The Sun.
London, England, 1860-07-17 00:00:00

EDUCATION BILL

On the motion for the second readihg of this bill,
Mr. PEASE moved that the bill be read a second time
let day three months. He said the chief clause of this bill

was the first, and it enacted that children under twelve

years of age should not be employed without having a cer-
tificate that they had received a certain amount of
scholastic tuition, or that a guarantee was given
that they should be placed at school for twenty
hours in the month. He considered it would be

unjust to deprive children under 12 years of age of the
benefit of employment, because they had not obtained a
certain amount of education. H 3 objected also to the bill
that it had not machinery to carry out its provisions.
Sir G. LEWIS said that this bill was connected in
principle with the Mines Bill, which had recently been
before the house. Exceptional legislation in refer-
ence to persons employed first took place in re-
spect to those engaged in factories, by which children.
under a certain age were not allowed to be employed
without having obtained a certificate from a school-
master of having attended a certain time at school. Some
years afterwards there was a bill introduced for the regu-
lation of mines, and the employment of women was pro-
hibited as well as children under a certain age. It was
thought desirable to go further, and accordingly this
session the bill was brought forward requiring a
certificate of the attendance of children under 12
years of age at schools prior to their obtaining employment in
mines. He agreed to the abstract principle of the extension
of a similar regulation in regard to children generally, but
it was not the practice in this country, to proceed upon. •
theory, but to select some extreme cases and then legislate
experimentally. Under the circumstances he felt bound to
support the amendment.
Sir S. ESTCOURT considered that the house slit:mid
affirm the principle and discuss the details in committee or
postpone it till next session. He considered the present
system of education was deficient, and that it required
amendment,.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
this question was one of as great difficulty as even a Par-
liamentary Reform Bill, and they were called on to discuss
its principle in a thinly attended house. Had the question
been taken up by Government the house would have been
crowded, and it could not be expected that it would have
passed without several nights' discussion. The present
debate was, in fact, a mere exercitation, in which hon.
members might make abstract speeches, but which at this
period of the session would lead to no practical result. With
regard to dealing with children in masses, it was a totally
different matter from the present proposition, which pro-
posed to institute an inquiry into every private family in
the kingdom, and impose penal consequences for neglect of
the education of children. And this proposition was made
without there being any machinery provided for its being
carried out, and it would be necessary to introduce such
machinery in the bill at the late period of the
session in order to render it effective. Having ad-
verted to the great increase in the public expenditure,
which if it proceeded at the geometrical rates of late
years, would present a most threatening aspect, the right
hon. gentleman contended that any addtional expenditure
must be considered with the greatest care. Again this was
the state of public business. Last night an appeal had been
made to Government not to proceed with any bills this
session which they were sure they would not be able to
carry, and they had endeavoured to proceed on that prin-
ciple. He thought that a similar appeal should be made to
private members, and he called on the house to reject the
present measure, on the ground that it could not properly
be discussed.
Mr. HENLEY and Mr. BUXTON strongly opposed the bill.
Mr. ADDERLEY said that there was no objection to
the principle of his bill, and contended that the right
hon .gentleman (Sir G. Lewis) was most incomistent in MS
opposition to the bill, when he had supported the measure
with reference to IT Ines, which had been so fully discussed
during the present session. The principle of the bill had
been frequently affirmed by legislation for the last twenty
years, and it was nothing more than that children under a
certain age should not be employed all their time without
obtaining even the rudiments of education. He denied
that in the State undertaking to see that a certain amount
of education was provided for the poor there was anything
compulsory, or at variance with the functions of Govern-
ment. With regard to its alleged vexatious interference
with employers, the bill merely proposed that employers
should net take children into their service, under a certain
age, who were totally uneducated, without making pro-
vision for their receiving instruction for at leest five hours
a-week.

[LEFT SITTING.]

TEE CHILD IiIU_RD.RR AT .ROAD.

Sir G. C. Lewis, Home Secretary, has de..
spatched Inspector Whicher, of the metropolitan
detective police, to Road, for the purpose of en-
deavouring to dissipate the mystery which still
hangs over the murder of the child of Mr. Kent.
The inspector reached Trowbridge from London
on Sunday evening, and proceeded yesterday morn-
ing to Road, -where he had an interview
with the magistrates by whom the inquiry
has been conducted. In the course of the
conference Elizabeth Gough, the nurse
maid, was brought before the Bench and was libe-
rated. After sitting for about two hours with closed
doors, the representatives.of the press were admit-
ted. The Rev. R. Crawley said the magistrates had
little to communicate beyond the fact that Inspector
Whicher had been sent down from London, and ,
that the investigation had been placed in his hands
A reward would be immediately offered, £lOO 11
the Government and £lOO on the part of Mr. Kents
to any person giving such information as should
lead to the conviction of the perpetrator of the
crime, together with a free pardon to any acconi-
plice not being the actual murderer. The nurse,'
maid had been discharged, and had been informen,
that she was at liberty to go where she liked, and
she had stated her intention of returning to the die'
charge of her duties at Mr. Kent's house. It wag
then announced that the inquiry would be adjourned
till Friday next, and in reply to an inquiry whether
the proceedings on that day would be public it wag
stated that in the event of any evidence being then
taken on oath the public and reporters would be
admitted, but that at present the magistrates were
unable to say what course would be pursued. Mr.
Lopez, magistrate, wished it to be known that the
house had been re-examined and re-searched in every
possible way ; and that every inmate, except the in-
fant, had been called on to state what they knew in
reference to the matter. The best superintendente
of the force had been engaged in the insvestigatioef
and it was only an act of justice to the police and
to the magistrates to state that they had used ther
utmost exertions in endeavouring to trace on
the guilty party. The two servants mentioned
by Mr. Kent as having formerly lived in his env
ploy, and as being parties likely to have had an
ill-will against him, had both been found out by
the police, and it was proved that they were maul
miles distant from the scene of the murder on the
night of its occurrence. He (Mr. Lopez) was only
sorry that the magistrates had no more informaticon
to communicate to the press in reference to 010
extraordinary case. At the conclusion of the sit-
ting Inspector Whicher, accompanied by Superin'
tendents Foley, Woolfe, and others of the county'
constabulary, proceeded to Mr. Kent's residence,
and made a further inspection and search of the.
premises. The practicability of removing a child
about the age of the deceased from its bed
withoio
waking it, or disturbing the persons sleeping in tll9
same and adjoining rooms, has been tested by the
police, andbas been accomplished in three instances.