Sitting of 30 July 1879

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—Report—Contagious Diseases Acts [No. 323].
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES, Class IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
Resolutions [July 29] reported.
PUBLIC BILLS—Ordered—First Reading—Tipperary Boroughs * [271]; Endowed Schools Acts Continuance * [272]; Regulation of Railways Acts Continuance * [270].
Second Reading—Judicial Factors (Scotland) * [257].
Considered as amended—East India Loan (Consolidated Fund) * [201].
Third Reading—Municipal Elections (Ireland)* [256], and passed.
Withdrawn—Teachers Organisation and Registration * [101]; Employers' Liability * [103]; Valuation of Property* [71].

ORDERS OF THE DAY.
  PRIVILEGE—(TOWER HIGH LEVEL BRIDGE (METROPOLIS) COMMITTEE.)

    PETITION.
    MR. SPENCER WALPOLEmoved that the following Petition of John Sandilands Ward be taken into consideration:—
    "To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland assembled.

    1633
    "The humble Petition of John Sandilanda Ward, now a prisoner in the custody of the Serjeant at Arms attending your honourable House,
    "Sheweth,
    "That the Petitioner has not only suffered very much, from loss of liberty, but his health has been seriously affected in consequence of his imprisonment by order of your honourable House, as is shewn by the certificates of Dr. Sieveking, Physician in Ordinary to the Queen, and Dr. J. H. Waters, of which the following are copies:—
    '"July 29, 1879.—I have this day, in the presence of Dr. Waters, examined Mr. J. S. Ward, and find him affected with diarrhœ;a, headache, and great depression of spirits. Ten years ago Mr. Ward suffered in a similar manner, and was then obliged to withdraw from business for eight months; there is just reason, to fear that if his present symptons become aggravated by prolonged imprisonment, a similar or worse nervous malady than that which occurred before may
    return.—(Signed) Edward H. Sieveking, M.D., Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians.'
    "'July 29th, 1879.—I certify that I have this day seen and examined Mr. J. S. Ward, in conjunction with Dr. Sieveking, and find him suffering from symptoms of nervous irritation and debility, and am of opinion that these symptoms will lead up to a severe illness, similar to a former attack from which he suffered some nine years ago, unless his present confinement, and the trouble consequent on it, ceases.—(Signed) J. H. Waters, M.D.'
    "That your Petitioner entirely submits himself to your honourable House, and begs to express his unfeigned sorrow and regret for having incurred its displeasure, but he ventures most humbly to hope that your honourable House will deem that the harassing imprisonment your Petitioner has already undergone, and the very serious loss and inconvenience thereby entailed upon him, are a sufficient expiation of the offence against the privileges of your honourable House, of which he has been adjudged guilty.
    "Your Petitioner therefore humbly prays that your honourable House will order his discharge out of custody.
    "And your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
    "Dated this 29th day of July 1879.
    "J. SANDILANDS WARD."
    THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I propose to move now—
    "That John Sandilands Ward, having entirely submitted himself to this House, and expressed his sorrow and regret for his offence, and having already suffered in his health, be discharged out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, on payment of his fees."
    The case is one in which, under ordinary circumstances, I certainly should not have recommended the House to take any steps for the discharge of Mr.
    1634
    Ward until the close of the Session; but, having regard to the fact that he has entirely placed himself at the mercy of the House, and expressed his sorrow and regret for his offence, and having regard mainly to the medical certificates which have been presented on this occasion, and which are in the hands of the Serjeant-at-Arms, and with regard to which I think I may say, from the testimony of those who have had opportunities of seeing Mr. Ward constantly during the period of his confinement, there can be no doubt that they do not at all exaggerate the circumstances of his health. Under all these circumstances, I think that the House may fairly and mercifully take the case into consideration, and assent to the Motion which I now submit to it.
    MR. W. E. FORSTER: I beg to second the Motion. My first impression was that of the right hon. Gentleman, that it would have been right, and not at all too severe a punishment, that this person should have remained in custody until the close of the Session. I cannot say I think the entire submission to the House would, in itself, have been any reason why Mr. Ward should have been liberated; but, looking at the medical certificates, which are certainly very strong and by a very eminent physician—Dr. Sieveking, I think—the House would hardly think it right to detain him in custody any longer.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That John Sandilands Ward, having entirely submitted himself to this House, and expressed his sorrow and regret for his offence, and having already suffered in his health, be discharged out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, on payment of his fees."
