HC Deb 01 May 1874 vol 218 cc1531-49
SIR JOHN LUBBOCK

said, that though he was precluded by the division which had just occurred from submitting to the House the Resolution of which he had given Notice, he trusted he might be permitted to call its attention to the subject. That Notice was as follows:— That, in the opinion of this House, it is desirable to modify the Code of Regulations issued by the. Committee of the Privy Council in such a manner as to give more encouragement to the teaching of History, Geography, Elementary Social Economy, and the other so-called extra subjects, in the Elementary Schools of the Country. and he would at once commence by disclaiming the idea that abstruse scientific problems should be taught in elementary schools. When his Resolution was brought forward on a previous occasion, it was said that difficult questions of science were entirely beyond the children in elementary schools, and critics seemed to suppose that he was bringing forward some individual crotchet. So far, however, from that being the case, there was a very remarkable unanimity of opinion among those best qualified to judge that some such step as this was eminently desirable, and it was even necessary if we wished our schools to perform their work thoroughly and efficiently. The name "extra subjects" was, indeed, very unfortunate. As Mr. Campbell, Her Majesty's Inspector for the Metropolitan division, truly observed, it was entirely a misnomer; "geography, grammar, and history ought never to have been placed without the usual programme of elementary schools." Indeed, a school for children in which neither geography nor history was taught was scarcely worthy of the name, and under that condition there were many schoolrooms which were not schools. He might, perhaps, be reminded that under the New Code, 3s, a-head was offered to all chil- dren presented in Standards IV. to VI., but it was easy to show that that offer was to a great extent, if not entirely, illusory. No school could receive above 15s. a-head, and a good school could easily earn that amount by reading, writing and arithmetic. Six shillings a-head was given for attendance, and 4s. each, making 12s. more, for reading writing, and arithmetic; so that if three-quarters of the children passed in reading, writing, and arithmetic, the whole grant would have been earned. But a good master had no difficulty in passing three-quarters of his children, and he (Sir John Lubbock) would be very sorry to see the examination made so difficult that more than a quarter of the children must fail. Such a state of things would be discouraging and unfair to both masters and pupils. On this question—namely, as regarded the amount of encouragement offered by the New Code to the higher subjects, he would refer the House, both to the experience of the Inspectors and to the Reports of the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction. In the year 1870, Her Majesty was graciously pleased to appoint a Royal Commission to inquire into the state of Scientific Instruction in the country, and that Commission, after carefully considering the question, and hearing much evidence, reported that although it was quite true that the grants of 3s. per head were promised for extra subjects, yet, owing to the other conditions of the Code, these grants were, to a considerable extent, illusory; and they stated that usually in schools the maximum amount of 10s. per head could be attained on reading, writing, and arithmetic without going into the extra subjects. Moreover, the Inspectors themselves pointed out in more than one place that the extra subjects, while most desirable, nay, necessary, in themselves, did not pay in a pecuniary point of view. Thus, after regretting that these subjects were often omitted. Mr. Fussell added that— As far as the pecuniary interests of the managers were concerned, that might, under existing regulations, be quite right, but the loss to the children was irreparable. In 1868, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Samuelson), the House appointed a Committee— To inquire into the provisions for giving instruction in theoretical and applied science to the industrial classes, with special reference to what was done in foreign schools. That Committee took a great deal of valuable and interesting evidence, and eventually reported to the House that— Many witnesses had expressed the opinion that the Revised Code had diminished the efficiency of elementary education; that every witness who was acquainted with foreign schools considered that the rapid progress which was being made in Germany, Switzerland, and Belgium, was duo in great measure to the elementary instruction which was acquired by the working population in the elementary schools, and they added the pregnant passage— That nothing more is required, and that nothing less will suffice, in order that we may retain the position which we now hold in the van of all industrial nations. Under those circumstances, the Committee unanimously recommended— That elementary instruction in drawing, in physical geography, and in the phenomena of nature should be given in elementary schools. In the year 1870 the Council of the British. Association, the largest scientific body in the country, unanimously adopted a resolution similar to that which he had The honour to propose, and appointed a deputation to urge the importance of the question on the Education Department. A similar course had also been taken by the Association for the promotion of Social Science. But what had been the action of the school boards? They were elected by the ratepayers, whose views they, no doubt, fairly represented, and he believed in the most important cases they had followed the example of the London School Board, which had resolved that the essential subjects in all schools should include English history, geography, the rudiments of science, and elementary social economy. Again, what was the opinion of those hon. Members of the House who had paid most attention to the subject of education? There was scarcely another proposition to which so general an assent would be given. When this Motion was brought in two years ago, a circular asking hon. Members to support it was signed and circulated by the chairmen of our two great educational societies, the hon. Members for Hants and for Birmingham, by every Member of the London School Board who had a seat in the House, and by other Members of great weight and authority—such as the right hon. and learned Recorder of London (Mr. Russell Gurney), the hon. Member for the University of Edinburgh (Dr. Lyon Playfair), the hon. Member for Liver- pool (Mr. Rathbone), the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Muudella), and others. The Motion, however, was not pressed to a division, because his right hon. Friend the Member for Bradford (Mr. TV. E. Forster), who was then Vice President of the Council, while expressing his general concurrence, was anxious to avoid any change at the moment. The right hon. Gentleman, however, altered the Scotch Code last year, and would, he presumed, have this year made some change in that of England if he had remained in office. But perhaps it might be said that these authorities, however eminent in themselves, were not practically acquainted with the working of elementary schools. What, then, were the views of Inspectors