Lords Sitting of 12 May 1890

METROPOLITAN HOSPITALS, &c.
Ordered, that the Select Committee have power to direct that copies of the evidence be delivered to such persons as they shall think fit.
FACTORS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
A Bill to amend and consolidate the Factors Acts in their application to Scotland—Was presented by the Lord Watson; read 1ª; to be printed; and to be read 2ª on Friday next.—(No. 83.)
THE NEW EDUCATION CODE.

  OBSERVATION.
  *LORD NORTON: My Lords, I do not intend to trouble your Lordships with any general discussion of the Education Code, but only to invite your serious consideration of the two features connected with the Code which are indicated in the notice I have given. The new Code is, I think, an improvement upon that which was introduced last year and withdrawn, and the two together constitute a very considerable improvement on the existing law. I have noticed the points in which, I. think, a considerable improvement has been made; first in simplifying the method of estimating school work, and including in that, for the first time, discipline, good conduct, good manners, and moral training. More freedom has been given to the teachers, both in classifying scholars and subjects. Class and sample are substituted for individual examination. The proposed Code lightens and makes much less mechanical and impracticable the work of inspection, and it greatly improves the conditions both as to pupil teachers' apprenticeships, as to trained and untrained teachers, as to the staff, and as to the premises required for every school. The objections which I have to make to the Code are two: first, that it retains the system of piecemeal payment for education to a certain extent, and sufficiently, to continue the mischiefs of that mode of payment, and to vitiate the whole system. My other objection is
  642
  that it positively stultifies itself when greatly enlarging the fixed grants in support of education, yet making them all variable. As to the piecemeal payment for education. That was a, device adopted first in order to induce Parliament to undertake the elementary instruction which volunteers were inadequately giving by an apparent guarantee of a quid pro quo for every shilling voted for the purpose. Twenty years' experience has proved more completely, year by year, the futility and mischief of that mode of paying for national education, and it was condemned more completely in the House of Commons last Friday than it has ever been before. It was condemned generally in the House by all who spoke upon the Resolution moved by Sir Richard Temple, and more especially condemned by the Vice President of the Council. The evidence of the teachers taken before the Royal Commission, on whose Report this Code professes to be based, was unanimous as to the mischiefs which are produced by the mode of payment. The heads under which they divided their accusations of mischief were these: that it limits the curriculum of instruction and makes any special aptitude of teachers valueless; that it induces neglect of important parts of education to which no money value is attached; that it forces all concerned in the work to regard it in reference to their possible earnings on passes upon examination instead of looking to the general effect of the education; and that it substitutes mere cramming of the memory for real intellectual training. Very strangely the Commissioners drew the conclusion, from that unanimous condemnation by experts, that the Parliamentary grant for education cannot be wholly freed from dependence on results, and that Parliament could not be expected to make such large grants unless it could so satisfy itself that the quality? of the education justified the expense. Both those conclusions are dependent on what is meant by results, and what may be the quality of the education which can be produced by such a system. But the Commissioners go, at all events, so far as to recommend its modification, as far as possible, and that it should be relaxed

  643
  in the interests of the scholars, of the teachers, and of education itself. Those are their words; but they say that the total abandonment of the system might involve greater evils. What those evils were they gave not the slightest indication, nor is there any indication whatever of them in the evidence, whether in writing or orally. I tried to ascertain them by asking some of the highest authorities in the Department if they could indicate any source of evil in abandoning payment on results, but the best answer I got was that it was necessary, in order to stimulate teachers and keep them up to the mark by giving them a number of little prizes to earn beyond the fixed payment. So low an estimate of our teachers is scouted by all who are engaged in private schools throughout the country, although they see perfectly that their incomes will depend, as all working incomes must, upon excellence of results; but none of them would undertake to educate for an arbitrary and precarious payment for different items of instruction. Unfortunately, in this particular, the Code follows the recommendations of the Commissioners: It concludes that total abandonment of piece payment is impossible, and only recommends modification. It, therefore, retains such payments as these:—1s. for this, 1s. 6d. for that. Conceive, my Lords, a system under which, by way of education, the nation pays for six-pennyworth of discipline, or six-pennyworth of moral training ! And let me say here, that religious instruction in the barest principles of Christianity is the only thing for which there is no payment. That constitutes the Index expurgatorius of our national schools, and religion, therefore, continues to be the one subject which is unpaid for and neglected. The other objection which I have to make to the Code is its anomaly of variable fixed grants. The Government has been so much engaged in Irish questions lately that they become somewhat Irish in their own ideas. This may account for the fact that in proposing fixed grants they have made them variable, with one exception, and that the only one which would have been better for some variation. The Merit Grant was tried a year or two ago, with the object of getting rid of the piecemeal mode of
  644
  payment, and getting payments made generally according to merit, but the scale of merit "fair," "good," and "excellent," was absolutely found impracticable, and was only used as affording another mode of piecemeal payment. They found it was impossible to say-exactly where the line was to be drawn between "fair" and "good" and "excellent" categories of schools, and the attempt to draw it was found to be most invidious, and was objected to by the country at large. But here we have a Merit Grant again in the very Code which professes to abandon it, only re-introduced under the cover of fixed grants. The variable fixed grants as proposed now I will state to your Lordships. The fixed grants for infants vary from 9s. to 7s. per head, according to the school equipment, and the age of the teacher—that is, according to the richer or poorer circumstances of the schools, giving the larger grants to the richer. There is also a sliding scale of payments of 6s., 4s., or 2s. a head to those schools, according to the Inspectors' opinion of the suitableness of the instruction. Under the head of fixed grants to schools for older scholars, there is a variable grant of 12s. 6d. or 14s., according to the amount of intelligence exhibited, which intelligence is likely to be greater in the larger towns and amongst those who are best able to pay for education. That is the proposed appraisement, and a very difficult appraisement too. I should like to know- how the Inspectors, who despaired of the working of the old Merit Grant, would draw a distinction between the category of schools deserving. 12s. 6d. and 14s. a head. The only fixed grant that is invariable is 4s. for specific subjects, which are not taken up in any rural school. So much for this system of grants, which Mr. Sydney Buxton said, in the House of Commons, was a scheme for making the greatest possible variation of payment for exactly the same amount of labour in teaching. My Lords, I would only ask, in conclusion, is it impossible to escape entirely from this condemned system, which is fraught with so much mischief? What is done by every civilised nation in the world except ourselves is from a central fund for education to grant out to such local schools what each requires for its work, not competitively but actually.

