ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

every one will agree with me when I say that my only regret with respect to my right hon. friend's speech is that he did not make it as the responsible Minister of Public Instruction. [Ministerial cheers.] I am glad to hear the cheers with which my remarks are received on the other side of the House, and I may, perhaps, be allowed to add that at the recent conference, impartially and fairly conducted, which met at the Society of Arts to consider the subject of education one of the resolutions moved referred to the necessity of having a responsible and properly-constituted Education Department, and all parties present at the conference cordially agreed in that opinion. With respect to the Bill before us, I think it would be premature to enter to-night into any elaborate criticism of it. I would only say that, as a whole, I am thankful for the measure. It is evidently intended to meet the requirements and wishes of the country, and I heartily congratulate my right hon. friend on having been the organ, in whatever capacity, of introducing this Bill to the notice of the House of Commons. The right hon. gentleman began his speech by referring to what nobody will dispute-namely, the necessity of education; and he remarked with great truth that the public would have been disappointed if the present Government, with the power and the strength which they possess in this House, had not introduced it. I have always said that this question would never be settled but by a strong Government, and now that there is a strong Government, we should have had a right to complain if they had neglected to undertake the settlement of this great question. My right hon. friend then used an expression which leads me to make a remark on a point which I hope the House and the country will bear in mind. My right hon. friend spoke of imperfect education. Now, I believe that expression exactly describes the great requirement of the country. It is not so much that we want new schools. We do, indeed, urgently want new schools in some places, but chiefly in crowded districts, and compared with the number of existing schools the number of new ones required is unimportant. The two chief defects of the present system are the imperfect education our schools give, and the short period of time for which children are allowed to be educated and trained, even in the best schools of the kingdom. I, therefore, do hope that this country will bear in mind that one of

the greatest evils that we have to meet is the defects of our system of education. I will now touch for a moment on a part of my right hon. friend's speech which I confess I heard with doubt, though I beg to be understood as not expressing an adverse opinion, because it is desirable that we should impartially and maturely consider the provisions of the Bill. I was, however, much surprised when the right hon. gentleman stated the decision at which he said, after much deliberation, he had arrived, that the best area for the conduct of this new system will be the parish. I will not give a positive opinion until I have seen the Bill and ascertained how the Government propose to carry it out; but it seems to me that there is some inconsistency in giving the Town Council the power of electing the Board of Education in the borough and giving it the parish in the rural district. In a large borough there will be a very large number of parishes, and there would be a very popularly elected Education Board; but in the case of a parish in rural districts there are many cases in which, in order to obtain a well-conducted school, we have been obliged to join three or four parishes together. I cannot understand, however, what machinery my right hon. friend proposes for combining parishes together. There certainly ought to be administrative power somewhere to combine small parishes, where the geographical arrangement allows of it, in order that one school may be established for those parishes. I understood my right hon. friend to say that, in arranging the rural districts, his object was that no child should have to go more than one mile to school.

MR. W. E. FORSTER: What I said was that if a child lived more than a mile from the school the fact would be deemed a reasonable excuse against compulsion being resorted to.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I beg the right hon. gentleman's pardon. I see I did not exactly follow him in his remarks. 1 think, however, that a mile is too small a limit. I know a case where four parishes are thrown together to maintain a school, and in several instances the children in the more remote parts of the district have to go upwards of two miles to school, and I never heard of the slightest complaint on the subject at any season of the year. This is a point which I trust my right hon. friend will reconsider. We should proceed according to common sense, and it is certainly impossible to justify the proceeding,

full and careful consideration. I believe that a great deal will depend upon the way in which the different portions of the Bill, especially those relating to compulsion, are proposed to be carried out. A right hon. friend, who was sitting beside me at the time, suggested to my right hon. friend, that he had not stated-supposing the compulsion to be direct for how long a period of the year the children were to be obliged to attend school. I am speaking only from my first impression; but I do not think that the reply of my right hon. friend was quite satisfactory. If I rightly followed his answer, he said that this most important question of the extent of the compulsion, the period during which the children are to be compulsorily withdrawn from work and sent to school, was to be decided by the bye-laws of each board. My first impression was that it is not a wise decision. I entreat my right hon. friend to bear in mind that the introduction of direct compulsion is a great and serious change in the law and practice of this country. You cannot withdraw children from labour, whether for a long or short time, without

