ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

together by themselves the outlying parishes. | fidence; and, judging from the past, I think we may say those bodies have risen to the duties which they have to perform. I myself have known case after case in which a Town Council, or even a rural vestry, has been a scene of squabbles until it had important duties intrusted to it, and then has risen to the level of those duties, even members who had not distinguished themselves before having shown qualities of the existence of which their neighbours were not previously aware, whilst those whose case was the reverse have been replaced by others. We might certainly add ex officio members to the school boards; but we have come to the conclusion that no real strength would be given to a board by putting ex officio members on it. We believe that the very men fit to be ex officio members would come in with greater influence, and almost with equal certainty, if subjected to popular election.

It is true, in the Bill which my hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bruce) and I myself introduced at the instance of the Manchester Committee, a different division was adopted —namely, the union; but I find, in framing the Bill, the difficulties to be less in taking the parish, and there is another ground which, though not enough by itself, may yet be added to the other considerations in its favour-namely, that we do not want in this matter more than we can help to keep up pauper associations, but prefer to go back to the traditions of the old parochial schools. I cannot leave this point without just alluding to the reason why we have this difficulty at all, which is almost a disgrace to this country. We are behind almost every other civilised country, whether in America or on the Continent of Europe, in respect to rural municipal organisation; and this drawback meets us not only in connection with education, but when many other social questions affecting the people come before us. The same difficulty applies to London. With respect to London, as I have already said, we have taken the best divisions we could find-the school districts as already established, which, I believe are working well, and cover nearly the whole metropolis. Where these districts do not exist we take the boundaries of the vestries. In the case of the school districts of the metropolis we need have no provisions for election, because we have already school boards elected by the different Boards of Guardians within these school districts.

is

But the next question that arises is How are we to elect our school boards in the provinces, and whom are they to elect? Now, first, who is to elect? Well, the electoral body we have chosen for the towns is the Town Council. I do not think there can be much dispute upon that point. In the country, we have taken the best body we can find the Select Vestry, where there one, and a Vestry where there is no Select Vestry. Whom are they to elect? Here we have thought the most simple provision after all the best. We allow them to elect whom they think fit. We limit the number; it must not be less than three nor more than twelve. I know that this is a point upon which there will be considerable difference of opinion. I believe there are some hon. gentlemen who view with jealousy the action of municipal bodies; but, if you make use of them at all, the wisest course is to treat them with fairness and con

Another plan that has been much advocated is that the Government should exercise a control over these boards by placing on them their nominees. We have not taken that course. Not that we think there may not be school boards-although I trust they will be very few-which may obstruct the action of this Bill, but that, when the Government puts its nominees on a board it becomes, to some extent at least, responsible for the failures of that board. The Government nominees may be in the minority; nevertheless there they are upon the board, and the Government will scarcely be able to deal with the board as well as if it did not contain its nominees. The powers we take may seem strong, but we believe they are absolutely necessary powers. Those who elect the school board may elect whoever they please, whether they be or be not on the list of managers of existing schools. But, on the other hand, having left them to elect their own board, and the board once elected, we say to them-" The work must be done, and if not done by you, then we, the Government, take powers to step in and declare the school board in default, to see that the children are not left untaught, to do the work that the board ought to have done, and to hand it back again to the elected members of the district. when they are willing to take it up."

Now I come to a very interesting part of the matter. The school boards are to provide the education. Who are to pay for it? In the first place, shall we give up the school fees? I know that some earnest friends of education would do that. I at

taxes, and 'one-third out of local funds. Where the local funds are not raised by voluntary subscription the rates will come into action. I know when I talk of rates that I am touching very delicate ground, and I do not for a moment dispute that the whole system and principle of rating is one of the questions which urgently demand the consideration of this House. I trust, however, that no reasonable member present would wish to keep the children throughout England untaught until that question is solved. After all it is but a very small matter as regards the rate. An education rate would save the prison_rate and the pauper rate. It would not be a special rate, but a charge on the poor rate. But should it exceed threepence in the pound-and I do not believe it will amount to anything like that sum in the vast majority of cases-then there is a clause in the Bill which stipulates that there shall be a very considerable extra grant out of the Parliamentary votes. I may add that there is power given to the school boards to borrow money for building purposes on the security of the rates, to be repaid in thirty years.

