EDUCATION OF THE PEOPLE. TO THE EDITORCIP THE SPECTATOR.
Oakham, 3d November 1939, Sin—Your paper of the 18t1i of October, which, being from home, I saw for the first time this evening, contains some strictures by Mr. JAMES WHEE LEn of Manchester, to notice which I trust you will do me the favour to allow me a brief space in your columns.
With Mr.WIIEELER's remarks on the evidence of Dr. KAY, I have nothing to In ; neither have I leisure to indulge in speculations on the de,igns of the Educational Committee ; much less can I sympathize with him in his insinua- tion, that the "ends of the labours " of that Committee " are opening a wide field for jobbing and patronage." I shall therefore confine my observations to what he considers the two most objectionable points in my evidence. On the first of these Mr. WHEELER. says- . Mr. James it idilall Wood is or opinion that the people cannot attoril to educate their children. "rhe only wat,' he says, ' in which general ednettion can obtain must
he by an :vivainat in the wages of the adult population. Plausible rea:on ; but zis it ail, ears to me, far wide of the truth."
In proof of the erroneous nature of my opinion, a case is adduotal (not real, but imaginary) of a man, his wife, and two grown up children earning at a factory 2/. per week, leaving four other children at a school:Ode age to be " thrown upon the streets." When Mr. WHEELER. i9 old enough to be married and have a family, he will know that such a case as the one he has supposed could never occur. What an amiable simplicity of mind must belong to political economists, AVIM can imagine the mother of six children rising a! six ill the morning, turning her four youngest children upon the street. locking the door, putting the key in her pocket, and walking of to the factory with the coolness of a " modern philosopher T. The glaring incongruity of this part of Mr. WHEELER's ease proves that be is indebted for it rather to his imagination than to his " practical knowledge of our social condition." Overleaping, however, the impossibility of the thing, and coining, a littlit closer, I cannut but admire the ingenious mode of selection adopted by Mr. ‘VHEELEit. Ifs scicrts Lancashire for the scene of his interesting else. no doubt on account of his " practical knowledge of its social relatious ;" front Manchester lie selects spinners ; from these he selects a man, his wife, and two grown-up children, all going to the factory, with four little urchins throwo upon the streets ; and, to crown the whole, la has si /cete/ an estimote el the average earnings, made five years age, during a period of as great prosperity as the spinning trade ever experienced. So much for Mr. WHEELER'S "ea.w." Now for farts. There are, and have been in Lancashire for the last two years, thousands of families with from one to eight or nine children under twelve tvats of age, whose sole dependence is on the labour of the flther. who is not receiving more than las. per week. Among this number may he ranked a large propottion of persons engaged about dyc-works, print-works and 1 lee11- grounds,—labourers, factory hands, porters, ostlers, many employed in building or clothing trades, and the patient half-starved hand.loain weavers.
This, however, is not the worst. There are heavy deductions to be made front this limited income, on ziecount of stagnation of trade, illness, or the season of the year. During the last winter, thousands were out of work from sixteen to twenty or more weeks, and have never sine, even doting the summer,
had full employment. How are parents so situated to obtain education for their children ? They cannot afford to feed them, much less to provide suit- able clothing to send them to school in, and, least of all, to pay school wages. Now I would ask Mr.NVHEELER whether he is prepared to go with me into an investigation of the proof of these statements? If be is, I am ready to afford Mtn the most irrefragable evidence, both from masters and front men, of their troth, even to the minutest particular. If not, I put it to him as a man of candour, whether he can resist the conclusion, that education cannot be expected generally to obtain until an advance takes place in the wages of the adult popn• lation ; or if it twill better suit his views, an equitiolera reduction is nook in the in ice of provisions. But I suspect Mr. WHEELra bas, like the Knight of La Mancha, been tak- ing an inn for a castle ; for I cannot believe he would attempt designedly to force a construction upon my words which they do not and were never de-igned to bear. Aly language does not imply that none among the operative classes can afford to educate their children, but that a large ploportion are unable to do so. Some in the trades I have enumerated, who are employed on the better descriptions of work, can earn 80s. or an s. a family per week ; but the mass cannot. Cases, therefore, in which families earn mute than 30s. a week, may be brought forward ; but they form the exception rather than the rule. It is a most dangerous and fallacious way of looking at these suldeets. through the medium of averages, without having a " practical knowledge of the socjil condition " of the people. I now come to the other portion of my evidence which Mr. WE cc are thinks proper to imptige. De says, 't iIr. Wool), however, mi the other liand, expresses himself decisively, that the people worth/ pay for edneatien," To sus. tam n his objection to this opinion, he affirms that " Sunday sehoias" are " net overcrowded with scholars ;" thereby insinuating that the nun her taw:ohne this description of schools is small, and that cumiequently the pep], will not receive education for their children when offered gritnittedy. Ii comett I he error into which he has here Idler], I beg leave to reti r Mr. Wit r Fl. r:: to the ey* Manchester, purporting to be written b himself', and pulilialtel leata1; where he will heti the number of children attending Sand iv school, in laechester is i:'1,196, which, of itself, is the strongest proof that the p,ople geoe rally gladly avail themselves of education when brought within their reach. If this is not sufficient, we have also the additional Let, that d, Js of the above number are not attending any day school. But thete is still a deadly blow to be parried ; the National and Litheasterian schools are not " overcrowded ;" but, if this be the fact, it cum, s i;1 a, valid evidence of my first objcetionahle proposition, that the people caano!' ill, rd to send their children to day school; the two taken together formitg the maw. Mehl eon creeds.
Few words will suffiee to dismiss the liability evidence which is adduced of " the fallacy of 31r. Woo ti's opinions," founded on an analysis of the ela,, of per- sons attending the Manchester Mechanics' Institute. The number of members belonging to.the winking class is very small from which Mr. Wheeler infers ; that people are unwilling to educate their children. Did it never nccur to Mr. Wriarintai, that before the people can be expected to take an interest in Mechanics' Institutes, they must have a taste for the sort of irealuction these establiahments supply. This taste it is the business of a judiciou, dueation to impart. And such an education few of our working population live enjoyed, and of that few, the number is exceedingly small of those who are able to afford the money and the time necessary to secure the advantages of the lestitute. ...Sueh establishments may therefore be expected to languish until the public mind has been prepared by a suitable education. That there are ,o it. w tneni. bers among the operatives, is on these grounds perfectly explicable. altheugh it must doubtless ever remain a "curious fact" to those pseudo " lights of the nineteenth century," whose "practical knowledge of our social condition " con- sists of theory, and is founded on averages. I beg to apologize for the length to which this letter has extendid. and re-
main, Sir, Yours very respectfully, J.AMEs RIDDALL WOOD
Previous page