    MR. BERESFORD HOPE: "The quality of mercy is not strained," as we all know; and, therefore, the House will probably do well to accept the Motion of my right hon. Friend, but simply accept it as an act of mercy, and simply on the medical testimony, and, above all, not accept it on any ambiguity. I think my right hon. Friend, in the kindness of his heart and his desire to help a suffering man, has gone a little too far in his account of Mr. Ward's submission, and that it would be a mistake in the cause of justice if it were to be supposed that Mr. Ward had confessed the justice of his sentence, and had verbally re-

    1635
    tracted that statement of his which has placed him in his present unpleasant predicament. I must bring the House back to the case itself. What was the state of the case? The Committee, over which my right hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Spencer Walpole) presided, reported that one class of witnesses spoke the truth, and that another class of witnesses spoke something that was not the truth; that they believed the one class, but did not believe the other. The House, accordingly, believing and agreeing with its Committee, sentenced the two delinquents to imprisonment. One has escaped that imprisonment, and is now swaggering under an alias at an eminently respectable and delightful resort of English visitors across the Channel. The other is in custody, and has made a submission. But what is his submission? Has he retracted his false statement? He has done no such thing. He says—
    "Your Petitioner entirely submits himself to your honourable House, and begs to express his unfeigned sorrow and regret for having incurred its displeasure."
    But he takes good care not to say whether that displeasure was incurred rightly or wrongly. It has taken him away from the vicinity of his clients, and has placed him in close proximity to the ticking of the clock. He expresses his unfeigned regret for this; and I think the House will agree with me that no one ever did a questionable thing and found the penalties were disagreeable, who did not very soon afterwards find that Providence had endowed him with a bad constitution. This being the case, and seeing that Dr. Sieveking and another physician say that the confinement is injurious to Mr. Ward's health, for Heaven's sake let him out; but do not allow it to go forth that we believe his evidence, or that he has retracted his false statement.
    MR. MONK: My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Beresford Hope) has anticipated me in the remarks I was going to make. I am quite certain that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in framing the Motion he has placed in your hands, and in the statement he has just made to the House, that Mr. Ward had admitted his offence, really believed that Mr. Ward had so admitted his offence; but in the Petition which Mr. Ward has presented to the House it is quite clear that he has not
    1636
    admitted it. He has expressed his regret for having incurred the displeasure of the House; and at the close of his Petition he calls attention to the imprisonment which he has undergone, in expiation of the offence against the Privileges of the House, of which he had been adjudged guilty. But there is not one word in the nature of an expression of regret for having committed a grave offence against the Privileges of the House. I, therefore, think it is impossible for the House to agree to the Resolution in the form in which it has been submitted to us by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will consent to amend the terms of the Motion, and will quote the words which appear in the Petition of Mr. Ward, I think that, after having received a certificate from Dr. Sieveking of the nature of the one we have before us, the House might very well extend its clemency to Mr. Ward; but that we are to put on record on the Journals of this House a statement that Mr. Ward has admitted his offence when he has not admitted his offence is altogether repugnant to the dignity of Parliament. I hope, therefore, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will amend his Motion in that sense. If not, I think it would be impossible for the House unanimously to agree to this act of mercy, which, I am sure, we are all anxious to extend to Mr. Ward.
    MR. DODSON: I would really appeal to the House not to continue this discussion. A question has been raised in regard to the dignity of the House; but I doubt whether it is for the dignity of this House to enter into a discussion of this kind. It appears to me that this man has committed an offence against this House, in regard to which the House has found him guilty, and for which he has been punished. That punishment is now about to be curtailed on the score of the state of his health. It seems to me that the proper course, under the circumstances, and what will be most conducive to the dignity of the House, is now to release him on the ground of his health.
