Lords Sitting of 11 March 1884

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Report—Mr. Speaker's Retirement.*
NEW PEER.
Alfred Tennyson, Esquire, having been created Baron Tennyson of Aldworth in the county of Sussex and of Freshwater in the Isle of Wight—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
EDUCATION DEPARTMENT—OVERPRESSURE IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS-NUMBER OF CHILDREN UNDER THE AGES OF FIVE AND SIX.

  MOTION FOR A PAPER.
  EARL DE LA WARRsaid, he rose to ask the Lord President of the Council, If any information could be given relative to a child, aged eight years, who had been attending a board school at Cheltenham, whose death, according to the evidence given before a coroner's jury, was caused by inflammation of the membranes of the brain, and that the mental strain from overwork hastened her death? and to move—
  "For copy of the evidence given before the coroner's jury; also for Return of the number of children under the age of five years and under the age of six years attending schools which are subject to Government inspection."

  1185
  He was especially desirous of asking the attention of the noble Lord opposite to this case, and also to bring it under the notice of the House, as it was not, he regretted to say, a solitary one, which might, perhaps, have been attributed to some peculiar circumstances; but others of a similar kind had recently occurred. They were driven to the conclusion that there were causes now at work which were likely to produce very serious consequences in the education of young children. What he wished specially to refer to was the over-pressure, the overwork which was now imposed upon children, and in numerous cases upon very young children in board and other schools. He believed the evidence which he was about to ask the noble Lord to lay upon the Table of the House would go very far to show that if overwork in a school was not the sole cause of the death of this child, yet, at least, that it was hastened by it. He abstained from making comments until the evidence was before their Lordships; but he felt sure that it was a subject which deserved much attention. It had attracted the notice of the Medical Profession. Eminent men in that Profession did not hesitate to say that many evils affecting the health of children and young persons might arise from overwork in study. It had been noticed frequently of late years that the eyesight of many of these children had been seriously affected. It was often attributable to school work and over-employment of the eyes on print. The strain of the eyes in reading and fine sewing required of children now to bring them up to the Standards which they had to pass not unfrequently resulted in defective vision, which was more especially apt to occur when there was an inherited tendency to it, and where general bodily nutrition was faulty. It was further said—and he believed with great truth—that excessive application to study in early years would sometimes produce hopeless imbecility by forcing the brain of young children. There was another effect which had been noticed by medical men—the increase of headache among children. He was informed that this had also attracted serious attention in Germany, and was attributed to overworking of the brain. But in the face of these facts the Education Department of the Privy Council had lately issued a New Code raising the
  1186
  Standards still higher, against which, he believed, numerous Memorials had been sent by school managers to the Privy Council. He wished now to say a few words with reference to the ages of children attending board and other schools. There had been gradually growing up a system of bringing—he might say of forcing—children of very tender age into schools and subjecting them to the discipline and strain upon their minds which were required for learning what certainly at that age, if it could be learnt at all, could not be of use either to themselves or others. He had taken some pains to inquire into the subject, and, so far as he could learn, the number of children between the ages of three and five years at schools under Government was very considerable indeed. It had been put as high as 400,000, and though he could not vouch for the strict accuracy of this number, it was doubtless very large. He would ask their Lordships to consider for a moment whether children of such tender ages were capable of receiving the instruction which was expected to be imparted in these schools. Observe what these children of three to five years of age were expected to do. He had been informed that they had to prepare for an examination by Her Majesty's Inspector of Schools in reading, writing, counting, needlework, and knitting. He believed this was the programme, or something very similar to it. He would ask, was it possible that a child of three or four years old could derive any advantage from being subjected to such a course of what was called education? But, what was more, was it not likely to injure a young child, both in mind and body, to cripple instead of gradually develop the intellect, and to check physical growth? It was well to look for a moment to one of the chief causes of this pressure being put upon young children. The great object of schools under Government inspection was to obtain the largest possible amount of the Government grant. The more children that could be brought into the schools at whatever age and made to pass the examination of the Government Inspector, so much more was added to the income of the school; so that the object was not only to get the child into the school, but to force it up to such a Standard that it might pass the examination. This was one of the great evils of the