  645
  Such Grants are made in Canada from provincial districts according to population and rateable value. In that way an adequate and certain income is given to enable local managers to carry out what the people want in the way of proper school tuition. Our own large School Boards have so severely felt the mischief of the present system that they have taken on themselves both the precarious receipts from detailed payments and the variableness of their aggregate amount, and have paid fixed salaries to their teachers, with a separate inspection of their own to watch the teachers' capacity for the work. If it is doubted whether we can fall back from a device adopted in order to induce Parliament to take up the subject, which device can no longer be required, because Parliament is now almost too profuse with grants for education, cannot we do that which all other nations do, and let the Treasury grant a capitation according to the requirements of every district, rural or urban, only seeing by inspection that the money they vote is bonâfide appropriated for the purpose for which it is voted, leaving to the locality the arrangements with the school. Two of the most eminent authorities pointed out to the Commission how this could be done, only waiting for District Authorities to be formed. I know that I cannot get any alteration made in the Code now, but I simply desire to draw your Lordships' attention to two defects in the Code, in the hope that, through your Lordships' influence, they may both be remedied in the final and complete edition of the Code which the Government promise us next year. I am sure every one of your Lordships hope that they will put an end to this system of annual editions of it. which cause perpetual changes and uncertainty most embarrassing to managers and teachers, and to all who are interested in this important subject. Let us have a normal supply by Treasury grants, which will enable managers to work efficiently our schools throughout the country for moral and intellectual training, with a view to the best interest of education, and not hamper them by considerations of detailed earnings, and precarious incomes, dependent on periodical arbitrary examinations.
  *THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on having laid upon the Table of the House a new Education Code, which is decidedly in advance of the old one, and much more in line with the practical needs of the people. I think most of your Lordships will agree with me that Her Majesty's Government have done well in having dropped the subject which is called "English." I have never yet found any schoolmaster or schoolmistress who has been able to tell me that after all the "English" that has been taught to the children of the working classes, their actual speaking and writing has been very much improved. The practical needs of the people for their children's education have been better met in the present Code by the permissive introduction of manual instruction, suitable physical instruction, and laundry work; but I must express my regret that physical exercises and laundry work do not receive any direct encouragement in this Code. We think too much of the intellectual, and too little of the physical, needs of the children. I suppose it is now impossible to alter the Code, but I hope at some future time the subject of physical exercises will be brought more prominently forward. At present they are only permissive, but I should like to see them made compulsory. We are the only leading nation in Europe which has not physical instruction in its Educational Code. They have it in Germany, France, Sweden, and Switzerland. There is another point to which I should like; to draw your Lordships' attention. The compulsory subjects are reading, writing, needlework, arithmetic, and drawing: but there is one subject which, although not included in this list, is practically compulsory, and that is recitation. At page 15 it is stated that no school shall receive the higher grant unless the Inspector reports that, the scholars throughout the school are satisfactorily taught recitation. In the first standard the poor infants are bound, before the grant can be earned, to be able to recite 20 lines of poetry; in the second standard, 40 lines: in the third, 60 lines; and so on up to the sixth standard, where 150 lines of recitation are required. I ask whether this can be absolutely necessary. What advantage can there be

  647
  in the children of, say, a labourer being able to recite 150 lines of Chaucer. It seems to me absolutely ridiculous that we should require a labourer's children to recite 150 lines of Chaucer when, as a matter of fact, the mass of the girls are not taught geography, and often not history—infinitely more important subjects for them. As your Lordships are doubtless aware, it is necessary that two class subjects should be chosen; they cannot choose more. If they choose needlework as one of the obligatory subjects they only get 1s.; but if they cheese it as a class subject they get 2s.; consequently, as every manager is anxious to obtain the most money he can for his school, he will naturally take needlework as coming under the class subjects, and earn 2s. by it. They consequently lose one of those two important subjects, history or geography. Both those are subjects which our girls ought certainly to know something about. I would suggest that recitation should be entirely left out, and that some other subject should be put forward instead of it. My own feeling is that if we could change the curriculum of these children a little more, and insist upon the healthy ones going through some suitable physical exercises, it would be much better than teaching them to recite 150 lines of Chaucer. Sir Edwin Chadwick, in his Health of Rations, states that the receptivity of the minds of the great mass of children for instruction does not exceed three hours daily, and I think that is perfectly true, for it is confirmed by all the leading physiologists. But we give them four hours' instruction, and I think if there was half an hour, or even a quarter of an hour, devoted to physical exercises, the teachers would get a great deal more out of them than at present. In fact, the question of the health of the younger generation of our city population is, to my mind, a very serious one for England, and one which I hope this House will take into consideration within a very short space of time. We are an essentially urban nation, and are rapidly becoming more and more so. I cannot understand how anyone living in our large towns can doubt for a moment that our town children are degenerating. I know it is doubted, and it is a most difficult thing to prove; but almest every-
  648
  one who has lived among the working-classes of our towns is of the opinion that the children of our working classes in towns are degenerating. The urban populations are rapidly increasing; there are two persons living in the town to one in the country, and therefore we must consider the health of the younger generation of our urban populations, for the standard of health and physique in our times will have an ever-increasing influence on the health standard of the nation. The power and energy of a nation depend upon the power and energy possessed by the units which constitute that nation. If your units are weak in health, your nation will be weak in strength of mind and body. How are we to hold our own in the world in future unless our population is of that healthy character which will make us a healthy as well as an intellectual nation? If there are those who say that the intellect of the nation has nothing to do with the health of the children, I venture to state that exactly the reverse is the case, and that unless the children are healthy you cannot get the highest intellectual work out of them. In fact, unless we take care, our country will have to take a lower rank among the hierarchy of nations, and I hope that before such an event occurs we shall set our house in order. It is a well-known axiom of hygienic science that, other things being equal, the health of a population is in inverse ratio to its density; the more people are crowded together the more unhealthy they are, and therefore the more our population is crowded into our towns, the more unhealthy they must become, unless we prevent this law taking effect. Physical exercises are not only good for strengthening the body and for strengthening the mind; but I assert that they are good also, inasmuch as they inculcate many moral qualities which are largely wanted among our people. They teach habits of order, dicipline, the duty of obedience, attention to command, quickness to act upon order, and the power of co-operation in acting with each other. In 1884, out of 65,000 men who offered themselves as recruits for the Army, 430 per 1,000 were rejected for physical disability. I think your Lordships will agree that that is an enormous proportion; and when we consider that it is the most

  649
  active and energetic, and consequently we must presume the most healthy, part of the population which seeks to follow the exciting life of a soldier, we can readily imagine what the physical condition of the great mass of our population must be. We must take into account also the number of those presenting themselves who were rejected simply for inferior physique. We have already passed a Bill for the national defence of this country, and I am thankful for it. I am thankful that we are spending these millions. But we may spend £50,000,000, aye, £100,000,000iu national defence in vain if we do not look after the bodily health of our children. If our children do not grow up healthy and strong and able to use the weapons and scientific appliances entrusted to them, we shall simply be throwing the money away. They will be unable to use these weapons, and all your efforts to defend the nation in time of war will be in vain. But it may be asked, why are we to include physical education in the Code? Why cannot we trust to games and sports? Well, even suppose the children of whom I am speaking could engage in sports and games it is not exactly the same thing But the fact is, that in our large towns there are no places where the mass of the children can play. Sports are excellent for children to engage in; but there can be no doubt that for the purpose of which I am speaking, the sports of these children are not exactly what are required. They are crude and unspecialised, and, therefore, inadequate for the purpose of giving, a national physical education. I am an ardent supporter of our national games of football and cricket; but I do say those are not exactly what we want. We want something more to give those qualities which are necessary to produce a thoroughly strong, healthy, and intelligent population. Then it may be asked—What do you propose? I would suggest that something similar to the Swedish drill should be established in all our schools. One of my reasons for saying this is that Swedish drill requires hardly any appliances and is consequently an inexpensive system. There is no better method which can be adopted for bringing out the physical powers of the children in all directions. That method is founded on the laws of Nature, and on the treatment
  650
  of the bodily organism. I hope, therefore, that if not now, at all events at some future time, something will be clone in this direction. If anyone shall answer—"We do not want robust health as much as intellectual attainment; the mortal body, being the lower organ, must take its chance, and be even sacrificed, if need be, to the higher organ—the immortal mind." To such I reply, with Charles Kingsley, that you cannot do it—
  "The laws of Nature, which are the express will of God, laughs such attempts to scorn. Every organ of the body is formed out of the blood; and if the blood he vitiated, every organ suffers in proportion to its delicacy; and the brain, being the most delicate and highly specialised of all organs, suffers most of all, and soonest of all, as everyone knows who has tried to work his brain when his digestion was the least out of order. Nay, the very morals will suffer. From ill-filled lungs, which signify ill-repaired blood, causing year by year an amount not merely of disease, but of folly, temper, laziness, intemperance, madness, and, let me tell you fairly, crime—the sum of which will never be known till that great day when men shall be called to account for all deeds done in the body, whether they be good or evil."
  Those are the words of Charles Kingsley, the apostle of muscular Christianity. One of the advantages of Swedish drill is that it is suitable for both girls and boys; and we may say for the girls, "If strong be the frames of the mothers the sons shall make laws for the people;" and the boys may make answer "Civium vires, civitatis vis."
  *THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (Viscount CRANBROOK): My Lords, I am pleased to find that so far no very serious exception has teen taken to the Code which has been laid on your Lordships' Table, and I am happy that the same has been the case throughout the country. I do not suppose that a code will ever be introduced which will please all managers and teachers of Board Schools, and subscribers to voluntary schools. At the same time, I think your Lordships will see, recollecting what the Debates were last year, that every effort has been made in this Code to meet the objections which were then brought forward, and as far as possible to bring the Code into conformity with the general opinion that prevails in the country, and at the same time to fulfil as far as possible the wishes of that eminent body of gentlemen who sat upon the Royal Commission, and who, in carrying out the laborious duty which they undertook, came to conclusions which. I think, ought to be