    MR. HERMON: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend who has just sat down that it will be conducive to the dignity of the House to release this man from confinement. But I must express here my opinion that the first part of the

    1637
    transaction ought not to have involved the serious consequences from which, he is now suffering. As he owned himself, he committed a breach of the Privileges of the House; but he does not appear to have done so from any fraudulent or corrupt motive. But when he came before the Committee he did commit a very serious offence, which ought not to be lost sight of by the House. I am quite willing that he should be discharged from custody; but I think he ought to be brought to the Bar of this House, and called upon to acknowledge his error. The conclusions arrived at by the Committee are of a most serious character, and it is of great importance to consider the words used by the Committee appointed to investigate the matter, when they say that the counter-statements made by Mr. Ward and Mr. Grissell are false. That fact Mr. Ward has never acknowledged; and he does not, to my mind, express himself sorry for his offence against the House, but merely expresses himself sorry for the punishment it has involved. At the same time, I think in the whole of this matter there has been a good deal of unnecessary mixing up of certain persons. I do not think the proposal of the solicitor who first proposed to Mr. Grissell to write down the nature of his proposition was exactly necessary. If, however, in this case Mr. Ward expresses sorrow for what he has done, I think he may now be discharged.
    SIR WILFRID LAWSON: I am sure it is the general wish of the House to get rid of this man. The point now is what to do with him. I heard the remarks of the right hon. Gentleman on the front Opposition Bench (Mr. Dodson), and I quite agree with him that we ought to consult the dignity of the House. But I think the dignity of the House would be best consulted by a strict adherence to truth than by anything else. I quite appreciate the Motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He made it in the kindness of his heart, in order to get rid of this man, and not to be too hard upon him. I would make a little alteration in the Motion, and would recite the words which the man puts in his own Petition. That makes no statement at all as to whether the man is guilty or innocent; but in it he simply submits himself to the House. If the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be so kind as to alter his Motion in that
    1638
    sense, I am sure it will meet with the approbation of both sides of the House.
    SIR JOSEPH M'KENNA: Whatever is to be decided upon I hope will be decided at once. There is one point, and one alone, upon which I wish to make a remark. I do not think, since the days when persecution was prevalent, that it was ever insisted upon by the House that a man who was found guilty, and who was subsequently pardoned, should acknowledge the various details of his guilt. We have found Mr. Ward guilty. We are quite confident that he is guilty. We have sustained, unanimously, the judgment of our Committee. The man appears before us now as a man suffering from sickness; and what the House is now asked to do is to turn its attention to the best way in which the Prerogative of mercy can be exercised in getting rid of this man.
    MR. SPENCER WALPOLE: I wish to say one word before the discussion closes. I think the hon. Member for Carlisle (Sir Wilfrid Lawson) did not quite correctly hear the Motion which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. When it is read again I think the House will find that in the Motion now made the Chancellor of the Exchequer uses the exact words of the Petition, both in regard to the submission, and also in regard to the regret expressed in it.
    MR. COURTNEY: It is desirable that the House should have a clear understanding. I understood the Chancellor of the Exchequer to read these words in the Motion—"having admitted his guilt." ["No!"] That is, certainly, what I understood. If those words are in the Resolution, we wish to have them struck out. If not, of course, the case would be altogether different.
    MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Question was—
    "That John Sandilands Ward, having entirely submitted himself to this House, and expressed his sorrow and regret for his offence, and having already suffered in his health, be discharged out of the custody of the Serjeant at Arms, on payment of his fees."
    Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY—COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

  EDUCATION CODE—ELEMENTARY SCIENCE.—RESOLUTION.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKrose to move—
  "That it would be desirable to modify the Code of Education by adding Elementary Science to the subjects mentioned in Article 19, c. 1."
  The hon. Gentleman stated that object lessons were introduced in the early part of the school course, and that it was very desirable that they should be continued in the Second and Third Standards by adding elementary science to that class of subjects. The suggestion, since he last made it, had been gradually gaining adherents, including no less an authority than the London School Board. He might remind the House that the Committee which sat on Elementary Education in 1868, and the Royal Commission on Scientific Instruction, strongly recommended that elementary science should form a part of the National School system. Many of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools were also of the same opinion; and he could quote in favour of his views the almost unanimous voice of those who had devoted themselves most successfully to the education of the people—such men as Dean Dawes, Mr. Henslow, Mr. Ellis, and Sir James Kay-Shuttle worth. Lastly, he might refer to those whom in this matter he regarded as, perhaps, the highest authorities of all—namely, the children themselves. Wherever elementary science was taught they welcomed it with a warm interest. He did not seek to impose any new duty on the Department or on schools, but only to leave them an option. The practical difficulties in the way were quite imaginary; and his proposal, so far from upsetting the equilibrium of the Code, would for the first time establish it, seeing that at present the Code was entirely one-sided, all knowledge of natural phenomena being excluded. He admitted that it would not be desirable to impose new duties on school managers or committees; but he did not propose to do so. Quite the contrary; his wish was to remove an objectionable restriction. His proposal would, therefore, not make the Code more complex, but the reverse. The present system crammed the heads of the children, and overtaxed their memories. A string of verbs, or dates, or names of Kings, was
  1640
  a mere matter of recollection. He wished, on the contrary, that a portion of the school-time should be devoted to explanations of the common phenomena of nature, which experience showed had a strong interest for children. It was often said that it was ridiculous to teach "ologies" before the children could read and write thoroughly. But, in the first place, it was a misnomer to call the lessons he proposed "ologies;" secondly, it should be remembered that when children were learning to read they had to read something, and the question was, what that something was was to be? The real difficulty was that we had no good old Saxon word in use among us for "natural science." If we had any expression equivalent to the German word Natur kunde, he believed that the House would unanimously adopt the present Resolution. He was, however, compelled to use the word "science," though, unfortunately, he immediately frightened hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Contrary to what was believed in some quarters, his proposal would really not involve any appreciable cost. The little books would come to no more than those on history or grammar; while the sun, moon, and stars, rain and dew, wind and light, air and water, heat and cold, stones and flowers, were before us all; and even if a few objects as illustrations were required they could be obtained for a few shillings. He wished for nothing difficult or abstruse, nothing beyond the range of the children's minds and daily experience. In mechanics the simple forces might be explained to them—why carts were put on wheels, how levers and pulleys acted, the use of the screw and wedge; then the nature and relative distances of the principal heavenly bodies; in agricultural districts the primary facts relating to air and water, the character of the soil, the reason for the rotation of crops, the origin and principal qualities of such substances as chalk, coal, iron, copper, &c.; the succession of the seasons, the flow of rivers, the growth of plants; the fundamental rules of health, the necessity for ventilation and cleanliness; and, last, not least, the need for industry, frugality, and economy. Explanations of these simple and every-day things would be most interesting and useful to the children. So far from cramming and confusing them, you would introduce light and order into

  1641
  their little minds, and give them an interest in their lessons which, under the present system, they rarely felt. So much for the educational side; but, before sitting down, he wished to say one word with reference to the Amendment from the point of view of local self-government. Much of our freedom and success in Parliamentary government was due to the training afforded by our municipal and other local institutions, and he confessed that he viewed with some apprehension the present tendency to centralization. He was not asking that any new duty should be imposed on localities, but only that they should have a power, which, practically, they possessed until the last few years, and which the Education Department had every year reported to have been exercised with discretion. Several school boards, including that of the Metropolis, were anxious to try the system; and in the interest, therefore, of local self-government, in the interest of education—nay, more, in the name of the children—he asked the House to sanction his Resolution.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "it would be desirable to modify the Code of Education by adding Elementary Science to the subjects mentioned in Article 19, c. 1,"—(Sir John Lubbock,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  COLONEL BARNEhoped the House would reject a Resolution the effect of which would be to increase the expense of education.
  SIR JOHN LUBBOCKexplained that such would not be, and was not meant to be, the effect of his Resolution, which was merely to substitute one subject for any other contained in the 19th Article of the Code.
  COLONEL BARNEsaid, that if the hon. Member did not propose to add to the expenses of education in this country there could be no great objection to the Resolution; but if it would have that effect, it was a proposal which, in these hard times, ought to be resisted on behalf of the ratepayers.
  LORD EDMOND FITZMAURICEsaid, that, while he could not agree with
  1642
  the hon. and gallant Member opposite, he was bound to say he thought his hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone had approached the question from one point of view only, and had not sufficiently regarded certain and other important effects which would flow from his Motion, and which were worthy the attention of the House, one of which was the effect the adoption of his Motion would have upon elementary teachers. He had had for some time on the Paper the following Notice:—
  "To call attention to the expediency of establishing a series of higher standards in Night Schools; and also to the unnecessary number of examinations, and the difficulty of some of the subjects required of pupil teachers and students in Training Colleges."