of Schools? From the last Report of the Committee of Council on Education which had been issued, it appeared that out of 22 School Inspectors' Reports, as many as 16 expressly called attention to this particular subject, and strongly urged that more ought to be done to encourage the teaching of these subjects, while none of the Reports contained a word in an opposite' direction. These Reports would conclusively show that the Motion which he had intended to submit to the House was no individual crotchet of his—that it was not even the opinion of a few hon. Members who felt deeply on the subject, but the deliberate and strong opinion of those who were best qualified to speak on it—Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools. No State indeed, in the present day, could afford to let its children grow up in ignorance of these subjects, and unless some such course as that suggested was taken, our countrymen would know less than the very savage. The savage," says Professor Huxley. "knows the hearing of every hill and mountain range, the directions and junctions of all the streams, the situation of each tract characterized by peculiar vegetation, not only within the area he has himself traversed, but perhaps for a hundred miles around it. His acute observation enables him to detect the slightest undulations of the surface, the various changes of subsoil, and alterations in the character of the vegetation that would be quite imperceptible to a stranger. His eye is always open to the direction in which he is going; the mossy side of trees, the presence of certain plants under the shade of rocks, the morning and evening flight of birds, are to him indications of direction almost as sure as the sun in the heavens. Such a man knew far more of nature than many of our fellow-countrymen, for a great number of them were necessarily engaged day by day, week by week, and month by month in occupations which were essentially monotonous, unvaried, and mechanical. Again, he ventured to suggest that the examinations in extra subjects ought to be oral and not written, for the spelling and composition necessary for a written examination in history or geography were themselves a severe effort for children of 11 and 12, and prevented thorn from concentrating their thoughts on the subject matter of the examination itself. Moreover, on that point, the Code was inconsistent with itself, for while English composition, defined as the power to write out some simple narrative, was not required until the Sixth Standard, yet if any extra subject, say history, was taken up a child in the Fourth Standard was required to write out the events of some given reign. Out of 2,235,000 children, less than 50,000 children passed in 1872 in any one of the so-called extra subjects, and that in face of the fact that the best teachers had always protested against being limited to reading, writing, and arithmetic. He did not deny that indifferent schools might get something under the rule; but what was evident from the figures was, that a good school could earn the whole grant without teaching anything beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic. Though, no doubt, the New Code was an improvement, still there was evidence that-even under it our schools were becoming worse. But what was the effect of the present system on "the three R's? "We sacrificed everything else to them, but did we get that for which we paid so high a price? How many of the children did hon. Members suppose had shown themselves able to read with fluency and expression, to write a short letter or an easy paraphrase, and in arithmetic had shown an acquaintance with proportion and fractions? The numbers—he blushed to quote them—were out of 2,235,000 children,—for the reading, 14,000; for the writing, 11,000; for the arithmetic, 8,800. That was, surely, a very poor result. It must be remembered he was not now speaking of infants. He did not suggest that grants should be given till children were up to the Third Standard—that was to say, till they had been at least four years in school, and were from 11 to 12 years old. It was sometimes argued that reading, writing, and arithmetic were much more important than anything else; but that he did not deny. He did not wish to interfere with the reading, writing, and arithmetic, but he maintained that these would be better learnt if not taken alone. Indeed, reading, writing, and arithmetic, could not be taught by themselves. The monotony and want of variety bored the children and cramped their minds. Mr. Lingen, then Secretary to the Committee of Council on Education, had told the Committee of that House, in 1868, that in the schools where, extra subjects were taught, the reading, writing, and arithmetic were decidedly better than in those where the three R's were the only subjects. The Inspectors' Reports, moreover, seemed to show that in Scotland, where the extra subjects were encouraged, the reading, writing and arithmetic, so far from suffering, were better done than in England. Thus, in England, while 88 per cent of the children presented in reading passed, in Scotland the proportion was 98 per cent: in England the proportion who passed in writing was 82 per cent: in Scotland 91 per cent; in arithmetic the proportion for England was 72 per cent. in Scotland 87 per cent. Thus, in every point, the children in Scotch schools did better than those in English, who were kept grinding on at reading, writing, and arithmetic. Why should Scotland have a better Code than England? Why should Scotch children enjoy privileges which English children were refused? The Scotch people would not be satisfied with the schools we had to put up with, and he hoped therefore that Scotch Members would assist English Members in improving the present state of things. Again, it was a matter of constant regret that parents took away their children from school at so early an age; but as long as our school system was so narrow how could we wonder at it? Our schools were mere infant schools. No doubt reading, writing, and arithmetic wove essential, but we wanted our children to be trained, not into mere shop-boys, but into citizens; and hon. Members might rest assured they would never chock drunkenness in the country unless they could replace the craving for drink by the higher stimulus of intellectual tastes. He was not complaining of Her Majesty's Government. Considering the time of year at which the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) had entered upon his duties as Vice President of the Council, it was not surprising that he had not this year modified the Code; but he hoped they would receive from him some intimation that he was prepared to do so next year, for in so far as Government influence could make them, our schools at present were places of mere instruction, rather than of education in the true sense of the word. The time, however, had surely come when we might do more, and if our schools were really to fulfil their high functions, the education given in them must be such as would tend to cultivate and expand the mind, to protect our children against the temptation of drink and other sensuous indulgences, by teaching them to appreciate the beautiful world in which we lived, and thus opening to them those rational and intellectual enjoyments which cost so little and were yet beyond all price.

