HL Deb 19 May 1882 vol 269 cc1067-85
LORD NORTON

rose to move— That the Education Code for 1883 he referred to a committee to consider whether it might not he possible more effectually to carry out its professed intention of simplification of the Code, and remove the serious defects in the mode of distribution of the grants in aid, and prevent the perpetual changes against which complaints increasingly come from those engaged in the work of national elementary education. He said that, although simplification was stated in the front to be the main object of the New Code, he could not think it had been attained. At the outset, in the definition of the subject—a public elementary school—there was a complication of two definitions—first, as a school at which there was no higher fee paid than 9d. a-week, no matter what was taught or who received the instruction, so long as it was provided beyond that limit of payment at public expense; and, secondly, as a school where no religious teaching was required. There seemed nothing in this double definition of national elementary education—as anything, provided only it be eleemosynary and devoid of religious teaching—so desirable and creditable to the country that simplification of the Code should be sacrificed for its sake. A better definition of an elementary school in this country would be one in which, subject to statutory conditions, elementary education was offered to the working classes chiefly at the public expense. But this would not suit the official intention, unavowed, unauthorized by Parliament, and, as the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Exeter) called it in a recent speech, a mischievous encroachment of elementary on higher education, which, for many important reasons, should be supported by those who want it, or won by exhibitions from the elementary schools publicly provided. But the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council (Mr. Mundella) had, in a recent speech, plainly assumed to his Office the education of the middle classes, if not of the whole nation. His idea, generally, of national education seemed to be an education of the working classes into the middle class, and the middle class into the professional, rather than to bring up everyone to fulfil the duties of life, intelligently and honestly, whatever each one might be fit for. Another defect in this attempt to simplify the Code was the endless repetitions in it, which, though excusable during annual revision, were a blot in final consolidation. Scarce a chapter but had an article belonging to, and in, another chapter. For instance, the schools dealt with were again defined in the 4th chapter. As to intelligibility, urban schools must have been solely contemplated. The 109th Article would puzzle any country schoolmaster, seeking in that Article to know what the Code promised him in the way of earnings. It had an octave of sub-sections, A to G, three of which contained respectively five, nine, and eleven sub-sections.

But it was more important to consider what was the cause of the hopeless complication of the Code, baffling even that last most honest and able attempt to simplify it. It was remarkable that not even the new French education scheme was nearly so elaborate in its details, and specifications of subjects as ours. Yet it was expressly meant to cover both primary and secondary instruction, and for all classes. It was strange that England should take the lead in Government prescription of popular instruction, the effect of which on national character elsewhere they had never coveted. The occasion of that elaboration of their Education Code was the disintegration of Government aid to national schools into a number of little payments; on so-called results of teaching, supposed to be ascertained by individual examinations. Mr. Lowe (now Lord Sherbrooke) introduced this method in 1862; he thought that more general reports must be made in vague and abstract terms, affording no guarantee to the Treasury of a quid pro quo for its aid, and unreliable for testing in a crucial manner the teachers' work with the children. This reliance on individual examination was amusingly exposed some years ago in a Blue Book. It was said that if you multiplied the number of the Inspectors by the number of minutes in the year they had available for those individual examinations, and divided the sum by the millions of children to be examined, you would find the value of such examinations. But they were not left to arithmetical calculation on this point. Mr. Matthew Arnold said, in his Report of 1867, after five years' trial of the system— A decline of intellectual life is distinctly due to the mechanical mode of examination the Revised Code has introduced. It is now found possible, by ingenious preparation, to get children through the examinations in reading, writing, and ciphering, without their really knowing how to read, write, or cipher. The idea of payment by results is just the idea to catch ordinary public opinion. Mr. Alington, in 1880, observed that the number of passes was increasing; but he said that, as it was owing to a "leniency of judgment" recommended by their Lordships, the figures offered no trustworthy test of real progress. Another Inspector described the terror of country children first confronted with Examiners, though of the gentlest temper, always in a violent hurry. Such a guarantee of real school-work was a delusion. But it was maintained that, at all events, payment in small detail was the only way to get accurate reports, because Inspectors would freely give judgments involving small consequences, but would shrink from any wider censure, as involving too much forfeiture. Mr. Alington, however, said— As to the immense proportion of passes, Examiners, so far from finding judgments in detail easy, felt their minds, from the very minuteness of the points, so balancing and hesitating that the results were not satisfactory. It was not true, however, that more general reports would put more power or responsibility upon the Inspector. The proposed more general reports would likewise be under separate heads, to each of which grants in aid might be separately attached. The first head would be as to the instruction being given, which the Inspectors would test for themselves by casual examinations from time to time. Visits should be paid, not, as now, at stated periods of the year, but unexpectedly and frequently, as the Local Government Inspectors visited workhouses often in the year, and presented themselves at Boards of Guardians without notice; not as spies, but to see the ordinary working. Another head of report would be made on the discipline and order, which was one of the heads of this New Code, and would easily be given, from the appearance of the children and the conduct of the teachers. Another head of report would be on the subjects taught, and their suitability to the particular school and children. It was not to be expected that the same standard of instruction would suit the son of a Wiltshire ploughman and the son of a Manchester tradesman. As the Code stood, a large part of the Treasury aid must always be taken by the middle classes out of the reach of those for whom it was primarily intended.