  1187
  system of pecuniary grants dependent upon results. The managers of a school, as well as the master of the school, were all under the influence of this—to make a good show to the Inspector, and to earn a large share of the Government grant, with little thought of the mental or bodily effect upon the children, who were first driven into the schools under a penalty for non-attendance, and then placed under a system of intellectual pressure which might deprive them of bodily and mental energy in after life. If this applied to children of more mature age, with how much greater force did it apply to children of three or four years of age, who might be fixed for hours in the day to a bench at an age when they should be running free to amuse themselves, and be crammed with grammar in a crowded room when they should be enjoying fresh air and sunshine? It was impossible to conceive greater torture to very young children of a lively temperament and disposition than to sit for hours in a dull schoolroom with a master or mistress standing before them talking of things of which they could not have the slightest conception of what was meant. A child, an infant of three or four years old, would more readily converse with nature and the objects around it in the natural world than with gloomy walls and unintelligible utterances in a school-room. It seemed to him a very mistaken notion to place infants of tender years under the care of trained masters and mistresses who might have little or no sympathy with children, or no real knowledge of what a child was. In connection with what he had just briefly referred to, their Lordships must not forget the poverty and wretchedness which often, especially in towns, surrounded these children in their own homes, and how much it must tend to disable them for any great mental work or exertion. He desired to mention one instance out of many which he feared might be found. In the City of Glasgow it appeared by the last Census that out of 114,759 families 40,820 lived in homes of a single room. In a report which had lately appeared in The Times by Mr. Marchant Williams, to take one instance only in London, it was stated—
  "There are schools in the Finsbury division filled with children of whom 60, 70, or even 80 per cent. come from homes consisting of one room only."
  1188
  There was one more point which he desired to notice as bearing materially upon the condition of children who were sent to board schools—he meant the poverty and destitution in many cases of the parents. In the same report to which he had referred, Mr. Marchant Williams said—
  "In one of the Clerkenwell schools I found on the day of my annual inspection that 40 per cent of children come to school sometimes without a breakfast, and 28 per cent come sometimes to afternoon school without having had any dinner."
  It was added—
  "These facts are not so entirely exceptional that they might be considered applicable to a considerable proportion of the children attending the board schools in my district."
  He mentioned these facts because he thought it was quite impossible not to see that these children must be so weakly from want of food that they could not be benefited by the amount of education and training which they were expected to undergo. He would not now trouble their Lordships any further. He had very briefly referred to these facts because it seemed to him that the social condition of children at schools could not be lost sight of in considering educational questions, and he hoped at a future day they might be brought under their Lordships' notice in a fuller and more complete manner.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copy of the evidence given before the coroner's jury relative to the death of a child, aged eight years, who had been attending a school at Cheltenham, and whose death, according to the evidence, was caused by inflammation of the membranes of the brain, and hastened by the mental strain from overwork.
  "That there be laid before this House Return of the number of children under the age of five years and under the age of six years attending schools which are subject to Government inspection."—(The Earl De La Warr.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he wished to call attention to a worse case of death from over-study than that referred to by the noble Earl. The noble Earl was, no doubt, aware that a short time ago a Memorial had been prepared, signed by 66 medical men in Bradford, and presented to the Chairman of the Bradford Schools, against over-pressure in school study. The first name on the list was that of Dr. Alexander, who was the senior consulting physician in Bradford. This