  651
  at least respectfully regarded by anyone who deals with the subject. My noble Friend behind me, Lord Norton, has spoken upon one point, which he dwelt upon last year and which he also urged alone in the Royal Commission as he has done to-day. He takes the view that one grant ought to be made according to the requirements of the school, whatever they may be; and as far as I can make out from what he says, that the inspection by the Government should be on a limited scale, but that the minute and detailed inspection or examination of the schools should be thrown upon some Local Bodies who have hitherto not had that duty, and who, as far as I know, are not at present in existence, or in a position to undertake it. The mode adopted in this country has always been upon one line—that is to say, that so long as the Government has been giving grants, so long have they inspected and examined the schools. At one time it was thought that sufficient results were not obtained by a general inspection and examination, and Lord Sherbrooke, who was then Vice President of the Council of Education, proposed to meet that requirement by introducing the plan of payment by results. That system has continued from that period down to the present time. Lately, the system has been tried with regard to the lower standards that the examination be made general and not special; it began in Scotland, since I have held the office I now hold, to relieve the Inspectors from the duty of examining individually in the two lower standards. Finding that change a success in Scotland it is now about to be extended to England in all the standards. I quite admit that the teachers ought to be consulted in these matters to a very great extent, so long as we do not make the schoolmasters masters of the education of the country to be given in the schools. So long as wo do not do that I grant that the teachers are entitled to the greatest consideration, and that everything that can be done to make their position more easy and to put them in a position the more readily to accomplish the object we have in view of producing efficient schools the better for us and them. But in the present case I think we have done a great deal for them. We have altered the Schedules by which
  652
  they have been tied, and have given them large powers of classification and separation of the scholars according to their abilities, and the kind of examination they may require for each, placing them in such relation to one another that no child shall be forced for all purposes into a particular standard, for, though a child may be a good writer it may not necessarily be a good arithmetician or reader, the object being that each child shall be taught and examined according to its true capacity, so that they will be able to work in the particular standards according to their capacities, and be examined in a way suited to their iutelligence. My noble Friend seems to think that the Inspectors will not willingly assist the Government in working the Code; but that is a view which I cannot adopt, for never before have the Inspectors had so large a share in the preparation of a Code as in the present case. They have been very much consulted in this instance. There was a great difference of opinion among the Inspectors examined by the Commission as to the effect of examination by results. Some of the Inspectors thought that the effect of judging by individual results was a good one; but, on the whole, the tendency of opinion amongst Inspectors seemed against that system, and teachers and educationists being generally adverse that system has been taken away. Then my noble Friend seems to think that with re gard to the grants we are taking a step which is inconsistent in itself, in that we have given fixed grants which are variable. There is one fixed grant of 12s. 6d. which all schools will obtain so long as they are efficient, certainly for the first year and until they have received warning; my noble Friend refers to certain cases which I have seen commented upon very much in which the grant may be interfered with, but the introduction of the words objected to was meant for the benefit of the schools. In very exceptional cases, where a school has not remedied the condition of things complained of, and where they have not taken the course which they ought to have adopted, it might be hard on them to lose the whole grant, and there ought to be means of putting some pressure upon them by imposing a small reduction. We hope that will never

  653
  come into effect, and we feel confident that that possibility alone will act upon the managers and cause them to adopt a course in accordance with the wishes of and with the duties imposed upon them by the Department. My noble Friendsays that the Inspectors will not be able to make this kind of inspection, which is to test the quality of the equipment in the schools. Well, I am very sorry if their ability is of such a kind that it will not be equal to that tusk, because there was nothing on which the Commission laid so much stress, and. I think, justly, as upon the moral condition and educational equipment of the schools, and that they should be maintained in good order: and they thought that could be ascertained by the Inspectors. It was in order to compel the Inspectors to look into those matters that a separation has been made between what is given for the instruction imparted in the schools and for the discipline and organisation in them. So that the Inspectors, being obliged to report upon those matters and to assign what they think is a proper reward for them, will give them their attention and report. The Inspectors are not themselves to decide, but are to lay before the Department the facts upon which the Department are to decide as to the larger or smaller rate of fixed grant being allowed.
  *LORD NORTON: I beg pardon for interrupting the noble Viscount, but I did not say that the Inspectors would be unable to make the estimate of merit, but I disputed their deciding upon the comparative standard of merit, and being able to classify under three distinct categories.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: No doubt it is a very difficult thing to do. It is a very difficult thing to discover the moral tone and character of a school; but, though I quite admit there is a difficult)', there is a duty for the Inspector to pier-form, and ho is called upon now, under the instructions he receives from the Department, to do it. The Department calls upon him to take care of those things, and, therefore, the managers and master of the school will have to take care to attend to its discipline and organisation. One of the Chief Inspectors, not many days ago, made a Report which I have seen, and he shows in that Report what is in his own mind with regard to inspec-
  654
  tion, which I take to mean inspection of the school as to its whole tone and character. He says—
  "I desire to make a distinction between examination and inspection. My nowlengthened experience brings home to my mind with greater force and clearness the great importance of a thorough inspection of the schools, their organisation, method, equipment, &c. For thus alone can the instruments of education be adequately measured, and in ascertaining their measure we are better able to estimate the value of the results of the instruction tested by examination than if we rely on those limited results alone."
  There your Lordships see that an Inspector of great experience expresses himself in favour of the method by which we hope we shall secure getting at the real character of the education given in the schools throughout the country; and the principle of the Code is that so long as the schools are efficient so long will they receive these fixed grants, higher, no doubt, in certain cases than in others. What the Department will require is that a school shall be efficient, and if it is not efficient, that it shall disappear. It must either disappear or become efficient, and to that end, after due warning, the grant will be withdrawn altogether, unless the school puts itself on a very different footing to that which brought it into the condition of delinquency which caused the warning to be given. Then my noble Friend thinks it is unreasonable to give more to one school than to another. But in that respect we are acting entirely in accordance with the recommendation of the Commissioners, because they were impressed strongly with the necessity of giving the grants in that way, so as to ensure that schools should be assisted according to their deserts, in order to promote efficiency. We have, therefore, taken two standards, one where the school is anything like efficient, and the. other where the school is well organised — and where the subject is taught which was referred to somewhat contemptuously by my noble Friend Lord Heath, that is to say, recitation. My noble Friend seems to think that is one of the burdens laid upon the schools. I quite admit that in some cases it may be overdone; but so far is it from being overdone in most cases that I believe it is a much appreciated feature of the education. It is

