The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-09-28 00:00:00

THE EDUCATIONAL ACT IN LONDON.

At the Weetminieter police-court, Elizabeth Lewis,
John Smith, and Charles White, hard-working people,
were charged on eummowee with neglecting to Rend
their children to echooL
Mr. Credge, solicitor to the School Board for London,
prosecuted, and, after explaining the construction and
working of the Act, said that the penalty, including
coats, for neglecting to send children to school between
the ages of five and thirteen was sa, but these pro-
ceedings were not taken with a view to enforce con-
victions, but to compel there people to have their
children educated, and the law made no distinction
between rich and poor, the visitors seeing that all
children were sent to school or properly educated.
In the case of Lewis, the mother said the child went
to the school at Blvd:110.°n Oratory, because it was the
only free school at that end of London; there were no
elementary schools.
The case was adjourned for a month to see that the
child was sent to the Oratory regularly.

In the cane of John Smith, the defendant said his
living was very precarious, especialli as the wood-
cutters were now on strike, and he could not earn a
pound in three weeks; his wife only earned about ss.
a week, and there was ss. a week for rent. It was all
he could do to put food into the mouths of the children,
and he was unable to buy boots or any decent clothes
to send them to school in.
Mr. Gedge said there were children as poorly clad
an his in the school he mentioned. The nearest school
was a Catholic one.
The Magistrate mid he would not like to send Pro-
testant children to a Catholic school.
Mr. Gedge said he quite agreed ; but the religious
instruction ceased at half-past nine in the morning to
suit a.ll_children.

The Magistrate said that the elements of religious
education were sometimes taught in other hours.
The defendant promised to do his best to send his
children to school at once. .

The Magistrate said if he did he would not be
punished; the School Board had behaved very con-
siderately in the matter.
In the case of Mrs. White, it appeared she went to
work all day, and did her beet to send her boy to school,
hut he would not go, and played truant in her absence.
She had tried everything.
The case was adjourned for a week to enable the
mother to comply with the Act.

One of the first prosecutions by the London School
Board under the Elementary Education Act was cnn-
inenced at the Worship-street police-court in July last,
when summonses against five persons were taken out
for neglecting to send their children to school The
persons summoned were poor persons from the neigh-
bourhood of Spitalfields, and the excuses made were
generally that they were wanted at home to "mind"
some younger children, or that they had no things
to go in. Neither of the excuses, as the pre-
siding magistrate pointed out at the time, was
admissible as a "good and sufficient reason"
for keeping the children away, and the parents
or guardians were liable to a penalty of flit. for
every child, which fine might be inflicted over and over
again upon the continued refusal of the parents. All
the defendants pleaded guilty, promising that the
children should -be cent to school. Then, upon the
representation of the solicitor to the School Board,
time WM granted to.the parents to fulfil their promises
and prove their willingness to keep faith, the
summonses being adjourned. At the time the defend-
ants were told that they would Lot hear anything more
of the matter if their children were sent to school; but
they now came before the court again in &asequence,
as it appeared, of not having fulfilled their promises.
One of the defendants had four children liable
liable to be sent to school, and only two of them
had been cent, even these at irregular times, and at
intervals of a week. For some time they had not
been at all. Another of the defendants said that he
had not the money to pay for his two children at
school, although that was only twopence a week.
There was no free school within half a mile of the
defendant's lodgings, it appeared, and his children
were now running about the ttreets. In other cases
different excuses were made, and in one the child had
died recently.
The Magistrate further adjourned the summonses
against two of the defendants, who were ordeiel ti
pay the costa recoverable by distress, and failing that
imprisonment.

At Woolwich, a number of summonses have been
heard this week under the Education Act afgainbt
parents who had neglected to send their children to
schooL One man, a stonemason, appeared on
four summonses for neglecting to educate his
four children, between the ages of six and thirteen.
Defendant said he sent his children to school for
three years, till he was out of work, and not able
to pay for their schooling, as he had eight children
to support. The Magistrate ordered the defendant
to pay the costs, St, and directed the summonses
to stand over for a month. In another case the
defendant's wife said she sent the child to school at the
chapel opposite. Mr. Strachan, who appeared for the
School Board, said that it was an uncertified school.
The Magistrate said that when children were sent at
all it should be to a proper school. Defendant was
ordered to pay costa and the case to stand over for a
month. A third defendant, who was summoned in re-
spect of four of his children, between the ages of seven
and eleven, said he taught his children himself at home
when he had time. He was ordered to pay the costs,
Bs. ; the summonses to stand over for a month. The
other cases were similarly dealt with.