once say that the Government are not pre- | indeed we keep to the present proportions pared to do it. If we did so the sacrifice-namely, of about one-third raised from would be enormous. The parents paid in the parents, one-third out of the public school fees last year about £420,000. If this scheme works, as I have said we hope it will work, it will very soon cover the country, and that £420,000 per annum would have to be doubled, or even trebled. Nor would it stop there. This would apply to the elementary education chiefly of the working classes. The middle classes would step in the best portion of the working classes would step in-and say, "There must be free education also for us, and that free education must not be confined to elementary schools." The illustration and example, so often quoted, of America would be quoted again, and we should be told that in the New England States education is free not only in the elementary schools, but free also up to the very highest education of the State. The cost would be such as really might well alarm my right hon. friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope the country would be ready to incur that cost if necessary; but I think it would be not only unnecessary, but mischievous. Why should we relieve the parent from all payments for the education of his child? We come in and help the parents in all possible ways; but, generally speaking, the enormous majority of them are able, and will continue to be able, to pay these fees. Nevertheless, we do take two powers. We give the school board power to establish special free schools under special circumstances, which chiefly apply to large towns, where, from the exceeding poverty of the district, or for other very special reasons, they prove to the satisfaction of the Government that such a school is needed, and ought to be established. We require the approval of the Government to be obtained, upon the ground that it would not be fair to the existing schools to allow a free school to be set up unless on very special grounds. On the other hand, it would not be fair to impose on the Town Council of large places like Liverpool or Manchester the duty of meeting the fearful educational destitution that exists by electing a school board, and not to give them power, if they think it necessary, to establish special schools for special cases. We also empower the school board to give free tickets to parents who they think really cannot afford to pay for the education of their children; and we take care that those free tickets shall have no stigma of pauperism attached to them. We do not give up the school fees, and

I come next to the other powers we give to the school boards. And, first, we give them the power of either providing schools themselves, or of assisting the present schools. Those gentlemen who have followed this question will, I dare say, recollect that, in the Bill brought in by my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department and myself, this principle of assistance to the present schools occupied a much more prominent position than I am now assigning it. In fact, the principle of that bill was a rate for assistance to the present schools; and the districts could not have the rate without being, as it were, compelled to assist the present schools on certain fair conditions. That bill was the result of great thought, not so much on my right hon. friend's part and on mine, although we bestowed considerable time and pains upon it, as on the part of the Manchester Committee, who devoted the utmost consideration to it. But I confess that, on further examination of the question, we do not think it right-as the House will perceive, from the provisions I have already explained-to insist on the school board assisting the present schools. We give them, however, power to do so if they

school.

please. They have a certain educational | trinal or dogmatic teaching to any great destitution to supply. They may do it either extent. It may be said "Why do you by setting up their own public elementary not then prescribe that there shall be no schools, or by assisting the present public doctrinal teaching-why not, in the first elementary schools, those schools-I need not place, prescribe that there shall be no reliremind the House-being efficient up to a gious teaching at all?" Why do we not certain standard of secular efficiency, and prescribe that there shall be no religious having the Conscience Clause as I have teaching? Why, if we did so, out of the described. They may either provide schools religious difficulty we should come to an themselves, or assist the present schools, or irreligious difficulty. We want, while conthey may do both. But there is this con- sidering the rights and feelings of the dition, that if they do go on the principle minority, to do that which the majority of of assisting, they must assist all schools on the parents in this country really wish; and equal terms. They may not pick out one we have no doubt whatever that an enorparticular denomination and say "We mous majority of the parents of this country shall assist you, but not the others." If prefer that there should be a Christian trainthey go on the principle of assistance, ing for their children-that they should be they must assist every public elementary taught to read the Bible. If we are to prevent religious teaching altogether, we must say that the Bible shall not be used in schools at all. But would it not be a monstrous thing that the book which, after all, is the foundation of the religion we profess, should be the only book that was not allowed to be used in our schools? But then it may be said that we ought to have no dogmatic teaching. But how are we to prevent it? Are we to step in and say the Bible may be read, but may not be explained? Are we to pick out Bible lessons with the greatest care in order that nothing of a doctrinal character might be taught to the children ? I do not mean to say it would not be better to attempt to do this rather than fail in the effort of meeting this matter. If the general opinion of the country was that we should try that labour, I would endeavour to encounter it; but I say that it is one of detailed supervision which does not belong to the central government, and in which the great probability is the central government would fail.