which we have seen in recent years, of sending out inspectors of different denominations, one to visit one class of schools and another to visit another. Another point for which I have long contended, though in a miserable minority, I am very glad to find is also included in the scope of the Bill, and that is that whenever public money is granted then a Conscience Clause should be in existence. I trust that whatever may be the area of the educational districts, whether in large towns or in small parishes, and whatever may be the constitution of the local boards, the right hon. gentleman will preserve a distinct, clear, and overruling power in the hands of the Educational Department, following in that respect the analogy to the Poor Law system in which the central authority has power to see that the local boards do not neglect their duty. Upon the subject of school fees I go entirely with the right hon. gentleman. I ought, perhaps, to confess frankly that in a Bill which I introduced in 1855, in many respects not dissimilar from that which has been proposed to-night, different proposals as to these fees were made. But, on more prolonged re-involving loss to that extent upon the parent. flection, and looking upon it partly as a question of policy, it would, I think, be folly to throw away the half million of money which the pence of the school children produce, while, as a question of morality, it is unquestionably desirable that the parents should be first to make a contribution towards the education of their children. The part of the Bill which is among the most important is that relating to compulsion. I confess that I was startled when my right hon. friend announced that he had determined to resort to direct compulsion; and, without at all condemning the decision at which he has arrived, I wish to reserve my opinion upon that point. I have, at the same time, quite made up my mind, after much reflection, that compulsion must be resorted to. I have arrived at that conclusion with reluctance; but I do not believe that without compulsion we can have anything like a satisfactory national system that will bring, as it ought to do, education to the door of every citizen of this country, however humble. Whether that compulsion should be direct or indirect is, however, a grave and serious question. But no one could have listened to the frank, honest, and full statement of my right hon. friend to-night without feeling that he had arrived at the decision which he announced only after

I think it would be prudent on the part of the right hon. gentleman to qualify this enactment of compulsory education, which is wholly new to this country, by letting it be distinctly understood what it is really to amount to. If the extent to which children are to be withdrawn from labour and sent to school is to be a matter left for settlement by law in every parish and in every Town Council, the whole thing will be left in a state of great uncertainty, and you will necessarily create a great deal of alarm. For the sake of your own Bill, I advise you not to leave in doubt your proposals and intentions on the subject of compulsion; and that parents and children should know what residuum of time, after their period of education is completed, is to be left to them for their usual occupations. Another question is this-that I understand my right hon. friend proposes to establish education boards in every district.

MR. W. E. FORSTER: Allow me to explain. For the purposes of the Bill, all England will be divided into school districts; but school boards will not be appointed unless the educational need of the district is proved.

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I am extremely glad to hear the explanation of my right hon. friend, which removes all my apprehensions. I reserve the discussion

of any other points until the Bill is before us. I repeat the extreme satisfaction with which I have heard the statement of my right hon. friend, and my earnest hope is that by the wisdom of Parliament the measure may be carried to a satisfactory conclusion, and will give us that which my right hon. friend, in earnest, eloquent, and impressive language, enforced upon us at the close of his speech-namely, that real system of national education which is so essential to the prosperity and domestic happiness of the country.

MR. HIBBERT said, he thought there was great advantage in using the parish as the unit and nucleus of the system. There were numbers of parishes throughout the country in which good school accommodation was provided, and everything was carried on in the most satisfactory manner. If the area were enlarged in the manner in which the right hon. baronet proposed, other parishes, in which, possibly, schools had not been provided would be added on to the parish already well supplied, and the good parish would be called upon to contribute to the deficiencies of the bad. He was much pleased to hear that his right hon. friend and the Government had come to the conclusion that the system of compulsory attendance must be brought into operation; but he regretted that the system, apparently, was not to be one of general application. The question of whether there was to be compulsory attendance or not, and the extent to which this attendance was to be carried, was apparently left to the district boards. But suppose one district board passed a byelaw in favour of compulsory attendance, while the parish just outside refused to pass such a bye-law. What would be the feelings of labouring men within the district where compulsion was enforced, when the children of others labouring at a little distance were not brought under any similar regulations? He hoped when his right hon. friend came to mature his scheme he would legislate not only with respect to compulsory attendance for the whole country, but also lay down in definite language the number of attendances each child must have in the year, for it would be most unfortunate if boards in one district fixed one number of attendances as necessary and other boards another number. He did not quite understand the explanation which the right hon. gentleman gave as to whether the system of compulsion would be brought into operation in

