acts; but he believed he was right in saying that, previous to the year 1870, no general law existed by which education was made compulsory. In the year 1870 a Bill was introduced into the House of Commons by Mr. Forster, then Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, giving compulsory powers to school boards. It passed through the House of Commons after lengthy debates, and more rapidly through their Lordships' House at the end of the Session. Let him ask their Lordships' attention for a few moments to some of the provisions of this Act. A school board elected by the ratepayers has the power of making by-laws which, after receiving the sanction of the Education Department, renders it compulsory upon the parents of children between the ages of 5 and 13 to cause them to attend school unless there was some reasonable excuse on account of sickness or other unavoidable cause. It could readily be seen that such a power as that might press heavily upon the labouring class who were earning their living with independence, but often, in the case of a large family, not without the assistance of their children. It was true that some hours of labour were allowed in the week—in some cases determined by age; but it might not unfrequently happen that the employer could not make use of labour in that restricted form, and in the case of a large family the loss of the earnings of the elder children might bring a family almost to absolute poverty. But not content with the power conferred by the Act of 1870, the promoters of compulsory education carried their scheme yet further, by passing, in 1873, the Agricultural Children Act, restricting in an especial manner the work of agricultural children and subjecting the employers to penalties if children under 8 years were employed in any agricultural work, and requiring a certain number of school attendances after that age. He believed, however, that Act had been in a great measure inoperative, and that it would become more so from the great inconvenience, and almost impossibility, of enforcing it; but the objectionable principle remained, and cases might occur where it would be enforced. It might be that a wise discretion had in many instances been exercised; but he could not but view with some alarm the introduction of the principle of rigid compulsory education into legislation, directed against a class who had nothing but their labour to depend upon for a subsistence. It seemed to be inconsistent with the independence which they desired to see among the poorer as well as the richer class, and that the State had assumed to itself a more paternal authority than it had a right to claim and was more or less putting itself into the place of a parent. It might be the duty of the State to provide the means of education and to see that that education was good, and where it was so he believed education would always be made use of; if there was a good school, the school would be full. There might be exceptions, and it was always difficult to legislate for exceptions; but when the State stepped in and prevented a child from exercising the natural duty of assisting its parents even in sickness, it seemed to him to partake more of the spirit of the severe laws of the Spartan Constitution, where the citizen existed only for the State, than of the free institutions of this country. He trusted Her Majesty's Government would be able to say that some discretionary powers would be exercised in enforcing the Acts relative to compulsory education.

LORD STANLEY or ALDERLEY

said, the noble Earl (Earl De La Warr) had rendered a service by calling the attention of the House to the conduct of the London School Board, and the attention of the House to these matters would be most beneficial as a check upon school boards, as a guide to the magistrates who had to decide these cases, and as a support to the Education Office, which required support in its efforts to supervise the school boards. The Education Office required support, for the tone and tendency of school boards, as was shown by the Birmingham League monthly paper and The School Board Chronicle, was one of rebellion against the Education Office, and to set themselves up as independent and rival powers, or as equal in authority to the Education Office. The case of Elizabeth Marks was not an isolated one—there were many others that did not get into the newspapers. He would give their Lordships an instance that had come within his knowledge. A labourer receiving 20s. a-week, with a wife and eight children, was summoned by the school board because his wife, who was near her confinement, had asked for a week's leave for her boy of 11 years old to attend on her and her infant children; and as she kept him at home for an additional week the father was summoned to the Hammersmith Police Court, and fined 7s. 6d., and he had to lose a second days work a fortnight later by having to report to the magistrate that his child had attended school regularly during that interval. There was in the correspondence published by the League paper of February, 1875, a complaint of an adver-tizement requiring a board schoolmaster to play the organ for £25, to be paid from a separate fund. The Education Office declined to object. Evidently this £25 from separate funds would relieve the ratepayers of that much salary. The Education Office should check this extravagance, for the Wolverhampton school board were paying their master and mistress at the rate, for 200 children average attendance, of £264 and £196 respectively, while according to the scale of the London School Board their salaries would be £226 and £152.

THE DUKE OP RICHMOND

thanked the noble Lord who had just spoken (Lord Stanley of Alderley) for his anxiety that the Education Office should receive additional support; but he could assure the noble Lord that the Committee of Council on Education believed itself to be perfectly competent to manage the affairs entrusted to it without any assistance from without. He must confess that the noble Lord had the advantage of him in one respect, for the Birmingham League monthly paper or The School, Board Chronicle were journals he never had the felicity to see. He hoped the noble Earl who had brought forward the question (Earl De La Warr) would not expect him to follow him in going back to the legislation of 1870 and 1873 in respect of Elementary Education. His noble Friend asked, in the first place, whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government had been directed to the case of Elizabeth Marks—but, at the same time, his noble Friend seemed to assume that it had been. Such was the fact; and in the other House of Parliament his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council had given an answer to which he (the Duke of Eichmond) had nothing to add, when an inquiry as to the case was made in that House. That answer was, that so far as had come to the knowledge of the Department—and he believed all the facts had reached the Office—Mrs. Marks had not been treated in a harsh manner; that, on the contrary, the visiting officer of the London School Board seemed to have acted towards her in the most considerate manner; and the case, as presented to the Government, did not appear to call for any interference on the part of the Education Department. His noble Friend said he had no complaint to make in the case of Mrs. Marks, but he wanted to know whether in future other cases would be treated in a similar manner. In reply to that inquiry, he could only say that each case must be decided on its own merits. It was impossible, therefore, to give a general undertaking in reference to such a matter. Each case might, perhaps, differ from the preceding one; and consequently, before the particular case came to be considered, and the bearing of the law upon it interpreted, it would be impossible to say what ought to be done in respect of it. This, however, he could say—that all cases in which grievances, or alleged grievances, were brought before the Department would be considered with that degree of attention which such cases ought to receive.