ANOTHER YEAR AT SCHOOL.

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXIV, Issue 18807, 20 February 1931, Page 9

ANOTHER YEAR AT SCHOOL.

Raisin g Age In Britain. BIXX REJECTED BY HOUSE OF LORDS. British Official Wlrsles* RUGBY, February 18. The House of Lords, by 168 to 22, rejected the Government’s Education Bill, raising the school leaving age from 14 to 15 years. For the Bill. Lord Ponsonby, in moving the second reading of the Bill, described it as a small step forward in the education ladder —an attempt to break down the barrier which for many generations had been purposely preserved in order to keep the workers in subjection through ignorance. Cries of “No!” Withdraw!” Lord Ponsonby did not believe that the Opposition was really opposed to the principle of raising the school age. “The expansion of education produced the Labour Party. That is why they hesitated to carry it further.” Lord Hailsham, moving its rejection, said the only motive was that stated in Mr Snowden’s House of Commons declaration, and that was that however desirable reforms might be, the country could not at present afford them. The Archbishop of York regretted that Lord Hailsham had taken the lead “from the rising hope of the stem and unbending Tories,” who at present was the Chancellor of the Exchequer. “The main principle of the Bill was the raising of the school age. If they rejected the Bill, it would be inferred that the House of Lords were opposed to thfflt principle. By the age of 14 people had begun to read, but the cultivation of taste was not begun. It is true the greatest social and political peril was the cheap newspaper. The root thereof was a limited education. People, if they had no education, could not, and if they had more they would not read them. As it was, we condemned them to be the victims of such influence.” The Bishop of London, supporting the Bill, claimed that the Anglican Church had been the pioneers of education in England for centuries. At present, churchmen were paying £IO,OOO weekly for it. People must be educated. Reply to Opposition. Lord Sanderson said that all the arguments against the Bill were the same as those used against every educational advance during the sixty years of life that had been spent teaching working men and women, who found it most difficult to bridge the gap which was lost by leaving school too soon. Those who had been at school longer had not better brains, but were better equipped for further studies.

Lord Beauchamp advocated the postponement of the Bill in the interest of settlement of the problem of nonprovided schools. Local authorities already had permissive powers to extend the school age. Lord Gorell, as a member of the Hadow Committee on reorganisation education, expressed the opinion that the opponents of the Bill would be voting against educational progress. Lord Ponsonby said economy was not the real motive of the opposition. “You are going to vote en masse against the principle of an extra year’s schooling for poor children. The country will thus interpret the action of rejection.” The minority consisted of fourteen Labour peers, three Conservatives— Viscounts Cecil and Esher, and Lord Teynaham, one Liberal (Lord Sandhurst), the Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of Liverpool, St. Albans and Southwark. Government Unperturbed. The lobbyists state that the Government will re-introduce the School Age Bill in the House of Commons next session, under the Parliament Act procedure. If carried twice, it must be passed, despite the Peers. The Bill, in any event, cannot come Into operation till accompanied by a money Bill providing for Church schools, regarding which an agreement with the managers has not been reached. The Government, in the circumstances, does not regard the situation that the House of Lords has created as seriously inconvenient.