§ *LORD SANDFORDcalled attention to a recent Circular (No. 333) of the Education Department; and asked the Lord President under what statutory authority the Department claims the right to say that "they will no longer 1860 take a school into consideration among those giving efficient elementary education" if the managers at any time "refuse to permit inspection" to which the school is not subject by law? He said, the Circular referred to the fact that, at the time of the inquiry into school provision in 1870, certain schools not under Government inspection were passed as giving efficient elementary education. Some of those schools might not be now efficient, and the Inspectors were asked to report such cases to the Department; and if the Report was unsatisfactory the Department would no longer accept the schools as among those giving sufficient elementary education to the district, and would take steps to supply the deficiency existing. On the first inquiry into the subject in 1871, all schools were invited to send Returns if they wished to be recognised, and those which did so were inspected. A list was made out of schools either receiving the annual grant, or which held aloof from the system from disinclination to take public money, or from dislike to the Conscience Clause, which they objected to as interfering with the ordinary religious instruction of the school. The latter were religions schools, the managers of which wished religion to permeate the whole daily education. No inspection was enforced in those schools beyond that ad hoc, and the fact that they were recognised as an efficient part of the school provision of the country did not give the Government the right to inspect them permanently. That was not considered very satisfactory, because there was no guarantee of efficiency; and when the Acts were amended it was proposed to introduce a clause to the effect that so long as a school was on the list of the school supply of the country as an efficient school it should, from time to time, be liable to inspection. He well remembered Mr. Forster's answer—it was very characteristic. He said—"No; I am not going to let you fellows bully the School Managers, simply because they do not want to have anything to say to you. They will soon come in, because the cost of education must rise, and they will want funds." Mr. Forster, at the same time, pointed out that the Act of 1870 allowed the Department from time to time, not oftener than once a year, to hold a survey of the school supply, either 1861 of the country in general, or of any particular district. He also pointed out that under the bye-laws, if a question were raised, it could be tried at any time. Under this Circular there was no certainty, as under an inquiry, that the public would be made acquainted with the matter. Everything necessary to start an inspection might be done in camerâ. If, on the Inspector desiring to inspect a school, the Managers declined, saying they were not liable to inspection, the Circular allowed the Inspector at once to declare the school inefficient, and refused to recognise it as part of the school supply of the district, and then the ultimate powers under the Act would be enforced. Mr. Forster thought that everything connected with the school supply of the district, however small, ought to be done openly, and with due notice to the parish. On what authority had this Circular been issued? There were very few schools now which had not come in under Government inspection, and had declined to be recognised. Mr. Forster's prophecy that the want of funds would drive them into the regulations of the Department had been realised. No fewer than 2,000 parishes in England had populations not exceeding 100, and there were 3,000 parishes with populations not exceeding 150. Those places could not possibly, from their size, be called upon to maintain schools of their own. This question about the distance of the schools from the population they supplied was carefully gone into at the time of the survey, and many schools were enlarged in order to enable them to accommodate children from neighbouring parishes upon which a School Board would otherwise have been thrust at great expense. The Managers of these schools, which had been apparently settled with, desired to know, therefore, why at this moment arrangements which had worked well for 20 years past should be interfered with? It was for the Inspector to say what was a reasonable distance for the children to go; and if the Department did not settle it, the bye-laws settled it for them. There was not a single district in England where the reasonable distance for attending schools had not been fixed; and now the Inspectors were instructed, if they did not think the distance reasonable, to open up the 1862 whole question by reporting to the Department. Not a word of guidance was given in the Circular, as was generally done, as to what was reasonable, and different Inspectors might form different opinions; and the last part of the Circular especially would affect small schools in the rural districts. He desired to know on what authority the Department had acted in issuing the Circular?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYMy Lords, with regard to the last question which the noble Lord asked about the reasonable distance, I do not know why he should be so extremely jealous of the Department requiring information upon that subject. The arrangements are not in every possible case what they ought to be. You cannot stereotype these things. Conditions of population change; the means of communication alter, and it is desirable that you should, from time to time, have power to see how your system works, and whether there are any defects in it. I cannot see why the noble Lord thinks it the duty of the Department to dwell in a dark cave, and to refrain from remedying anything which might require to be altered in any particular school. It seems to me that the proper mode of conducting a great system is from time to time to obtain the necessary information to enable you to know what ought to be done. Of course, the Department may act without discretion; but, if so, that cannot be helped, because Parliament has entrusted to the Department the administration of a great system, and it seems to me that its first duty is to obtain all the information necessary to enable it to administer the system discreetly and wisely. With regard to the other point, I think I shall be able to entirely satisfy the noble Lord. I am sure ho would wish that these schools which stand outside the system should be tolerably efficient. Of course, it would be exceedingly unjust, when education is made compulsory, that there should be schools which do not supply the necessary education. I do not think anything could be more reasonable than that there should be some inquiry into the condition of these schools, more particularly when you remember that no less than 23 years have elapsed since they were recognised as efficient. Can anybody suppose that during the whole 1863 of that time no changes have taken place, and that those schools may not require to be looked into? The Circular may look very formidable, but I do not think there is anything very alarming in it. In the first instance, it requests that the Inspector shall propose to the Managers an inspection of the schools. If the Managers are willing, of course the matters go on without further difficulty; but the Department think that it is only right to let the School Managers know what will be the result if they receive this overture unfavourably and refuse to allow the inspection. The noble Lord asks upon what authority that is done. The Act of 1870 provided that a Return should be made, in the first instance, to enable the Department to determine where throughout the country the schools were efficient and where they were not. But the Act did not confine itself to a single Return. It said the Department might require Returns from those schools at any time, provided only one Return was required for each year.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYDoes the Act say they shall not only give a Return, but allow the Inspector to inspect?
THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYYes, that is in the Act. The 1st clause says the Return is to be made; and the next that the Inspector may inspect the school after the Return is made. I would point out to the noble Marquess that if access is refused to our Inspector, technically a Return might be called for; but that merely means that we should have to use be much red tape and foolscap in sending to the Managers. We have a right to require the Return, and, having done that, we have a right to inspect everything which follows. But we do not wish to put the schools to the unnecessary trouble of making these Returns, and, therefore, we ask them to allow the Inspectors to visit the schools. If they do not do that, the consequence is pointed out to them. There is no intention to act harshly to the schools. All we desire is simply to know what their condition is; and I think, when we reflect that for 22 years and more there has been no inspection of them, anybody will say that it is the plain duty of the Department to ascertain what their present condition is. My own impression is 1864 that it would be better they should be inspected yearly, and it seems to me the Act contemplated there should be constant Returns made, because it provided that not more than one Return should be made in a year. They are schools which, for certain purposes, are recognised as part of our elementary educational system, and it is quite proper that they should be inspected by the Department and reported upon. I can only say there is not the slightest desire to destroy those schools, or to act harshly towards them.