CHAPTER VII.

PARLIAMENT AND ELEMENTARY EDUCATION.

State intervention on behalf of elementary

The Act
of 1802.

50. THE intervention of the State on behalf of the education of children whose parents are capable of maintaining them was, in the first instance of Parliamentary interference, an intervention due to special circumstances, and was quite education.consistent with the general position of State policy that intervention between parent and child is, under normal circumstances, undesirable. It would not be impossible to maintain that all State intervention in the matter of elementary education during the nineteenth century was due to such special circumstances; for, assuming that education is a necessity of life, it is clear that the conditions of society among the poorer orders of England prevented, and in many cases still prevent, parents from giving education of an effective character to their children.

Compulsory education began with a special class of children. The sudden increase of population that accompanied the aggregation of individuals in particular districts—a result of the invention of machinery adapted to localised trades and manufactures-involved, almost inevitably, the sudden rise of child labour in a sense quite unknown to, and quite unprovided for by, the old Statutes of Apprentices. Terrible abuses, terrible moral evils in child life, fearful absence of knowledge

210

THE NEW EDUCATIONAL PROBLEM.

of good and evil, arose, and a generation that had no information on any subject whatever, save the automatic skill necessary within the narrow limits of daily factory work, sprang up, and became not only a disgrace to their country, not only a generation that had no knowledge of religion or even of elementary morality, but a generation that was a positive danger to existing society and a disruptive force that threatened to hinder all civilised development. In the great manufacturing towns of the north the capacity of a devoted and laborious band of clergy and lay-workers was strained to its uttermost, and could do little to meet the new difficulties of the age. The terrible part of the position was that the very section of society upon which the future of England depended was sapped of all good and all useful qualities. Children under the new economic conditions rapidly became, at best, mere cogs in an elaborate machine, with neither time nor power to realize their lives.

First Compulsory Education Act.

At an early date it was felt by the Legislature that the danger with which society was threatened must be met, though little interest was evinced generally in the subject while the Napoleonic menace overhung the country. As early as 1802 the first Compulsory Education Act was passed, and it became law without creating any public interest or any discussion. Yet the Act was passed, and it is interesting to note that the problem, which was so soon to become vital, had even then presented itself to the minds of thoughtful legislators. The Act itself was a curious compromise between the old Statute of Apprentices and the modern Education Act. The statute' was entitled "An Act for the Preservation of the Health and Morals of Apprentices and others, employed in Cotton and other Mills, and Cotton and other Factories."

On April 6th, 1802, motion for leave to introduce the Bill into the House of Commons was made. On this motion 1 42 Geo. III. c. 73.

THE FACTORY ACT, 1802.

211

the original title was altered, and the Bill was extended to apprentices "and others," employed in mills and factories. "other" than cotton mills and factories. Sir Robert Peel, Viscount Belgrave, and Mr Stanley were ordered to bring in the Bill. On April 13th it was introduced and read the first time. The next day it was read a second time and committed. Some amendments were made in the Bill, and it was reported on April 15th. The Report was considered on May 3rd and 4th, and the Bill was re-committed for further amendment. On May 18th it was again reported as further amended. On consideration of this Report on May 25th, a clause was added directing the visitors to be appointed under the Act to call in a physician in case of infectious disorder'. The third reading was taken on June 2nd, 1802, when an “ingrossed clause" was added to compel masters to cause an entry to be made of their mills and factories in a book to be kept by the clerk of the peace. Various other amendments, chiefly relating to the religious education of children in Scotland, were added at this stage. After the third reading, which was carried without a division, it was ordered that "Sir Robert Peele do carry the Bill to the Lords and desire their Concurrence"."

On June 12th a message was brought from the Lords, by Mr Leeds and Sir William Weller Pepys, that "the Lords have agreed to the Bill......without any amendment." It received the Royal Assent on June 22nd, 1802*. The Act was directed to come into operation in Great Britain and Ireland on December 2nd, 1802. The debate is not reported in Hansard or in the Annual Register. It created some considerable amount of discontent in the manufacturing districts, and we may assume from this that at first some real effort was made to enforce the Act.

