HL Deb 10 August 1876 vol 231 cc937-46

House in Committee (according to Order).

Clauses 1 to 3, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.

Clause 4 (Declaration of duty of parent to educate child).

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

moved, as an Amendment, in page 1, line 11, to leave out ("the duty of.") and insert ("obligatory for"), and in line 13 to leave out ("perform such duty") and insert ("fulfil such obligation"), because duty was the highest word in the English language, and applied only to obligations imposed by Divine law and conscience. Parliament could not create duties; it might impose obligations, and it would become the duty of the subject to obey the law. Those who objected to compulsory education would not be better pleased at being told that the teaching of writing and arithmetic was a duty.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

objected to the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 5 (Regulation as to employment of child under ten, and certificate of education or previous school attendance being condition of employment of child over ten).

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

submitted that the operation of the clause, as regarded the personal examination of children, would not work justly or advantageously. Irish children also coming direct from Ireland, where they had attended the National Schools, and the Scottish children coming from Scotland, probably, where they had attended the public schools, would have to go through their full number of attendances in English schools before they would be able to undergo any examination. He suggested that, as regarded half-timers, Boards of Guardians should have power to make bye-laws, without the intervention of the parishes.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

maintained that the tests which it was proposed that children should pass before going to labour were likely to work well. The Government were of opinion that it was advisable that the tests of knowledge and attendance should proceed pari passû. The standard would not be a very high one; but the Government must insist upon a certain number of attendances, because it would at least be a guarantee that the child had a certain amount of knowledge, and in the case of boys, who were naturally extremely dull, the Inspector would have a discretion to reduce the standard. The difficulty anticipated by the noble Marquess in respect to Scotch children was, he believed, already met by Clause 47 of the Bill; and as for Irish children, he would take their case into consideration. With regard to half-time in the agricultural districts, he did not think it would be safe to go to the length of giving the Guardians the power of passing compulsory bye-laws. To grant such a power would in fact be to turn the Unions into so many school boards, and that was what the Government had no desire to do. The best course appeared to him to be to allow every parish to fulfil the requirements of the Act in its own way.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, that what he wished was that the noble Duke opposite the President of the Council would consider whether it was possible to separate the compulsory bye-laws from the half-time bye-laws.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 6, 7, and 8, inclusive, agreed to.

Clause 9 (Exception to prohibition of employment of children).

LORD HENNIKER

suggested the amendment of the clause with a view to put some check upon the action of Committees of Boards of Guardians in suspending the Bill during the time allowed in the clause. He should like to say a few words on this clause, as he had had charge of the Agricultural Children Act in its passage through their Lordships' House. He had not a word to say against its repeal, although it had cost him no little trouble; and whatever his opinion might be as to that Act, although not perfect, going far enough for the time, he was glad the Government had gone further now. However, the Act was shown to be of some use as a tentative measure, and it was more that than anything else, from the fact that this clause and other provisions of the Bill were taken from it. The fact was that, in several cases, the Act had been defeated more or less by granting the full time allowed for suspending it. In making the application some of the applicants had acknowledged their object was to make the Act as inoperative as possible. The clause was intended to give a power of suspension in cases of emergency, when the weather was unsettled, or there was a want of labour, and not to give it as a matter of course. He thought the working of the Act might be taken as a fair instance of how the clause might act. The age of 8 as against 10 for attendance at school had been tried. He thought 14 too high to begin with, and he should have preferred to see the age made 13, and no provision made such as the clause contained. In any case, he hoped Her Majesty's Government would consider the matter—whether it would not be wise to put some check on the action of Boards of Guardians—either by allowing them to suspend the operation of the Bill, with the leave of the Education Department, or in some other way.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

thought this was unnecessary, as it was only for the necessary operations of husbandry and the in-gathering of the crops that the Act could be relaxed for a period not exceeding six weeks in the year, upon due notice to the Education Department; while, moreover, in many parts of the country the school holidays were usually given at harvest time, and the children then assisted at the in-gathering of the crops. He did not think it likely that Boards of Guardians would be inclined to do anything that would be likely to impede harvesting operations.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 10 (Payment of school fees for poor parents).