MR. REID

said, that after the able, eloquent, and exhaustive speech of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) he should not trespass upon the time of the House with many observations of his own; he would confine his remarks to the importance of making elementary education a necessity. At present the children attending the schools of the country were so imperfectly educated that very soon after they ceased school attendance, the little they had acquired there vanished and was lost. The reason why what they were taught did not take sufficient hold on them was, that it was not imparted in a sufficiently interesting way, in consequence of reading, writing, and arithmetic being taught simply and alone; and their interest was not excited, as would be the case if the extra subjects to which the hon. Baronet had alluded were made part and parcel of their elementary education instead of being treated as extras. That the result was unsatisfactory was shown by the statistics of the Education Department. A Report issued a year ago showed that the total number of children presented for examination it 1872 was 661,589, and out of these only 118,799, or 18 per cent. were presented it Standards IV. to VI., and only 65,796 passed without failure in any subject. The question was, what they should do in order to encourage the teaching of the extra subjects in elementary schools. Should they offer more money? He thought not, and in fact, believed the money was more than sufficient already. The easiest thing as it seemed to him was, to assimilate the English to the Scotch Code. Under the Scotch Code, grammar was introduced as early as the Second Standard, and so on with the other subjects of history and geography, which the hon. Baronet described as essential elements in elementary education. He did not wish, in seeking to introduce into the school course the subjects mentioned in the Resolution, to detract in any way from the the teaching of reading, writing and arithmetic. On the contrary, he wished to improve that teaching, and he was of opinion that that result would be attained by the course he advocated. In Scotland, the grant was a reality. It could be earned and secured, whereas in England, as the hon. Baronet had shown, it was an illusory thing altogether. Nothing could be easier than to assimilate the English Code to the Scotch, and this he thought would have the effect of raising the standard of education.