I now come to the point, what position we place the school boards in, as regards the schools which they themselves provide? The position we propose to put them in is this-we make them managers, and leave them in the same position as that of managers of voluntary schools. And here arises a very important question. I might have avoided it, but I should not be dealing fairly with the House if I did. The religious question is involved in this matter of the position of the school managers. Ought we to restrict the school boards, in regard to religion, more than we do the managers of voluntary schools? We have come to the conclusion that we ought not. We restrict them, of course, to the extent of a most stringent Conscience Clause. But it may be | said "You ought to go further." I will take the different alternatives that have been suggested; but, before doing so, I must say that I can but think we are making difficulties that do not really exist. I do not want it to be supposed that I imagine there are no difficulties. There are difficulties to honest men; but these are difficulties of theory and of conscience to men as between one another, rather than difficulties in the actual education of the children.

Now, just look at the ages of the children with whom we have to deal. The great majority of them are probably under ten years of age; some are over that age and under twelve, and I fear but comparatively few are over twelve and under fourteen. We want a good secular teaching for these children, a good Christian training, and good schoolmasters. We want these schoolmasters certainly not to feel themselves fettered in any way; but children of these ages can hardly be supposed to require doc

Again, it would not be for us to prescribe that the Bible must be taught, because there may be parents in some districts who, without any dislike to religion at all, might prefer a purely secular school with the religious teaching given elsewhere, and those parents ought to be allowed to do as they please. But we have met the difficulty in this way. We take note of one fact and we rely upon one principle. The fact is this-that, as the result of experience, this question is found to be a theoretical rather than a practical one. It has been found in the case of the voluntary managers that, however much they may talk about this difficulty in theory, in practice this difficulty has not proved to be so very serious. It has been found that clergymen who have

[ocr errors]

What we say is-we impose upon the school board practical work. We say "It is your duty to be the practical managers, and to see that this education is given; and we believe that immediately as regards the enormous majority of the children the theoretical religious difficulty will disappear. Then, again, the principle to which I have referred is this-the principle of popular election. The persons who are to constitute the school board are the members of the Town Council or the members of the Vestry, and these bodies are elected by the people. We say the members of this board are persons in whom the parents trust, because they are elected by the parents, and we do not doubt that the parents will take care to elect men that will not raise religious difficulties in the way of education.

resisted the Conscience Clause, as a pro- | a mockery to say that it is new with us, or vision of an Act of Parliament, have carried to use against it the argument that it is out such a clause in their own schools. "un-English." When we say that, however necessary the labour of children may be to their parents, however impossible it may be for them to keep out of the workhouse without it, we shall not allow children to labour unless they go to school-that is compulsion. There are five different ways in which compulsion may be attempted. There is indirect compulsion by the Act which bears the Speaker's name. That Act might be extended, so that instead of a Board of Guardians having the power of sending children receiving relief to school, their being sent to school might be made a condition of relief. Then there might be an extension of the short-time system, which might be extended to agriculture, and made more efficient with respect to other trades. There is another plan which is not so much compulsion as temptation or inducements; it is that of giving educated children a certificate, by means of which they may be able to get work easier than those who have not one. Then there are two forms of direct compulsion. There is direct compulsion upon certain classes, as in the industrial Schools Act, and direct compulsion upon all children under a certain age. These systems might all go on together. In some countries some at least of them do go on together. I believe that Short Time Acts and direct compulsion both exist in many of the German States; and if this Bill should pass I think one of the results would be that, without direct reference to the Speaker's Act, its operation would be made more general. The school boards might, and probably often would, make arrangements with the guardians by means of which certain children might be sent to school. The details of this matter are, however, rather for the Poor Law Board; and in considering it the House will do well to consider also the recommendation of the Poor Relief Committee of 1864, which states that, after all, the business of the Poor Law Board and of the guardians is to relieve destitution, and not to be the educators of the people.