But it was said that making grants for individual results on specified subjects of teaching—that was, payment by piecework—was the only way to secure equal attention to all. Mr. Chadwick had strikingly shown that this supposed guarantee against the neglect of dull children had led to the clever being unfairly made to wait upon the dull. The bright child would obtain the same result in one year that another did in two. Why should he be subject to two years' attendances merely that the teacher might not lose the Code gradation of earnings, while the dull child was ostensibly advanced through successive stages for the same object, whether the pass had been secured or not?

But another plea for the present system was that it fixed a standard of teaching below which the Treasury would not consent to waste public money. He must again refer to Mr. Chadwick's able paper, as to the injury inevitable to national education from fixed conditions being applied to widely-varying circumstances, and from any uniform Government gauge being applied to all parts and working classes of the country. Of course, those would always most easily come up to any fixed standard who, in the intention of Parliament, had the least, or no claim to any help. Mr. Baines, years ago, when a Liberal Cabinet Minister and Member for Manchester said, with regret, in debate, that— Thousands who had no fair claim were helping themselves to what Parliament had voted for the elementary instruction of the labouring poor. A fixed standard of individual examination was, moreover, a positive strait-waistcoat to the great variety of teaching faculty. Mr. Arnold constantly said, "More free play to the teacher is wanted." It was no answer to say that this was only a minimum standard; for it, all the same, apportioned aid in inverse ratio to need, and lost all elasticity and comprehensiveness in a national system. What was the use of having Inspectors of so high a stamp, if the Treasury could not trust them to give a sufficient report of the apparent efficiency of schools in constant judgment on specified particulars? What more should the Treasury require before making its due contribution? The London School Board, doing everything in duplicate, had its own Inspectors, who made their reports to it, not on the Code plan, but on the general heads of inquiry, such as he proposed. That was their habitual mode of reporting. A Reviewing Officer reported generally to the Horse Guards on what he saw on a field-day of the Service he inspected, and not on every detail of drill. Counties paid half the cost of highways on their Surveyor's general report that they appeared to be efficiently maintained, not in instalments on every individual work executed. He might also ask what was the use of such highly-trained and certificated teachers, if they could not be trusted as to the details of conduct of a school, which might be generally tested by final examinations?

But it was said there was general satisfaction with this Code. Alas! such was the degradation to which the grounds of satisfaction had fallen. Every deputation to the noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had discussed the Code mainly on its effects on what were called the "earnings" to be got out of it, or the "mulctings" from what were now getting claimed as established perquisites. The interests of education had rarely come into the discussion. All discussion was as to the effects of the proposed changes—not on the schools, but on the incomes. And now the noble Earl recommended his new edition, on the same mercenary cal- culation, as being equally lucrative to teachers as the former. But many leading Inspectors, though warned not to criticize, and associations, meetings, and individuals interested in national education, were expressing anything but satisfaction.

