Sarah
Hawkins Genealogy Site
Newspaper
Articles
The Cheshire Observer Saturday 01 Dec 1877
Page 8 Column 2
IRREGULAR SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN CHESTER.
TRUANTS BEFORE THE MAGISTRATES.
At the City Police Court, on Thursday, before W. JOHNSON, Esq. (in the chair), Sir T. G. FROST, and John THOMPSON, Esq., the parents of 36 children, boys and girls, were summoned at the instance of the School Attendance Committee to answer for truancy. Mr. S. SMITH (Deputy Town Clerk) appeared to support the summonses. Before the cases were proceeded with.
Mr. SMITH stated that he appeared by the instructions of the School Attendance Committee of the City of Chester to support the summonses taken out against the defendants for breach of the bye-laws requiring regular attendance at an elementary school in the city. They bye-laws dealing with the matter were No. 2 :- “The parent of every child of not less than five nor more than thirteen years of age shall cause such child to attend school unless there be a reasonable excuse for non-attendance. Any of the following shall be a reasonable excuse, viz.:- (a) When the child is under efficient instruction in some other manner. (b) When the child has been prevented from attending school by sickness, or any unavoidable case. (c) When there is no public elementary school open which the child can attend within two miles.” That latter excuse of course did not apply to Chester. The third byelaw provided that the time during which every child shall attend school shall be the whole time for which the school selected shall be open for the instruction of children of similar age, including the day fixed by Her Majesty's Inspector for his annual visit. It would be perhaps convenient if he were to state that these being the first summonses which the Committee had taken out they did not propose to ask this time for the infliction of a penalty, but to ask for an attendance order with a penalty following on the breach of it, in accordance with the 24th section of the 36th and 37th Vic., cap. 86. The reason the Committee had for taking that moderate course was that they wished it first to go forth from that Court with no uncertain sound that the parents of children were bound to send these children to school, that it was not a simple question of saying to the children “You must go, “ but that the parents must see that they went; and that the Court, acting with firmness in supporting the action of the committee, would make an order on the defendants that their children did attend school, the order providing that if they failed to perform it they would incur a penalty of 5s. for each offence – for the failure to attend any one time that the school was opened. A further and the most important reason for this action on the part of the committee was, that regularity of attendance was really the great thing to aim at. Irregular attendance was unfair to the managers of schools, inasmuch as the grant they got depended upon regularity of attendance. A child much be ever so proficient, but unless he kept his minimum of attendances the managers did not earn the grant. It was well-known that children's pence did not pay for the whole costs of the schools, and managers were, to a very great extent, dependent upon the Government grant to be able to maintain these schools; and irregular attendance was consequently unfair to them. And it was very discouraging to the teacher, who had no chance of dealing with the child who came spasmodically only ever other or third day; and as for the child, of course, it got little good from intermittent attendances. No doubt that was the primary object of the Act – the good of the child, and if it were not sent regularly to school this good object failed. He need not add to that that these irregular attendances thrust an immense deal of trouble on the School Attendance Committee and its officers. The Committee had been occupied many mornings two, three, and even four hours investigating these cases of irregular attendance, and hearing excuses; and they had only brought before the Bench these cases after due notice and fair warning, and, after doing all in their power, had failed to bring about the result of regular attendance. This opening statement, he might say, was applicable not only to the first case, but to all the cases; and he had only further to say that the committee hoped the magistrates would support their action by firmness, and that no defendant would be allowed to escape an attendance order who did not directly bring himself or herself under one or other of the excuses defined in the bye-laws. The committee themselves dealt with all reasonable, fair excuses, and did not trouble the Bench in any cases unless they were clearly cases to bring before them.
Mr. SHARP (clerk of the court) asked a question, in reference to the mere making of an order, about the payment of the costs.
Mr.
SMITH said the committee's object was to secure attendance, and it
was thought by them, after due consideration, that in their first
application to the Court they should take a moderate course of asking
only for a school attendance order. If that were not found to
procure, by its becoming generally known, good attendance throughout
the city, they should the next time take a more severe remedy. The
costs of the summonses the School Attendance Committee were quite
prepared to pay, and they thought it would be money well expended if
it secured good attendance at the schools of the city.
The
CHAIRMAN asked if all this were not known already?
Mr. SMITH said it was not. Many of the parents seemed to think if they got a teacher's certificate that their children were on the books of a school, that that was sufficient; and these people had had so many notices and warnings that, in fact, they seemed to think the matter would end there; and the committee took these proceedings with the view of making it generally known that they were going to enforce the bye-laws, and that they were not going to have any excuse that was not strictly within these bye-laws.
The following are the names of the parents, or of those who have charge of the children, in respect of whom action has been taken:- Willam ASPEY, 8, Herberts-court, Crook-street (for two boys); Peter BAILEY, 14, White Lion-yard (boy and girl); John BEECH, 38, Trafford-street (girl); Henry BOOTE, 7, Rock-yard (two girls); Patrick BRANNEN, 5, Commercial Hall (two boys); Thomas CARR, 28, White Lion Yard (boy); Hannah CAWLEY, 17, Herbert's-court, Crook-street (boy); Thomas COOK, 8, Earl's Villas, City-road (boy); John CRAWFORD, 5, Herbert's-court (boy and girl); Mary DELANEY, 9, Davies-court (boy); Martin DERMODY, 8, Davies-court (boy); Andrew DURKIN, 5, Potter's-court (two boys); William DOUGLAS, 2, Hamilton-court (boy); Thomas GARVEY, 41, Steven-street (boy); Joseph GREGG, Pipe-court (girl); John GWYNNE, 4, Clare's-court, (boy); William HANCOCK, 2, Downes-court (boy); Catherine HOGG, 10, St. Martin's-in-the-Fields (boy); Margaret HUNT, 1, Brittain's Entry (boy); James JORDAN, 8, Seaville-street (boy); John KERNS, 7, Davies-court (boy); Michael KENNY, 5, Fosbrook-street (boy); Michael MARTIN, 6, Charles-street (boy); Catherine McDONAGH, 7, Parry's-entry (boy); Edward PAY, 30, Greenway-street (girl); Mrs. RICHARDSON, Queen-street (boy); James TRANIER, White Lion Yard, Crook-street (boy); John VICKERS, 19, Spital-walk (boy); Charles WILLIAMS, 15, Crew-street (two boys).
The order asked for by Mr. SMITH was made in each case, except in the case of Mrs. RICHARDSON, of Queen-street, whose son, George, was sent to the Industrial School for five years. It appeared that the woman is a widow, and compelled to go out nearly all day to earn her living. The boy was consequently neglected, and had become unmanageable by anybody. The Magistrates on hearing this took the matter into their own hands, and disposed of the boy as we have stated.