I now come to another part of the subject, to that part to which I referred at the beginning of my remarks when I said that the country would expect that we should secure, if possible, the attendance of the children. This attendance question is a difficult question, but we must face it. To leave it alone is to leave the children untaught, and to force the taxpayers and ratepayers to pay for useless schools. I shall at once state what I expect may surprise the House. It is that, after much thought upon the matter, the Government has permitted me to put before the House the principle of direct compulsion. This may seem to be a startling principle; but, although I feel that I have already occupied the House much longer than I should have wished to do, it is a principle of the Bill which I feel I cannot quickly pass over. It has only been within the last few months that thought on the matter has brought me to the conclusion that the principle of direct compulsion ought to be adopted. I would ask the House to follow me while I explain how I have come to this conclusion, and how I believe many of those engaged in the work of education throughout the country have come to it; for no one can doubt that the principle of direct compulsion has latterly made extraordinary way; and that now both sets of educationists are in its favour, for there are as many champions of the old system as advocates of change that are favourable to it. I would first remind the House that we have already admitted the principle of compulsion: we have admitted it in the Short Time Acts.

It is

It

Next, as to the short-time system. may be revised. The Workshops Act and the Bleachfields Act may be made more stringent-the short-time system may be extended to agriculture-and we may, and should, take care that education be really given in the schools which short-time children attend-that these schools should be real schools and not sham schools. But

we have decided not to include these measures in this Bill, as they fall rather within the province of the Home Office. I can only hope and trust that my right hon. friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department will find time, if not this session, at any rate next session, before the school boards are at work-for they cannot come into work this session-to revise the Short Time Acts so as to enable them to assist the operation of this Act. But it may be said-Why not rely on this indirect compulsion? The fact is, we cannot rely on it entirely. My experience of it, like that of any other employer of labour, whose works are in a village separated from other schools, and where the arrangements for work and school can be made to fit one another, is that the short-time system acts to great advantage. But even in such a case, it does not, in all instances, effect all that is desirable, for we find that parents neglect the education of their children before sending them to school. But we also find that there is an idea springing up amongst both working men and employers, that if you apply the short-time system alone it is scarcely fair. When you rely solely upon that you may act hardly with regard to well-intentioned parents who wish their children to earn an honest living, and leave uninterfered with the idle children and the careless parents. Again, unless you apply it to every kind of employment the tendency is to cause the child to be shifted from one form of employment to another; while it would require a most skilfully organised army of inspectors to apply it to every kind of employment. By this indirect compulsion will be made easier if we are not afraid to declare the principle upon which it is really based, and to embody this principle in an Act of Parliament-namely, that it is the duty of the parent to send his child to school. There is a point upon which, I confess, I have changed my opinion. I believe that last year I stated in this House that in America, although they had a compulsory provision, it was so rarely put in force as to be of no effect. Further study of the matter has convinced me that, while it is as seldom put in force in America as in the parts of Germany where a similar provision exists, yet it is acknowledged to have had a great effect, since it embodies a moral force which has made education more universal. And there is the important fact to be remembered-that in no country has education been really a success in which this principle has not at one time been ac

knowledged, and that remark applies to Scotland as well as to the New England States, and to Germany. So much for the principle. But hon. members will ask-"Why do you put that provision in the present Act?" Of course, it will be impossible to apply the principle until we get the school boards at work and the schools in existence. We cannot apply it to schools which do not exist, or which we do not acknowledge to be, and which have not proved themselves to be, efficient schools. The reason for the application of the principle now is this-We must deprive the school boards of any excuse for not making full provision, and they would have that excuse if we did not give them power to see that the schools which they provided were attended. They would say "What is the good of putting us to the expense of providing schools when you give us no power to fill them?" We must also have some consideration for those school boards in large towns who have hard duties to perform. Take the town of Liverpool, to which I have already alluded. We must not impose these duties upon Liverpool, and leave the boards with their hands tied. They will have to raise a large sum of money, and at great expenditure of energy and trouble will have to undertake to supply these schools, and therefore they may well say "You ought to trust us with the power of seeing that these schools are filled." What we do in the Act is no more than this. We give power to the school boards to frame bye-laws for compulsory attendance of all children within their district from five to twelve. They must see that no parent is under a penalty-which is restricted to 5s.—for not sending his child to school if he can show reasonable excuse; reasonable excuse being either education elsewhere, or sickness, or some unavoidable cause, or there not being a public elementary school within a mile. These bye-laws are not to come into operation unless they are approved by the Government, and unless they have been laid on the table of this and the other House of Parliament forty days, and have not been dissented from. Thus, with these checks, supplied by the necessary sanction of the Government, of this House, and of the public opinion of the district, every precaution is taken in the application of the principle.

There is one other power with regard to attendance. We put the school board wherever it is elected, in the place of the present body for managing the Industrial Schools. In boroughs this body is the Town

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »