Page images
PDF
EPUB

presented for examination, and 10 per cent. in those passed without failure. But, on the other hand, of the children of the working classes proper, only one-fourth of those between six and ten years, and one-fifth between ten and twelve, were receiving a real education.

The vote, after some discussion, which turned rather on the general subject of education than on the details of the proposed appropriation, was agreed to.

On the question of national education, two debates, one in each House of Parliament, may be referred to as worthy of notice. The first originated with Earl Russell, who, in pursuance of notice, called the attention of the Peers to the sums voted for this purpose. He was of opinion that, in comparison with what had been done, particularly in Germany and the New England States, education was behindhand in England and Ireland. The plan of grants in aid had not been without result, but an unjust part of the burden was, as demonstrated by Canon Girdlestone, thrown on the parochial clergy in consequence of the unwillingness of the landowners to promote education. The clergy could not do all, and a large part of the country was without schools. It would be necessary, he believed, for the Government next year to undertake a general scheme. The relief of the rates from other burdens might render it possible to procure some support to schools out of them, but he intimated an opinion that public grants must be looked to as the main resource ; the question of religious education also required speedy attention. The case of Ireland differed as to this from that of England. Here 60 per cent. was raised by local subscriptions, and the State supplied only 40 per cent.; but in Ireland the State had to contribute 93 per cent. Where private grants formed so small a proportion of the expenditure as in Ireland, the State was entitled to use a wider discretion in the arrangements respecting religious teaching. The Roman Catholic bishops in Ireland had, however, claimed to conduct the religious teaching, even in localities where there was a considerable Protestant population. The reports of the Board of National Education in 1866 and 1867 pointed out this evil tendency. Lord Russell himself considered that a system of denominational education in Ireland would gravely increase the want of concord in that island.

Earl De Grey defended the Government for having decided not to bring in a general measure of education at a period when it was hopeless to secure proper attention to it. He thought Lord Russell had put the shortcomings of the present system too high. A system which was educating 1,241,000 children was not to be laid aside lightly. Government grants ought, he believed, to be supplemented to any necessary extent; but it would be rash to throw away any additional resources arising from individual liberality. It might be true, again, that the liberality of the clergy was too heavily taxed; but it must not be forgotten in how many places the landowners contributed their full proportion.

The Duke of Marlborough, President of the Council, dwelt on the increasing successful results of the present system. The feeling of the usefulness of voluntary efforts was growing. He was himself entirely convinced of the good effects of the existing denominational system of education in England, and he deprecated any rash interference with it by the Government.

Lord Lyveden urged on the Education Department to inquire whether there appeared to be any relation between the increase of education and the decrease of crime. He doubted it, and this doubt, which was generally felt, explained the carelessness of the landed class in the matter. He was opposed in any case to a compulsory rate.

The Marquis of Salisbury saw no possible connexion between the spread of education and the decrease of crime. There were grounds for suspecting the tendency was the other way. But education might diminish pauperism, by diminishing the helplessness which in rural districts was at its root. The landowners had, he thought, been unfairly assailed for illiberality in respect of education. They felt that they were already far too heavily taxed in proportion to other interests, and grudged any addition to their burdens. If the rates were to be appealed to, voluntary subscriptions would be killed.

Earl Grey's experience of the zeal for education in the north of England led him to doubt the accuracy of the strictures on the efforts of agricultural neighbourhoods in favour of education as compared with manufacturing localities.

The Bishop of London remarked that, over and above Government inspection, there was an undercurrent of diocesan inspection, which aided in promoting the efficiency of education. He protested against the doctrine that there was no relation between education and the diminution of crime.

The debate was continued by some other peers, the Earl of Harrowby, Lord Belper, and the Duke of Cleveland, but no motion or resolution was passed. A few days afterwards Mr. Melley moved in the House of Commons for a Select Committee on the subject of public education, anticipating from its inquiries conclusive proof that our present agencies-industrial schools, workhouse schools, denominational schools, and the Factory Acts— entirely failed to reach the lowest class. This belief, which amounted to a conviction in his own mind, he illustrated by an exhaustive analysis of the educational statistics of Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham. In Liverpool, out of 98,000 children of school age, only 47,000 were at school, and though there were 10,000 places vacant in the schools provided for the working classes, there were 30,000 children running idle about the streets. In Manchester not more than half the children of school age were at school; and in Birmingham, out of 78,000 children, nearly 20,000 were in the streets. Altogether, out of 252,000 children in these three towns, nearly 75,000 children were running wild in the streets. The question, as

Mr. Melly put it, was not, "What shall we do with these children?" but, "What will they do with us?" And this he answered by referring to the statistics of crime and pauperism. In these three towns the number of apprehensions had risen from 31,000 in 1861 to 52,000 in 1868, and the juvenile apprehensions from 1749 to 3720. The number of criminals who could neither read nor write had increased from 11,000 to 20,000. The local rates in the three towns had risen to an average of 1s. 3d. in the pound. He argued next that the Factory Acts-meant originally for sanitary rather than educational purposes-could not deal with these children, for there were only about 30,000 in the country amenable to them. The industrial schools could not touch them, for they were boarding schools at a cost of 187. a year per head, and the general extension of such a system would demoralize and pauperize the country. The remedy, therefore, which he proposed was the establishment of free municipal nondenominational schools, with schoolmasters paid from the rates, and school beadles empowered to compel the attendance of all children found in the streets, or not attending other schools. These, operating with the workhouse, the industrial and reformatory, and the denominational schools, would form a perfect system of education for all classes of the population.

Mr. Dixon seconded the motion, going into some statistical details with respect to Birmingham to justify his support of compulsory rating and attendance.

Mr. Fawcett opposed the motion, thinking the Government had ample information for legislation at its command in the reports of the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, of Sir John Pakington's and other Committees, and in reports of private societies. The result of another Committee would be to retard legislation, for the immense mass of materials could not be dealt with this Session, and the Government would, therefore, be precluded from legislating at the commencement of next Session. At the same time, Mr. Fawcett agreed completely with the objects of the motion, and went through all the arguments in favour of compulsory rating and compulsory attendance; for the present voluntary system, aided by State grants, he maintained, could never be developed into a comprehensive national system. His chief point was that children were kept from schools by the ignorance, poverty, or selfishness of their parents, and that compulsion alone could overcome these obstacles. The opinion of the people was not adverse to it, and it would only be necessary for a generation. Of course the schools thus supported would be secular, and would be supplementary to denominational schools. He admitted, too, that the Imperial Exchequer should bear a portion of the cost. Mr. Fawcett also dwelt on the importance of education in checking pauperism and in keeping England abreast of other nations in the industrial race.

Mr. Adderley concurred with Mr. Fawcett that another Committee would be an abuse of inquiry, and that the materials were

M

ample for legislation. Considering, too, the number of unsuccessful Bills which had been introduced during the last ten or fifteen years, most members were fully prepared to debate the question, and even to vote on it. He was of opinion that all the educational measure we needed might be obtained by an extension of the Privy Council system, and he preferred this to the complication of two systems, one of which must swallow up the other. But as one rigid mode of treatment would not meet the requirements of every part of the country, he suggested that a hybrid Bill might be introduced, applying the principles advocated by Mr. Melly to one or two large towns, and extending the police powers under the Industrial Schools Act, so that vagrant children might be sent to elementary day schools.

Mr. Buxton thought that the backwardness of education was owing, not to the failure of our machinery, but to the apathy of parents. He doubted whether it would be possible to enforce attendance in this country. Rather than adopt at once the system proposed by Mr. Fawcett, he preferred to try the experiment in one or two large towns, and make the present system as efficient as possible.

Lord Sandon supported the motion for a Committee, because the accounts of the condition of these destitute classes were so irreconcilable. He suggested that Commissioners should be sent to four or five of the largest towns.

Sir J. Pakington, disagreeing from Mr. Adderley, held that the present system had been tried long enough, and a bold and comprehensive national scheme was needed. Now that we had a strong Government, containing men who had shown themselves zealous friends of education, he confidently anticipated the question would be settled very early.

Mr. W. E. Forster concurred that the time had passed for Committees, and that we must at the earliest opportunity have a comprehensive measure, and he should be rejoiced to think with Mr. Adderley that an extension of the Revised Code would meet all our necessities, but notably the problem was how to change the present system into a national scheme without sacrificing the advantages of voluntary effort; and a very difficult one it was. In the first place, however strong might be the objections to voting State aid for religious education, no measure would be popular in the country which tended to check the teaching of religion, and if the schools were to be free it was clear that they must soon swallow up all the other schools. Again, though it was absurd to argue that compulsion was un-English, the working of the police machinery for compulsion would certainly be much opposed to English habits and feeling. The analogy of foreign countries, Mr. Forster pointed out, did not apply, for their Governments were more in the habit of interfering in the private life of their citizens than would be tolerated here; and as to the precedent of New England, Mr. Forster told a story connected with the late Public

Schools Commission which showed that the compulsory law there had fallen so completely into desuetude that even Mr. Adams, the late American Minister, though actively engaged in education, did not know of its existence. There were difficulties, too, connected with the fluctuating state of public opinion, as he and Mr. Bruce had experienced in the management of their Bills. But difficult as it was, it was a business for the Government, and a Committee would not assist them. Anticipating Lord Sandon's suggestion, he stated that Government would institute inquiries into the educational condition of Leeds, Liverpool, Manchester, and Birmingham.

Mr. Henley regretted that the inquiry was not to be conceded. Mr. Mundella referred to his experience in Germany and Switzerland, to show how little ground there was to apprehend that the magistrate and policeman would be needed to enforce attendance. The discussion then diverged into a controversy as to whether the greater amount of ignorance was to be found in town or in country districts. In the end, Mr. Melly withdrew his motion.

A measure which, unfortunately, was not carried to a successful end, was proposed by the Government at the beginning of the Session, for extending and improving the system of education in Scotland. The Duke of Argyll, who took charge of the measure, laid the Bill before the House of Lords on the 25th of February, making a statement of its provisions and object. It was proposed hereafter that the Board of Education for Scotland should consist of ten members-two elected by the conveners of counties, two by the borough interest, two by the Universities, one by the schoolmasters, and two (with a paid chairman) by the Crown. As the system of grants by the Privy Council had not worked satisfactorily, it was proposed to authorize the board to select such of the denominational schools as were really required for the education of the people, and to adopt them without causing them to be thrown upon the parochial rates. After a given date there would be no more denominational schools, but all would fall into the parochial system. It was further proposed to give the central board large powers over the school buildings, and a full power of dismissal with regard to parochial teachers, and as to the new code, it was intended to introduce several alterations. The system of payments by results would be preserved, but the payment would go to the rich as well as to the poor, and encouragement would be given to the higher branches of education. The schedule of the Bill described the mode in which the code would be carried out; but the main features were that it made no distinction between different classes of society, while it encouraged the highest standard of education which had hitherto prevailed in the parochial schools. It would not be required that the school inspectors should belong to any particular denomination, but the Bill recognized the principle of the conscience clause, and no public money would be granted except in accordance with that principle.

« PreviousContinue »