  It might not appear, at first sight, what the connection was between those subjects and his hon. Friend's Motion; but if that Motion were adopted it would become obligatory, instead of permissive, as at present, for all elementary teachers to have passed an examination in natural science, and all school managers would require that the teachers should be competent to teach natural science. That would be a great addition to the already heavy burden placed on the shoulders of pupil teachers and Colleges. There had, within the last 15 years, been a steady, a constant, and an enormous increase in those burdens. The following subjects were, practically, compulsory upon students during their first and second years in the Training Colleges:—Learning by heart, reading, penmanship, school management, grammar, composition, geography, history, arithmetic, algebra, mensuration, geometry, political economy, and, he supposed, to cheer those whom the teaching of political economy had made dull, vocal music. There were, in addition, elementary classics and science, which were not strictly obligatory; but the inducements held out to take up one or the other might be regarded as rendering it a matter of compulsion. He asked the House whether, if his hon. Friend's Motion were adopted, there would not be, so to say, a further tightening of the girths? In fact, natural science would become a strictly obligatory subject of examination. What they should look for, in his opinion, was not so much the teaching of science as for what used to be called

  1643
  object lessons. There were two points he desired to press on behalf of the unfortunate pupil teachers and students to whom he had referred. He did not think the Education Department sufficiently appreciated the great difficulties under which knowledge had to be acquired by the children of the labouring classes of this country. The House was not now drawing up a merely abstract Code which they would wish to see complied with. They were dealing with girls and boys, women and men, and they ought to bear in mind the class of life from which they were drawn before they placed upon them additional burdens. It was a different thing for a University man to shut himself up in his room, and "sport his oak," as they call it at Cambridge, from what it was for a poor boy to study amid the numerous surrounding distractions of his narrow home. He had positively known cases in which the minds of boys had given way under the strain which was put upon them. A pupil teacher or student, from the time he became such until his leaving the Training College, had to pass no fewer than eight examinations, and there was no break in their continuity. No sooner had they passed one examination than they had to prepare for another. At the University of Cambridge examinations were held at considerable intervals, and no one was worried by them. Then, again, in subjects to which they were now asked to make an important addition, the standard required was absurdly high. The standard, for instance, in the case of high mathematics required in a pupil teacher last year at the Training College was positively higher than was required for the ordinary Bachelor of Arts degree at Cambridge. Many hon. Members he saw present would agree with him that there was no greater tyrant than a Cambridge mathematical man. Now, the system of which he spoke had grown up under the auspices of a gentleman of whom he desired to speak with every respect—an eminent Cambridge mathematician. The tyranny which they had succeeded in shaking off in Cambridge had been transferred to the Training Colleges by a very eminent Cambridge mathematical man, Mr. Sharpe; but he hoped his noble Friend the Vice President of the Council would put his foot down, and would not allow
  1644
  himself to be bullied by any of those Cambridge mathematical men. It was an intolerable tyranny that a person, however learned in other subjects, should be debarred from becoming a teacher of elementary subjects merely because he did not happen to be thoroughly versed in high mathematics. His noble Friend would, he trusted, inform the permanent officials of his Department that the opinion of many persons whom he (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) could name, to whom he had spoken, and who were capable judges of the matter, was that the state of things to which he had directed the notice of the House was absurd and ridiculous. He believed that his noble Friend had already lightened the load of the unhappy pupil teachers so far as regarded the extent to which they were required to learn poetry and prose by heart; and he hoped he would go further in the same direction as regarded other subjects, and would transfer the higher mathematics from the obligatory to the voluntary column. Another point in his indictment against the present elementary education system was, that the standards of instruction in night schools were so low that they tempted the children of the working classes to go to such schools instead of to day schools, to the detriment both of their health and education. Night schools should, in his opinion, be places to which working-class children could go with advantage after they had learnt all they could in the day schools. A Committee of the London School Board had been, or was about to be, appointed to consider this subject, and he was informed that the system he recommended had been at work for some time in Glasgow, and with the best results. He had brought forward the first subject to which he had referred, because of the impression made upon him last winter by cases with which he became acquainted, in which the cruelty of the existing system of examination had caused a breaking down, not only of physical health, but, worse still, of mental capacity.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, the comparison which had been so well made between the standard of mathematical teaching in the Universities and the standard of mathematical teaching in Training Colleges was to those who were familiar with the system of the

  1645