  655
  a thing which the children particularly take to, and from the youngest upwards, they are quite ready to learn a certain number of verses suitable to their capacity. It is not so difficult for them as learning prose would be, and they take it up and do it with great readiness. I think you will find from the Reports of the Inspectors how great an improvement it makes in the reading power and intelligence of the children. It enables them to read with much more intelligence. From the explanations which have to be given to them they are enabled to read with much more intelligence and to become better acquainted with whatever they find in the books placed in their hands. Without recitation no school will be able to get the 14s. 6d. grant. Supposing there are two schools, which are both in very good condition, yet that one of them is not in a condition to take up this subject of recitation, and has, therefore, put it aside, that school would doubtless not receive the same grant as the other; but, as a. general rule, the 14s. 6d. would be given to schools of a superior character, and which can show that the instruction given in each school is carried on with adequate means and an efficient staff—with all the means which would enable the teachers to impart fitting instruction to their pupils. My noble Friend on the Cross Benches says he thinks the children should have something more to do in the way of physical training. I am not quite sure that anything more could be got in during the four hours allotted for school time.
  *THE EARL OF MEATH: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Viscount, but that was not what I said. My point was that the four hours for mere school teaching was a great deal too long a time, and I wanted to take something out and give the time to physical training.
  *VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: That is exactly so; the noble Earl did say that. He says that the four hours are too long, but ho apparently forgets that in almost all schools there is an adjournment for a quarter of an hour or something of that kind, which gives one class of children an interval of play while another is at work, and so on, but I doubt very much that it will not be found when you only take out four hours from the 24
  656
  that you have done more than is advisable or necessary to do, and that when the children have to be in school so short a time with intervals of rest the time should be occupied in teaching. During the four hours there are alleviations from book work, such as musical drill and other things, while the children are in school. But it must be remembered that besides that in the greater part of the country the children have plenty of exercise and amusement during the hours when they are outside the schools and I think it will be found unnecessary, therefore, to force physical instruction upon the children more than is done now. At the present time they have drill, which certainly does a great deal, as any one may see, in setting up the children, and better fitting them for labour, and is in itself a most advantageous thing, as I believe the noble Earl will agree. But he wants something more to be done, and I quite concur that it would be a great advantage for many children to have more physical instruction, but I doubt whether that can be done in school hours with all the subjects which are included, besides the book learning,. drawing, and other things. The whole time is not given to dry lessons, but the children are afforded intervals for other kinds of pursuits. I think, with regard to the Merit Grant, there is really very little to be said. When my noble Friend was talking of his own mode of inspection, he said it must be according to the merit of the school. I do not know by what means you are to carry on inspection, or how an Inspector is to go about his duties without seeing that one school is conducted in a totally different way, and is on a totally different footing from another—that one school is carried on upon a better system than another. But there is nothing which is obtainable by one school which is not obtainable by another. They will all be put on one footing if they will deserve it by attention to their duties, and they can all get the 14s. 6d. grant by taking care that the scholars are properly instructed, and that the organisation is properly cared for, and put on a right footing. I believe, my Lords, I have now spoken of all the subjects which have been brought before your Lordships. I do not want to go into the whole question of the

  657
  Code, because that is not at present before us. I cannot help thinking that my noble Friend's speech was a sufficient indication that he was, upon the whole, satisfied with the Code, though he looked forward to next year. There have been shadowed forth many matters which will require the attention of Parliament next year, and I should have been glad if some of them could have been dealt with in the present Session; but your Lordships will see that controversial questions occupy the ground between now and the end of the Session, and that it would be inadvisable to bring forward other controversial questions at present. But I will say that these questions will be dealt with during next year; that they will not be shirked by the Government, but that Her Majesty's Government will address themselves to them, and that they will endeavour to deal with them without doing injustice to voluntary schools. Larger support is being offered day by day to voluntary schools, which are kept up to a very high standard, although, undoubtedly, they cannot always contend with those which have unlimited resources at their back. I cannot help thinking that the people of the country will begin to ask themselves before long whether they are not paying too much for education, when it is observed that a very useful and efficient education can he obtained for £1 16s. 6d. per head in some cases, while in others it costs over £3 per head, and is growing in amount. All those things require a great deal of consideration. I know that in London education always must cost more than in the country, owing to the greater cost of sites and building's; but when we have an eleven-penny rate in London it makes us look about and ask what is the cost of education elsewhere. I find that in West Ham, which is almost a part of London, children are educated in the Board schools for something over £'2 whilst in London, closely adjacent, it is something over £3 a head. I cannot myself see why there should be that difference between London and what is practically one of its suburbs.
  *LORD NORTON: Is the noble Viscount speaking of voluntary schools?
  *VISCOUNT CRANBROOK: NO: I am speaking of Board schools. In London I think the average of voluntary
  658
  schools is over £2, and over £3 per head in the Board schools. I mention these things because the question is one which may well occupy the attention of Parliament as soon as possible. Among the questions to be considered are assisted education in connection with the compulsory clauses, whether the grant from the Government should be limited or extended, and, if extended, in what way and under what conditions; and whether you should have, as in Scotland, the power of making grants to schools suitable to the population using them. Then, with regard to paying rates. Last year I ventured to say that I was myself personally in favour of exemption, and the question is whether, where no-profit is made out of schools, it is reason able they should pay rates. The Board schools, in addition to being furnished. with rates for the purpose of education, are furnished with rates for the purpose of paying rates. That appears to me to-work unfairly towards the voluntary schools. All those subjects are in the minds of the Government. I hope your Lordships will be able to deal with them satisfactorily in the legislation which we contemplate, and that the measures which may be introduced next year will meet with your Lordships' approbation.
  THE EARL OF HARROWBY: My Lords, as I last year had the pleasure of proposing a draft Code, I hope I may be pardoned for rising for a moment or two to say how much we are indebted to the noble Viscount the Lord President for the care which he has bestowed upon this very difficult subject since Parliament last met, I think it will be obvious to everyone that a very great improvement has been effected. With regard to the effect of the New Code I cannot help thinking that education must be very much benefitted by it in the schools. We must rejoice at the prospect the noble Viscount has held out that the subject will be yet further considered, but still, educationally, I think the New Code promises to be a good one. How far the burdens borne still press upon those who are supporting schools voluntarily carried on, and who are really relieved by the New Code, time alone will show. I wish they would subscribe even more largely; but I think all are agreed, as the Royal Commission has admitted, that as the State

