As the Bill was originally drawn it would have been a "reasonable excuse," within the meaning of this section, if the absence of the child from school had been caused by "necessary domestic employment at its own home," but these words were struck out of the Bill in committee.

The case of The London School Board v. Murphy (L.R. 2 Q.B.D. 397, 46 L.J.M.C. 193, 36, L.T. n.s. 698) raised the question whether in a district in which there are byelaws in force it is competent to the School Board to institute proceedings against the parent under the byelaws in a case which comes within the terms of this section, or whether they are limited to proceedings under this Act. It appeared that a person named Murphy, within the district of the London School Board, had neglected to send his child to school according to the byelaws of the Board. Thereupon the Board directed a summons to be taken out against him at the Hammersmith Police-court to enforce a fine under the byelaws. On the application for the summons, Mr. Bridge, the magistrate, found, as it appeared to him, that the case was one of habitual neglect, within the meaning of this section. In consequence of this, he declined to issue a summons for breach of the byelaws, and held that the Board were bound to proceed under this Act as in a case of habitual neglect. On an application for a mandamus calling upon the magistrate to issue his summons, the Lord Chief Justice, in giving judgment, said,―The question is whether the School Board might have proceeded under the byelaw, or whether they were bound to proceed under the 11th section of the Act of 1876. It seems to me that the offences under the byelaw and the statute are perfectly distinct, the offence under the former being an isolated offence, and the offence under the latter an habitual one. If the offence under the statute be proved, the magistrate obtains power to deal with the child in the manner pointed out by the statute, but not otherwise. The School Board maintain that they may adopt whichever mode of proceeding they please, and this contention is attempted to be supported by a reference to the 50th section of the Act of 1876, by which the power of the School Board to proceed under the byelaws is expressly preserved. But the words of the 11th section are too forcible and express for this argument to prevail. The 11th section does not deal with one act, but with a series of acts, and provides that "it shall be the duty" of the local authority to proceed against the parent in the manner and for the purposes pointed out. These words leave no discretion to the authority. The School Board in this case sought to prove an offence under their byelaws, and proved an offence under the statute. That being so, it became their duty to proceed under the statute, and the magistrate acted rightly in refusing a summons under the byelaw. Mr. Justice Mellor concurred. The policy of the Education Act, he said, was to secure the education of children. The proceeding under the byelaw might be sufficiently effective to enforce the law in ordinary cases of mere omission or neglect; but cases of habitual neglect, or in which there was no proper control over the child, were very different. In these another proceeding was

prescribed; and the magistrate, therefore, was justified in declining to sanction proceedings under the byelaw merely to enforce a fine. For proceedings in the case of non-compliance with an "attendance order," see the following section.

66

A certified day industrial school is a a certified efficient school" within the meaning of this section. With regard to receiving children into a certified day industrial school, under attendance orders, and the payments to be made by the parents and the parliamentary contributions in such cases (see sec. 16 (4)).

The Order in Council of the 20th March, 1877, by arts. 13 & 19 (see appendix, pp. 228, 235) prescribes regulations which must be strictly observed when proceedings are taken for obtaining an attendance order requiring a child to attend a certified day industrial school.

The Home Secretary has expressed an opinion that there is no power to order the parent of a child to pay the costs of obtaining an attendance order.

Proceedings on disobedience to order of court for attendance at school.

12. Where an attendance order is not complied with, without any reasonable excuse within the meaning of this Act, a court of summary jurisdiction, on complaint made by the local authority, may, if it think fit, order as follows:

(1.) In the first case of non-compliance, if the

parent of the child does not appear, or appears and fails to satisfy the court that he has used all reasonable efforts to enforce compliance with the order, the court may impose a penalty not exceeding with the costs five shillings; but if the parent satisfies the court that he has used all reasonable efforts as aforesaid, the court may, without inflicting a penalty, order the child to be sent to a certified day industrial school, or if it appears to the court that there is no such school suitable for the child, then to a certified industrial school; and

(2.) In the second or any subsequent case of noncompliance with the order, the court may order the child to be sent to a certified day

industrial school, or if it appears to the court that there is no such school suitable for the child, then to a certified industrial school, and may further in its discretion inflict any such penalty as aforesaid, or it may for each such non-compliance inflict any such penalty as aforesaid without ordering the child to be sent to an industrial school;

Provided that a complaint under this section with respect to a continuing non-compliance with any attendance order shall not be repeated by the local authority at any less interval than two weeks.

A child shall be sent to a certified industrial school, or certified day industrial school, in pursuance of this section in like manner as if sent in pursuance of the Industrial Schools Act, 1866, and when so sent shall be deemed to have been sent in pursuance of that Act and the Acts amending the same; and the parent, if liable under the said Acts to contribute to the maintenance and training of his child when sent to an industrial school, shall be liable so to contribute when his child is sent in pursuance of this section.

An "attendance order" is an order made by a Court of Summary Jurisdiction under the preceding section, and the reasons for noncompliance with the order which are to be deemed a "reasonable excuse" are prescribed by that section.

