§ LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council for Education, Whether the Committee of Council hold that they are discharged of all liability to the Pupil Teachers under Article 54 of the Revised Code by paying, in accordance with paragraph 36 of the Instructions, to the Managers the amount of the Pupil Teachers' stipends and gratuities; or whether, in the case of a Manager declining to pay over the money so received, the Committee would feel themselves bound to see the Pupil Teachers paid in full; and whether, in requiring the Managers to report the number of Children at their Schools who do not come under the terms of Article 4 of the Revised Code as "Children belonging to the classes who support themselves by manual labour." the Committee have furnished cither Managers or Inspectors with a definition of the words "manual labour?"
§ MR. LOWEsaid, in reply, that the Question of the noble Lord involved the most extraordinary supposition that the Managers of Schools would misappropriate or embezzle money paid to them by the Privy Council for Pupil Teachers and apply it to some other purpose. He knew of no such case having occurred, and he was sorry to hear the possibility of its occurrence suggested of a class of gentlemen who were employed in a most charitable work. The answer to the question was that the Committee of Council know no one but the Managers. They paid the money to the Managers; and when they had done so, they had discharged themselves of all liability; and in the event of the very strange and improbable case which had been suggested by the noble Lord occurring, the Pupil Teacher would have no claim against the Committee of Privy Council. In the second Question there was a mistake: they did not exclude from the schools children whoso parents did not maintain themselves by manual labour. He saw no reason why 1315 such children should not be in their schools. What they required was that in a separate column there should be stated the children of those who did not earn their support by manual labour, in order that the parents of such children should not shift on to the public the responsibility of educating them, when they could do it themselves. The Committee of Privy Council had not furnished the Inspectors with a definition of the words "manual labour." The great requirement in a definition was that it should be clearer than the thing defined; and no words that they would care to use could be clearer than the words "manual labour." But when we have had experience of the class of persons who do send their children to these schools, no doubt we shall be able to frame some words more satisfactory than those by which we at present attempt to define a class of which we really know but little.
§ LORD ROBERT CECILThe right hon. Gentleman went, I think, beyond the usual limits in answering my Question, for he imputed to me a meaning I did not entertain. I had no desire to accuse the Managers of embezzlement; but it is quite possible that they might retain money in their hands through a misapprehension; and what I want to know is, in case Managers decline to pay over the money which they received for Pupil Teachers to those Pupil Teachers, whether the Committee of Council will give no further effect whatever to the promise made to pay money to those Pupil Teachers?
§ MR. LOWEThe noble Lord's Question seems to answer itself; for if the Managers decline to pay over the money to the Pupil Teachers, even after their attention has been drawn to the fact that the money belongs to the Pupil Teachers, those Managers cannot possibly retain the money through a misapprehension. In such a case we should not pay the money over again to the Pupil Teachers, but we certainly should strike the school off the list of those entitled to grants.