SECOND READING. (Hansard, 28 August 1893)

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL AND SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (The Earl of KIMBERLEY)
My Lords, this Bill is not very extensive in its nature, but it touches a point which is not without importance. The object of it is that all children should be required to remain in the elementary schools until they are 11 years old. At present the position of the matter is somewhat complicated. Children cannot be employed in factories until they are 11 years of ago; but children who are to follow other employments may obtain release from attendance at school a year earlier. The period of attendance and the requirement of a certificate of discharge from attendance are regulated by bye-laws of very varying terms. By some the Standard required to be attained is as low as the Third Standard; but in most cases it is a higher Standard. But a scholar of 10 who has passed the Third Standard cannot, on that account, be released from attendance. There are two good reasons for making the alteration proposed by the Bill. One is that it is highly desirable that the rule as to the age at which children should be employed should be uniform, and ought to be fixed in all cases. The other is that the age of 10 is too early for children to leave school, and that they ought to be kept at school a year longer. Even though scholars may not pass in a higher Standard by remaining at school, it is obvious that another year's schooling would be of great advantage to them. As originally framed, the Bill applied only to complete exemption from school attendance; but as it comes up to this House it has been amended so as to apply 1190 also to cases of partial exemption or half-timers. I mention that, because the Bill has been understood outside as applying to total exemption. The Bill now applies to certificates of both entire and partial exemption. I think it makes a satisfactory change in the law, and I hope the Bill will meet with your Lordships' approval, and that you will give it a Second Reading.

§ *LORD SANDFORD
said, the Bill was a step in the right direction. He was only sorry and somewhat surprised that in the present state of enthusiasm for education at the Council Office the, Lord President, having before him the Report of the late Departmental Committee upon the various changes required in the conditions of school attendance, had not gone a good deal further. Both the majority and minority upon the Royal Commission advised that 11 should be the minimum ago at which children should get partial, and 13 total relief. The difference between healthy and unhealthy employments ought properly to be regarded in determining the ago at which children should be released from school attendance—healthier employments entitling them to earlier release. Because children under 11 were prevented from being employed in factories, workshops, and mines, he did not see any reason why they should be debarred from field employment. He referred to that point, which in the Memorandum prefixed to the Bill was made the chief ground of its introduction, in order that the change made by this Bill on other than educational grounds might not hereafter be pleaded as a reason for further limiting the age and labour in rural districts. There was no doubt that the conditions of labour in this and other countries were being largely modified, and the adoption of a higher ago than 11 for factory work ought not to shut out a variation in favour of healthy employments. If in this country, as in Germany and France, children were to be kept out of factories up to 13, he did not want this Bill to be quoted hereafter as a precedent that they must therefore be kept till that age out of healthy employment in the fields. That was the only criticism he Wished to make on the Bill. With regard 1191 to total exemption the Bill was rather half-hearted. It would affect about 10,000 children directly, in districts where compulsion ended at 10, and indirectly about the same number, who reached the Fourth Standard before the age of 10. It was a good principle laid down in the Bill that children should not be released from school too early, but should stay on to enable them to complete their Fifth Standard. The Fourth Standard was too low to justify the entire release of children from day school instruction. He had had some doubt whether partial employment in agriculture should not be allowed at the age of 10; but it was removed when, having communicated with high authorities on educational matters in the rural districts, he found that neither employers nor parents objected to fixing the higher age of 11. He hoped the time would soon come when the whole situation might be reviewed in connection with the introduction of secondary education, and then he trusted they would be able to get rid of all bye-laws, and to adopt the Third and Fifth Standards, which prevailed in Scotland, as the uniform conditions of partial and total exemption.

§ LORD KNUTSFORD
My Lords, I must express my hearty concurrence in this Bill as an important step in the direction in which I have always wished to see elementary education carried out. When I had the honour to be Vice President I desired to take a step in this direction; but the opposition I met with was too great for me. I am heartily glad to find that opposition is now diminished. I hope the Government will pay attention to the observations of my noble Friend, and I imagine they will be as glad as he to see the Third and Fifth Standards adopted.

THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY
I may have been misunderstood by the noble Lord. Ho seems to think I lay too much stress upon the uniformity which this Bill would maintain between children employed in factories and elsewhere. I think that is au advantage; but I wish to guard myself against being supposed to bold as a principle, any more than the noble Lord, that the ago at which children can be employed in healthy occupations can be determined by uniform rule. It is quite obvious that the question of the education and employ- 1192 ment of children in different trades, in reference to which considerations of health arise, must he based upon different principles. I merely wish to guard myself by making that observation, and I am glad that noble Lords opposite approve of the Bill.