It was altogether unfortunate that the adoption by the State of an originally voluntary foundation had made their national schools dependent for their necessary expenditure on a precarious contribution from the Government, according to its own official judgment of the work done during the previous year. That was scarcely a proper provision for national institutions. In the case of voluntary schools, there were no means to meet any deficiency so created, and debts already incurred. Board schools might get fresh rates; but the National Treasury could judge itself free as to its share in the national contract, though dealing with funds most nationally levied, and though ruining a national school. A national school should be secure, subject to audit, for its necessary current expenses. There should be an Education Minister; and he should be ready and able, subject to appeals, to call upon local managers to dismiss incompetent teachers, when any school's inefficiency seemed otherwise incorrigible, rather than ruin the school. It should not be allowed that teachers should devote their attention to making up their own salaries by specified Treasury pickings, instead of to securing, in the best way they could, the educational requirements of their very various pupils. In Germany, all teachers were paid by fixed salaries, sometimes with prizes added for special excellence. When "Treasury aid per results" was first introduced it was most unpopular in the country; and some remarkable speeches were made in that House, especially by the late Lord Derby and Bishop Wilberforce, strikingly anticipating the evils which had followed. Once adopted, the system was difficult to alter. Every year's revision of the Code had more or less departed from that mistaken mode of aid, and the noble Earl now recommended his new edition, on its further departure from it. The "special merit grant," introduced in this revision, was on the contrary principle, though even that was made to depend upon passes. It might some- times be due in inverse ratio to the number of passes, and of extra subjects taken up, where teachers had to slave with dull country bumpkins, and merited the more for the unmanageableness of their work. He (Lord Norton) knew that the noble Earl was constantly pressed by theorists to add more and more subjects to the Code. He had heard him admitting to those so pressing him that there were many subjects under heaven worth studying; but deprecating the introduction, at any rate, of more than one at a time into elementary schools for the working classes. Not near so much was attempted for the upper classes; yet the children of parents who had had the means of higher mental cultivation should generally inherit more mental capacity than a navvy's child, who would generally inherit, on the other hand, more physical endurance of continuous daily labour. "But by the action of the Code," said Mr. Alderson, in his Report of 1877— The choice of a specific subject was often determined, not by any special fitness or aptitude, but regarded as a possible streamlet from the Parliamentary milch cow, towards which a teacher is guided by an intelligent forecast of its grant-yielding capability. The proof of the system was, however, in its general result. Its author complained, when he introduced it, that so few children were reported on the previous system to leave school able to read at all intelligently. What said he, in a recent debate in that House, on the 4th Schedule, of the result of 20 years of his improved method? That he had tried often to get a top Standard boy from a London school who could read intelligibly to him, and he had never been able to get one. That might come from the prevalent mistake of only making children read, and not letting them also hear good reading. Good reading was caught by the ear. Still, the system must be radically at fault which ended in one of the most eminent Inspectors saying that— While subject after subject was being added to the programme, far the greater number of children did not really learn what they were supposed to learn. The schools were seeking for paying results, and for paying pupils; and were not content to plod on with the elementary grounding of children of the working class.