  Universities pregnant with, meaning. The great evil in our educational movement was a confusion of means and ends. Surely the objects of any Training College should be to produce instruments, not only capable, but willing, readily and cheerfully, to discharge the useful, though, perhaps, humble, service of training the children of the labouring classes satisfactorily to perform their duties in life. The present system tended to the production of the unknown genius—the philosopher masquerading as a village schoolmaster. They might be certain that a man who was very learned in the higher branches of mathematics would not be on the best way for making a good teacher of the three R's; for, having the power to soar into the nobler regions of the binomial theorem, and of quadratic equations, he would despise those rudimentary branches of education. The present system reminded him of that of the magnificent horticulturist who spent thousands a-year upon his vineries only to produce a few show bunches of grapes. With regard to the question of the fairness of giving repetition a place in examinations, he might say that when he was at Harrow the idea of reciting from memory at an examination was never dreamt of. A desperate attempt was, indeed, made at one time at that school to galvanize the system of repetition into life by prizes for running it off in quantities; but the attempt was not successful. In short, repetition could never be a true standard of competitive merit. With regard to the suggestion that had been made as to the expediency of raising the standard of teaching in night schools, he wished to point out that if the alternative subjects that had been named were admitted into a school of the kind, its manager would never engage a master who was not competent to conduct the night department with its enlarged curriculum. It would accordingly bring about in an indirect way the very mischief against which, in its direct shape, his noble Friend protested. He invited his noble Friend to re-consider the matter in this light. He should not be able to vote with the hon. Member for Maidstone, and he hoped that the Education Department would not forget the weighty warnings given them by the noble Lord.
  MR. RAMSAYsaid, it was not from, any indifference to education that he hesitated to attribute so much importance to the teaching of science. The question resolved itself into one of practical difficulty in carrying out the object which his hon. Friend (Sir John Lubbock) had in view. His (Mr. Ramsay's) objection was that children up to 11 or 12 years of age were heavily taxed in acquiring any knowledge of the elementary branches of science in elementary schools. He felt that if it was desirable to add to the Code the elements of natural science care should be taken that they were taught by men perfectly versed in those branches of science in which they gave instruction. The noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) had referred to the difficulty in the way of teachers at the present time acquiring sufficient knowledge to pass examinations in science. There could be no doubt that these examinations were heavy. In normal schools the elements of natural science were taught, and the students acquired some knowledge in these branches; but he doubted whether that knowledge was such as to enable them to teach the elements of natural science with success in the schools in which they might be employed. His objection to this system of instruction was that the number of branches which the children were required to learn was too great rather than too small. Too many subjects were forced upon them; and unless they could develop greater natural power on the part of the pupils he thought it would not, at the present time, be expedient to require from the teachers that they should give instruction to any class of children under 13 years of age in elementary branches of science. If they were dealing with children over 13 years of age he should take a different view of the case; and, under these circumstances, he would admit that it would be desirable to teach the children the elements of natural science. Children between 11 and 13 might not only derive information, but be very much interested in acquiring knowledge in any branch of natural science taught by the teachers; but the difficulty which forced itself upon him arose from the fact that the younger children were now over-taxed. Until the standard of the Education Department was reduced he should not feel

  1647
  himself bound to support the Motion of his hon. Friend.
  SIR BALDWYN LEIGHTONentirely agreed with the noble Lord (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) in his observations, and the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Ramsay). He (Sir Baldwyn Leighton) thought the training of teachers was being carried too far. The acquirements expected from them were such that in country districts it was often found very difficult to obtain the services of a teacher. He hoped the noble Lord the Vice President of the Council would reject the proposal of the hon. Baronet. Possibly, if the study of mathematics in Training Colleges were to be reduced from the present high standard, it might be expedient to introduce some elementary science, and even other practical subjects, into the curriculum of teachers; but, at present, he thought the introduction of this subject would not be at all desirable.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, as he understood the Motion, it was intended to place elementary science on a par with poetry and other subjects of a kindred character. The pupil teachers had power, under the existing rules, of passing examinations on subjects of science, and they were, in fact, invited to do so. It had fallen to his lot to submit to the Education Department that science had been unduly favoured under the Code. There was a common belief that, under the operation of the Code, language had been unduly taxed and scientific subjects favoured. That, he knew, was the opinion of a large number of the Inspectors. His object was to put these subjects on a par, and he was very glad to take the opportunity of discovering any preference for what were called University subjects. An opportunity should be afforded the teachers to qualify for instruction. Of course, he was aware that science must always be heavily weighted in the struggle, because it was the natural bias of the young mind to turn far more towards poetry than to science.