MR. GOLDNEY

said, he took as great an interest in the spread of education as any hon. Member in the House; but it was necessary that in a matter of this kind they should proceed step by step, and not require children to run before they were able to walk. They had two great difficulties to contend with in the matter. The first was the difficulty of inducing the children to go to school, and the second was the difficulty of keeping them there a sufficient time to give them an amount of instruction which would enable them to carry their education further, should they desire it, when they went out into the world. The first of these difficulties would be somewhat removed when the Act in respect to children employed in agriculture came into force; but with respect to the second difficulty they had to study the habits of the people and consider the views entertained by the parents. If the children were to be detained at school the parents would be deprived of the amount of family assistance which the labour of those children now brought them in, and it was necessary to show them that they were young to obtain a more than corresponding advantage. He quite agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock), that the Reports of the examiners showed that there had been a lamentable deficiency in the results of the present Code. In the first three classes only 88 per cent of the children passed; while in the fourth, fifth, and sixth classes the result was still more distressing and unsatisfactory. In 1873 there passed in the Third Standard only 47.13 per cent. in the Fourth 43.16 per cent. in the Fifth 42.27, and in Sixth only 52.56 per cent; so that in those Standards more than one-half of the children present had proved failures, and the ratio of failure to efficiency would be raised if an attempt were made to cram into them more than they were now required to learn. He wished to hold out inducements to the children to remain in school until they at least acquired the rudiments of education; but if the standard of education was raised to the point suggested by the hon. Baronet, it was to be feared that the results would not be so satisfactory as under the present system, for a few clever children would be crammed to the neglect of the general body of the pupils. To carry out the hon. Baronet's proposition, moreover, would require an alteration of the whole Code, whereas, as it stood at present, it offered pecuniary encouragement to schoolmasters to teach the very subjects in question. Not only that, but at present many schoolmasters did something more than teach the three R's, and in some of the endowed schools in the district with which he was connected, exhibitions of £6 6s. per head were granted to the children, while those in the elementary school who had distinguished themselves were raised to the higher class schools. That was an inducement to the parents to make some sacrifices in the early part of their children's lives, in the hope of prospective advantages, and he thought some provision of the same kind might be very well instituted by the Education Department. If they raised the standard of education too high they would discourage both parents and children by the general want of success. He hoped the noble Lord (Viscount Sandon) who had entered on his duties in the Committee of Council on Education, and who was, no doubt, as desirous as any of his predecessors to advance the education of the country, would not be led away by the idea that the present elementary system of education would not be productive of satisfactory results. If he was, he might find himself, to his regret, taking steps which would tend to the neglect of the great majority of the children in elementary schools.

MR. EVANS

said, that he was the manager of schools in the country, in which they had introduced one or more of these extra subjects, and he believed that they had thereby raised and improved the education of the children. He would therefore suggest that it was a matter worthy of the attention of the Education Department, whether something could not be done in the direction recommended by the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone.

MR. RATHBONE

thought it was not quite apparent to schoolmasters that teaching extra subjects would pay them for their extra trouble; but he might mention that after a complete investigation at Liverpool, the best masters showed that the extra subjects did pay them, and that such teaching raised the general intelligence of the school, and brought the children up to a higher

MR. KAY-SHUTTLEWORTH

, in supporting the Motion, said, it was true, as the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) had stated, that a large proportion of schoolmasters did teach the children something more than the three rudiments in which they were examined by the Inspector. They taught, more or less, geography, history, and grammar. But the hon. Member had failed to point out that while the Code did contemplate a higher examination also—namely, that in the so-called extra subjects, yet comparatively few school teachers presented children for examination in those higher subjects. There was an apparent inducement to them to teach these subjects, for a grant of 3s. was offered in the Code for each child that passed in one of them. But the fact was, that the inducement was apparent and not real; for the grant to every school was limited by the condition that it should not exceed 15s. per child in average attendance; and schoolmasters knew quite well that even if some of their scholars failed in the rudiments, and although no extra subjects were taught, the school grant would amount generally to about 15s. per child. Thus, there was nothing to gain by presenting children for examination in geography history, and so on. Now, it was most desirable to encourage some schools at least to aspire to something higher than the mere rudiments taught by the least enterprising teachers, and to make an endeavour to throw some degree of charm around the instruction given to poor children. He (Mr. Kay-Shuttleworth) had suggested in that House before, and would now once more urge on the Department represented by his noble Friend (Viscount Sandon), that, in the case of schools where the extra subjects were taught, it was not desirable to impose this limit on the grant—that it should not surpass 15s. per child. He would advise that the other limitation on the grant should be maintained—namely, that it should never exceed half the income, nor half the expenses of the school. That was a wise rule. But why refuse to give more than 15s. per child to schools where, because of the existence of a better teaching staff, and because additional instruction was given, the expenses of the school were greater than 30s. per child? In London schools the expense was often nearer 10s. than 30s.; and 34s. would be a fair estimate for a good school, where an education was given higher than in bare reading, writing, and arithmetic. In such cases a limit of 17s. might be substituted for that of 10s. Let us in England follow the example set us by Scotland, and let our Code advance in the footsteps of the Scotch Code, giving a real instead of a merely nominal encouragement to more complete education.