He allowed that the new edition of the Code was an advance in the right direction, and an amendment of the more glaring defects of its precursors. They had their choice, whether to go on so advancing by yearly changes, increasing complication, and retaining the mercenary against the educational aim of teachers; or to appoint a Committee now, to inquire in time, to prepare a simpler, a sounder, and a final system after 1883. The first part of such simpler Code, that was the part relating to elementary schools, would only need four clauses—a definition of the schools, of the teachers to be recognized, of the subjects generally to be taught, and of the rate of Treasury aid. With such a Code, the public elementary education of the poor would soon, no doubt, conform again much more with the intention and authority of Parliament. The State standing out of the way, higher schools would soon be found to meet the demand. Exhibitions from elementary schools should be publicly provided to offer a free ladder to all the children of the working class who could really go on to these higher schools. Other children would not be kept from a timely apprenticeship to their work, that teachers might earn a grant or two more by making them repeat a few terms of science. If they really meant the State to undertake the education of the middle class, it would be better to avow the intention, and alter the law accordingly. A Government groove, and elimination of religious teaching, would then, unfortunately, attach to middle-class schools also; but nothing could be worse than trying to slip the middle, slily and unreally, into elementary education. When that pretence was gone, the children most dependent on public aid would also find their place recognized in the Public Education Ministry, who were now stowed away in the Police and Poor Law Departments, brought up as criminals and paupers, and not reckoned in the Education Estimates at all.

He had said nothing on the financial view of the subject, and the gross wastefulness of the present half-and-half system. Whatever might be thought of extra and special subjects of elementary instruction, there was an extra and special expenditure now growing dangerous to the endurance of national education altogether, irrespectively of proved defects and devoid of any sound results. He had said nothing on pupil teachers and Training Colleges; he had simply dealt with the first part of the Code. He asked, however, for a Committee to inquire into the whole Code, and into the ultimate issue of its shiftings and changes during the last 20 years, with a view to some settlement, at least for a time, and that they might have a simple and intelligible regulation of Government aid to be given to all such public elementary schools as were reported on stated points to be efficiently and suitably conducted.

Moved, "That the Education Code for 1883 be referred to a committee to consider whether it might not he possible more effectually to carry out its professed intention of simplification of the Code, and remove the serious defects in the mode of distribution of the grants in aid, and prevent the perpetual changes against which complaints increasingly come from those engaged in the work of national elementary education."—(The Lord Norton.)

