§ EARL GRANVILLEMy Lords, I rise with some anxiety to redeem the pledge I gave the other day on the subject of the new Minutes on Education. The subject I have to treat is certainly one of the most important to the welfare of the country that can be brought under the notice of this House. The great number of memorials that have been presented to Parliament on this subject from the managers of schools, schoolmasters, and other bodies, proves the interest that exists on this question. Although my own opinion is formed as to the value, the expediency, and, indeed, the necessity of the propositions we have made and which I shall now have the honour to state to your Lordships yet I feel anxious lest I should not be able to make clear to your Lordships the grounds on which I entertain that conviction, though I will earnestly endeavour to do so. I shall certainly not trouble your Lordships with the history of all the past proceedings in reference to the Parliamentary grants in aid of Education. Your Lordships are aware that four years ago, on the motion of Sir John Pakington, a distinguished Member of the Opposition in the other House, who has taken a great interest in the subject of education, a Commission was appointed to inquire into the whole question, including the manner in which the Parliamentary grants were expended. That Commission was nominated by the Government of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) in a manner that reflected the greatest credit on the judgment of the noble Ear) and his Government. It consisted of persons whose previous reputation was likely to carry great weight. In March last, alter the labour of three years and the expenditure of a considerable sum of money in obtaining statistics and other information relating to the site of education, they presented a singularly able and comprehensive Report, that must have given great satisfaction to those who read it, and must have been very gratifying to the noble Earl himself. The Commissioners give great praise to a very large portion of what had been done under the Privy Council grants. They speak in 171 warm terms of the superiority of the inspected schools over schools that are not inspected, and of the superiority of the trained over the untrained schoolmasters, both of present and former days. They also advert to the excellent quality of the education given in the upper classes in the schools, and they pay a just tribute to the civilizing effect of these schools in different parts of the country. But there are imperfections in all human institutions, and some are noticed by the Commissioners in relation to this subject. The Commissioners show that there is great complexity in the relations between the Privy Council Office and the different schools that are assisted, and they report that the system fails to reach the poorer districts of the country. With regard to the elementary education of the lower classes, that it is not so satisfactory as it should be they show by the fact, that whereas it is estimated that 2,200,000 children ought to be brought into the inspected schools, only 920,000 children actually attended them. And of these 920,000 it appears only 230,000 received what may be called adequate instruction in the elements of education—reading, writing, and arithmetic—and that even these carry away from the common schools an amount of instruction that gives little hope of their retaining long after they have left even that little. And, I believe, they might have still further reduced that number of 230,000, as among them are to be found many children really of the middle classes to whom the Parliamentary grants were never intended to apply. This state of things is not new. The Government had been for some time aware of the difficulty, and some steps were taken to prepare a remedy: but we did not think it right to propose any change till the Commissioners had made their Report. Five years ago the deficiency in the elementary instruction of the poor in reading, writing, and arithmetic—those branches of education so important to the labouring classes and so much desired by the parents for their children—was pointed out by the Committee of Privy Council; and two years ago another Report was presented to Parliament, pointing out the same deficiency. I should be quite bewildered if I attempted to describe all the changes that have been made in the Regulations, and I will therefore limit myself to the broad features of the case. The Report of the Commissioners suggests two plans 172 for the more general extension of elementary education—one by means of local rates, the other by making the payment according to results, to be ascertained by examination. Having obtained the advice of the Members of the Committee of the Privy Council, we came to the conclusion that it is not desirable to adopt any system of local rating for schools; but we thought we might avail ourselves of the other proposition for extending the elementary instruction in the lower classes of public schools. A series of Minutes was prepared that we wished to lay on the table some weeks before Parliament rose; but every one knows how difficult it is in such matters to avoid delay. In carrying out the plan we wished to shield ourselves with the full sanction of Parliament. Nothing, therefore, was done in the interval after the new code was made public, except that in regard to the pupil-teachers we did not think it fair to increase the existing number. Mr. Lowe agreed with me that there ought not to be the shadow of an excuse for saying we had committed a breach of faith; and