EARL FORTESCUE

objected to the provision that a parent, by reason of any such payment, should not be held to be a pauper. Both Houses had just agreed to a clause stating it to be the duty of every parent to provide education for his children up to a certain age, just as he was before legally bound to provide them with lodging, food, and clothing. The law could take no cognizance of the reason of a man's inability to provide for himself and his family. He might have permanently disabled himself by doing some most meritorious and even heroic act. He equally became legally a pauper by receiving relief out of the rates. In this Bill they were entering on a course of what he must call gushing legislation.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

thought that an agricultural labourer with five or six children might be unable to pay for the education of the whole of his family and yet might not be a pauper.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clause 12 (Proceedings on disobedience to order of court for attendance at school.)

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

said, he had considerable doubts as to the wisdom of this provision. The Industrial Schools Acts laid down a category of children who might be sent to industrial schools; that category was very wide, but the proposal in the Bill would make it still wider. He thought the clause objectionable on two grounds—first, because it gave an advantage to improvident parents; and, secondly, because it might interfere with the efficient working of those industrial schools. He would like to know from his noble Friend opposite the President of the Council what class of children it was intended should be sent to those schools?

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he thought the clause applied to the class of children whom his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council had called "wastrel," children who did not attend school, and could not, unless the school fees were paid for them.

Clause verbally amended, and agreed to.

Clause 13 agreed to.

Clause 14 (Licence to child sent to industrial school to live out while attending school).

EARL FORTESCUE

, who moved the omission of the clause, said he objected strongly to throwing on the ratepayers the expenses of industrial schools. Such a course would discourage voluntary aid. He contended that this and the following three or four clauses were objectionable, as they tended to break down the principles on which all the legislation dealing with pauperism for half a century had been founded. The children of labourers, though not paupers, would be educated at the expense of the ratepayers. That was most undesirable in itself, and full of danger as a precedent.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, that schools founded on the same principle were found to work well in Scotland, and would form the means of inculcating useful habits among the children. For these reasons he was unable to assent to the Motion of the noble Lord.

Amendment negatived.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 15 (Amendment as to provision of industrial school by school board).

EARL FORTESCUE

objected to the proposal to give meals to children in day industrial schools at the expense of the ratepayers, because it was still more undesirable in itself and dangerous as a precedent.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, there was a certain class of children who could not be got to school by any other means except industrial schools, and who, if they were not educated, would at a later period of life fill our gaols. The clause involved no new precedent. The system was not only strongly recommended by the Rev. Sydney Turner, but was working with remarkable success in Glasgow, Aberdeen, and Bristol. It was an experiment, and, if it failed, the Secretary of State would withhold his certificate. But it would be unwise on the part of the Legislature not to try this experiment, because these day industrial schools, which were much cheaper than the industrial boarding schools, reached children who could not otherwise be got at, and because it was hoped that that these schools would not only benefit the children, but, by implanting among them habits of order, cleanliness, and discipline, would have a civilizing influence in the homes of the parents.

EARL FORTESCUE

did not undervalue the influence of these institutions, but there was a wide difference between such as were supported by private individuals and such as were maintained out of the rates. The Rev. Sydney Turner's authority on such a question was deservedly high; but at a conference of members of Boards of Guardians, and of the Charity Organization Society, and other benevolent persons eminently qualified to discuss this subject, Mr. Turner was almost alone in maintaining the expediency of the course adopted by the Government. Lord Shaftesbury and Mr. John Macgregor were also opposed to this proposal, and against such an array of testimony he could not accept Mr. Sydney Turner's authority as conclusive. He, unlike some political economists, approved of industrial day schools supported by private benevolence. But perhaps their greatest value consisted in eliciting sentiments of gratitude in children accustomed to ill-usage and neglect, by making them feel the benefits and believe in the existence of evidently disinterested kindness and care. Education and food, provided out of rates and taxes, would be grudgingly given and thankfully received. Industrial day schools would lose the most valuable part of their moral influence under this Bill.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 16 (Establishment, &c., by day industrial schools).

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

objected to the sub-section which provided that the 2s. a-week, if recovered from the parent of the child, should be paid over to the local authority. The school might be mainly established by benevolent persons, yet the fees were to be paid over neither to the Treasury nor to the managers. It was quite right that the Treasury should pay the schooling for the child, and be then recouped for the advance; but he thought it very wrong that the managers should not get the surplus, if there were a surplus. The system adopted in the day industrial schools was a much better one.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

said, these children could only be sent to the industrial schools whose managers were willing to receive them, and thus the managers would be able to make what bargain they liked with the local authority. If they did receive a child, they could do so on what terms they pleased. It cost more to restrain at school a vicious child than a well-conducted one; but that was the nature of all control, and larger sums thus expended were a necessary expenditure that was not in any way in the nature of a premium.

