§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, that by the Revised Code it was provided that no School should be entitled to receive Capitation Grants unless it was under a Master who was duly certificated and duly paid; and it was defined by the Code that a Master should be considered as duly paid if he had a salary equal to three times the amount of the Augmentation Grant to which he would have been entitled under the old Code. There was also a provision that he had a first charge upon the Capitation Grant to the amount of that Augmentation Grant; and there was a further provision in the Code that the Pupil Teachers should have a second charge upon the Capitation Grant. It was very important that Managers and Masters of Schools should know exactly how these articles were construed; therefore, he would beg to ask the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether, in the opinion of the Committee of Council on Education, the Managers of a School who have made an agreement with the Master to pay him a salary equal to three times the amount of his Augmentation Grant, as prescribed by Article 51 (b) of the Code of 1862, are bound to make provision for that salary out of private subscriptions, or whether they will satisfy the requirements of the Code by providing for two-thirds of it by private subscriptions, and trusting for the other third to the Capitation Grant; whether, in the event of the Capitation Grant proving insufficient to meet the Master's charge to the extent of one-third of his salary, the Committee of Council will make good the deficiency; and whether they will consider the School in which such a deficiency has been made good still entitled to receive Annual Grants; and whether the rules which apply in these respects to the case of Masters apply also, and in like manner, to the case of Pupil Teachers?
§ MR. LOWEsaid, in reply, that the first Question of the hon. Baronet was, whether, supposing the managers of a school agreed with a master to pay him a 1583 certain salary, and provided two-thirds of that salary, leaving him to receive the other one-third from a Capitation Grant— which grant might never be made at all—that arrangement would be a sufficient compliance with the contract under the regulations of the Privy Council. His answer was that it would not. It was not a compliance with an absolute contract to refer the person with whom it was made to a conditional arrangement such as that on which the Capitation Grant depended. The hon. Baronet's second Question was, whether in the event of the Capitation Grant proving insufficient to meet the master's charge to the extent of one-third of his salary, the Committee of Council would make good the deficiency. His reply was that they would not. They did not undertake, and never had undertaken, to do so. The third Question was, whether the rules which applied in these respects to the case of certificated masters, applied also and in like manner to the case of pupil teachers. His reply was in the negative. In the case of certificated masters the Committee of Council only said, that in respect of the examination and attendance of the children, a certain charge on the grant might be received. In the case of pupil teachers, the Committee undertook that the teacher should have a second charge, but with this remarkable difference, that in the event of the amount being insufficient, the Committee would make up the difference out of their own funds. This Minute had been drawn up to protect teachers against masters; but in certain quarters an opinion seemed to have grown up that it might be possible by collusion, to pay first the master, and next the teacher, and so oblige the Privy Council to make up any difference which might exist between the funds in hand and the amount required for those payments. He hoped no attempt of that kind would prove successful.