  MR. LYON PLAYFAIRsaid, a very simple question had been complicated by the speech of his noble Friend (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice). Many persons might approve of the proposition that elementary science should be added to the subjects of tuition, and many might also disapprove of the high-class trainng which was given to the teachers in
  1648
  training schools. This latter question, however, was entirely beside the question which was before the House. The simple issue was, whether elementary science should or should not be constituted an optional subject in connection with our ordinary school education? It seemed to be thought by some hon. Members that if the Amendment before the House were passed, teachers in training schools would be obliged to learn the subjects of natural science. This, he desired to say, was a misconception. Should they, then, allow teachers, who had been taught natural science as an optional subject, to impart instruction in the ordinary phenomena which were continually presented to children? Should not children, he asked, be taught something respecting the air they breathed, the water they drank, and the food they ate? This was organic chemistry—if they wished to call it by a big name—but, after all, it simply meant that the children should have an intelligent knowledge of what they met with every day of their lives, from the first moment when they breathed air until the last moment when they could no longer breathe air. The difficulty in the way of providing this knowledge would not be found to come from the teachers, who generally knew enough of elementary science, but from Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, who, for the most part, had not acquired an elementary knowledge of science, and who, consequently, disliked the subject. If these Inspectors had been taught at the Universities the subjects coming under the head of natural science, they would understand themselves that such things were most fit and necessary to be taught to the children. It was that which ought to be the great inducement to the Education Department, if they desired those things to be taught which were so essential to the happiness and comfort of the poorer classes, to see that the Inspectors they appointed should know something of the subject under discussion. With regard to elementary science in mining districts, would it not be extremely useful and important to teach children to know something of the dangers they would meet in their work in the mines, of which they were commonly so negligent and ignorant, and in many cases did not know how to avoid? Those were points—it might be called science, if it was chosen—but

  1649
  they were simply an intelligent knowledge of phenomena which children, as well as men, continually met at all periods of life. That argument might be followed in almost any phase of life. Take, for instance, agriculture. Would it be called high science to teach a child, whose life would be spent in the fields and in connection with agriculture, something regarding the air, food, and the earth, food of plants, the use of manure, and such kindred subjects? That was the proposal of the hon. Baronet the Member for Maidstone. He simply said he did not ask that it should be made compulsory; but he asked that a teacher should be allowed, where he had the knowledge, to adapt that knowledge to the wants of the children in whatever position they might be placed. Let the agricultural child have the knowledge of that which surrounded him. But it need not be compulsory. Let it be optional, and given as a matter of good will between the teacher and his children. It was not suggested that any expense should be incurred. He believed that voluntary effort would give any such illustrative objects as were needed, especially if the teaching was to be optional. The request of the hon. Member for Maidstone, who asked neither for compulsion nor expenditure, was such a simple one that he could not help hoping the Government would refrain from opposing it. The time had undoubtedly come when it was desirable to spread such useful knowledge as that which he had indicated; and he, therefore, trusted that the proposal of his hon. Friend would be carried out with no more delay than was unavoidable.