VISCOUNT SANDON

thanked the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) for the very able and temperate manner in which he had brought forward this interesting subject. It was quite true that he himself and the Government had a warm feeling in favour of doing all they could to promote the noble system of elementary education which his right hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Forster) had so well inaugurated. Mr. Corry—a name never mentioned in that House without respect—was one of the first who moved very zealously in the Education Board on behalf of those extra subjects. The Code had to be settled within three weeks or a month of the time when the Lord President and himself entered upon office, and they felt that it would have been presumptuous on their part, after so short an acquaintance with the matter, to venture to propose any serious alterations in a Code which was the work of the careful and skilful men who had devoted themselves to the task of framing it. Moreover, it was, he thought, very undesirable to make frequent changes in the Code, whereby the children themselves, the teachers, the Inspectors, and others who worked under it, might be seriously worried. Again, it should be remembered that the Scotch Code would only come really into effect in Scotland after the 31st of August next. In the Scotch Code some very important changes were introduced; and, possibly, after they had had some further experience of their operation, they might be worthy of imitation in this country. The Scotch Code included these points—extra payment for superior organization and discipline in school: extra payments for extra subjects without deduction; extra payments for intelligence and knowledge of subjects by classes—all of which were matters of interest that they would watch with great attention to see how they worked in Scotland before adopting them in England. Another consideration which made it desirable that they should hold their hands was, that since 1869 there had been an averaged increased attendance in their schools of 330,000 children. That might be taken to represent an increase of about 500,000 children on the books since 1869. In all probability the mass of children thus swept into the schools consisted of the least educated portion, and it was therefore undesirable to raise the standards in the face of that poorly educated body of children who had lately entered the schools. Again, what were the facts as to the number of children who passed in the extra subjects? The average attendance, deducting infants, was, in 1872, 1,079,000, and in 1873 it was 1,191,000, showing an increase of 112,000. The number of scholars examined in 1872 was 661,500; in 1873 it was 752,200, showing an advance of 90,700. Deducting 52 per cent as the proportion under 10 years of age, there would remain as the numbers to be presented for examination in their standards, according to age in 1872, 330,000, and in 1873, 370,000. But when they came to see how many actually did come under examination under the three Standards, IV., V., and IV., which the extra subjects affected, they found that in 1872 118,700 were examined, and in 1873 131,000, being an advance of 12,300. That was a very small proportion of the children who ought property, according to their age, to be examined in the three upper Standards. Again, out of those Standards, how many passed or were examined in extra subjects? In 1872 the number was 71,500; in 1873. 77,800, being an increase of 6,300. The advance, as would be seen, had been somewhat encouraging; but still, the small number of children who at present came under examination in the upper Standards, and the small number who came up in the extra subjects, was a good reason for showing great caution in raising the Standards. There was a danger that they might seriously diminish the number of children who passed in the Standards, than which nothing could tend so much to discourage the scholars, the masters, and the teachers. At the same time, he confessed, he thought there were reasons why they should not hastily put aside the suggestions of the hon. Member for Maidstone—he did not mean in respect to the present year, but in respect to their future action. He felt strongly that under the new Act, now that they had made education a necessary of life, now that they had introduced compulsion to so great an extent, and now that they had so largely increased the charge which the public had to bear, both out of the Imperial Exchequer and the local rates, a fresh responsibility had been placed upon the State in regard to education. First, the State was under fresh responsibility towards the parents. When they took the children during the whole education period day after day, and year after year, the parents