The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-05-31 00:00:00

t SCHOOL BOARD APPEAL CASE.

in the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court
of Justice, before Mr. Justice Stephen and Mr.
Justice Matthews, the appeal in the case of "The
School Board for London v. Duggan" was heard, and
was a case stated by Mr. Bridge, the magistrate at
, Southwark, raising a question of great importance
I under the Education Acts, namely, whether the
circumstance that the earnings of a child over twelve
years of age, who can read and write well and has
some knowledge of arithmetic and grammar, are
absolutely necessary to enable her parents to support
her brothers and sisters constitutes a reasonable
excuse for the non-attendance of the child at school..
By the Education Acts and the by-laws of the School
Board it is provided that the parent of every child
of the age of between 5 and 13 years shall cause the
child to attend school, unless there be a reasonable
excuse for non-attendance, reasonable excuse being
defined to be either that the child is under efficient
instruction in some other manner, or that the child
has been prevented from attending by sickness or
"any other unavoidable cause," or that there is no
school within two miles of the child's home. The•
officer of the School Board had summoned the re-
spondent for not causing a child of his aged 12 years
and 7 months to attend the Board School. The facts,
as stated by the magistrate, were as follows: The girl
could read fluently and write well, and had been fairly
instructed in arithmetic and grammar, but had not
passed the second standard; her parents, who were
described as sober, hardworking, and respectable
people, influenced by a desire for the benefit of
all their children, were poor, the husband being a
labouring man; during the time that the girl was
absent from school, her father being short of work, she
had been employed as nursemaid in a respectable
family, earning her keep and 3s. a week, which sum
she gave to her mother, and without which it would
have been impossible for the mother to have fed the
other children. The mother stated that her husband
had been short of work by no fault of his own, and
that it was intended that the child should return to
filo school as soon as her wages were no longer
necessary to support the family. Under these circum-
stances the magistrate dismissed the summons, on
the ground that there was reasonable cause for the
child's absence from school. From this decision the
School Board appealed.
Mr. Freeman, for the School Board, argued that
the parents of the child could not avail themselves of
the child's employment as an excuse, because by the
Education Act of 1875 it had been made illegal to
employ such a child unless she had obtained a certifi-
cate of having passed the proger standard. [Mr.
Justice Mathew: Is that to be taken to mean that
the child may not stay; away from school to support
fierself, but must go there, though she starve?] She
can obtain relief. [Mr. Justice Mathew: It cannot
be the intention of the Act to compel a person to be-
come a pauper. Mr. Justice Stephen It would, in-
:dl, be a sad thing if any statute is to be taken as
denying the sacred duty of a child to help to support
its parents.] - The child had not passed- the requisite
standard, and the facts stated show no excuse under
the Act; the question is one of some difficulty, and
the School Board desire only the judgment of the
Court.

The respondent was not represented by counsel.
His wife, however, appeared in person, but the Court
gave judgment in support of the magistrate's decision
without calling upon her, Mr. Justice Stephen saying
that both their lordships were of opinion that the
facts stated constituted reasonable excuse." It_ap-
peared that the girl's wages had formed a very large
portion of the family earnings, and that without them
the mother could not have supported her other chil-
dren; in so doing she had been discharging one of the
most sacred duties of humanity—that of honouring
her father and mother and maintaining those near to
her, and his lordship declined to hold this not to be a
reasonable excuse, unless he found the contrary enacted
in the plainest and most express terms in the Act of
Parliament. He did not, however, think that the
Education Acts were intended to act so harshly, but
admitted of proof being given of reasonable excuse.
The magistrate had found that such existed in the
present case, and the Court were of opinion that the
decision of the magistrate was correct. His lordship
added that he did not wish it to be supposed that he
thought that any blame attached to the School Board
for their action in the matter. It was their duty to
enforce the observance of the Education Acts, and
they acted perfectly right in taking the case before
the magistrate, and also in taking steps to obtain the
opinion of t37,e Court.
Mr. Justice Mathew concurring, the appeal was
dismissed, with costs,