if we had wished to smuggle these Minutes through Parliament I cannot conceive any course more injudicious than publishing them in the dead season of the year, when for months they could be picked to pieces and discussed in every possible way. By postponing the production of the Minutes till the opening of the present Session of Parliament they might have escaped such keen discussion in the general excitement of internal distress or the risk of a foreign war. So far from this, the very reason that the new Code of Regulations was presented to Parliament in July last was that it might undergo the most searching examination in all its parts by every person who was inclined to do so, so that the whole subject might be thoroughly discussed and ventilated before it should be submitted to the consideration of Parliament. I was myself in London for three or four weeks after the prorogation of Parliament, and during that time I received no memorial against the Revised Code; nor did I, in fact, receive any until I was attending Her Majesty on what I fear must be called her last happy journey. Your Lordships are, no doubt, aware that the State now assists the schools by means of annual grants of various kinds. There is the capitation grant, there are payments to teachers, payment for teaching drawing, payments for pupil-teachers, payments for teaching pupil-teachers, for assistant 173 teachers, for books, for apparatus, an industrial grant, and a small one made in certain cases where the master knows Welsh or Gaelic, and capitation grants according to the number of scholars. All these grants will be swept away by the new scheme, and the assistance which it is now proposed to give consists of one capitation grant, depending on certain conditions, such as the state of the school premises, and a satisfactory report of the Inspector upon the discipline and the religious instruction of the school; and then the managers of schools to claim one penny per scholar for every attendance after the first 100 at the morning or afternoon meetings of the school, and after the first twelve of the evening meetings. One third, however, of the sum thus claimable is forfeited if the scholar fails to satisfy the Inspector in reading, one-third if in writing, and one-third if in arithmetic. For the purposes of examination, the children will be grouped according to age, and their failure in any one of these subjects will render the school liable to lose one-third of the allowance, and, if they fail in all, the State will contribute nothing towards the maintenance of the school. The course we have taken will, I think, meet to a great extent the objections which were raised against that portion of the existing system which has been condemned by the Commissioners. With regard to payments, those interested in the old system, no doubt, cry out against the new. All the memorials we have received agree in crying out as to the reduced amount of assistance which will be rendered to the schools under the Revised Code; but some of their arguments seem to be hardly consistent one with another. On the one hand they dispute the data on which the Report is founded, and deny that so few of the school children would be able to pass this elementary examination; while, on the other hand, they say that the number who could pass it is so small: that the receipts of the schools must be materially reduced under the new system. Now, I do not wish to enter into any estimate of the expense, which must necessarily be contingent on a variety of circumstances. But the matter has been gone into over and over again, and the general result seems to be this:—If no improvement takes place in the instruction given, and if the defects pointed out by the Commissioners continue, a great public economy will be effected. On the contrary, if these defects are removed, I be- 174 lieve that the allowance to the schools will amount, after a very little time, to almost as much as at present. That result, however, will be contemporaneous with enormously increased efficiency in the schools, and with a great increase in the amount of useful instruction received by the children. Then at present the relations and the arrangements of the Committee of Council are most complicated. When your Lordships remember that they have to maintain communications with some 30,000 persons, you will see at once how great a simplification will be effected in these relations and in this vast correspondence. I remember that some years ago, before this question was mooted, I stated in this House that if the system went on increasing in the manner it was then increasing, the central Office would break down under the weight of business which would be heaped upon it. I have sometimes reproached myself since then for having made so unqualified a declaration, because with so singularly able a staff as we have in the Education Department, there is no work which they could not accomplish if only they had buildings sufficiently extensive and armies of clerks sufficiently numerous. From one cause or other, however, as experience teaches us, to get large and commodious buildings for public purposes is not a rapid process in this country, while to provide an army of clerks much expense must be incurred. I must insist, too, upon the unfairness of comparing the Education Department with the great Revenue Departments. The latter departments have to do with persons versed in the routine of official business; but our relations are with 30,000 people not under our control, some of them being quite ignorant of official business. That enormously