  659
  has pushed up the requirements of education very much more of later years, it is only fair, seeing the burdens which press upon the voluntary schools, that they should not be overpressed. It seems to me that the New Code is likely to work in such a way that it will bring back the schools to very much the same condition they were in in the very best times of the first enthusiasm for national education. I think it will require very much more educational zeal on the part of the masters than the existing Code. There will be more thought required, and a great deal less routine work; and I think it will probably necessitate a considerable change in the teaching staffs in the schools. Beyond that, as to inspection, it is clear that more thorough inspection will be necessary. You will require a much longer period for inspection; and, also, that thoughtful instructions shall be given for directing the Inspectors of 30 years ago. I think their minds have been cramped by a narrow system, and that this new system will require to be worked by Inspectors with more time at their disposal, and who are able to give more thought and care to the good of the schools. It should be kept steadily in mind that that must be the result. The main feature of the New Code is that in future the State will not acknowledge any school that is not thoroughly good. I think that is a good point, for the moment you compel parents to send their children to school it is absolutely necessary to ensure that no bad schools shall exist. Then the year's warning will act as a great help to school managers in this way. Hitherto, they have been hampered by teachers who are not up to the mark; but, if now schools are in danger of being extinguished the managers will, without any inhumanity, be able to say to their inefficient teachers "Really you are not up to the mark; our school will die unless we get a more skilled master or masters, and we must therefore part with you." I think great help will be given to managers of schools in that way. With regard to rural schools, as far as I can judge, the careful provisions which my noble Friend has made will prevent their being overburdened by the new requirements which will at the start press heavily upon those schools. It
  660
  must always be remembered that the requirements as to staff will press heavily upon them, and I doubt whether the new grants will meet the monetary demands upon them by those requirements. The case of the poorer urban schools is rather an anxious one, and I do not think the conditions of good schools in poor urban districts is sufficiently met. Very often there is only a dead level of poor population with no subscribers and no people in a. better position to help. Yet many of the schools in such districts have been very good indeed. I think those are schools which require to be more considered than any others, with regard to obtaining assistance from the public. I must confess that I do not think there is a very great deal in what my noble Friend on the Cross Benches said with regard to the necessity for increasing physical education. We all want to bring up the boys as healthy and strong as possible, but I think he has overlooked the amount of military drill, or other physical exercises, that is given in the schools; and, considering that the hours of instruction are really short, and that you have within that space of time all sorts and varieties of instruction, I think we must be careful how we encroach on those four hours, which constitute the school time on live days in the week. Then I think we should be careful in shutting out recitation. Nothing is more popular, I believe, among parents than the recitations taught in the schools. When the noble Earl spoke of 150 lines of Chaucer having to be learnt by the scholars. I think he can hardly have visited many of the schools, because the recitations are really little patriotic pieces and songs which tend to brighten not only the school-life of the children but the homes of the parents, who more thoroughly enjoy the recitation of bits of poetry by their children than anything else in the school teaching. With regard to the question of fixed grants, I own that there, I think, there is some danger lurking. By Clause 92 the door is left quite open to upsetting the whole of the fixedness of the grants. There is no doubt that under that clause, though I am sure my noble Friend would not think of doing so, any future President of the Council could upset the whole system of the fixed grants if he disliked

  661
  it; and I hope my noble Friend will consider that clause with very great care, as it certainly excites the gravest apprehensions in one's mind, and seems to be wholly inconsistent with the character of what is called a fixed grant. It is a fixed grant which is not fixed, and I think it may lead to very great danger and very great disappointment. There is another point for which we owe our thanks, and that is the giving an appeal to the Chief Inspector in all these matters. That is a point of great importance to managers of schools. On one point, as I am referring to the Code, I should like to say a few words. It is a point which presses rather unfairly upon school teachers. I see that in the instructions to Inspectors my noble Friend urges the teachers to avoid corporal punishment. I think that the position of teachers is a very hard one in this respect. The State has always shirked saying what punishment may be awarded, what amount, or for what offences, and we see teachers constantly brought before the Magistrates for inflicting trilling punishment. Some Magistrates dislike corporal punishment, and treat the teachers harshly, while in other cases it is the reverse. I think that the State ought to say what punishment is justifiable, and what the amount of the punishment shall be, and for what offences it should be administered. That, I think, is a point which everybody has overlooked. I rejoice that the tone of the instructions to Inspectors is very decided on the subject of the discipline of schools. The moral training of the children is a matter of the gravest importance to the State, and though it may be said that an Inspector would not be able to judge on this point from a single visit on one afternoon, a great service will be done to the State by means of such Inspectors, and making-some effort to see that every precaution possible is taken for the moral training of the children. This is no trilling subject, and these who are acquainted with schools are well aware that the morals of the children, their habits, their demeanour to their parents, and so on, are matters which require watching. If the Inspectors look into these matters, great service will be done to the schools and to the State, and I think we again owe my noble Friend a great debt in that
  662
  matter. With regard to night schools, I think we ought not to withhold a tribute of gratitude to my noble Friend for having endeavoured to make these schools more efficient, but I hope that next year the noble Lord will not forget the subject of what are called continuation schools, which do much service to the State, especially in the way of getting rid of the difficulty which exists in the confusion of instruction given in the day schools. Though we are grateful to the noble Lord, educationally, for this Code, and appreciate its clearness, I think that, financially regarded, it does not give sufficient pecuniary assistance to struggling schools, as to which I doubt very much whether they will be able to meet these new requirements. I hope the noble Lord will bear this in mind when next year's work begins. I was very glad to hear the noble Lord's declaration on behalf of the Government that Public Elementary Schools, Voluntary or Board, ought not to pay rates. And I rejoice at the pledge he has given with regard to voluntary schools, in reference to the other subjects to which we attach great importance, such as the doing away with the 17s. 6d. limit, which he has shadowed forth in his speech. For what he has so far done, and for the great service he has rendered in these matters, I beg again to thank him.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: I do not wish to detain the House for many moments. A great deal of what can be said upon this New Code has been very well said by the noble Earl who has just sat down, and I do not want to go over the same ground again. But I think it well to make a few remarks about the working of the Code as now introduced, and upon some of the objections made to it by the noble Lord who began the Debate. It is objected that the whole character of the Code is minute, that it goes into very small particulars, and that the Inspector's rod will be over all those different matters; and it is asked, how is the Inspector to estimate them, how much is he to give to morality, and how much to grammar? My Lords, there is always more difficulty in inspection if you go into very minute sub-divisions than if you go generally into any one particular matter. If you make your grants depend upon examination in one particular matter,