  1189
  gentleman at first refused to sign the Memorial, because he was opposed to agitation in the matter. Afterwards, however, he signed the Memorial, on the ground that within three weeks' time there were no fewer than three cases, one of them being fatal, brought under his notice as having been caused by over-study. Now, this fatal case was that of the child of a teacher in a Board school; and though, as he (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had been informed, this teacher had not exerted any undue pressure, yet it was natural that The Bradford, Telegraph should write—
  "If a teacher does not exercise due discretion in regard to his own child, what discretion can he be expected to have in regard to the children of other people, in whom he has no interest, while the remuneration for his labour is dependent on the success with which he can get the children crammed for the Inspector?"
  He would ask, introspect of these cases, whether the Education Office had yet come to a decision as to the Bradford Memorial against payment by results and home lessons? The Education Office was constantly acting ultra vires, and going beyond the provisions of the Act of 1870; and the Lord President, as Head of that Office, did not appear to do his duty by restraining them within bounds. He had encouraged them as to home lessons, and had put the people of Bradford to the expense of applying for a mandamus, and the Lord Chief Justice had occupied a day in hearing the case, and more time would be consumed in a further trial of the legality of insisting on home lessons. It also appeared, from a letter of the Vicar of Staines, that the Education Office was endeavouring to enforce an illegal rate for enlarging a school to admit children of three years old, notwithstanding that there was not a word in the Education Act as to children under five years of age. He would further ask the Lord President whether he was prepared to abide by his statement in that House at the close of last Session, that the new, or Mr. Mundella's Code, was easier than the preceding Code? in spite of more than 40 remonstrances against the severity of the new Code from various towns, which had been published by the National Union of Elementary Teachers. Lastly, he would ask the noble Lord the Lord President whether he was going to uphold the sacrifice of
  1190
  sewing in girls' schools to the teaching of drawing, which added £40,000 a-year to the expenditure of the London School Board, with no appreciable result?
  LORD NORTONsaid, he had no objection to a high standard of education; but he did object to the forced education produced by this system of payment by results—a system unknown in any other country. It led the teachers to give up all their time to the clever children for the purpose of winning the higher prizes, and to the neglect of those children who could not win them prizes, who, in the teachers' phrase, were "no use" to them. The sooner they got rid of that system the better. When they returned to the system of fixed salaries, the teachers would devote themselves to the general education of all the children who were committed to their charge. He hoped on an early day to bring forward a Motion asking their Lordships to express their opinion on this subject. It was in preparation for that Motion that he now desired to ask the Lord Privy Seal whether any inquiry was being made about the increasing complaints of over-pressure in public elementary schools, and the mischievous expenditure under the present system, unknown in any other country, of paying for national education by grants on details of show results; such grants, moreover, being attached, in an ascending scale, to higher subjects than the bulk of children in elementary schools, unless in very exceptional cases, can properly reach?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, he thought that the question of payment by results was hardly one which came within the range of practical politics; at all events, he did not himself propose then to go into the question. But with respect to the Questions which had been put to him, and first as to the Question of the noble Earl who had raised the conversation, the subject of the death of the child at Cheltenham had been very carefully inquired into both by the Coroner's Jury and also by an Inspector of Schools, who had been specially sent down to look into the matter. Before the latter, however, no evidence was produced in addition to that produced before the Coroner's Jury, which, he thought, was of a very satisfactory kind, and which left