increases the difficulties of the Department. But I do not argue this question merely on economical grounds. I believe that it is not an advantage, but a serious disadvantage, to go on increasing the action of centralization in London in directing the educational institutions of the country; and, on the other hand, I regard it as a great advantage to throw increased responsibility upon the local managers of schools, and thereby increase to a great extent local influence and local government in matters of education. The memorialists, as it seems to me, libel themselves in undervaluing the ability of the local managers to deal with the altered system; for when we see the ability and knowledge displayed in some of these me- 175 morials, by such men as Dr. Vaughan, the Dean of Salisbury, Mr. Garfit, Mr. Randall, Mr. Robins, and many others whom I might mention, a most satisfactory know ledge of the requirements of educational schools seems to be widely diffused over large parts of the country, and I hope we shall he able henceforth better to apply that knowledge and public spirit, and that these will go on increasing in proportion to the scope which we give to the local managers. The scheme which has been promulgated will tend, we hope, to the efficiency of the elementary instruction given, and this will be done by substituting for the test of attendance the test of efficiency. If your Lordships remember the extent to which the examination system is now carried, and the comparative difficulty which must exist, but which is still overcome, in fixing a standard in such subjects as Divinity and Latinity, I think you will be of opinion that in reading, writing, and arithmetic, a test of proficiency may be contrived as nearly accurate as possible. I believe that there will be no difficulty in carrying out this portion of the plan. I am not going to enter into all the objections which have been advanced, but will deal only with some of the more prominent. The most serious one is the tendency of the new Code to disturb the progress of religious combined with secular instruction. At first the memorialists attacked the Committee of Council for what they declared to be a deliberate intention to injure the cause of religious education; but I am very happy to say that since then their tone has become more moderate, and they only now allege that the working of the scheme will necessarily have this effect. Now, nobody can read the history of this country without being aware how important a part has been played in it by the panic cry "Religion is in danger!" That panic has at times had mischievous results, and at other times it has had a most salutary influence upon the political conduct of the nation. It is also satisfactory to know that there exists such sensitiveness among the people on this subject that the cry always produces some effect. But I am persuaded that in the present instance this cry has been raised somewhat lightly and without any real foundation. We were once told by a venerable and learned Lord who always delights the House by his addresses, which are marked by the absence of a single superfluous word, that one of the great difficulties which lawyers experience in 176 Parliament is that while in court they may use all their arguments, in Parliament they are only able to use their good arguments. Now, I cannot help thinking that the memorialists have adopted the legal rather than the Parliamentary way of stating their objections. As to this particular objection, I have been told an anecdote, for the truth of which I will not vouch, which seems to show that, unintentionally, some of these memorialists have put forward the religious question without themselves attaching much importance to it. A diocesan board met, I believe in a midland county, and unanimously agreed to seventeen resolutions against this unfortunate Code. The first of these resolutions embodied the religious objection. A Conservative Gentleman, and a distinguished Member of Parliament, afterwards—insidiously, I think—asked whether if, instead of the penny, a twopenny capitation grant was conceded their objections would be obviated? The board consulted again, and were— again unanimously—of opinion that that concession would remove all objections. My Lords, I really think that if you will look into this matter you will be of opinion that the religious objection is unfounded. The Revised Code makes no alteration whatever in the religious operation of the educational system as it existed under the old Code. The Order in Council of August, 1840, remains exactly as it was, and is not at all affected by the new Minutes; and therefore, technically, I may say that the new Code does not make the slightest alteration. But there is another argument used, and that is, that we are now about for the first time to pay schoolmasters in proportion to their success in teaching reading, writing, and counting, and that by so doing we shall so divert the attention of managers and schoolmasters from other subjects that religious instruction will suffer by it. Now, let me ask your Lordships to consider how this matter really stands. Neither under the old nor under the Revised Code is it possible for any manager of a school to obtain any personal or pecuniary advantage from that species of instruction. But there is a desire on the part of those gentlemen to improve the morals and to cultivate the religious feelings of the children; and, that being so, and the schools being not only managed by religious men, but inspected by clergymen of the Established Church appointed with the sanction