LORD CARLINGFORD

said, that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Norton) had found great fault with the system of education in this country, and desired very radical changes; but he (Lord Carlingford) was glad to find that he did not make any attack on the New Code, as such, or as compared with its predecessors, because, if he had, he should have had reason to regret the absence of his noble Friend the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer), by whose care and labour, in conjunction with his right hon. Friend (Mr. Mundella), the New Code had been brought to its present condition. The objections of the noble Lord to the present system of elementary education in England turned partly upon what he thought to be the excessive complication of the Code, and the undue and unfair amount of money given under it for the higher branches of education. As to the want of simplicity in the Code, he (Lord Carlingford) confessed that he was not convinced by the argument. He believed that his noble Friend's Code of four Articles was a pure dream—an ideal quite beyond the attainment of practical men. When they found that they had a system which had to deal with a great variety of schools, with different kinds and ages of children, and which, above all, had to control and protect and safeguard the spending, year by year, of some- thing like £4,000,000 of public money, he could not think that a Code of Rules and Regulations for such purposes to be effectual could be a short and simple one. Therefore, he could see nothing wonderful in the fact that it was necessarily somewhat complicated. The noble Lord himself knew that strenuous efforts had been made in that direction by the Government, and that the present Code, although far indeed from his noble Friend's beau-ideal of four Articles, was the simplest which had yet been issued. As to the teaching of higher subjects, and the excessive amount of public money expended on those subjects, he could not think, so far as he had had time to look into the matter, that these fears, which, he believed, were shared by some others besides his noble Friend, had much foundation. It appeared that out of 4,000,000 scholars on the roll of the registered elementary schools of Great Britain at that moment, there were only 45,000 above the age of 14; and it was only children above that age who were likely to be engaged on the higher subjects. The number of those who had passed through all the ordinary Standards was only 9,400. But if the noble Lord's fears were at all well grounded, what remedy did he propose, by the main part of his Motion and speech, which was evidently directed against one of the foundations of the present system of education—namely, payment by results? How the noble Lord could connect that system with what he thought to be the exaggerated amount of higher instruction in common schools passed his (Lord Carlingford's) comprehension. His belief was that that system was the great security for the essential elements of primary education; and it must have a most important effect in preventing the teacher from devoting an undue amount of effort to the higher subjects. The Motion of his noble Friend was an attack on the principle of payment by results. He must, in replying to that attack, remind their Lordships how the system came about. The noble Lord said that it was adopted in the teeth of the Report of the Royal Commission of 1861. But, so far from that being the case, it was built up and founded by two noble Lords near him (Viscount Sherbrooke and Earl Granville) on the Report of the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, which was appointed by the late Lord Derby. The main point in that Report was the discovery of neglect in the primary and essential elements of ordinary education. Nothing could be stronger than the language in which the Report asserted that they found that only a quarter of the children were well taught, and that the rest were so imperfectly taught that they forgot all they learnt as soon as they left school. They said— There is only one way of securing this result, which is to institute a searching examination by competent authority of every child in every school to which grants are to be paid, with the view of ascertaining whether the indispensable elements of knowledge are thoroughly acquired, and to make the prospects and position of the teacher dependent, to a considerable extent, on the results of this examination. He (Lord Carlingford) had searched the records, and he was unable to find any educational authority who had complained of the working of this system. He would not say that all the evils had been cured, but, at any rate, they had been, to a large extent, remedied; and he failed to see how the revolutionary proposal of the noble Lord would in any way improve the condition of affairs. A few figures would show what an improvement had taken place in recent years. The Inspectors in the year 1863—the first year of their Report after the adoption of the results system—stated that no less than 86 per cent of the children above 10 years of age who were presented for examination failed to reach the Standard in which they ought, according to the Code, to have been presented. In 1881, it was reported that only 48 per cent had failed to reach that Standard, so that, while 14 per cent reached the Standard in 1863, in 1881 52 per cent reached it; so that it would be seen that no inconsiderable progress in elementary teaching had been made. It was quite clear, therefore—and he hoped it would be equally clear to their Lordships—that, at all events, they were on the right road in this matter, and ought not to be seduced from it by his noble Friend. Some years ago, when he (Lord Carlingford) held the Office of Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under the present Secretary of State for the Colonies, the system of payment by results was introduced into that country. All persons who had watched its working would admit that it had given an im- mense stimulus to education there. Sir Patrick Keenan, the permanent head of the Education Department in Ireland, made a very interesting statement in regard to this matter at the Social Science Meeting at Dublin last autumn— It would be the sheerest fatuity," he said, "to ignore the enormous improvement in the education of the people which this results system, as a system of tests, has produced. It has been in operation only nine years. In that period the average attendance has increased 32 per cent. The local emoluments of the teachers have increased 119 percent. The percentage of children in the higher classes, before the results period, never quite reached eight; last year it was nearly 24 per cent. The centesimal proportion of the proficient to the total number examined in each branch is the best indication of the merits of a school. Selecting the published Educational Returns of 1870 (before the system of results had been decided upon), and comparing them with those of 1880 (when the system was in full operation), I find the following remarkable contrasts:—In 1870—reading 70.5, writing 57.7, and arithmetic 54.4; in 1880—reading 91.4, writing 93.8, and arithmetic 74.8 per cent. Sir Patrick Keenan went on to say that the system had emancipated the younger children from the terrible stagnation in which they had been allowed to remain under the former system. The New Code held to the system of payment by results; and if it were thought that too much stress were placed on that, and too little stress placed on the general merits of the teaching and mental development of the children, he would point out that several provisions of the New Code were distinctly aimed as a corrective of any error that had been made in that direction. But what did the noble Lord expect from getting rid of the principle—the original sin, as he called it—of the system of 1862? The noble Lord had said boldly that examination was a great blunder, and that we must fall back upon a system of intelligent inspection. The noble Lord had suggested that there should be a sort of casual examination of a child here and there, dependent upon the discretion or the caprice of the Inspector. But if the Government were to propose this system of casual examination in place of the regular examination now in force, what would be said by those who were interested that £4,000,000 sterling should not be annually wasted, and by all managers of schools? It had been proposed lately by the Council Office that there should be a system of sample examinations; but how had that proposal been received by the country? Why, it was heard only to be denounced. The National Society, the British and Foreign School Society, the Union of Teachers, and all other scholastic Bodies, met to protest against the adoption of such a system. One great objection to the system of payment by inspection was that it would be impossible to carry it on in connection with the compulsory education system, and with the Statutes in restraint of the labour of children. If this system were to be adopted, how was a child to be certificated as a whole or a half-timer, and how could the Factory Acts be worked? What, moreover, would become of the voluntary schools of the country under a system of that kind? The noble Lord proposed that, instead of the voluntary schools being kept in order by a system of payment by results, they should be subjected to a most tremendous penalty, because any falling-off in the efficiency of the schools was to be punished by the loss of the half or the whole of their grant. In these circumstances, he could not do otherwise than oppose the Motion of the noble Lord. The proposal of the noble Lord, if persisted in, would unsettle everything, and pull up by the roots the growth of education which was covering the land more widely year by year; and, therefore, he trusted the House would not follow the advice given by the noble Lord, or grant an inquiry, which was totally uncalled for, and which would lead to disastrous results.

