1899.] Education of Children Bill. [39
to the protection and education of children ; and he strenuously condemned the half-time system as in every way prejudicial to the true interests of the children concerned. The chief and nearly the whole opposition to the measure came from the Lancashire members, headed by Mr. George Whiteley (Stock- port), and supported by the agriculturalists, represented by Major Easch (Essex, S.E.), who adduced the arguments of " the nimble finger," and the labourers' necessity, both of which were shown to be fallacious. Mr. Buxton (Poplar), for instance, doubted whether parents would really suffer by the loss of their half-time children's wages ; for the work done by the half-timers would have to be done by others, and the parents would prob- ably reap the benefit of the change in larger .earnings for themselves. The vice-president of the council, Sir J. Gorst (Cam- bridge University), took up a very independent line, and detached his personal from his official opinions with his customary free- dom. He said that there could be no doubt that, five or six hours of labour in a mill were not a good preparation for attendance at school, and all educational authorities were op- posed to the half-time system. The adoption of this measure would result in an improvement in the education of the people, and the only question was whether those concerned would pay the price which would have to be paid for the change. The bill, however, would not really cause any serious disturbance of the existing state of things, for the children who annually left school between the ages of eleven and twelve were only 23,000 out of 600,000, while those who became half-timers between those ages did not exceed 50,000. It should be re- membered that half-timers had all succeeded in passing some educational standard, and were therefore children who were likely to profit by further instruction. As far as children in towns were concerned, it appeared to him that the country was pledged to this legislation by its participation in the Berlin Conference. But the case of children in agricultural districts was quite distinct, and was not considered at the conference. To growing children light employment in the fields was bene- ficial, and an educational system which was good for towns was perhaps not equally good for the country. It was not impossible to reconcile the employment of children in the fields with proper progress in education, and he should like to see children in the country made to attend school until a comparatively advanced age, the schools being closed in summer when agricul- tural operations were being carried on.
Mr. Asquith (Fifeshvre, E.) took an even stronger view, and had no misgivings as to his action being endorsed by his colleagues. He thought that even with the adoption of Mr. Bobson's proposal the British standard would be ridiculously low compared with foreign countries, but he cordially welcomed any step in the direction of reform. When the division was taken it showed that the second reading was passed by 317 to