of the Archbishops, the 177 conductors of those schools being masters who have been trained in a moral and religious manner, it does seem most wonderful that any one should suppose that the new Code should have the effect which they profess to anticipate from it, and that these gentlemen will allow so principal an object of education to be lost sight of and disregarded in favour of such elementary subjects as reading, writing, and arithmetic. Besides, I do not admit that reading and writing are so totally disconnected with religious instruction as to belong to purely secular education. With respect to arithmetic, its influence will probably be rather of a moral than of a religious character; but as to writing, I think it has been well said, in a pamphlet upon this subject, that the power of writing, enabling a father to address his children, and the children to reply to the father or to communicate with each other, is as likely as anything to develop the kindliest and most religious feelings. As to reading, I believe it is equally as important as an element of religious instruction as it is in secular education. I am not going to complain that religious instruction sometimes bears too much upon points which do not tend to practical religious education; but I am sure that, if you are able to give a child some religious instruction, you diminish the chances of its proving of value to him in after-life if you do not also give him the power of reading his Bible, his: Prayer-hook, or other religious volumes. I was much struck that, of a deputation of twelve clergymen of the Metropolis who opposed the code, who recently waited upon me, eleven of them energetically repudiated any religious objection to the Revised Code on the ground that it would interfere with the religious teaching of the children. The next point is as to training colleges. It had been objected to the new Code that it will abolish those colleges. When those colleges were first proposed, it was intended that they should be denominational, and receive assistance from the State, to a certain extent supplementing voluntary contributions; but, for some reason, it has been found difficult to excite voluntary efforts, and the results have been far from satisfactory. It can hardly be conceived that the assistance rendered by the State to these colleges has averaged 68 per cent, and in one case was within a fraction of 100 per cent of the whole expense. I am free to admit. however, that the blow aimed at these col- 178 leges by the new Code is sudden and severe. The next point is as to the certificated schoolmasters; and, among other objections, it is urged that the masters have vested interests which Parliament cannot touch. The Royal Commission—which enjoyed the advantage of comprising among its Members one of the most eminent Judges—made a careful inquiry into this point, and its report is decisive that no such vested interest exists. I am rather confirmed in that view by other authorities. In regard to vested interests there can be no question of degree—if you can touch them in the least you can deal with them fully. Now, I find that, when the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) and Mr. Adderley were in office, they did interfere with the certificated masters by limiting the number of pupil-teachers to be employed by them; and that was to some extent an interference with what is now set up as a vested interest. I am still more confirmed by what has been propounded by Sir J. K. Shuttleworth, who has taken an active part in this controversy. I have great regard and affection for that Gentleman, whose friendship I have enjoyed for some years, and for whose opinion I have the highest respect; and upon that account I regret that in his letter and speeches during the past autumn he has departed in his speeches and writings from that judicial tone which his attainments, experience, I and eminent services rendered to education fully entitle him to assume. Now, if there is one point upon which I think Sir J. K. Shuttleworth deserves more credit than another in his efforts in the cause of education, it is the sedulous care he has officially and unofficially bestowed upon every means of elevating the condition and improving the status of the certificated schoolmaster. He, deprecating, our Revised Code as a whole, thinks we have behaved ill towards the schoolmasters, and degraded their position; and he especially excepts from this question the pecuniary part of the matter. If anything that we proposed could have that effect I should deeply regret it; but if it is to be urged that schoolmasters, trained up in most cases at the expense of the public to teach the children of the poor, are to consider it as degrading to condescend to the drudgery of teaching reading, writing, and counting, then all I can say is that that seems such a reduction to absurdity that I cannot consent to argue it. Then, as to what has been said of the 179 effect upon the schoolmasters from being disconnected with the State, I think the best view, and the natural view, of the interests of the masters themselves, is that their own independence and self-respect will be increased by placing them in more natural relations with their employers, and relieving them from their present anomalous position towards the State. A schoolmaster now is not a servant of the Government, but he is in some measure a dependant upon it. As far as my opportunities have extended, I have always endeavoured to raise the position of the schoolmasters in the eyes of those around them. I believe them to be a very superior