Ans.-Neither the one nor the other, strictly. Certainly not the former, and I had not intended it for the latter ; but to show that the industrial circumstances of these respective counties and towns account, in a great measure, for the small proportion of day scholars in Manchester and in Lancashire.

1457.-Have you had any means of ascertaining whether there is any necessity for increased means of education in Manchester ? Ans.—That is a part of the subject to which I shall come afterwards.

In the same spirit another member of the Committee put the following question.

1559. Mr. Fox (to Mr. Baines).-After all the deductions that you have made, does not the impression still remain, that there is in Manchester and Salford a very large number of children unprovided with the means of education ?

Ans.- I fully believe that there is not. If there is a number, I believe that that number does not bear any large proportion to the population.

We honour Mr. Baines for the courage displayed in this answer, and official philanthropists who looked amazed at it may do well afresh to examine the grounds on which it was given.

We may be asked, however, whether we have not proved too much, and whether we really think that there are as many children at school in Manchester and Salford as there ought to be. Far from it. The striking of a satisfactory average is sure to leave room for many unsatisfactory cases. If one balf the children between 5 and 13 were always at school, however this might authorize the inference, that, generally speaking, the children were under instruction during four years ; this inference would not be universally applicable to individual cases, some being at school niuch more than four years, some much less, and some not at all. Among so many thousand children, therefore, there is doubtless a proportion, although not precisely determinable, who ought to be at school and are not. This is the proper field for the exercise of educational philanthropy, and we readily admit it to be an interesting and extensive one. On this subject, however, we have to make two remarks.

A class of children who ought to be at school and are not will be found to exist under every conceivable system, short of universal and absolute compulsion. Even admitting that much may be done to diminish the present magnitude of this class, by improving the quality of education, by multiplying its facilities, and by augmenting the desire for it, no one can, under any circumstances, anticipate its entire extinction otherwise than by compulsion. Its existence is an evil which, consequently, must be put up with, even by philanthropists who, like Mr. Richson, eschew compulsion, with such tranquillity as they may be able to maintain.

Further, the educational philanthropists of Manchester have, we think, been unduly distressed by the number of children whom they see occasionally loitering at home, or ranging the fields, or running about the streets—or, to sum up all in one portentous phrase," not at school.” This spectacle seems to frighten them out of their propriety, and their benevolent sorrow does not leave them cool judgment enough to form a just estimate of it. In this feeling Mr. Richson argues in Answer 48.

It is quite impossible,” he says, " to make the number attending school satisfactory," because, take the facts any way you will, you will still find many thousand children "not attending school.” To affirm that in Manchester, Salford, and the townships, there are many thousand children who are “ not at school,” seems to him to be stating a melancholy and

66

appalling fact, the effect of which would scarcely be mitigated, if it could be added that there were three times that number under the care of the pedagogue. Poor children! Who would not pity them, and not only provide schooling for them (which has been done already), but actually take them to school, if necessary, by the paternal hand of the policeman ?

Stay, kind-hearted gentlemen; stay a moment. In no working population can it be reasonably expected that, in the working classes, more than one half of the children of school age should be simultaneously at school ; and it follows from this that the other half are not to be expected there at the time of your observation. A practical and kindly consideration of the social and domestic elements of the case has led to this general conclusion; and it will not do for you to rush into this host of children, and, under pretence of philanthropy, to seize every little urchin you may find “not at school,” as either guilty of a crime, or in a state of pitiable neglect.

Something may be done, however, towards showing that large numbers of those children who are not at school may be not badly accounted for. In the first place, many of them are at work. According to Table 11 from the Census office, nearly 15,000 children under 15 are “ in employment” in the school district. Between 3 and 15, 40,000 are returned as "undescribed.” Now, a considerable proportion of these are doubtless girls who have left school, and are helping their mothers at home, or are keeping house while their mothers work. Of course, the girls do not go to school as late as 15 years of age, and those engaged as above are not returned as “in employment.” In the Table (No. 11) the girls above 10 years of age

“undescribed' are 6,513; while the boys above 10 “undescribed" are only 3,736. Again, a very large proportion of the “undescribed” are between 3 and 6 years of age, and are probably thought by their parents too young to go to school. There are no less than 17,728 children above 3 and under 6 years of age undescribed," whilst the return of “scholars” between those ages is only 8,722. The number, thus reduced at both ends, becomes by no means unmanageable. Many causes properly, and even necessarily, keeping children from school, will readily suggest themselves to every reader. Some, no doubt, are the victims of parental neglect or profligacy, of vagrant habits, or of destitution; but this is the proper field of active charity, not of legislation.