  663
  and say that you will give one grant for excellent moral training and a lower grant for good moral training, and a lower grant still for fair moral training, the Inspector will then be in a great difficulty, because he finds it is difficult to draw those lines. When you are dealing with one subject it is better that your sub-divisions should be as few as possible, and that you should call upon the Inspector to say whether the school in regard to that particular item is well taught or not, and that, if so, it shall have a certain grant; but in case there is something markedly excellent, then let it be rewarded by something higher, if bad, let it be marked for something lower. The exceptions in that case would be few. But it is a positive aid to an Inspector, and necessary in order to ensure proper inspection, that the different subjects of examination should be specific; because if yon tell the Inspector to look at the matter as a whole his judgment will, unconsciously to himself, vary very much indeed, and will be very different to what it would be if he were examining into each subject separately. You should put down that he is to look at the moral training and examine into that; put down that he is to look into the discipline and mark its value; put down for him each separate thing that he is to look at. That will be a real guide to him, and the greatest possible guide in the inspection. It is the same thing with regard to examination. It is a good thing, I am certain, to examine every single child in a school; but I think it was a mistake to make the old grants so absolutely dependent upon the examination of the individual children as they wore, and I think it is quite reasonable, in justice to the schoolmaster, that the Inspector should be told he is to examine a certain number so as to do justice to the schoolmaster, but to examine if he wishes it every child, and that he should form his judgment, after that examination, without going into precise details of how every child, separately, passed through it. And so all through his work. It is a good thing to call his attention to definite points, and to ask him to look at definite points, and then let him make his Report upon those definite points. You will in that way get a
  664
  more thorough inspection. Then you will require more time, I think, to be given than you have at present allowed for the inspection. At present the inspection is rather hurried, and the judgment exercised upon it becomes very mechanical. I think the Department will have to pay regard to that matter, and to allow the Inspectors more time than they have hitherto allowed them. But I do think that the Rules made for the Inspectors as they now stand are a very great improvement upon the old Rules. I hope, in our desire to set the schools at greater freedom, we shall not put forward a mere loose general command to the Inspectors to report that such a school is a good one, and that another one is not a good school; because I am quite sure that if we do so we shall not do real justice. Whether we should apply the grants to the precise points of the inspection is a disputed matter. But it is a question whether you do not need all this for the large body of teachers, many of whom are distinctly not of the highest powers of body or mind, and are not first-rate teachers, a great many of them requiring to be very closely looked after. It is a matter of question whether you can safely deal with them in any other way than by saying that they shall be paid according to their work. That is a question which admits of some little difference of opinion; but I confess, as things go at present, I think that the Government have gone as far in the direction of setting them free as it would be safe to go. I think it is right to take care that the payments which we make shall be justified by the results we obtain, and that, on the whole, we could not adopt a better mode of obtaining those results than that which is here laid down. There are, however, some things with regard to the grants which I think the Government might do. I confess I do not feel very happy about Article 92, and I wish that we had not in the Code somewhat ambiguous language used, and calling a payment a fixed grant which is not fixed after all, because ambiguous language of that kind is a trouble to managers, and it would be a good thing if when the word "fixed" is used we knew that there would be no variation at all. The noble Viscount the Lord President has explained

  665
  that where the grant is reduced it will only be in exceptional cases; but exceptional eases have a tendency to give rise to difficulty, and it would be much better that the language should be clear, in order to prevent any kind of mistake being made in this matter. Then with regard to the subjects which are to be taught, I venture to differ must strongly from the proposal that recitation should not be included. It is very easy to pick out an example of so many lines from Chaucer, and say, "What an absurdity it is to give such a recitation"; but it depends where you take the lines from Chaucer. There are some lines in Chaucer which yon might make children thoroughly understand without any difficulty. But the Code does not limit teachers to Chaucer, and the real requirement is that there shall be recitation of poetry. Amongst the subjects that children like best there are few which have more effect in really elevating' and cultivating their minds than the recitation of good poetry. It does a great deal more for them than merely to awaken their intelligence, because it awakens their intelligence in a way which places them altogether higher in the scale of humanity. It is, in fact, like teaching children singing, and it is of the utmost value in schools, ft is of the most real importance in its effect. Everything which tends to remove the children in the schools from brutality and grossness, from what lowers man or woman or child in the scale of humanity, and everything which tends to elevate them, is of the utmost value morally, whatever you may say about its value intellectually; but those who have actually themselves taught in schools will tell you that the intellectual effect of it is very much greater than you would suppose beforehand. I fully admit the value of geography and the value of history; but I would venture to say, nevertheless, that geography is not as important to these children as the amount of recitation which is required, and that history is distinctly below it in value to them. History belongs altogether to a later period for them, when their age will afford some possibility of their comprehending political movements and the life of a nation, which young-children are not able to comprehend at all. With regard to the proposal that we should introduce physical instruction,
  666
  I really think that the best provision of that kind for the children is to give them the opportunity of playing at games in the play grounds; that to alter the course of the school teaching is not necessary; and that a good playground for every school would be very much more valuable. There is immense value in the naturalness of children's ordinary- sports and games: and the drill and physical exercises which they now get in school is quite sufficient for the purpose of guiding them and regulating the use of their bodies. If you give them the opportunity of playing among themselves they will guide one another, and strengthen themselves, I believe, more than by any instruction you can give them under a master. The teaching they get in the schools is not, I am afraid, more than is just sufficient at present for their needs; and if you very largely curtail it for the purpose of getting in physical exercises I think you will lose a great deal more than you will gain. There is one other point with regard to the Code which I wish to bring to the attention of the Government, and that is with reference to the rural schools. The conditions laid down for procuring a proper staff for rural schools will, I think, press rather hardly on a good many of them. I think the Government will have to look particularly to the possibility that the demand for such teachers as will be necessary in order to secure these grants is a demand which it will be very difficult to meet, not because the managers of schools will not try to meet it, but simply because the supply is not sufficient, arid I do not think the Educational Department have looked carefully enough at that side of the matter. It would be very hard on the rural schools if they could not obtain the advantages held out to them, not because they are not willing to get better masters, but because the masters do not exist in sufficient numbers. I rejoice to think that the Government have under consideration the propriety of dealing with the question of rates. Many schools are subjected to enormous pressure from this one cause. In some schools, I believe, the rates amount to as much as 4s. a head. That will make a very large hole, indeed, in the grant; and if there is no other way of providing for them, I think it

  667
  would be well if the Government would pay the rates on behalf of such schools. I think that would be a very good thing.
  *EARL FORTESCUE: My Lords, before coming to the question which my noble Friend originally started, I would venture at once, for fear of forgetting it, to say a few words in support of my noble relative's appeal in reference to teachers being armed with something in the shape of authoritative instructions in regard to the punishment they may or may not administer to children. I was very much struck by one case of a teacher who was prosecuted for corporally punishing a boy. There was no question of its being a cruel or excessive punishment. It was simply a case of slight corporal punishment for writing filthy words on the walls of the school and on some of the school books, which had been seen by the Inspector, and which procured a bad report of the school. I would ask your Lordships, could anything be more unjust or more unfair than the position of a teacher who is prevented from punishing, and even punishing pretty severely, a boy guilty of a moral offence which brings disrepute and. a bad report upon a school? I hope that in due time some rule, or some sort of authoritative direction, may be furnished to teachers upon the point which I have mentioned. As one of those who objected very much to the Code proposed last year, though I agree with my noble Friend that the present Code is very far from perfect, either in its general outline or in its details, I feel bound to add my acknowledgments to those which have been already expressed for the very great improvement observable in this Code over all its predecessors. In the first place, it has recognised at last the simple truth long proclaimed in vain to the Education Department, that children are not machines, and, therefore, that the same process, regardless of any pains that may be taken by the teacher or even by the child itself, will not produce the same results in the different branches of study. The Department for years insisted that the standard assigned to the child by the Inspector should be that in which it was to be instructed in all its branches of study; and yet the subjects of arithmetic, reading, and writing—the first two making
  668
  a demand on different mental faculties, the last on manual neatness and dexterity —have nothing in them which would â priori lead anyone to expect that a number of different children, each with his own distinct individual and hereditary mental and physical faculties, would arrive at precisely an equal amount of proficiency in those different-branches of study. It seems to me that the relief given to both teachers and children by this Code, in the permission given for the first time to instruct children in different branches of study in the classes properly assigned to them by the masters in proportion to their proficiency or backwardness in such studies, is an enormous boon, and will very greatly facilitate the work of the teachers and the progress of the children. I must venture to say that this is a great justification of some of us who have had the audacity in past times to criticise the Education Department, because, comprising, as it unquestionably did, a number of officials of high culture, of large attainments and experience, and great ability, it yet never seemed to understand much of human nature, and particularly of child nature. Now, in this Code I am sorry to see grammar still holding its place as an object of study for children in the First and Second Standards as well as the Third. If there is any one point more than another on which all the authorities on the successive development of the different mental faculties in children are agreed, it is that the faculties of observation and memory are developed earlier than that of abstract reasoning or of abstract conception; and yet anything more entirely abstract than the rules of grammar can hardly be conceived. And how little the children, taught grammar at a very early age, practically apply, even when grown up, the rules which they have learned and the principles of which have been painfully dinned into them, may be judged by the ungrammatical shouts which one may hear proceeding from the children when let out of school, just after going, perhaps, through a, regular course of lessons in grammar and parsing. I do not agree with my noble Friend Lord Meath in deprecating recitation. I believe that familiarity with the works of good authors have a more powerful tendency than any lessons in grammar to