class of men, with great moral, intellectual, and religious attainments, and I believe that upon the whole they devote themselves with great industry and public spirit to one of the most important tasks that can fall to the lot of any citizen of a free country. I know personally some for whom I have great regard, and I should be sorry to hear that they were not held in respect. But I am not sure, if you listen to the tone of the speeches at many of the schoolmasters' meetings, and look at their memorials, whether it is not obvious that what they complain of is the fault of the existing system. They are in a sort of dependence on the Government, and there is in consequence, in their speeches and memorials a tone of querulousness with the acts of the Government which is not desirable, and I therefore cannot regard with disfavour the severance of the existing connection of the schoolmasters with the Government. 1 believe that by placing the schoolmasters in a more natural position they will be brought into better and more intimate relations with the managers of the schools, and will be able to act with more freedom; while, on the other hand, they will not suffer any pecuniary disadvantage—at least, I believe they can only suffer in that respect where they do not sufficiently exert themselves to fit their scholars for passing the examination. That, however, will only oblige the school managers to look about them for a better master, who will bring the children up to the proper standard of proficiency, and to secure the services of such a person they may, probably, have to offer a higher salary. I trust that these remarks with regard to the schoolmasters will be understood by that body in the spirit in which I have made them. I make no charge against them individually, but I think the system has not worked so 180 beneficially as could have been wished. I come next to the pupil-teachers, who, it is said, are to be destroyed as an institution by the new Regulations. The way in which they are to be destroyed is that they are no longer to be paid directly by the State; that we limit the number of hours during which it shall be absolutely necessary for the master to instruct them, and we allow instruction to be given in the evening school. Now, I do not believe that the change will in any one particular hurt the pupil-teacher system. A pecuniary mulct will be inflicted only where the pupil-teachers do not pass through the examinations at the end of the year. Another objection to the Revised Code—though I cannot understand the reasoning on which this objection proceeds—is this:—It has been alleged that, instead of assisting the schools in the poor districts, our plan will do them an injury. Now, at present, in a poor district, a school with less than 100 pupils can have assistance only if it either has a certificated master, or a registered master of twenty-five years of age. That is a considerable limitation in a matter of this kind. We now propose to give them the capitation grant, on the conditions I have stated, if they have a certificated master or a registered master of twenty-two years of age; and, moreover, we allow them these advantages if they have got a pupil-teacher who has gone through five years' training, and has been approved and recommended by an Inspector. Certainly it is much more desirable to have, if possible, a certificated master in all cases: but in many instances there are not sufficient funds for that purpose, and I believe that where the other qualifications are satisfactory mere youth is not always a fatal disadvantage in a teacher. A pupil teacher who has successfully passed his last examination may be of the greatest possible use in raising the level of a school, and in exerting a salutary influence upon the surrounding neighbourhood. I yesterday received a very large deputation of schoolmasters, who stated their case with great ability and moderation. One gentleman rather entered into the general question, and stated, as an instance of the injury that would be done to small schools, that he knew a school in Wales where, under the Revised Code, they would be unable to get a single penny of the grant. I asked him what sort of instruction could be given in a school where there was not one child who could read, write, or count. One in- 181 telligent certificated master got up and said he would explain. He was himself a teacher in a Welsh school, and, as he did not know Welsh and the children did not know English, the task of imparting instruction to them in the rudiments was most difficult. I presume that this is not one of the schools under inspection. If it is, there has been undoubtedly a great dereliction of duty. I mention this instance to show that there are circumstances under which a pupil-teacher acquainted with the language of the district, whether it be Wales or Scotland, would impart more information than a certificated master, however otherwise qualified. I am sure that those of your Lordships who have considered this question will agree that the only way of really solving the problem of the education of the labouring classes is by affording them the means of education in evening schools. I recollect that Lord Stanley, in an admirable speech which he made at Bury, showed how difficult, if not impossible, it was to get the children of the working men to attend a day school after they came to an age when they could earn wages, He could not remain at school after the age of ten, and it was folly, and perhaps not to be desired that a labouring man should give up perhaps a tenth part of his income. Well, we