had a right to say to the State—"See that our children are thoroughly educated." Then, again, in respect to the children themselves, if they took them away from work and occupied all the time which they used to devote to industrial pursuits, the children had a right to claim from the State a good return for the honourable servitude in which it held them. And, as to the country, when they put upon it those heavy burdens to which he had referred for educational purposes, he thought the nation also had a right to look to the Educational Department, to see that the education they gave the children was suited to make them grow up in after life to be thoroughly good and useful citizens. The country might well require that they should not allow the children's time to be either wasted by inferior education, or frittered away by fanciful theories of education. The country was also entitled to insist that the children should be brought up in the best habits of morality, in obedience to the laws, and in a knowledge of their duties as citizens. Those considerations made him feel disinclined hastily to reject the proposal of the hon. Member for Maidstone. Moreover, he thought that if they were hereafter to keep the children habitually in the schools from 5 to 13, and secure their regular attendance, the character of the schools was likely to deteriorate, unless they introduced somewhat of, he was going to say, a more exciting education than the mere study of reading, writing, and summing. Speaking on behalf of the Lord President and himself, however, he wished it to be distinctly understood that he could give no pledges in detail on that subject. He would, however, state very briefly the principles on which they would approach the consideration of the Code for the coming year, and he trusted, from the temper which the House had shown, that it would put sufficient confidence in them to accept his statement. With regard to teaching children reading, writing, and a sufficient knowledge of arithmetic to fit them for after-life, they were all agreed that the instruction in these elementary subjects should be a thoroughly good one; while with respect to the other subjects which they might introduce into their educational course, he thought the principle which should guide them in their choice should be to select those by which a child should be taught thoroughly to think and to use his intellectual faculties. He confessed he did not attach very much importance—provided that the elements of instruction to which he had referred had been given—to what a child under the ago of 12 actually learnt in school. But what he did attach great importance to was, that a child should, as far as possible, be led to exercise his intellectual faculties with pleasure; and, upon this principle, the Government would approach the consideration of the proposed alterations in the Code. There was one other principle by which the action of the Government in the matter would be guided. They were determined not to crowd out the religious teaching which the great mass of parents in this country were evidently desirous their children should receive, and they would look with great jealousy at any tendency to create in the minds of the children the idea that the State was disposed to set itself on the defensive against the teaching of religion. That was a feeling which he believed was shared by his right hon. Friend opposite, who, with such great success and such untiring zeal, had administered the Department with which he now had the honour to be connected. It was a feeling, too in which he felt sure the great majority of the English people participated, and while giving every attention to this all-important matter, there were two other dangers which lurked in all those matters which the Government would endeavour to avoid—namely, that of reducing the schools to a dead level, and that of cultivating so much the cleverest children as to allow the education of the great mass of children to be neglected. There was, in his opinion, a good deal in the suggestion of his hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) with respect to the establishment of exhibitions from the National Schools to schools of a higher order, as a means of getting over the difficulty of having the clever children too much attended to. By that means an opening would be given to children of merit and talent which the Government would always be very glad to encourage. In conclusion, he hoped, under the circumstances of the case, the House would allow them time to consider the subject, and consult those best acquainted with the working of the Code, and that they might reserve a full statement of the mode in which the Government might deem it to be their duty to deal with it for another year,