1

CHAPTER VIII.

MANCHESTER IN 1834 AND 1852.

1

Mr. Richson derives an argument, and one on which he lays considerable stress, from the fact that school-attendance in Manchester, looked at for the last 17 years, although it has largely increased, has not kept pace with the increase of the population. The materials for the comparison implied in this statement are supplied by the labours of the Manchester Statistical Society, who published in 1835 some carefully prepared Tables. Placing them by the side of returns now obtained by himself, Mr. Richson has arrived at the following conclusion; that, while the population has increased 52 per cent., attendance at every kind of day-school has increased only 25

per ceut., and the attendance at common elementary schools only 23} per cent. In other words, in Manchester, Salford, and the Townships, in 1834, when the population was 255,000, there were attending day-schools of various classes 24,269; in 1852, the population being 390,872, there are but 30,344. (Table 24, p. 54.)

C'pon this statement it may be observed, in the first place, that it affects but one part of the subject. The whole matter before us relates to two questions ; if one is school attendance, another is school accommodation. Now it would not have been at all surprising, if, in a town increasing with such enormous and unprecedented rapidity as Manchester, the means of education should have been found continually falling behind the advancing population. This, however, is not the case. Of school accommodation there is, according to Mr. Richson's own testimony, enough, and more than enough, and he cordially renders due honour to the parties who have provided it. Upon this point, therefore, which is of primary importance and difficulty, there is no cause for regret. The educational energies of Manchester have borne satisfactorily even the severe test which the extraordinary increase of its population has applied to them.

The fact, then, as stated by Mr. Richson, is simply this, that “ dayschool attendance” has not kept pace with the population ; in other words, that a smaller proportion—not, be it observed, a smaller number—of the children of the working classes go to school now than went 17 years ago."

And here we make our second observation, namely, that Mr. Richson has greatly over-stated the fact. On the one hand it is quite an error to assume that an increase of population implies a proportionate increase of children. In manufacturing districts, and especially in Manchester, which is the centre of so large a portion of them, the population, as stated by Mr. Bright in question 1495, advances by large accessions of young men seeking employment, so that the adult increases perceptibly more rapidly than the juvenile population. It is consequently a mistake to say, that because the adult population has increased 52 per cent., those who require schools have increased 52 per cent. also. On the other hand, the rate of increase in day-school attendance has been considerably under-estimated by Mr. Richson. According to his own tables, (as Mr. Baines has shown, 1569 et seq.), that increase has been, not 231 per cent., but 39}, a very material difference. The tables supplied by the Census Office give a result still more favourable.

After making this correction, however, we are not prepared to deny the assertion that the number of day scholars has not increased in the same proportion as the juvenile population. Yet we do not see the pertinence of the question put by a member of the Committee in relation to this fact.

It seems scarcely credible at the first moment, that day-school attendants in Manchester should, in 17 years, have increased only from 24,000 to 30,000, or consistent with the manifest earnestness and magnitude of its educational operations. The enigma is explained, however, by observing the relation between the public and the private schoolso In 1834,5, there were at common, private, and dame schools (exclusive of superior schools) nearly 15,000 pupils ; in 1852, but 5,000. In National, British, and Denominational Schools, in 1834, there were but about 5,000; in 1852, there are nearly 20,000. The public have to a great extent superseded the private schools, by the superiority of the education they have afforded. It is, nevertheless, a fact worth pondering, especially if it be a general fact, that two thirds of the energy and resources devoted to the formation and support of public schools have been expended on the extinction of private schools, and in so far in effecting a change for the worse, leaving us only the improvement of education itself for our reward.

a

1573. Mr. Bright.-Would not that lead you to the conclusion that, in the last 17 years, notwithstanding the meritorious efforts that have been made in Manchester those efforts have not been quite commensurate with the necessity of the case ?

This question does not apply, since the means of education which have been provided are more than sufficient for the whole of this growing popu. lation. The allegation of Mr. Richson relates exclusively to school attendance, which, to a certain extent, is less in proportion to the population than it was 17 years since. There are obviously only two causes to which such a fact can be referred. Ample school accommodation being presupposed, the working classes are either less able, or less willing to avail themselves of it.

