*LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that, neither this question nor any observations of his concerned or touched either the Vice-President or Sir George Kekewich. When he said that the Vice-President, had nothing to do with the recent changes in the school history books, it would be believed that he (Lord Stanley) was satisfied upon this point from what he had heard, and with which he need not trouble the House. He thought it was a sufficient reason for bringing this matter again before the House that Lord Play fair seemed to have treated very lightly the loss inflicted upon the publishers, and the want of foresight in this respect of those who altered the Code. He could only judge of the noble Lord's speech by the printed report, and it appeared that he had been infected by the unfortunate speech of one of the less economical members of the London School Board to the effect that the publishers could take care of themselves. He had inquired of the publishers who signed the remonstrance he found that certain firms would published in the leading journal, and have lost an aggregate of more than £11,000 had the Department persisted, and some would still suffer by the discredit cast upon their school books, The changes in these history books had or would have affected so large a number 899 of books and have inflicted so much loss on the publishers, and would have prevented for the future good writers being employed upon school books, that motives sufficient to account for these changes were naturally sought for Those who spoke for the Department naturally alleged that the changes in the Code were for the improvement of the study of history. But it was not generally recognised that these changes were improvements, still less that they ' were such as would justify the infliction of such heavy losses upon school managers and publishers as were pointed out in the publishers' letter to the leading journal. He believed that the motive was the same fanciful love of alteration which had so often shown itself in other matters under the control of the Education Department, such as the building of the schools and the position of doors and windows. The Department had been for many years allowed to get out of hand, and its officials wore practically irresponsible. There were some who thought that the Department might be seeking to give a bias to history books so as to favour some political opinions rather than others. When the Regius Professor of History at Oxford was appointed last winter he was asked by a friend what was known about him. On inquiry he learned that he had published several school histories; but it was not till the last month that he had been able to examine cursorily the works of Mr. Yorke Powell, and he found that he had been a diligent worker in Norse and Icelandic literature, along with Mr. Vigfusson, in five works, and that he had written a history of England, beginning with the pre-historic men to the end of the reign of Henry VII., and had edited 14 biographies or portions of English history written by different authors. What Mr. Yorke Powell had written seemed to be very fair and impartial, and his appointment by the Prime Minister was a creditable appointment, certainly there were no signs of grounds for finding fault with the choice. He wished to say a few words about this history of England: it began with the history of two pre-historic races, the earliest was during the glacial period, and consisted of very small men. If this was an 900 Irish bull, it belonged to the Regius Professor, and not to him. He had given private notice to the noble Lord (Lord Playfair) to ask him if this was supported by science, since the noble Lord was an authority on such matters, and more at home with them than with the ways of the Education Department, and it would be more agreeable to him to expatiate on this subject than on an arid defence of a predatory department which put its hand into every man's pocket. He hoped that the Department would give some credible explanation of these changes in the elementary school history books—improvement of historical study would not stand criticism; the desire to harass voluntary school managers had been eliminated; there was no apparent trace of a wish to bias the opinions of the rising generation. His own conviction was that these too often repeated and arbitrary changes were due to the despotic temper of the Department and of the school inspectors. But there were others less familiar with the idiosyncrasies of the Department who attributed these changes to a lower motive. They noticed that two publishers had refused to sign the letter to The Times; they spoke of the necessity imposed upon American publishers of securing friends in the corresponding department in America for the protection of their interests, and they suspected that these changes had been intended, or taken advantage of, to favour rival firms by some subordinate official. The consequences of the high-handedness of the Department were falling upon it; they had disregarded the accusations of tyranny, and they were now exposed to the suspicion of corruption. The Education Department must take care of its reputation, and the best way to do so was to follow the advice given by some noble Lords on March 29 last, and to adopt a triennial Code, and both as to school buildings and school books to cease to follow the maxim—
Diruit, ædificat, mutat quadrata rotundis.
§ *LORD PLAYFAIRI do not think that your Lordships would care that I should enter into the wide question of historical knowledge which my noble Friend has opened up, or answer such a complex question as to whether the I shoulders of pre-historic man were wider 901 than the shoulders of historic man. But, in regard to the essence of his complaint against the Department, let me say that the Education Department has nothing to do with the preparation or even with the approval of the books of history used in the schools. All the Department has to do is to indicate what periods of history in the various standards of knowledge for class subjects should be used in giving information to the pupils. The changes which had taken place had been for a very practical purpose. Almost all the children who leave school for work go away after Standards IV. and V. If they left school after Standard IV., under the old methods they would know nothing of history after the time of Edward IV. If they remained and passed through Standard V. they would know history up to the end of the Tudor period, though they would pass into the busy arena of life without knowing anything of the Constitution of their own country, and the history of it in modern periods. It was, therefore, most desirable that the great bulk of the pupils who left school at 11 and 12 years of age should obtain some idea of more modern history—some idea, for example, of the Revolution, of the Stuart period, and the history of the present day. Those were the changes made. The publishers who prepared, at their own risk and without the sanction or the instruction of the Education Department, books of history which might be used or not, according to the desire of the school managers, found that they were suddenly in considerable difficulties on account of these changes. In order to rectify matters the Vice-President of the Council in the other House, and I in this House, laid a Minute on the Table, rendering the old books alternative to any new books that must be written in order to meet the more modern history requirements. Lord Norton brought the subject before the House, and I gave full explanations at the time. I do not think it necessary again to repeat in detail what took place on that occasion. My noble Friend, Lord Stanley of Alderley, could not be present at that time, and he was not aware of the full explanation which was then given. We regret very much that the publishers are put to great inconvenience, but the Department has done it best, by means of alternative 902 schedules, to give an opportunity of use to the old books still in possession of the schools, if the school managers choose to take them.
§ *LORD PLAYFAIRI asked about them, but the Education Department have not the remotest idea what is referred to.
§ *LORD NORTONsaid, there was no accusation against the Education Department of their preparing books badly, but that there were so many alterations of the syllabus of instruction as to ruin the men who undertook to print and publish for it. The head of the mischief was the frequent changes made by the practice of an annual Code of Education. Every Minister thought it necessary to make a number of changes every year in order to justify a new edition of the Code. The annual Code should be given up, and there should be a much longer period allowed to pass between success in editions of the Code.