THE DUKE OF RICHMOND AND GORDON

said, he could not conceive that any good could result from the appointment of a Committee such as that suggested by the noble Lord (Lord Norton) upon the New Code, and he could not imagine how any Government could consent to it. In what useful direction could the Committee which the noble Lord asked for carry on its inquiries? Having been for six years at the head of the Educational Department under the late Government, he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) took a deep interest in this subject. He regretted the absence of the Lord President of the Council (Earl Spencer), for, although he did not wish to express any disrespect for the noble Lord who had stated the views of the Government (Lord Carling- ford), it was desirable, on the ground of public convenience, that in a discussion of this nature the Head of the Department should be in his place. As he gathered from the observations of the noble Lord himself, the results of the system which had grown up under the Revised Code had given general satisfaction, because he had pointed to the depth to which public opinion had sunk to be in favour of a system which had been in operation for the last 12 years. He was quite ready to admit that the greatest labour and attention had been bestowed upon the Revised Code for next year, and that the Department had endeavoured to make it as perfect as possible. Its form was to some extent improved, and its administration, if not interfered with, would be simplified, though he doubted whether the omission of the cross references would render the Code as intelligible and as easy for reference as it was now. Out-of-doors this Code for 1883 was called an Inspectors' Code, because of the excessive power which it conferred on Inspectors. This power was larger than it was wise to accord. He deprecated granting excessive powers to Inspectors, although he did not object to giving them some larger powers than they at present possessed; and he also approved of giving local authorities power to deal with educational matters in their districts instead of referring everything to the Central Government. The two principal portions of the New Code related to the payment by results and the extension of the inspection system. Now, payment by results had been before the country many years, and had given universal satisfaction; but, with regard to the extension of the system of inspection, he could not help thinking that that might be a little over done. With few exceptions, the proposed changes were not important; but he (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) objected to the appointment of an army of Sub-Inspectors chosen from among the teachers, because he thought it extremely doubtful policy to choose Inspectors from among teachers. Of course, the noble Lord was aware that that plan had been condemned by the Duke of Newcastle's Commission, the Report of which was signed by the best educational authorities of the time—namely, the Duke of Newcastle, John Taylor Coleridge, William Charles Lake, William Rogers, Goldwin Smith, Nassau Senior, and Edward Miall— Schoolmasters not fit for office of Inspectors.—As to the specific complaint that they are not made Inspectors, we think that they would not be fit for the office. It is absolutely necessary that Inspectors should be fitted by previous training and social position to communicate and associate upon terms of equality with the managers of schools, and the clergy of different denominations. It is one of the alleged grievances of the schoolmasters that these persons do not recognize them as social equals; and that state of things, with which no public authority can interfere, is in itself conclusive against the suggestion that they should be made Inspectors. With that opinion he cordially agreed, and he was astonished to hear of the present proposal. His noble Friend's Motion implied that changes and variations were undesirable in themselves; but he could not take that view, as he believed that many most useful variations had been adopted, and that, at any rate, the power to vary the Code was necessary. It would be unwise to say that the Code should be incapable of any alteration which experience from time to time suggested as proper. He wished to add a word or two as to a matter personal to himself as the Head of the Department under the late Government. He observed that the Vice President of the Council, in a speech made at the conference of elementary teachers at Sheffield in the present year, had said— Let me commend to you, when you have a kindly word to say, or a kindly thought to express of the Department, let me commend to you the name of my noble Friend Earl Spencer, who has voluntarily put aside all the advantages of his high position, and all the patronage that belongs to it, and who will not for the remainder of our term of Office, whether it be long or short (and we are setting an example to our successors), appoint gentlemen to the Inspectorate, because they are political allies, or casual acquaintances, to mete out the awards of the State to the teachers of the country. Such conduct as that is, I think, worthy of all laudation and commendation. He (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon) considered that that was an insinuation against the late Government; and, if it were intended to imply that they had made appointments from such motives, he could give the statement his most unqualified contradiction, and he must enter his most strenuous protest against such insinuations as those made by the right hon. Gentleman at Sheffield. He had never appointed a single Inspector for either private or political reasons; but had chosen for the office the best men he could find, without reference to other considerations. In one case only had he known by sight the Inspector thus chosen, and in no case had he any acquaintance with his political views. With regard to the Motion before the House, he advised his noble Friend (Lord Norton) to withdraw it.