1 s. 10. Commons Journal, vol. Bill is extracted from this volume. 3 Ibid. p. 534.

212

Petitions from millowners and spinners

against the Act of 1802.

ANTI-EDUCATION PETITIONS IN 1803.

On February 11th, 1803, there were presented to the House of Commons petitions from cotton and woollen spinners of Manchester, Bolton, Stockport, Glasgow, and Preston, reciting that the rules and regulations contained in the Act were, "in a high degree, prejudicial to the Cotton trade in general, and of such a nature, in many instances, as experience will show to be impracticable," and praying for leave to bring in a repealing or amending Bill1. On February 14th, 1803, petitions from woollen and cotton manufacturers of Leeds, and of cotton spinners from Keighley, in Yorkshire, and of others, recited that "the principle of the said Act is injurious and oppressive, not only to the cotton, woollen, and flaxen spinners, but to the manufacturers at large," and prayed for leave to bring in a repealing or amending Bill2. On February 22nd, 1803, a petition from the cotton spinners of Tutbury, Alrewas, Namptwich, Ashbourn, and Newcastle-under-Lyme declared that "the laws before in force effectually protect Apprentices and Servants against every species of abuse or improper treatment of Masters," and prayed for leave to bring in a repealing Bill3. February 25th, 1803, a petition from proprietors of cotton mills at Holywell, in the county of Flint, stated that "the principle of the said Act is injurious and oppressive, not only to the Cotton, Woollen, and Flaxen Spinners, but to the Manufacturers at large," and prayed for relief. The Index to the Commons Journal states that these various petitions were read again by the House, and referred to a Committee on March 29th, 18036; but the Journal for that date does not confirm this statement, which is due to the confusion of these petitions with others, of an allied character, presented about the same time.

On

These petitions were a terrible commentary on the condition 1 Commons Journal, vol. LVIII. p. 149.

2 Ibid. p. 160.

5 Ibid. tit. "Cotton."

3 Ibid. p. 191.

6 Ibid. p. 302.

Ibid. p. 206.

THE TRAGEDY OF THE COTTON MILLS.

213 of things in the manufacturing districts. There is a stage in the deterioration of social conditions when the sufferers are past the desire for aid. This stage had been reached. One can only wonder at the rare calibre of a manufacturer who could style as "injurious," "harsh," "oppressive," or "impracticable" a measure that required, in mills where three or more apprentices were employed, the mill rooms to be ventilated; that ordered the rooms to be whitewashed twice a year; that an apprentice should have one suit of clothes a year; that an apprentice should not work more than twelve hours a day exclusive of meal times; that no work by apprentices should be done between nine at night and six in the morning; that male and female apprentices should sleep in separate rooms, and that not more than two apprentices should sleep in any case in the same bed; that the master should call in medical attendance for his resident apprentices in case of infectious disease; that the mills should be inspected by visitors appointed by the justices; that the children should be taught the elements of knowledge and the principles of Christianity. Such a measure seems merely to reveal horrors too appalling for description. If such a measure was really injurious, harsh, oppressive, and impracticable in the minds of the manufacturing classes, and if the existing law really satisfied the workmen and workwomen, the lot of the little apprentice between such an upper and nether millstone must have been worse than we can imagine'.

1 The children employed were often of the tenderest years. Until 1819 (59 Geo. III. c. 13, s. 7) pauper children under nine years of age could be compulsorily apprenticed in pursuance of 43 Eliz. c. 2, s. 5. The tragedy of the case is put with unconscious force by an Act of 1833: "it shall not be lawful for any Person whatsoever to employ in any Factory or Mill as aforesaid, except in Mills for the manufacture of Silk, any Child who shall not have completed his or her Ninth Year of Age' (3 & 4 Will. IV. c. 103, s. 7). This was repealed in 1878 (41 & 42 Vict. c. 16). Till that date children under nine years could be employed in silk mills. Parish apprentices were often sent by contract from London to the Lancashire cotton mills "in carts like so many negro slaves." (Sir Samuel Romilly: Hansard (1807), vol. ix. col. 800.)