  669
  improve the vocabulary and the habitual grammatical use of the English language. The noble thoughts of great writers are through life a precious possession for any one who has the privilege of having them stored in his memory. I really believe that in that respect the Code recognises a study which is of great value to children, and thoroughly appreciated by their parents and themselves. I agree with a good deal of what my noble Friend said about physical education, and I think that the right rev. Prelate, who took up some of the points, spoke very reasonably. The fact is, that in towns where children have not to go long distances to and from school, as is the case in many rural districts, they may very advantageously have a larger amount of physical exercise given them in school; but in some cases, particularly with regard to the younger ones, where they have to go, as I know a great many of them do, two miles and more to school, I think it would be inadvisable to impose upon them too much physical exercise in addition. As to the value of drill, there was some remarkable evidence given about its actual money value in the case of workmen—I forget at this moment whether by Sir Joseph Whitworth or by his foreman—to the effect that a man was worth at least 1s. 6d. a week more who had been drilled, because he had not only the will but the power of moving smartly at the word of command; and he particularly dwelt on his experience in his own workshop where sometimes very heavy weights had to be moved. He said that they sometimes preferred moving heavy weights with an almost inadequate number of hands as incurring a lesser risk compared with the danger of being encumbered by the assistance of more men also perfectly willing and anxious to do their best, but incapable from the want of previous drill to move promptly and to promptly stop moving at the word of command. I have repeatedly expressed my opinion both in your Lordships' House and elsewhere that all boys ought to be drilled, from the Duke's son at a public school to the pauper boy in the workhouse. Most remarkable evidence has been given, too, of its benefit in education and its moral effect in establishing the habit of prompt obedience and forming habits of order and method,
  670
  which are in any walk of life and for any future work of the utmost value. I cannot conclude without once more thanking the noble Lord President for what is certainly a great advance upon the previous Codes; though I hope when the larger questions which are announced for next year are taken up, that, among other recommendations of that very able Commission in its valuable Report, the Government will not forget one, and that is with respect to defining the limits of elementary education and of secondary education, so as not to include as parts of elementary education what my right rev. Friend has very hapyily described to me as non-elementary education in the shape of German, Latin, and so on, which I think everyone must fairly recognise as branches of secondary and not of primary education.
  *THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY: My Lords, I shall beg to be allowed to say a very few words of gratitude to several noble Lords for what has been said this afternoon on behalf of the voluntary schools. I am anxious that the New Code should go to those schools unprejudiced, and not only unprejudiced, but freed from the sense of nervousness which might hang about it from what was done last year. I feel that the explanations which have been given hero, as well as much that has passed elsewhere, ought to remove anything of that kind. The New Code comes before us distinctly to secure a, higher standard of efficiency, and it is the desire of the voluntary schools to proceed as fast as they possibly can, consistently with safety, along that path. The commencement of voluntary education, and the advances in it up to the time when the Government took the matter in hand, were due to the voluntary schools, and I trust they will never feel that a day has come when they may say that the education demanded is so good that they cannot undertake to give it. The possibility of reaching the higher standard of efficiency seems almost secured by three of the most important branches of the Code. First of all, the greater simplicity of the arrangements, the deliverance of the teachers from a great deal of almost useless clerical work, which bears very hardly upon their time, and the greater freedom given to managers

  671
  and teachers, will all tend to increased efficiency. No one can have seen much of the interior working of schools without knowing that at present anxieties press very heavily on many teachers on account of the strain after payment by individual results. Not only do they press upon the teachers, but they greatly affect the efficiency of the schools. A good many children have to spend time in practising the goose step, while teachers are trying to bring on feeble children who are not now classified according to their abilities or their acquirements. It is not money only, but reputation that depends on the least satisfactory efforts. All that will now be ended. A second great means of promoting a higher standard of efficiency will be the assistance given to weak schools. Much will depend on the amount of assistance which proves to be obtainable by those schools. Some must be severely hit, but I hope that an amount; of help will be given to most of them which will make those schools efficient. There is one point to which I hope the Government will direct their attention. I am not quite clear that weak hamlet schools, of which I have many in my diocese, will be capable of receiving this increased assistance. I have to day received a letter from Canon Wingfield, who is a well-known educational authority. He fears, as I fear, that some hamlet schools at a distance from the central schools will not receive the grants at all. If I understand Clauses 104 and 105 correctly, they intend to provide for grants to all schools of that kind, but the wording seems not to include cases in which over the border, but within two miles, there is a population. Canon Wingfield says he speaks feelingly on this matter, because he has some in his own parish and others near him; that many with a rich squire and small parish and not many difficulties will get the extra £10 or £15, but that they who have to keep up a struggling school in a remote hamlet with 100 or 200 people near it in the next parish, cannot get the help. If the hamlet having, say, 400 children, were a separate small parish, it would be well cared for, but under the clause, as it stands, I cannot say that that will always be so. That is a detail of importance
  672
  if it operates widely, and I hope that attention will be directed to it. Thirdly, the efficiency of the schools will, undoubtedly, be promoted by the requirement that discipline and moral training are to be looked to and reported upon. Of course, they have a paramount value of their own. The whole work and object of a school is really to turn out good young citizens well disciplined and trained morally; but beyond that they will have a strong reflex action upon the intellectual training of the schools, and I am sure that the Inspector who has time to observe will be able to form a very distinct opinion as to the moral tone and order of the schools. Experienced in educational matters, as they are in the highest degree, they will not walk about, talk to managers and teachers, and observe the children, without being able to send the Department a very distinct Report on those points, and I believe it, therefore, to be a provision of the highest value. Perhaps enough has been said upon the subject of recitation, but I happen to be just fresh from the subject, because, on my way here, I paid a visit to a Board school where there are 1,400 children, and as I passed quickly through one of the class-rooms the teacher said the children would be much disappointed if I did not hear their recitation. I stayed, therefore, and heard 30 or 40 lines, which were about a fourth or fifth of what is required. They were not lines from Chaucer, as my noble Friend said, but they related the history of a quarrel between a needle and a pin, out of which an extremely good moral was drawn. I had sufficient time to observe the children, and I can say that, apparently, nothing could have given them more pleasure, and that they entered into the spirit as well as the words of the story. I do not think it can be said the time occupied in that recitation was wasted. My Lords, those seem to me to be the three great broad branches of improvement by which an increased standard of efficiency may be reached, and certainly I believe it will. On the other hand, the cost of the school teaching will be increased. As the voluntary schools have spent magnificent sums in the past, I believe they will rise to the occasion now. They have never wished to stint in doing