do not allow the masters of the day schools to teach in the evening, and if I have had one I hive had a hundred remonstrances from the managers of schools complaining that that restriction was fatal to their endeavours, because, if they were not permitted to have a master who could employ his time in teaching in the evening, equally with the day schools, they could not get a competent master at all. Well, we are now to give a very large pecuniary assistance—I am almost afraid of its amount—to education carried on in evening schools, because there is to be an allowance made for every scholar attending those schools after the twelfth attendance, provided he is able to meet our requirements in respect of reading, writing, and arithmetic. I think that this will operate very beneficially in extending the influence of education throughout the country. I come now to another point—namely, the grouping of the children, and for not giving payments for more than one examination after eleven years of age, with respect to which we have been so much attacked, both by friends and foes, that it might hardly seem unreasonable if your Lordships were to 182 expect ns to yield the whole point at once. I am sorry that we cannot make such a concession. We have gone into a most careful inquiry, with the view, if possible, to meet the wishes of educationists in this matter, and we have come to the conclusion that the course we propose is the only one which it is desirable to adopt. The objections to it are, that if you require a boy of nine or ten years old to pass an examination, he may either be a natural dunce, a neglected dunce, or have a physical incapacity that prevents him from acquiring knowledge. Now, it appears to me that in framing a general rule it is impossible to avoid individual cases of hardship. What you want to do is to correct a general deficiency in the education given, and you cannot attain this object in a better way than by putting a pressure on the masters to induce them to bring the boys earlier forward in their studies. If, unfortunately, a boy leaves school at ten years of age, utterly unable to read, write, or count, that seems to me to be a result which you can hardly call upon the State to pay for. I have seen a memorial published by a committee, of which the Duke of Marlborough is a distinguished member, and that document the argument is held, in regard to some poor schools, that although the children of labouring men leave school at ten years of age, yet the children of artisans, farmers, and the middle class remain there till they are fourteen and even fifteen. This argument is fatal to the objection I am combating, because if that be so, the State is giving pecuniary aid to schools on behalf of persons who have no claim upon its assistance whatever. The sons of the middle class are just those for whose instruction the country ought not to be required to pay; but the existing system gives the advantage of two years' additional education to the children of persons who are quite able to pay for it themselves. I have no doubt that both in town and rural districts one of the first effects of the new Regulations will be that parents of this class will be compelled to pay a higher sum for the education of their children, and will in consequence be made to appreciate much more highly the advantages of education. Another objection which has been raised refers to the difficulty of examining the children. I cannot agree that the objection which has been urged at all applies to the Revised Code. It is said that it would be unfair to the Inspectors to subject them to such 183 degrading work. But I do not understand why a well educated man, in the performance of a wholesome and useful duty, can feel himself degraded in examining whether children can read and write and count, more than in examining older pupils elsewhere as to their knowledge of the trade winds or the river system of Hindostan. Then, with regard to the increased charge of these Inspectors, I think it is very possible there may be some increase of charge, although I hope, by a different distribution of districts, and some alteration in the duties of the Inspectors, to economize the operation of the scheme as much as possible. With respect to the precise mode of appointing Inspectors, I cannot pretend to have felt any particular pleasure or any inconvenience. The most common business-like way in which I proceeded was this:—I looked over the list of candidates without the slightest reference to political or personal qualifications, observing those who I knew had most distinguished themselves at the Universities. I then applied confidentially to the authorities of the Universities, in whom I had the greatest confidence, requesting to be informed of various particulars as to the character, habits, and manners of the gentlemen. That was the course which I took in all cases in which I was not myself immediately cognizant of the facts. As to the necessity, in a purely commercial view, of a proper staff of Inspectors, there can, I think, be no doubt whatever. If the State does spend a considerable sum of money for the purposes of education, it is certainly right to pay a percentage in maintaining a staff to see that this large sum is properly expended. I have now, my Lords, met some of the principal objections which I have no doubt will be urged against the Revised Code. If others are introduced I shall, no doubt, have an opportunity on some future occasion of answering them. My Lords, I thank you for the singularly patient indulgence with which you have heard me.