MR. W. E. FORSTER

said, he had listened with great pleasure to the speech of his noble Friend the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, and was glad to find that there was a perfect union of principle between them as to the main features of the question. He congratulated the House and the country on the progress which had of late years been made, for he thought they were now all agreed that it was a perfectly legitimate mode of spending the public money to give the children who attended the National Schools the very best education that it was possible they could get during the time they remained there, and that without confining their acquirements to mere reading, writing, and arithmetic, they should offer to them the power of afterwards increasing their mental culture. They were all agreed as to what they were aiming at, and the only question was, how to accomplish the object. With regard to religious education, it was his opinion, and was becoming more and more the opinion of the country, that, putting aside the religious motives of action, upon which there was much difference of opinion amongst conscientious men, there could be but little doubt as far as regarded the improvement of the intellect of the child, and the increase of the power to obtain and use knowledge, that nothing would more prevent that power being really possessed than by banishing from the schools all religious education. But the question before the House on the present occasion was whether it was or was not advisable to alter the Code by encouraging those subjects to which his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone (Sir John Lubbock) had invited attention? Now, on that point he was not surprised at the course which had been taken by his noble Friend opposite, for it could hardly be expected that so soon after his accession to office, he should be prepared to issue a fresh Code. He quite concurred with him also, in thinking that it would be most undesirable to make alterations in the Code without the fullest consideration. The Code prescribed to all masters and mistresses the mode in which they should conduct their schools; their incomes depended upon it, and they ought to be made to feel that their efforts were not useless, although he fully admitted that the time might come when the Code might be reconsidered with advantage, and in the direction which his hon. Friend had indicated. He was not, at the same time, quite prepared to admit the justice of the objections which his hon. Friend had advanced. The re- sult with respect, to the higher standards was, no doubt, as he had pointed out, very poor, and it was to be lamented that but few children passed in the Fifth, and still fewer in the Sixth; but the main cause of the backwardness which had been complained of was the miserableness and irregularity of the attendance, and in many cases, the want of attendance at all on the part of the children, and to remove that should be one of the main objects in view. Scotland had been referred to, and undoubtedly Scotland was in advance of England; but a fair comparison could not be made between England and Scotland with respect to the attainments of children, for Scotland had been an educated country for centuries, and its children lived in educated homes. To some extent, the bad results in England were owing to the fact that so many-children had been recently swept into the schools; and they were also to some extent owing to the fact, that the Standards had been raised on the supersession of the Revised by the New Code. The time was, however, coming when we might make some change in the direction in which it had been made in Scotland, but it was not unreasonable that the noble Lord should say that he would like to see the results in Scotland before he pledged himself. The first considerable difference between the English and Scotch Codes was, that last year geography and history were made subjects of teaching in the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Standards of the Scotch Code; and a knowledge of them was made a necessary condition of passing in those Standards. He had not supported this change without the fullest consideration, though as regarded history, he might add that there had been some concession to Scotch feeling, which was, that on the Fourth and Fifth Standards it should be Scotch history, and on the Sixth Standard only the history of the Imperial Government. On visiting a good Scotch school, he found the children well up in Scotch history—they remembered the glories of Scotland, and were familiar with Bannockburn; but, just before leaving, he asked whether any child could remember an occasion on which the Scotch were beaten by the English, and it did not appear that any-scholar could. However, it was worth considering whether the time had not arrived when in England we might add some teaching in geography and history, to the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Standards. In the Scotch Code, moreover, an additional stimulus was given by saying that there should be an average attendance grant of 2s., if the classes in these upper Standards generally passed well, and that independently of the special examination. He did not wish the noble Lord to pledge himself without making the fullest inquiry; but the more he considered the matter, the more he was convinced that we might give a little more public money for the general results of the teaching of classes, instead of on individual examination. There would be an advantage not only in making geography and history necessary to pass in the Standards; but in offering a reward for good teaching, if the Inspector was satisfied that the classes were well conducted. Another change made in the Scotch Code, was the giving of 4s. instead of 3s., for special subjects, and a further and very important change, one well worthy of imitation in England, was, that a child which had passed in the Standards was allowed to go up in the special subjects; and he hoped the advisability of granting that privilege in England would be considered. It would involve the expenditure of a little more public money; but it could not be much, because children left school at such an early age. Then there was the very important matter of the 15s. deduction. It was a condition of the annual grants that if a locality did not raise as much money as the public gave, a corresponding deduction should be made from the grant, and however severely that might operate, he did not think that the House could with safety depart from that condition. There could be no real check unless 6d. was required for every 6d. given; but there was not the same reason for saying that the grant should never exceed 15s. per child, because the cost of education, as it improved, was necessarily increasing. He did not advise, as had been suggested in the debate, that the limit should be raised from 15s. to 17s., but he thought that we might in England, as in Scotland, say that extra subjects should not be taken into account in that deduction. This was the way in which he thought the difficulty might be most hopefully met. It was discour- aging to work up in extra subjects, and then to discover that no money was gained. That was what he should have said to his Colleagues had he remained in office, and he thought it most candid now to give the result of his own experience. At the same time, were he in the place of the noble Lord, he should take a little longer time yet to consider the matter; but no doubt the noble Lord would consider the matter, and he trusted that real progress would be made in the Code which he would bring before the House next year.