In the case of The London School Board v. Harvey (Law Rep. 4, Q.B.D. 451, 48 Law Jour. M.C. 130) it was held by the Queen's Bench Division that an order of a court of summary jurisdiction imposing a penalty on the parent of a child for non-compliance with an order for the attendance of the child at school may be proved in subsequent proceedings by the minute book of the court containing an entry of the order, and that it is unnecessary to produce a copy of the order signed by the Clerk of the Peace or other officer of the sessions.

As to costs of proceedings under this Section, see 42 & 43 Vict., c. 48, s. 8 (Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1879).

A "certified industrial school" is "a school in which industrial training is provided and children are lodged, clothed, and fed, as well as taught," certified by a Secretary of State under the Industrial Schools Act, 1866 (29 & 30 Vict., c. 118), for the reception of children under that Act. A" certified day industrial school" is a school certified by

a Secretary of State, "in which industrial training, elementary education, and one or more meals a day, but not lodging, are provided for the children" (see sec. 16).

Children sent to a certified industrial school, in pursuance of this section, are to be sent in like manner as if sent in pursuance of the Industrial Schools Act, 1866. By sec. 18 of that Act it is provided that the order of justices or a magistrate sending a child to a school shall be in writing, signed by the justices or magistrate, and shall specify the name of the school. In determining on the school the justices or magistrate shall endeavour to ascertain the religious persuasion to which the child belongs, and shall, if possible, select a school conducted in accordance with such religious persuasion, and the order shall specify such religious persuasion. The order shall specify the time for which the child is to be detained in the school, being such time as to the justices or magistrate seems proper for the teaching and training of the child, but not in any case extending beyond the time when the child will attain the age of sixteen years. The 29 & 30 Vict. c. 118, by sec. 23, provides that the expense of conveying to a certified industrial school a child ordered to be sent there shall be defrayed by the police authorities, and shall be deemed part of the current expenses of the police authorities. The expense attending the conveyance of a child who is ordered under this section to be sent to a certified industrial school cannot therefore be defrayed by the School Board or School Attendance Committee.

If, on non-compliance with an attendance order, the court, in pursuance of this section, order a child to be sent to a certified day industrial school, the order is to be deemed an "order of detention within the meaning of the Order in Council of the 20th March, 1877 (see appendix, p. 230). As to the provisions of that order with regard to orders of detention, and the hours during which a child may be detained at school, see arts. 18, 28, & 29.

As to the penalty for a child under a detention order not attending school or not conforming to rules of school, and penalty for preventing child from attending school in accordance with order of detention, see arts. 28 & 29 of Order in Council above referred to.

The provisions of the Industrial Schools Act, 1866, with regard to the contributions by parents, etc., towards the maintenance of children in industrial schools, and the orders for the enforcement of such contributions, are as follows:

"The parent, step-parent, or other person for the time being legally liable to maintain a child detained in a certified industrial school shall, if of sufficient ability, contribute to his maintenance and training therein a sum not exceeding five shillings per week.

"On the complaint of the inspector of industrial schools, or of any agent of the inspector, or of any constable under the directions of the inspector (with which directions every constable is hereby required to comply), at any time during the detention of a child in a certified industrial school, two justices or a magistrate having jurisdiction at the place where the parent, step-parent, or other person liable as

aforesaid resides, may, on summons to the parent, step-parent, or other person liable as aforesaid, examine into his ability to maintain the child, and may, if they or he think fit, make an order or decree on him for the payment to the inspector or his agent of such weekly sum, not exceeding five shillings per week, as to them or him seems reasonable, during the whole or any part of the time for which the child is liable to be detained in the school.

66

Every such order or decree may specify the time during which the payment is to be made, or may direct the payment to be made until further order.

"Every such payment, or a proper proportionate part thereof, shall go in relief of the charges on Her Majesty's Treasury, and the same shall be accounted for as the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury direct, and where the amount of the payment ordered in respect of any child exceeds the amount contributed by the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury in respect of that child, the balance shall be accounted for and paid to the managers of the school.

"The Secretary of State may, in his discretion, remit wholly or partially any payment so ordered.

"Two justices or a magistrate having jurisdiction to make such an order or decree may from time to time vary any such order or decree as circumstances require, on the application either of the person on whom such order or decree is made, or of the inspector of industrial schools, or his agent, on fourteen days' notice being first given of such application to the inspector or agent, or to such person respectively.'

Special provisions are made by this Act (see sec. 16) as to the contributions by parents in the case of children sent to a certified day industrial school.

With regard to the powers of the authority by which a School Attendance Committee are appointed to contribute towards the maintenance in a certified industrial school or a certified day industrial school of a child ordered to be sent to the school upon complaint made by the School Attendance Committee, see Elementary Education (Industrial Schools) Act, 1879 (p. 112 post).

Duty of local authority as to taking proceedings under this Act or 29 & 30 Vict., c. 118.

13. Where the local authority are informed by any person of any child in their jurisdiction who is stated by that person to be liable to be ordered by a court under this Act to attend school, or to be sent under this Act, or the Industrial Schools Act, 1866, to an industrial school, it shall be the duty of the local authority to take proceedings under this Act or the Industrial Schools Act, 1866, accordingly, unless the