  673
  what they could hitherto, and they must keep the lend which fairly belongs to them in the judgment of fair students of the history of education. They must do their best with that aim, nor do I believe they will be unwilling to pay more for a better product. There will be considerable difficulty at first with regard to the staff required to be employed for the larger curriculum, and to the higher qualifications required in the teachers all round. But I cannot but believe that the Department will be merciful in recognising the difficulties which my right reverend Brother has stated arising from the fact that the present supply of trained teachers is inadequate. Markets, however, have a way of supplying demands and filling up deficiencies, and I believe that, before the end of the year, we shall see a great development in that respect. There are, I am perfectly assured, abundant reasons why the question of the full amount of the grant being received, and the rating question have been postponed for the present. That it will come under consideration when it is possible I have no doubt. it is only fair to the schools that the limitation of the 17s. 6d. grant should be removed; and it seems a simple matter of justice that if one set of schools is supplied with money to pay its rates, the voluntary schools which ran with them should not have to find the rates in addition to what they volunteer. I hope that the voluntary schools will enter upon this New Code with gratitude and a, good heart.
  LORD LINGEN: I will detain the House for a very few minutes, for I have but very few observations to make upon the subject of debate. I do not propose to enter at all upon the contents of the Code, but merely to touch upon the machinery by which this, like every other Code, must be carried into effect. There has been no difference of opinion expressed in this Debate, but we are all agreed that the State must be informed and satisfied, by its own responsible officers, of the efficiency and character of each school to which public aid is extended, and in this respect we must consider, not merely the school, but the scholars. I would venture to point out to the House that when we speak of the schools we must not exclude the scholars from our consideration. For myself I
  674
  believe that, prior to 1860, the best voluntary schools were far too few, no doubt, to make a due impression upon the country, but still, so far as those schools went, in their tone, discipline, and all that could favourably impress an Inspector or visitor, they ranked, and deservedly ranked, very high. But the Duke of Newcastle's Commission undoubtedly brought to light a state of things which had been somewhat overlooked in the previous years, namely, that, even in the best of those schools, instruction was very imperfectly diffused among the scholars generally. I would impress upon your Lordships that the great reason and justification why the State, at vast expenditure, should have interfered with the thorny subject of education was the importance to the State that the bulk of its people should receive those elements of education which would enable them to deal satisfactorily with their own problems of life, and will not be secured by inspection simply: this object can only be secured by some system of examination, though not necessarily the examination of every individual child, but I do say that unless examination forms a substantial part of the official supervision in every school the political reasons for inter fering with schools at all will not be answered. Examinations should, at any rate, be a substantial part of every system of inspection. Unless this is done there will be no adequate security that the object which the State has in view will he carried out. I do not think that full justice has been done to the revised Code of 1860 in this respect. That Code is often spoken of as if its object had been to confine the education of children in elementary schools to those subjects which are popularly known as "the three It's." But if any one will refer to the documents of that time, which is now somewhat distant, he will find that that charge is not well founded. The instructions to the Inspectors under that Code show that as much distinction was drawn then between inspection and examination as has been insisted on by the Lord President this evening. That Code was framed with a view of securing that, whatever else was taught in the schools, the bulk of the children should be able to read with such ease and intelligence as would encourage them to read

  675
  in after life, to write and spell sufficiently well to be able to write a letter to their own family, or to their employers on business, and to know enough arithmetic to be able to keep common accounts, such as items of expenditure, quantities of goods, receipts, or wages—that, however simple the accounts they might keep might be, they should be able to do that much at all events. The object of that Code was to secure that the elements of education were carried away by every one of the children from the elementary schools. Judging by the speech of the Lord President, such appeared to be his intention also in regard to the present Code. I do not think, after listening to his speech this evening that he has any other intention. Very different language was used in "another place" the other evening, and I am exceedinglyglad to find that it has met with no echo in this House. I do not, however, pretend to believe that this Code, however carefully it may be revised, contains the final settlement of the education question, or that that settlement will come next year, or perhaps even the year after. In the meantime, it is of the utmost importance to see what the scope of this Code will be; and I venture to insist that, however valuable inspection may be as a test of the character of the education, it ought to have side by side with it a system of examination of the scholars which will prove, not only that the means of education have been afforded, but that the scholars have been so guided as to be able to take advantage of those means.
  THE EARL OF WEMYSS: My Lords, the only point I wish to refer to is the question of drill in education. I sympathise most thoroughly with my noble Friend's remarks upon the importance of that subject, especially in towns. In towns it ought, I think, to be made compulsory. As regards the value of drill to children in schools, and in their work in after-life, had it not been that my noble Friend has anticipated me, I should myself have referred to the testimony given by Sir Joseph Whitworth upon that point. Many years ago I heard the opinion expressed by Sir Joseph Whit worth which my noble Friend has stated to your Lordships as to the increased value given to labour by previous drill. I may be allowed, perhaps, to say that as my noble Friend did not
  676
  like to trouble your Lordships with too many details, he is anxious that I should give your Lordships some figures from a paper ho has handed to me affording statistics of the drill and gymnastic training given to 12 boys in the Much Wenlock National School, from August 21st, 1871, to February 21st, 1872. Of the 12 boys drilled six were put under simple drill, and the other six were drilled in connection with gymnastic training for six months. The result was that those who were simply drilled were greatly improved in appearance, and their chest measurements were augmented half-an-inch; but where the drill was combined with gymnastics their chest measurements had increased some two inches in the same time.

  OPEN SPACES BILL.—(No. 76.)
  House in Committee (on re-commitment) (according to order).
  *THE EARL OF MEATH: My Lords, in Clause 3 the Irish Office have drafted a few words which they desire should be inserted in line 5, page 2, after "England and Wales." The words are "as respects Ireland, the Commissioners and Trustees of Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland." The alteration is only for the purpose of extending the operation of the clause to Ireland, inasmuch as the Charity Commissioners have no jurisdiction in that country.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I presume the noble Lord has consulted those Members of the Committee who are interested in Ireland, and that he has obtained their consent to the insertion of words applying the clause to Ireland. I think we ought to have the whole clause read. I fully expect to find that it is quite satisfactory. It was understood in the Committee that some clause of this kind would be moved; but as no notice has been given of it, I think it would be better for the clause to be read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: I think there is a little misapprehension about the nature of this clause. The Bill extends to Ireland already. It was pointed out in the Committee that there was no such body as that which is referred to in the Bill as being the guiding authority in Ireland; and the noble Lord who has charge of the Bill

  677
  was recommended to find out who were the corresponding authorities in Ireland, and when he had obtained the necessary information from the Irish Office the name of the proper body to be inserted should be substituted. In substance, I think the noble Lord has exactly carried out that request.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: Entirely.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: I merely wish to say, before we part with the Bill, that I think my noble Friend will have to look through it before another stage is reached, because I feel certain that other words will be required to make it right. The clause which has been referred to is perfectly right, but I think it will require the addition of further words.
  Amendment made; the Report thereof to be received To-morrow.

  COMMISSIONERS FOR OATHS ACT (1889) AMENDMENT BILL. —(No. 63.)
  House in Committee (according to order); Bill reported without Amendment; and to be read 3 To-morrow.

  TRUSTEES APPOINTMENT BILL.
  A Bill to facilitate the appointment of new trustees of land held in trust for religious or educational purposes, and to make provision for vesting the land in the trustees for the time being—Was presented by the Lord Herschell; read 1ª; and to be printed. (No. 84.)
  House adjourned at half past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter past Ten o'clock.