§ LORD NORTONsaid, he rose to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government to a reply made by Mr. Mundella to two deputations from Harborne, one from the School Board asking for the establishment of a higher school, the other from 2,373 ratepayers, deprecating such a charge on their rates—namely, that—
He assented to the principle that if a majority of ratepayers were against the introduction of higher education it should not be forced upon them.He wished to ask whether such a principle had been adopted, and under the authority of what Act of Parliament the provision of higher education in any locality depended on a majority of ratepayers being willing to undertake it? He had two reasons for asking this question. First, because the Vice President's answer implied that, wherever a majority of ratepayers agreed to it, a School Board might depart from their authorized work of supplying elementary education to those who wanted it to undertake higher education in a Government groove for the middle class, who would get it more wholesomely by private enterprize, and without robbing the poor of their elementary provision; and, secondly, because such an unauthorized dictum must discourage, by Government and rate-paid competition, the corporate or private undertaking of middle-class schools now largely and more usefully going on. The Government were, apparently, stealing this 1813 march upon Parliament, and even technical instruction was lately proposed to be added to their province.
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, that if his noble Friend's premisses had been correct he should have had to adopt his conclusion. But his noble Friend was entirely misinformed as to the nature of the case. This was no question of middle-class education. What his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella) said referred to higher elementary education, which meant simply education in the higher Standards of the Code—that was, in Standards above Standard IV. His right hon. Friend received two deputations, one from the School Board of the district, and the other from a large number of ratepayers who did not like the proposal of the School Board. It was not a case in which the Education Department could interfere. It was strictly a question for the decision of the School Board itself. The case was this. There was a very considerable deficiency of education in the district; and the School Board proposed to supply it, not in a novel way, but by a course which had been taken by a good many other more important places. They proposed, instead of building a large new school of the ordinary kind teaching children in all the Standards, to erect a school which should be confined to children above Standard IV. They believed that that would be a very great improvement in the education of the district. That district was in the neighbourhood of Birmingham, and there were in it a considerable number of boys who were in Standards above Standard IV. They proposed to collect those boys in a single school, so as to provide a better education for them, and to enable the teachers in the ordinary schools to give their undivided attention to boys below Standard V. It was a mere question of organization. The school district lent itself very easily and conveniently to such an arrangement, because, as he was informed, there would be no child further than a mile and a-half from the new school, and most of them would be within a mile. It was a mistake to suppose that the plan would lead to increased charge on the rates. On the contrary, by drawing the higher standard children together into one school and giving them a teacher qualified to give them instruction in 1814 those Standards, the result would be economical. There was, as he had said, nothing novel in the matter—nothing in which the Education Department could be said to have sprung a mine on Parliament. It was a question for the School Board, and he believed they had come to a wise decision. With reference to a Question which a noble Lord (Lord Stanley of Alderley) had put to him some days ago, he might read the following letter—
§ "Fulshaw House, Wilmslow, November 10.
§ "Dear Sir, — With reference to Harriet Straker, whose death is said to have been due to over-pressure at school, I have to state that she attended the above school, but had no home lessons given her this year. If she worked at lessons at home she did it voluntarily, and the work was not shown at school. She was rather dull, and failed in two subjects in Standard I. at the examination in January, 1883, so was again presented in Standard I. at the examination in January, 1884, when she passed in the three subjects, being nine years of age. The mistress was not told that the child was delicate, but the child was kept away from school occasionally for a week. She made 219 attendances during the present year, her last attendance being on Monday morning, August 25. I visited the child several times during her illness, and she was usually more or less unconscious. I do not remember having heard her muttering about her lessons, but once she repeated when I was present a portion of her daily prayers. I believe the child was delicate, at times she was somewhat deaf, and at times had delicate eyes; but as she was, I believe, 10 years old and was only being instructed in the subjects of Standard II. and had no home lessons given to her, it can hardly be considered that her case was one of over-pressure at school, unless, of course, her health was in such a state that she ought not to have been sent to school at all.
§ "Yours faithfully (Signed)
§ "W. S. BARNES-SLACKE, M.A., Correspondent of Lindow School.
§ "P. Cumin, Esq., Education Department."
§ He thought the noble Lord would see that it was not a case of over-pressure at all.
§ LORD NORTONasked whether he understood that it was the intention to make the higher schools entirely separate from the elementary?
§ LORD CARLINGFORD (LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL)said, the school was entirely and absolutely within the Code, and therefore elementary.