And now with regard to the modifications we propose. We do not intend to include Scotland under the Revised Code. The reasons for making this change are these. There have been several representations from Scotland, some of them objecting to the Revised Code, others saying, although they accept of it for want of a better, they are not friendly to the system of Privy Council grants. They say that the Bill which was introduced last year 184 has given general satisfaction. They say—I do not know with what truth—that all the different religious communities in Scotland are agreed on the sort of religious education that should be given to youth; that the time has now arrived when the Government should either propose a general Education Bill for Scotland, or at all events, institute some inquiry into the matter. I think, with these views, with the population desiring one comprehensive scheme for Scotland, it will be more prudent, more wise, to postpone, at all events for a time, the Revised Code there. Another reason is, that the capitation grants never applied to Scotland. With regard to training colleges considerable reductions were proposed; but we have received the strongest possible representations from different parties connected with the training colleges. I am quite certain that the system, as it at present stands, cannot continue long; but, on the other hand, looking to the alarm which has been created, and the representations we have received that the proposals made would be fatal to many of the training colleges which had no time to make preparations for the contemplated change, we do not propose to include the colleges in this Revised Code. With regard to religious instruction—there is really no cause of alarm in regard to religious instruction combined with secular instruction in the schools. On this point I think it most desirable there should be no mistake, and therefore we propose to include a separate declaration in the Code, that the Order in Council with reference to this remains in full force, and instructions to the Inspectors as to that Order remain in full vigour. We propose, as to night schools, that the system shall begin at the age of twelve. The next change was rather a matter of detail in regard to the number of pupil teachers required. Under the former arrangement we only required one to 30 scholars; now we shall require one for every 40.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYAccording to the scheme as it stands at present there must be one pupil teacher for every complete 30 over 50. The noble Earl proposes to substitute the limit of 40 for 30; therefore, at 90 you will require the addition of a pupil teacher. You will not require a second pupil teacher till you come to 130. Is that so?
§ Earl GRANVILLEYes. As to another point, the sum we shall require 185 managers to pay to pupil teachers will be only £5, instead of £10. There is another small detail which I do not propose to insist upon—the paying the pupil teachers weekly. I now come to a very important modification with regard to the examination of elementary classes as regards infants. Objections have been made to the examination in the schools of young infants. Upon full consideration of the whole matter, looking to the class of schools in populous districts, where infant attendance is largest, and considering also the strong representations we have received, we propose as to children up to six years of age, instead of examining, to make them attend 200 times instead of 100, and after these 200 attendances to pay at the rate of 1d. for each time they have attended. I will now refer to the point as to the vested interests of certificated masters. One condition of the granting of pecuniary assistance by the State is that there should be a certificated master. We propose to alter that condition in this way—that he should be a certificated master duly paid, and he will be considered to be duly paid only when he receives from the managers of the school three times the amount of the present augmentation grant attached to his certificate. He will, likewise, have the first lien on the capitation grants given to the managers.
I have again to thank your Lordships for the patience with which you have listened to a long statement. In making the modifications which I have announced, we have, I think, made considerable concessions to the reasoning and the feelings of managers of schools, and of all engaged in the work of education. At the same time, we have not neglected the duty which we owe to the taxpayer and to Parliament—the duty, namely, of seeing that adequate results are obtained for the money expended by the State. I trust that, for the future, instead of destroying the good which has already been done by the system of Parliamentary grants, we shall carry on the progress hitherto achieved to a still further point, and that the changes we have introduced will result in the advancement and extension of education in all parts of the country.
§ Minute by the Right Honourable the Lords of the Committee of the Privy Council on Education establishing a Revised Code of Regulations: Presented (by Command); (No 7.)