those parishes where there was sufficient and satisfactory school accommodation. As far as he understood, it was only to be brought into operation where school boards were appointed. If such were the case he thought that the Government would do better to swallow the whole pill, for if compulsory education were good for one part of the conntry it would be good for another. From his experience of the working classes, he must say he had found them, almost to a man, in favour of the system of compulsory attendance. There was only a very small proportion of the labouring class on whom it would ever be necessary to enforce it. With respect to the attendance of a child at a distant school whether the distance should be one mile and a half or two miles, would, probably be settled in Committee; but the distance of one mile was certainly too small, for many children paying their own fees attended school voluntarily at much greater distances. He should like to see the school boards composed of men not elected for the purpose of representing the Church or the Dissenters, but paying attention to the education of the children of the district rather than for the benefit of their particular denomination. This would lead to a much more satisfactory working of these district boards, as otherwise we should have sectarian strife as in the days of church rates. He should also be glad if schools in a small rural district, with the number of scholars-say under 100-which could not be carried on by the amount of aid received from Government without very large contributions from those residing in the locality, could get grants at a higher rate than schools in towns with 400 or 500 scholars. With these views he certainly gave his congratulations most heartily to the right hon. gentleman, and wished him every success in passing the Bill through the House.

MR. WALTER said, that having had the pleasure on one or two occasions of working with his right hon. friend the VicePresident on educational questions, he felt it his duty not to lose this opportunity of tendering to him his hearty congratulations on the able and effective manner in which he had introduced this great question. And he particularly congratulated his right hon. friend upon the occasion he had chosen for the introduction of the subject, because for some months past the country had been rather distracted, he must say, by the existence of two Leagues, holding some

what opposite opinions on the subject, and though, as Shakspeare told us

"Tis dangerous

To come between the fell incensed points
Of mighty opposites;"

yet his right hon. friend had not shrunk from the danger, but encountered it manfully; and though he disclaimed the idea of his measure being a compromise between the two contending parties, yet, he must say, his right hon. friend had managed with great skill to bestow on each of them such a modicum of their favourite theories as must tend, he thought, to render his Bill extremely acceptable to both. He had secured to the National Union the advantage of non-interference with the religious character of their schools, and, on the other hand, he had administered a slight dose, but still a dose, of compulsory education to the friends of the League. There were one or two points to which he wished to advert, which, in common with his right hon. friend the member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) and other hon. members, struck him as requiring the attention of the right hon. gentleman. He thought, in the first place, it would be well for him to bear in mind the remarks offered to him by his right hon. friend the member for Droitwich with regard to the improved organisation of the Education Board itself. Like many other members, he had sometimes had the honour of being in communication with "My Lords." Last week he received a letter from "My Lords" and replied to it, and he was quite sure that the exalted persons in question had not the slightest idea of the subject on which they corresponded. He even believed that important body was not free from blame in regard to the difficulties and obstructions hitherto interposed in the way of education. He could mention a remarkable case which had occurred to himself. About three years ago he found a school necessary for a district with which he was connected and he applied to the board for a building grant. The board sent down one of their inspectors who reported that no school was necessary, and the application was refused. He, however, thought that he knew the circumstances of the locality to which he referred rather better, and consequently he built the school himself; but, having done so, he was determined that the board should contribute something in the way of annual assistance to the school. The result was

that the school, which had been declared unnecessary, and to the building of which

the board refused to contribute 6d., contained 200 scholars, and was at this moment in receipt of an annual grant of £70. There was great force in what his right hon. friend the member for Droitwich said with regard to the parochial question. No doubt our parishes were time-honoured, most interesting, and important divisions, but they were about the most anomalous and irrational divisions in the country; and he agreed with his right hon. friend that some machinery ought to be provided in this Bill for the amalgamation of parishes where they were too small to maintain a separate school. It should also be observed that the civil and ecclesiastical boundaries of parishes were not always conterminous, and unless care was taken some difficulty would arise in working that part of the scheme. Very often an ecclesiastical district was formed by portions being taken out of several parishes, and these ecclesiastical districts generally had schools attached to them; it would be necessary, therefore, in dealing with that question, to bear in mind this distinction, otherwise injustice might be done to ecclesiastical districts which were composed of separate parishes. He also thought some objection might be taken to the election of educational boards by vestries. He was by no means sure that the Vestry in a country parish was a good body to elect such boards; he would rather venture to suggest, although he did so without having much considered the question, that jurymen would be a more fit body; certainly they would form a more popular body than vestrymen to elect an educational board. With regard to the compulsory part of the scheme, he must say it struck him his right hon. friend had shown very great ingenuity in the manner of introducing it; for, although the principle of compulsion was introduced in the Bill, it was guarded in such a manner as to be practically optional, and he hoped that occasion would not arise for its being frequently enforced. He was one of those who were opposed on principle to direct compulsion. He thought the loss of selfrespect involved in the notion that parents were so insensible to their duties to their children as to require the aid of the Legislature to compel them to discharge those duties would be greater than any gain to be derived by the limited number of persons to whom such compulsion would be applied. He did not, however, object to such a power being kept in reserve, nor did he object to any amount of indirect compulsion,

such as an enactment that no child should be employed in labour until he had passed an examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic. It was, however, a very serious matter to apply the system of direct compulsion to the whole of the population, and the attempt to do so would raise a more difficult question than those gentlemen who were in favour of compulsory education appeared to have any notion of. Having made these few remarks he would conclude by expressing his satisfaction at the prospect of seeing this question at length

settled once for all.

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he did not rise to check the discussion, which was very interesting, and helpful to him and to the Government. But he was afraid it was more helpful to him than to the House, because it was throughout founded on his exposition of the Bill, and though he had endeavoured to make that exposition as full as possible, he could not be sure that when hon. members came to have the Bill itself in their hands, they would not see cause to modify some of their conclusions. He was very much obliged for the friendly way in which his measure had been received; but that was no more than he expected, for he was sure that both sides of the House were equally determined that a good measure of education should now be passed. There were one or two observations that had been made in the course of the discussion to which he would refer. His right hon. friend (Sir John Pakington) had expressed his doubts as to the propriety of taking the parish as a unit. He would only say that he would be obliged if his right hon. friend could point out a more convenient unit. But in the Bill there were many clauses giving power to combine parishes. There were clauses for what were called "united parishes" and "contributory parishes."

SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Where is the power to unite them lodged?

MR. W. E. FORSTER: It rests with the Education Department of the Government. On the educational need of any district being discovered, it will rest with the Government to form such school district as is suitable for the locality. Then the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse) suggested that it would be better that the election of the school boards should be vested in the Boards of Guardians rather than in the Town Councils. But there was this objection to the Boards of Guardians, that they were not chosen from

a perfectly equal body of electors. They were about to give great power to the school boards. It was the only principle in the Scotch Bill of last year that was never objected to in that House-that the school board should be left to meet the religious difficulty in the best way it could; and they still thought it right so to leave it, guarding of course the rights of minorities. But then that must be left in the hands of a board which was elected by the parents themselves, voting on a footing of perfect equality, where the rich and the poor met together. Then the hon. member for Stoke (Mr. Melly) asked how it was proposed to ascertain the amount of educational destitution in large towns. There were clauses in the Bill which provided for that. Officers were appointed whose business it would be to furnish the information, and though it might perhaps involve greater labour, it need not take a longer time than in the rural districts. The hon. member also asked if larger grants would be given for the building of schools in large towns. Now he might say that the Bill did not interfere with the present arrangement of Parliamentary grants; but if this Bill became law, then the whole subject of Parliamentary grants must come under revision. He did not know that there was any other point on which he need address them.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU said, he hoped the right hon. gentleman would explain how he proposed to alter the present system of inspection without breaking the contracts with the religious bodies?

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he thought the noble lord was in error on that point. He understood his noble friend to say that the inspectors in Church of England schools were not responsible to the Government for examination in religious instruction.

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU did not say that. What he said was, that the inspectors did not interfere with the religious teaching, and did not examine in religion for the Government but for the Archbishop. But the point concerning which he now asked, was whether the right of veto on the appointment of inspectors was to be taken away?

MR. W. E. FORSTER said, he thought that could hardly be a correct explanation of the case, for his noble friend must know that in the Revised Code the inspectors were instructed to find out whether the religious instruction was satisfactory, and to recommend a diminution of the grant if

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »