objection may fairly be taken against his arbitrary determination of what he has been pleased to call “s the school age.” He reckons this period to commence at 3 and to close at 15, and thus includes within it twelve years. It is not easy to see why he has done this. It is certainly on no ground of fact; for some children are known to be sent to school before they are 3, and not a few continue there after they are 15. Nor is it upon any ground of necessity; for he might just as well have taken from 4 to 14, (as indeed he sometimes does) as from 3 to 15, the selection being purely arbitrary, Nor is it upon any grouud of practical fitness ; for, since the mills at Manchester are open to the employment of children at 13, who are legally recognized at that age as young persons, education among the working classes may be said absolutely to terminate at that age, those who continue "scholars” to a later period being almost invariably of superior station. To this it may be added that very few children go to school between the ages of 3 and 5. The calculations formed on the assumption of Mr. Richson's school age are consequently misleading and unfair.

If we come to consider the period which may fairly be assumed as the school age, we have two limits to assign, one for the commencement, and one for the close. Mr. Baines, being asked at what period he conceires schooling may usefully commence, gives as his opinion that it is not desirable to attempt much in the way of education until five years of age (1521); and to an inquiry as to the period at which children in Manchester leave school, he answers that very many leave from 10 to 11, and comparatively few remain till 12 (1463). We are willing, however, to assume from 5 to 13 as the school age, a period of eight years. To this estimate several members of the committee evidently leant, and the evidence given led to the same conclusion. Assuming one half of the children to be at school at the same time, this allows an average schooling for each child of 4 years, as high an average for the working classes as, in a manufacturing district, can be expected.

Mr. Adshead, indeed, when asked by Lord Blandford (2062), whether " the average number of years during which any child might be expected to attend school would be more than six ?" answers, “I should say from 5 to 6.” Mr. Baines, however, gave repeatedly and strongly a lower estimate. “I do not hesitate to express my opinion," he said, “that five years of schooling, however desirable, is even more than it is reasonable to expect among the children of the humbler classes in a great manufacturing town, especially when the average is taken from the whole number of the children, without making any deduction for the sick, the crippled, those detained by the sickness of other members of the family, by occasional want of clothes, by the dissipation of parents, or by extreme poverty, or for the children of the vagrant and criminal classes,” (1493). See also a similar statement, (1892.)

What Mr. Richson's opinion upon this point is it is not easy to ascertain, his answers are so various and inconsistent. In one case, (63), he affirms that there ought to be “ an average attendance of each child of six years," and that “we ought not to be satisfied with anything less" (66). In answer 386 he acknowledges that five years and a half “is rather & sanguine estimate than the reverse." In a subsequent part of his evidence he approaches still nearer to our judgment.

589. Mr. W. Miles.—Then considering they become young persons by the Factory Act at 13, would it not be sufficient, supposing your plan were adopted, to give education which should be paid for by rate from 5 to 13 ?

Ans.—I think it would be very satisfactory. If we could get them all to school between those ages.

In his second examination, however, (2369), he speaks regretfully of “one or two replies given inadvertently" on this subject, and lays down his meaning thus—“ I have meant throughout, that, barring impediments arising from physical or intellectual incapacity, we ought not to be satisfied with the period of school attendance until every individual child between the age of 3 and 15 attend school for at least five and a half or six years.” And in the following answer he advances upon this period, and says, “ I put six and a half or seven years as the least for an individual child.”

Passing from Mr. Richson, whose view upon this point appears singularly and hopelessly unfixed, to Mr. Entwisle, we get an opinion very nearly in accordance with our own, although somewhat reluctantly given.

1263. Mr. Peto (to Mr. Entwisle).-As to the length of time in which children can be expected to attend school in the factory districts, what is your opinion upon that head ?

Ans. - I should say that it is quite beyond my province to give any opinion. 1264. Will you give the committee your opinion as to whether four years and a half is not, in your judgment, as long a period as it is likely children can be expected to attend school in the factory districts ?

Ans.—I think, judging by the opinions of others, that that would be as long a time as the children could be expected to attend school.

1265. From your own observation you think that would be about the time?

Ans.-Yes, I think it very likely: for, as the hon. member knows, early remunerative employment is abundant in those districts.

It cannot be said, therefore, that we are taking a fallacious or authorised estimate of the educational period. Now, Table 11 from the Census office enables us to state the number both of children and scholars between 5 and 13. Of children there are 65,109; and of scholars, 36,478, or considerably more than half. Such a result is, we think, gratifying; and the more so as it evidently supplies materials for the more extended period of education which must be taken to prevail among children of the higher classes.*

Having thus taken, as was proper in the first instance, the figures of the Registrar General as he has given them, we have now to observe that these do not fully represent the amount of education enjoyed by the good people of Manchester and Salford,

A considerable proportion of the children of the higher classes are sent to schools out of the district. This, in reply to Mr. Gladstone (39), was acknowledged by Mr. Richson himself, who admitted the number to be “ very large," although difficult to be precisely estimated. The only clue we get to his opinion on this point is, that the number sent to school out of Manchester would probably be less than that sent to superior schools (schools where the payment is quarterly) in it. The children of this latter class he states at 5,227 : we may with his consent, therefore, state the former at 4,000. Now of these the Registrar General could render no account, as not on the day of the Census resident in Manchester; they

un

The reader may see the same problem worked out by Mr. W. Miles, with slightly different figures, but with substantially similar result, in the Evidence from 1526 to 1530. Mr. Ashead also performs a similar process, but confines his calculations to the borough of Manchester, (2450).

must therefore be added to his return of 44,598 scholars, making a total of 48,598. We are aware that these must be added also to the number of children within the school age, and that a certain proportion of them may be beyond 15; but after all deductions, there will be a considerable gain on the side of education.

To this it may fairly be added, that, among the higher classes also, a considerable number of young persons continue under instruction beyond the age of 15. These cannot be brought into the numerical computation, but they ought not to be excluded from an estimate of the general educational condition of the district.

It is stated by Mr. Richson (2308) that there are 1,198 children attending day-schools “ not included in the Census tables.” Mr. Horace Mann, of the Census Office, being examined by the Committee on this subject, he admitted the fact to be as stated by Mr. Richson, and added with great naïveté, that these returns “ were found to be in the office subsequently to making up the tables,” (2309); a statement which supplies a hint of some importance as to the degree of faith to be put even in official documents. It does not appear, however, that this omission affects the return of "scholars," but only that of day-school attendance, which it raises from 33,663 to 34,861.

CHAPTER IV.

EXPLANATIONS.

We must now trouble our readers with a few words of explanation, referring to certain statements to be met with in the papers before us, which differ more or less materially from those we have given above, but which we have not noticed in the first instance, because we wished to give the preceding view unembarrassed.

The first statement to which we draw attention is to be found in the Census Office return (Appendix No. 4, Table 17,) exhibiting the “ Day-scholars in various large towns." The Day-scholars in the Manchester and Salford Education District are here stated at 33,663. The difference between this number and 44,598, which we have already given from another table (No. 11) as the number of “scholars ” is striking, and may for the moment appear inexplicable; a Note appended to Table 11 by the Registrar General, however, supplies the clue to it. The head of each family, it appears,

directed to insert in the column for • Rank, Profession, or Occupation,' the word "scholar' opposite the name of every child daily attending school, or receiving instruction under a master or governess at home. For various reasons, therefore," the Registrar General very properly adds, “this statement will not agree with the number of scholars derived from the returns made by masters and mistresses of schools."

This discrepancy was observed by the Committee, who examined Mr. Horace Mann, of the Census Office, in relation to it, and received from him a similar explanation to that supplied by the Note of the Registrar General, (2287). The following question was then put to him.

2288. Chairman (to Mr. Mann).-Have you any reason to doubt in your office that the first return is accurately made out by the heads of families ?

was

Ans. I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of both returns.

It is clear, therefore, that the returns made of day-school attendance do not represent the educational condition of the community in the school district, by about one fourth of the number of children under instruction.

A second statement to which it is necessary to call the reader's attention, is one made by Mr. Richson respecting the proportion of children who may be expected, in such a district, to attend school at the same period. We have already referred to the usually accepted estimate, that a simultaneous school attendance of one half the children within the school age exhibits a satisfactory educational condition among the operative classes. Mr. Richson, however, takes different ground. Laying it down (44) that, in the school district, the children between 3 and 15 of a class of life to attend common elementary schools amount to 84,566, and finding that the total number of that class attending school is 27,346, he proceeds to announce two startling facts; the first is, that there are 57,220 children not attending school, and the second, that in addition to the 27,346 already attending school, one-half of this 57,220, or 28,610, in all 55,956-ought to be so.

We object here, in limine, to the statement that there are 57,220 children “ uot attending school.” Although literally true, it (as is justly observed

, by Mr. Baines, 1490) creates a false impression,” which it is difficult for subsequent explanations to remove. Nearly 15,000 of these are, as returned by the Registrar General, “ in employment;" and they are, consequently, quite out of question as to being at school or not at school. The number is thus reduced at once to about 42,000; but this is too high, the total children between 3 and 15 returned to the Census Office as “un. described ” amounting to only 40,000. The false impression created by this statement is manifest in the following question by a member of the Committee.

70. Chairman (to Mr. Richson).—Then the 57,000 that you speak of are precisely the persons for whom assistance should be given, if it is to be given to anybody, by providing education at the public expense ?

In justice, Mr. Richson's answer to this question ought to have been, "No: not the 57,000, but only such proportion of them as it may be presumed ought to be at school.” He suffered this obvious misconception, however, to remain uncorrected.

In the next place, we object still more strongly to the assertion that the half of this 57,220, or 28,610, ought to be at school. On this mode of representing the case Mr. Baines justly remarks as follows.

Now this is a mere oversight, arising from his having inverted the order of an arithmetical process ; but it is singular that Mr. Richson did not discover so great an error, as it is in glaring contradiction to another explicit statement given very soon afterwards. In answer 60 he says, “At present it appears there are about 29,077 children, including the workhouse in Swinton, that are receiving daily education, and we think we should raise the number to 42,670 ; and that would be about one half the total number between 3 and 15, the total number being 84,566. The number which we hope they will amount to by these means is 42,670 ; and we think probably that is as many as could be expected in a manufacturing district to be got to school under very favourable circumstances.' . Now if the utmost number of children that could be expected to be at this class of schools in Manchester is 42,670, and there are actually 29,077 found there, it is surely only the difference between these two numbers, or 13,593, who can be considered to be wanting education.

6

Yet, Mr. Richson had stated conspicuously in his third conclusion, that about 57,000 are not attending day-schools, while of this number at least nearly half, or 28,500, ought to be at some school,' (1488).

The result of this erroneous process, is about to double the real e lucational deficiency which he himself wishes to prove and to provide for, (1490).

Mr. Baines's apology for Mr. Richson's statement as “an arithmetical error," palpable as this error was to the Committee, was far from being acceptable to the rev. gentleman himself. In his second examination he strongly reiterates, and attempts to vindicate it (2338 and 2397), so that it is incumbent upon us to pay to it some further attention.

It has been usual among educationists to take a general view of the causes adapted to facilitate or impede school attendance in a given locality, and to calculate the average attendance which, under the circumstances, may reasonably be expected. Mr. Richson, however, resists the adoption

, of this process.

These are his words :2341.-Marquis of Blandford (to Mr. Richson).—What proportion of those not at school ought to be at school ?

Ans. I think we are not to set out by saying that here are 100,000 children, and 50,000 ought to be at school. There is a certain number of children not at school out of the total number ; the question is, what proportion is kept from school for justifiable reasons. I say that, as applied to Manchester, we cannot find, in regard to one hulf, any reasonable cause why they should be kept away from school.

2343. You admit that only a certain proportion ought to be at school?

Ans.—No ; I do not admit any fixed proportion. I admit absence where it has justifiable reason.

2344. Taking the whole number 100,000, are there not certain causes operating that might necessarily keep away a certain portion of those children from school ?

Ans.—The proportion I could not attempt to define, nor do I think any body else can.

2345. Then I do not see upon what solid basis your calculations are founded ?

Ans.--I show the Committee that there is no reasonable excuse for even half the children being kept away that are not attending at school.

We do not think that it contributed to raise Mr. Richson in the estimate of the Committee, that he was thus resolutely determined to reject the judgment of men who had gone over the same ground before him, and with not merely equal, but certainly with better opportunities of making an approximation to the truth ; or that they felt he was likely to arrive at it by the small modicum of evidence he was able to adduce as the foundation of his opinion. We must, however, as it seems, examine this evidence, and see how far it may bear him out.

I consider it a very fair test on the subject we have in view, says he, to take the case of 17,426 families selected from twenty-six different parts of the two boroughs. In these families the total number of children between 3 and 14 [he considers this the same between 3 and 15] were 36,527. : . The number at school (by Table 29) is 14,197, leaving 22,330 either at home or at work; of which number, if my estimate is correct, there is no reasonable cause why 11,165 children should not be at school. Turning again to the Table, we find 5,153 children at work, 1801 kept at home from sickness or sundry causes, and 2,670 as being too young. The total is 9,624 children, who may be assumed to be kept from school on account of reasons sufficiently important to justify their absence; but then there remain out of