  1191
  little or no doubt as to the real character of the case. There was no doubt that at first the doctor who attended the child and the Coroner were inclined to think that overwork in the school had something to do with the death of the child; but it did not appear that either of those gentlemen was acquainted with the requirements of the Code to which they were inclined to attribute some bad effects on the child's health. But they had to look to the evidence and the finding of the Coroner's Jury. The evidence showed that the child was attending an exceptionally good school, and was under the care of an exceptionally experienced and considerate mistress, and that there was no reason whatever to suppose, until the time of her last illness, that she had been subjected to any overwork in the school which could have accounted for her ill-health. He found that at the last examination several children had been very properly withheld from examination upon the ground of ill-health; but it did not appear to anyone that this girl was a child who ought to be withheld on those grounds. Then it appeared on the inquest, and by the post-mortem examination, that the child had a fatal disease which could not have possibly been produced by overwork in the school—that, in fact, she was suffering from tubercular disease of the brain, as well as lung disease. The immediate cause of death was tubercular disease of the brain, and there was no reason whatever to doubt that her death was quite unconnected with her schooling. The Coroner, being inclined at first to take the other view, specially directed the attention of the jury to this point, and almost invited them to express their opinion in his sense. The jury, however, did not do so, but simply returned a verdict to the effect that the child had died from disease of the brain, and afterwards added a rider that no blame whatever attached to the authorities of the school. So much for that case, which certainly did not support the alarmist views of the noble Earl. With regard to the Bradford case, he was not able to go into that now; but he believed a general statement had been made. As far as he was aware, however, no facts relating to particular children had been supplied which could be investigated. If any
  1192
  were supplied, of course they would be inquired into. As to the question of infants, there was no doubt that an infant was any child from three years old to seven years old; and the noble Earl opposite seemed to think that infants were subjected to the conditions of the Code. That, of course, was not the case, as a child did not enter the First Standard until it reached the age of seven years. As to the general question of disease among children which could be conceived to be produced by overwork, he wished to say that the evidence, as far as the Education Office had discovered it—and they had taken great pains to discover it—did not appear to give cause for alarm. For instance, the Registrar General had been consulted as to the statistics of disease among children; and the result was that, while the general health of children had greatly changed for the better within the last 10 years as compared with the previous 10 years, with respect to diseases of the brain and nervous system, with which they were chiefly concerned in that controversy, it had been found that there had been no increase whatever among children in England or Wales. He had already said that he would not go into the question of payment by results; but he was bound to say that his noble Friend had a happy way of begging the question in putting his own Question, of which the words on the Paper were rather a striking specimen. He asked whether any inquiry was being made into the increasing complaints of over-pressure, and the "mischievous" effects and "show results" of the present system? Of course, these words might be the text of a discussion which would last all night. He did not admit either the "mischievous effects" or the "show results." In fact, he did not know what he meant by show results. Surely not reading, writing, and arithmetic?
  LORD NORTON: There are other subjects.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, there were other subjects; but they could only be taken upon the condition that the ordinary subjects were mastered, and the noble Lord would be astonished to find in how small a number of cases they were taken up. He (Lord Carling-

  1193
  ford) was only that day looking at a Report made by one of the Inspectors, in which he said that out of 17,000 children who had been examined in Manchester, there were only 4 per cent who had even taken up special subjects; and he hoped his noble Friend knew that they could not be taken up at all in any school which had not passed 70 per cent of the children through the ordinary Standards of examination. The result of that had been to reduce the number of children taking up those specific subjects. He certainly did not wish that these specific subjects should be extinguished. The Education Department were anxious that they should be taken and taught, but only where it could be done usefully and effectually, and without any sacrifice of the main objects of the Elementary Education Act. He would give their Lordships a specimen of the result of the New Code. He took one of those subjects which were sometimes laughed at—animal physiology. According to a recent Return, they found that in the four months before the Code of last year came into operation in England and Wales 22,000 children had taken up that subject; but during the four months that had elapsed since, only 4,800 children had taken it up. Therefore, his noble Friend need not be at all apprehensive that the New Code was unduly stimulating those specific subjects at the sacrifice of essential education. As to the other part of the noble Lord's Question, whether any inquiry had been made as to the results of over-pressure, he might say that the greatest attention had been paid to the subject. The Education Department had considered it in every way, and in consultation with their Inspectors; and although the noble Lord objected very much to the Code of 1883, they had no reason to think that it increased the demand on the children. It ought to have a directly opposite tendency.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: Oh, no.
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): The noble Lord seemed to know more about the subject than he did; but the opinion which he had expressed was his own opinion and that of the Vice President, and of those who were responsible for carrying out the Act. At the same time, it was very
  1194
  possible that in some cases those who had to work the system and who were interested in it, such as school managers and teachers, might commit the error of trying to do too much in the endeavour—probably the vain and mistaken endeavour—to earn a larger grant at the expense of some of the weaker children. The Department had very carefully looked into that matter, and in issuing the Code for the present year—which was laid upon their Lordships' Table to-day—they had endeavoured to guard against those effects. They had made changes which he believed would not alter in any degree the intentions of the Code of last year, but which would prevent misuse of it. For the first time, managers would be held responsible by the Department for the care of the health of individual scholars who might need to be withheld from examination or relieved from some part of the school-work throughout the year. Then the Inspector must satisfy himself that the teacher had neither withheld scholars improperly from examination, nor unduly pressed those who were dull or delicate in preparation for it at any time of the year, and that, in classifying them for instruction, regard had been paid to their health, their age, and their mental capacity, as well as to their due progress in learning. The following, among others, would be considered reasonable excuses for either withholding a scholar or not presenting him in a higher Standard:—Delicate health or prolonged illness, obvious dullness or defective intellect, temporary deprivation, by accident or otherwise, of the use of eye or hand. If a scholar should fail in two subjects, or twice in the same subject, it would generally be permissible to present him again in the same Standard. Beyond these relaxations the Department could not go. They believed that such relaxations were not without their risks, because, much as they were bound to guard the health of the children, there was a risk of abuse in the other direction. The Department hoped, however, that no such fate would attend them. The changes were of considerable importance, and he hoped they would re-assure the minds of noble Lords and others who were interested in the subject without sacrificing the great object of the Act.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Do I understand the noble Lord to say that children between three and five years old are not examined in reading and the other subjects I have mentioned?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): There is no individual examination, and no payment by results, until after the age of seven years.
  EARL DE LA WARR: Is there no examination?
  LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL): An examination of classes. As to the ages of the children, there is no information which can be given beyond that contained in the Annual Reports; but the noble Earl can have the evidence taken before the Coroner at Cheltenham.
  First Motion agreed to.
  Second Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

LAND LAW (IRELAND) ACT, 1881—LEGISLATION.

  QUESTION. OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL STANHOPEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Government would undertake to introduce the proposed Bill to amend the Irish Land Act in the House of Lords? It would be in the recollection of their Lordships that on Wednesday last the Chief Secretary for Ireland, speaking on behalf of the Government, stated that on an early day after Easter either the Treasury or the Irish Government would be prepared to lay before Parliament proposals as to the amendment of the Land Act, and to state how far they were prepared to go in amending that Act. He thought he could show two very good reasons why such proposals should be introduced in their Lordships' House. In the first place, he would remind their Lordships that, in 1882 and 1883, a Select Committee of this House considered the whole question of the Irish Land Act, not with the view of retarding, but for the purpose of facilitating its operations; and the Committee recommended that portions of the Act which did not work satisfactorily should be extended, particularly the Purchase Clauses. Nothing had been done since, though now, tardily, the Government had acquiesced in the de-
  1196
  sirability of making proposals. The Purchase Clauses were now said by the Irish Land Commissioners, in their last Report to Parliament, just presented, "to continue to operate slowly." And one of the reasons they gave was that purchasers would not come forward
  "Because of the expectation of further legislation granting more favourable terms to tenant purchasers."
  Another reason why the Amendment Bill ought to be introduced in the House of Lords was that there were many noble Lords in that House who were the owners of land in Ireland, and others who, though not Irish landowners, filled high judicial positions, and understood the sale and transfer of land better than any other people in the Kingdom. He also hoped—though, perhaps, the hope was in vain—that the Government might be disposed to consider other clauses of the Act, which the Select Committee also recommended should be extended—namely, the Emigration Clauses. Lord Derby had publicly stated—and he thought it was a very sound opinion—that public money would be well spent in providing for the emigration of a number of the poor peasants of Ireland. Any noble Lord who had been in the West of Ireland must know that even if the small land tenants there had their land free of all charge they could not keep body and soul together. The principal object of his Question, however, was to ascertain whether the Government would be disposed to introduce this Bill in the House of Lords?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, in the speech of the Chief Secretary for Ireland, to which the noble Earl has referred, it was very clearly laid down how far Her Majesty's Government thought they would be justified in making proposals in the direction of amending the Land Act, and I have nothing to add to the statement then made. With regard to the particular Question of the noble Earl, I am sorry to say that I cannot give any such undertaking on the part of the Government as he asks for. Nevertheless, I sympathize with him in the object which he has in view. I constantly press my Colleagues to introduce certain Bills in this House. I sometimes succeed, and I very often fail; but I am quite certain that I should fail this time were I to make the application. It seems to have escaped

  1197
  my noble Friend's attention that this Bill, of which the basis is finance, is essentially a measure for the consideration of the House of Commons.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Five o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Ten o'clock.