186§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of attempting to follow the noble Earl in the very clear, calm, and temperate statement he has made to your Lordships, but simply to say that I think it would be undesirable to enter at present upon the discussion of so large a question as that raised by the modifications which he proposes to introduce into the Revised Code. It is impossible that we can discuss that question with advantage until we have had a full opportunity of considering the effect of the proposed modifications and of the scheme as a whole. Meanwhile I have no hesitation in saying, whatever objections I may still have to many parts of the scheme, that the modifications which the noble Earl has announced appear to me to be all in the right direction. I am quite sure your Lordships must desire that this question, if discussed at all, should be discussed in the absence of everything approaching to party feeling, and with an earnest wish to carry out the great object of the Privy Council scheme—namely, the real and permanent improvement in the education of the labouring classes of the community. There is one point upon which I am not certain that I understood the noble Earl. I am not sure whether he expressed his intention to allow the amount of assistance given to the training colleges to remain unaltered. Nor did I hear from the noble Earl any statement of his intentions with respect to requiring pupil-teachers to attend a second as well as a first year in the training colleges. That is an important point, not only with regard to the qualifications of the pupil-teachers themselves, but also with respect to the supply of schoolmasters furnished to the country at large. It is stated by the Commissioners that the number of pupil teachers sent to the training colleges, as well as the number of schoolmasters furnished by those institutions, is at present about equal to the requirements of the country; but if you send the same number of pupil teachers to the training colleges, and limit their attendance to one year instead of two years, the practical effect will be at once to double the supply of schoolmasters, and to diminish their efficiency. I shall be glad to hear from the noble Earl whether the Government have reconsidered that part of the Revised Code. Perhaps the noble Earl will lay on the table a copy of the Revised Code with the modifications noted on the margin, so that we may be able to judge of 187 the course he intends to pursue, and to estimate the value of the alterations he proposes to introduce. I cannot sit down without doing the noble Earl the justice to say that nothing could be more clear, more fair, or more candid than the statement he has made to your Lordships; and I can only hope that in all our discussions upon this subject we shall endeavour to imitate the admirable temper with which the noble Earl has brought the matter before us.
§ EARL GRANVILLEI must tender my acknowledgments to the noble Earl for the manner in which he has been good enough to recognise the efforts of the Government to meet some of the objections to the Revised Code; and I must also re-echo his desire that no party feeling may be introduced into the discussion. I hold in my hand the Revised Code in which I have marked all the passages that are new in distinction from the old; and by the side of these I have placed all the amendments which it is now proposed to introduce, and I have no doubt your Lordships will find it perfectly clear and intelligible. In reply to the noble Earl, I have to state that we propose to allow the assistance given to the training colleges with respect to lecturers, certificated assistants, and Queen's scholars to remain precisely as at present. The point with regard to the attendance of pupil-teachers will require some further consideration; but I concur generally in the remarks of the noble Earl upon that head.
§ LORD EBURY, seeing that the main object of the Privy Council system was the education of the labouring classes, asked the noble Earl whether he intended to insist in future upon those very high acquirements on the part of a schoolmaster which had hitherto been considered necessary to entitle him to assistance from the State? The noble Lord stated that a friend of his having recommended the appointment of a schoolmistress, whose qualifications being deemed insufficient, the only concession he could obtain was that the knowledge of the Latin roots of words would be dispensed with.
§ EARL GRANVILLEAll our recent alterations have been in the direction of limiting the subjects af examination. My own opinion is that it is impossible for a schoolmaster to learn too much, provided the instruction he receives is thorough and complete, but it is a disadvantage rather than an advantage when he ranges over a 188 great number of branches without mastering any one of them.
§ LORD LYTTELTON, who had placed on the paper a series of Resolutions offering objections to the Revised Code, said, that the noble Earl had in a great measure taken the wind out of the sails by the elaborate statement he had just made. He (Lord Lyttelton) need scarcely say that he had placed these Resolutions on the paper only pro formâ, and had no intention of using them in their present shape. It was quite clear, at the same time, that the noble Earl's concessions would not satisfy all the objections he entertained to the Revised Code. He did not wish to prejudice the question further, but in the event of objections similar to those he felt not being brought forward by some other noble Lord, or right rev. Prelate, he should certainly bring forward his view of the subject again, and possibly early in next month.
§ House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.