Mr. Richson would have us believe (as we shall see presently), that the working classes of Manchester are to a large extent too poor to send their children to school ; but this consideration, whatever may be its truth, is not relevant here, since the question is not one of absolute, but of comparative condition. There were no doubt many very poor people in Manchester in 1834, as well as in 1852; and comparing the two periods, Mr. Richson does not assert, and there is certainly no reason to suppose, that there is a larger proportion of this class of persons in relation to the popu. lation at the latter period than there was at the former. There is nothing, consequently, in the element of poverty adapted to explain in any measure the falling off in attendance at day schools. The fact adduced is thus cut off altogether from Mr. Richson's argument, and we might spare ourselves the necessity of any further reference to it. We make, however, a few additional observations.

It remains to be supposed that the working classes of Manchester have shown themselves less inclined than they were in 1834, to improve the means of education within their reach. There can be no doubt that this is the fact, nor can there be any difficulty in accounting for at least a considerable portion of it. “In cities and towns of the magnitude of Manchester," says Mr. Baines (1447), “there is always a considerable number of the vagrant classes, who make it a temporary abode, and also of the criminal classes, who seek spoil and shelter among such masses of popu. lation and property.” Another large portion of the population consists of the very lowest class, both of English and Irish, among whom the smallest con. ceivable appreciation of the value of education is to be found. Besides this, & very large portion of the multiplying population of Manchester consists, not of the labouring class merely, but of the manufacturing class, for whose young children the cotton mills furnish extraordinary means of remunerative employment. As Manchester has increased, all these causes have come into more powerful operation; and although the last of them has been somewhat modified by the Factories' act, the effects of it contiuue to come largely into the account. We think that a consideration of these and similar topics, may tend to show that the comparatively smaller attendance at day schools ein Manchester in 1862 than in 1834, may fairly be resolved into causes not very mysterious, either in their character or their operation.

Whether we can solve this riddle or not, however, it remains to be asked, in what way does Mr. Richson propose to treat the fact he has brought forward ? This is the practical question ; and the whole value of his scheme depends upon the answer he can give to it. Let us then understand him.

598. Mr. Peto (to Mr Richson).-Since there is so much surplus school accommodation, I take it that the only thing we want is to induce the attendance of children ?

Ans. I think so. 599. Do you think that making education gratuitous would have that effect ? Ans.—Yes, if offered conditionally. 335. Chairman. What do you mean by“free education offered conditionally”? Ans. On the condition of attendance.

We should rather say that this was offering it unconditionally; but let this pass. In one word, Mr. Richson thinks the working classes generally, or even universally, would send their children to school if they had not to pay for it; and therefore he proposes a system of free schools, to be supported by a rate.

Now, in the first place, even supposing that the schools were free, it is assuming, we think, a great deal too much, to suppose that this would draw all, or even a very large number, of the present absentees to school. The only classes of persons whom it would directly or powerfully influence, are those with whom the payment of the school pence operates as an impediment, either through extreme smallness of means, or through habits of profligacy causing an artificial poverty, both of which classes of persons are now out of our contemplation ; its beneficial effect on the careless or the unwilling (the class now before us) is very questionable, and can hardly be very large. What people do not care about, they will scarcely take the trouble—and sending children properly to school is always a matter of trouble—they will scarcely take the trouble to obtain, even when it can be had without money.

Indeed, Mr. Richson himself elsewhere expresses much hesitation on this point.

83. Mr Peto (to Mr. Richson).-How would you secure under your* bill the attendance of the children ?

Ans.—That would be a matter which would require some little consideration. I believe the motives for attendance can be made manifold.

What these manifold motives may be he did not explain ; but this cautious reference to them demonstrates that the machinery of the bill cannot be considered as complete, and that the gratuitousness of the education to be offered by it is not relied upon as an adequate motive, even by its promoters themselves.

We know that we are not singular in holding this opinion. Although Mr. Richson may not share it with us, it is avowed by some of the prominent advocates, both of the local and the secular schemes; and based upon it is their recorded declaration, that education must be made, not only tempting, as without cost, but compulsory, as permitting no refusal. This Mr. Richson said he should be sorry to see ; and when asked by the Chairman (2746) “Would you compel them to come to school ?” he answered distinctly, “ Certainly not :" but both Mr. Entwisle and himself advocated “ a certain sort of coercion,” such as a resolution of mill-owners to employ no uneducated hands (83); and there are doubtless others who would employ coercion in more direct and repulsive forms. This could be only a beginning. As a single measure its effect would be small, since, even if it were universally adopted by mill-owners, (of which there is, we presume, little prospect), it would affect only one class of the community, while there is every reason to believe it would not long be absolutely maintained. Millowners, like other tradesmen, must and will have the best working hands, whether educated or not. The mention of such a scheme is nothing more than a straw showing which way the stream runs, an indication that your

9