THE BISHOP OF CARLISLE

said, he wished to repudiate the suggestion that the deputation of the National Society was chiefly concerned with the monetary question. The Archbishop of Canterbury apologized for going into it, saying that, after all, it could not be avoided, because to voluntary schools it was a matter of life or death. That the pecuniary question was the only one they looked at he totally denied; the deputation dealt with the whole Code, and only with the monetary question as necessarily a part of the whole. As to the New Code, it had generally been accepted by the great bulk of those interested in education as an immensely more intelligible document than any that had gone before; and, as far as he could judge from conversations he had had with the schoolmasters of the poorer classes of schools, he inferred that the better class of masters were not at all afraid of it, and would work their schools well under it. Speaking generally, he believed the Code was accepted throughout the country as a considerable step in advance.

EARL FORTESCUE

said, that he concurred with his noble Friend who had moved for the Committee in thinking it very largely desirable, but not altogether, on the same grounds. He objected to the New Code, as he had to many previous ones; not because he was an opponent of education—for he had, for more than 40 years, taken a deep interest in the education of all classes, the highest, the middle, and the wage class, and had spent much time and labour and several thousands of pounds in its promotion and improvement—but because he disapproved of much in those Codes. Their Lordships had been told that the New Code was generally acceptable. He could not agree there. It was disapproved of by a large proportion of the school teachers. Mr. Sykes, the President of the General Conference of Elementary School Teachers, in his address—which was warmly applauded—described it as being quite dissimilar to the system pursued in higher schools, where, he said, the masters— Are not pained and worried throughout the year by the sight of bright, intelligent pupils doomed to idleness and stagnation, and the weak and dull goaded to efforts beyond their physical strength and mental powers, by the demands of a cold, cruel, and exacting system of education. The teachers said that, if left to choose their own methods, they could save more than a year's time to their scholars; and it should be remembered that the opinion pronounced by the teachers against the New Code would be naturally mitigated a little by the long-desired concession just made to them by the Education Department, in recognizing their admissibility henceforth to Inspectorships, which had just been so much deplored by the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond and Gordon). He (Earl Fortescue) did not complain so much of payment by results, as of the system on which those results were ascertained—namely, by the annual examination of every child in the "three R.'s,"—and some in much more—at an enormous expense to the State, and with very injurious effect upon the children. It was like boys who, after planting a plant, could not resist taking it up again from time to time to look at its roots and see how it got on. It was testing the article during each stage of its manufacture instead of when finished. In Germany, where education had been much considered, it was stated that they had a leaving, instead of an annual, examination of each child, like ours.

