SECOND READING. (Hansard, 7 July 1890)

§ *LORD NORTON

Though the noble Viscount has said there is no controversial matter in this Bill, I must ask your Lordships' leave to say a few words upon it before it is read a second time. This Bill, like most others of but few clauses, contains a considerable amount of principle in a very small compass. There are only two clauses in it, and the second clause, as the noble Viscount has said, merely gives a small sum to elementary schools in rural parishes. That is to say, the Bill offers a sop to stop the cry of managers of poor schools. It only illustrates the wretched mode in which we support the schools of this countrry, not by offering them fixed adequate means of meeting their requirements, but by dangling little prizes before them, like this £10 a year, to stimulate them in their work. But the other clause, the first one, does involve a considerable question of principle. It is the first avowed offer of Treasury grants for schools in which clementary education is not a principal part—as evening schools. This is a proposal very much to extend the principle of former Acts. The restriction of grants to elementary education is, in this case, to be abolished, and I think we may very well anticipate that, having been abolished in evening schools, it will not be long before it will be abolished in other schools also. When Parliament has once handed over a subject to a Department, anything may be done by official schemes, without any practical check on the part of Parliament. I am as strong in favour of the extension of higher education throughout the country as anybody can be; but the question is how, and where, and what are the best means, and how not to stand in the way of better means. With regard to evening schools the Royal Commission on Education reported that the only purpose for which they were required was to fix the instruction which is found to be so soon forgotten on leaving elementary schools. The evidence before the Royal Commission showed that the attempted evening schools had utterly failed all over the country; that they had actually disappeared in places like Birmingham, no scholars could be induced to attend them. In fact, wherever 915 they had been tried they had failed throughout the country; and the conclusion of the Commissioners was that if they are to be revived it must be by some fresh stimulus being given. The recommendation was that more encouragement should be given by larger Treasury grants, and by a freer curriculum of study. They stated that the schools were discouraged by the obligation to keep up elementary subjects. The Bill, therefore, proposes in this 1st clause to give higher instruction without the acquisition of elementary subjects; that we should, in fact, give higher education in evening schools without the obligation to keep up the instruction previously given. This Bill, therefore, proposes to supply higher education by the Treasury, without insisting on the main elementary condition—a sort of educational top-storey where the bottom has mostly perished. The Vice President in the other House, in defending this, said there was a huge gap between the time when the children left the schools and the time when they got employment, and that that gap must be filled up by these schools. But that is based upon the idea that all children are to go on to higher employment; that, in fact, manual labour, which, after all, must be the lot of three-fourths of every community, is degrading. It seems to me that children, who are capable of more skilled employment, should go to higher schools; not to these evening schools, and that that part of their education should not be undertaken by the Government. I do urge that the education of those who are preparing for higher employment should be given in such schools as are being voluntarily provided all over the Kingdom, if the Government would not profess to undertake them. As to those children who go early to manual work from school, it is no use proposing that after their day's hard work—and remember that that work is in itself an education—such children should be sent to school at night! We are expecting from this class of children more than we expect from our own children, that they should be engaged in the work of life, and in literary education also. If there is to be any provision for them in the way of education daring the 916 evenings after their weary day's work until they go to bed, it should be by such recreative occupation as proposed by Lord Meath, in the shape of light and popular reading and such games as chess or draughts. I think, therefore, that this clause will come to nothing. There is a great deal more of alteration and novelty included in the Votes of the other House for education, such as £3,000 for technical schools, not yet defined, and as yet non-existent. It is assumed that they will arise under the Mushroom Act which passed the Commons in the last week of last Session, and in this House went through all its stages in 20 minutes. I believe myself that these provisions for evening schools will be as illusory as the Technical Instruction Act has been. It is not at all by way of grudging higher education to ail those who can make use of it that I suggest a better way. Attempts to revive evening schools and larger grants, and release from elementary grounding, will not promote, but will very much hinder, real education. I only hope myself that, whatever measure Parliament may pass, the good sense of the country will bring out something more practical than that which is proposed in this Bill.