THE MARQUESS OF RIPON

did not think there would be a power for the local authority to make a bargain with the conductors of industrial schools.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 17 agreed to.

Clause 18 (Contribution for fees of children who obtain certificates).

EARL FORTESCUE

expressed his apprehension that a too high standard of education would attract the lower classes of children to higher pursuits than those which they had hitherto mostly followed. The really pre-eminently able and energetic among the wage class had now in this country far greater facilities for self-culture, and raising themselves to wealth and distinction than they had ever had before. Such examples, however, must always be few and exceptional. But there was great danger just now of those engaged in what political economists called the work of verification becoming too numerous in proportion to those engaged in the work of distribution, and above all of production. The verificatory class consisting of lawyers' clerks, accountants, and such like, together with a large number of the distributing class, were engaged in writing, cyphering, or other kinds of the lightest manual labour; and there was now notoriously a severe competition among those who were hereditarily and naturally candidates for such employment. While of the producing class, upon the result of whose work both the other classes depended, the large majority were engaged in heavy bodily labour; and of these, as the great rise in wages latterly proved, the supply was now rather short. It was particularly unwise, therefore, just now by this clause to tempt some of the rather more intelligent boys all over the country to quit their natural sphere of labour, where they were wanted, and would help to elevate and enlighten their fellows, for the sake of pushing into the already overcrowded ranks of the verifiers and distributors. He must protest against such sentimental legislation contrary to sound principle and the requirements of the present time.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

replied that the object of the clause was to improve the education of the children by the offer of what corresponded with the small scholarships of the Universities for the higher classes.

Clause agreed to.

Clauses 19 to 42, inclusive, agreed to, with Amendments.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

moved, in page 21, after Clause 42, to insert the following Clause:— Nothing in Clause 14 of the Act of 1870 shall be construed as excluding the 'Ten Commandments,' the 'Lord's Prayer,' and the 'Apostles Creed,' from the teaching in schools provided by school boards, and pointed out that though Clause 14 was not intended to exclude the Ten Commandments and Lord's Prayer, yet it had been so interpreted in many cases. Only a few weeks ago a member of the London School Board handed in a protest against the Fourth Commandment having been asked for in an examination of boys for some prizes, and the Chairman had received the protest. A noble Lord had told him that a Government Inspector had upheld the view that Clause 14 prohibited the Ten Commandments and Lord's Prayer; another noble Lord had told him that this view was quite wrong, and that if any one applied to the Court of Chancery, it would upset it. How was a poor labourer to apply to the Court of Chancery—this was like the Judge who, on sentencing a labourer, told him he ought, instead of doing as he had done, to have sued for damages, and then come to their Lordships' House for a divorce. Under the late Government the vicar of Macclesfield had been told by the Education Office that it was illegal to have the Ten Commandments suspended in a building temporarily used for board-school purposes. This was to put a sort of slur on the Ten Commandments, and he would ask with what face could any justice of the peace sentence a boy for theft who had been brought up in a board school where the Ten Commandments were never taught?

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he could not accept the Amendment. In the great bulk of board schools throughout the country the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer were already taught; and it was not because one of the members of the London School Board protested against the teaching of the Fourth Commandment that such an Amendment as this should be passed, and to pass it would not advance religious teaching at all, which the Government was quite as desirous to advance as the noble Lord could be. Those who did not desire religious teaching would remain as they were now and would not give religious teaching, while those who gave religious education now would not be benefited by the clause.

THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY

thought the noble Lord would act wisely in withdrawing the clause, because it might throw doubt on that on which he hoped there was no doubt whatever—namely, that it was competent to any school board to teach the Lord's Prayer, the Ten Commandments, and the Creed under the existing law. As a matter of fact they were now taught in board schools.

LORD HAMPTON

, for the reason given by the most rev. Primate, also urged the noble Lord to withdraw the Amendment. If the parents would not permit their children to receive such instruction it was not the fault of the school boards.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY

said, that after the statement of the most rev. Primate (the Archbishop of Canterbury) which had been anticipated by the noble Duke (the Lord President of the Council), he should be happy to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave of the House, withdrawn.

Clause agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedules agreed to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received To-morrow; and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 226.)