But he further objected not less to the long hours of schooling under these Codes. Mr. T. Morrison, Principal of the Free Church Training College, declared the opinion of the teachers in Scotland to be that the pressure brought to bear upon the children, particularly on the lower thousands, by the Code was injurious—morally, mentally, and physically. Some noble Lords seemed surprised at the word "morally;" but the sense of injustice, restraint, and misery in children longing to be earning something for their families, but kept at school till 14, if they had not passed the Fourth Standard, was such as not unnaturally to cause a re-action in their feelings, and to incline them to break out into those acts of ruffianism and lawlessness which were becoming increasingly prevalent, he found, in the lads of the present day, many of whom must have had the benefit of schooling under the Act of 1870. The testimony, old and recent, as to the mental and physical consequences of the long school hours, was overwhelming. In 1860, Mr. Chadwick stated to the British Association— That in a large public establishment, with 600 children, the girls, who were first provided with industrial work for half the day, beat the boys, who were kept in school the full time, at the general examination; but afterwards, when the boys, too, had work found them for half the day, they resumed their previous slight superiority over the girls. And the physiological explanation of this was given on the same occasion by Professor Owen in striking words, which, however, there would not be time to quote here. That eminent physician and most popular lecturer, Dr. Richardson, had cited a letter from Mr. Charles Roberts, stating that after the children had been emancipated by the Factory Acts from the injurious effects of excessive physical labour, the result had now been merely to transfer them from one taskmaster to another—from the manufacturer to the schoolmaster. The Doctor had then described what he himself and trustworthy witnesses had seen of the general unhealthiness of children attending many elementary schools in London, partly natural, but much aggravated by over mental work, without the physical training which alone could have maintained or restored their health. Not only medical men, but The Schoolmaster, the recognized organ of the elementary school teachers, expressed disappointment at the omission of all mention of all physical training from the Code. Ample time could be found for it, if grammar and spelling were less pressed. He felt satisfied that far too much importance was attached by the Education Department to both. Dr. Alexander Bain, Rector of the University of Aberdeen, in his Science of Education, already in its 3rd edition, earnestly deprecated the study of grammar at all before 10 years of age, and said— Anatomists tell us that the brain grows with great rapidity up to 7 years of age; it then attains an average weight of 40 ounces in the male. The increase is much slower between 7 and 14, when it attains 45 ounces; still slower from 14 to 20, when it is very near its greatest size. Consequently, of the more difficult intellectual exercises, some that would be impossible at 5 or 6 are easy at 8, through the fact of brain-growth alone. This is consistent with all our experience, and is of value as confirming that experience. Mr. Langler, President of the Annual Conference of the National Union of Elementary Teachers in 1881, said, in his address— There are many who hold—and I confess to be myself among that number—that the very valuable mental discipline which the proper study of grammar secures is too early introduced as a subject of examination. Children who must leave school for labour at the earliest possible age might much better employ their time by more extensive reading than in the grammatical classification of the few words of their limited vocabulary. Our ancestors thought very little about spelling; and, the main object of writing and speaking being to convey our thoughts in an intelligible manner, he could not but feel that perfection in spelling had not all the importance which was very often attached to it. Pope's Correspondent wrote that— Though he might sometimes find too many letters in her words, she hoped he did not find too many words in her letters. A correspondent like her would certainly be far more instructive and amusing than correspondents all of whose words were accurately spelt, but which conveyed little but dulness to those who perused them. In order that the whole subject might be thoroughly investigated, he should be glad—though he feared he was taking too sanguine a view—if their Lordships decided to grant this Committee of Inquiry.

LORD NORTON

said, he was quite content with the discussion which had taken place; but feared that he must leave the Education Code to arrive by degrees at the point of simplicity to which he would have been glad immediately to bring it before it had hopelessly tainted teachers and managers with mere mercenary calculations on Government aid in the work of national education. He begged to withdraw his Motion.

Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.