  LORD GEORGE HAMILTONsaid, he did not altogether agree with the statement of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, that the speech of the noble Lord the Member for Calne (Lord Edmond Fitzmaurice) was not germane to the subject before the House; for there were, in that speech, some arguments of a very pertinent and weighty character. When the hon. Baronet (Sir John Lubbock) brought forward his proposal last year, he (Lord George Hamilton) stated that the Education Office would be most anxious to consider the views of the hon. Member, and would see whether the practical difficulties standing in the
  1650
  way of the proposal could be overcome. Since he had so answered the hon. Baronet, he and his Colleagues had communicated with a number of gentlemen on the subject before the House, who were capable of giving valuable information and advice, and he would now acquaint the House with the result of those communications. The concluding part of the speech of the hon. Baronet was, he contended, a little misleading. The hon. Baronet made an appeal to the House on behalf of local government, asking that the different localities might have some option with regard to the subjects to be taught in their schools, and concluded by saying that the great branch of human knowledge to which he was drawing attention was excluded from the school curriculum. This, however, was not a perfectly correct statement of the case, as there existed nothing to prevent a competent teacher from giving instruction in elementary natural science to the children under him. But a teacher was not necessarily paid for giving such instruction, and the object of the hon. Baronet was that he should be paid. At present everything in the Elementary Education Code was defined and clear; but the reverse would be the case if the Resolution were passed, because what the hon. Baronet wanted to do was to bring in the subject of natural science and make what is called "a class subject" of it. The first objection to that was, what was the definition of natural science, so as to know what a child was to be taught and in what an Inspector might examine him? Natural science, as he stated last year, included every branch of human knowledge, except, perhaps, history and moral philosophy. There was a large number of excellent teachers who obtained certificates to teach; and if any one of these teachers happened to be out of a place, he or she would be asked—"Can you teach elementary science? "That would be, probably, the first question put to him, and it would be pointed out that the Education Department had laid down the rule. In such a case it would be found that a considerable obstacle would be put in the way of a most excellent teacher obtaining employment. Since last year the Department had had this matter constantly under their consideration; and he said unhesitatingly—although a

  1651
  considerable number of eminent persons' opinions might be quoted in favour of the Resolution—the balance of opinion was against it. This was more true of the teachers than even of the Inspectors. Dr. Gladstone, a prominent member of the London School Board, had given much attention to this subject, and last year he delivered a lecture at the Society of Arts, of which a copy had been sent to him (Lord George Hamilton). Dr. Gladstone had been asked to make out a course, and that course had been sent in; but Dr. Gladstone said that, although it might be suitable for the London School Board schools, he should not take the responsibility for prescribing for the schools in the country. There, then, was another difficulty. They were told that in Germany this class of instruction was given to the children; but there the system of instruction was quite different. The Education Department had altogether abandoned the practice of prescribing a text-book. He agreed with the right hon. Member who had just spoken that the best way to meet this difficulty would be that the managers of different schools should take particular care as to the particular text-books used as reading books in the schools. So, in the mining districts, the manager of a school would take the trouble to obtain such a text-book as would impart the various information referred to by the right hon. Gentleman. But this was information which they could get in the ordinary reading lessons. As to this point, he could only refer to what he said last year. It was said that only 5,000 children had passed in science; but the number was 45,000 in specific scientific subjects, and the number would have been greater only that children were not allowed to compete until after they had passed the Fourth Standard. The hon. Member for North Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colebrooke) rather complained that the Education Department had ousted the older subjects, and given preference to scientific subjects; but it was satisfactory to learn that, so far from the country schools not holding their own in classical examinations, they had succeeded in beating children from the town schools. In Latin and Greek the children in the country schools had passed better than the children in towns. Then his noble Friend asked
  1652
  that opportunities should be given to those attending night schools to pass in the higher standard and receive instruction in science and other subjects. The night schools were rather excrescences, so to speak, upon the education system, and, with the small number of attendances, it was impossible to pass in the higher standards. No doubt, in many cases the opportunities were availed of, and at the present moment he should not like to give a definite answer on the point. Another point to which his noble Friend had alluded was the alleged intense stringency of the tests imposed on pupil teachers; but he doubted whether, under existing circumstances, there was much proof of that allegation. All that he himself had heard from pupil teachers was rather in favour of increasing the stringency of the tests than otherwise. He quite agreed that they ought to do everything they could to give such an instruction to children of elementary schools as would develop their intelligence and would be useful to them in after-life; but he could not see his way to getting over the practical difficulties to which he alluded, and, therefore, the Department could not accept the Motion.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he would only detain the House a few moments, after the speech they had heard from the noble Lord. He was glad to learn from his speech that the noble Lord and his Colleagues had been seriously considering this subject; and although the Government were not as yet able to accept the proposal made to them, he had no doubt that when they had further weighed the matter the difficulties would grow less and less. There were two objections. It was said that if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Maidstone were adopted much more labour would be involved so far as the teachers were concerned, and that there would be great difficulty in defining what were to be the lessons given. But his noble Friend had mentioned a third objection which he thought rather contradicted the other two. He had said that if they allowed this choice it would be so much more easy to teach, and so much more practical that it would drive out the other subjects. Well, if it were easier to teach, the great difficulty of the labour disappeared. By the principle of results, which laid at the very basis of their

  1653
  educational arrangements, it would be found of more practical advantage to the children, and that was precisely the object which they wished to attain. As for increased labour to teachers in regard to the addition of a new subject, they were really as much obliged to learn this branch of knowledge now as they would be if the suggestion of the hon. Member for Maidstone was carried out. They were not absolutely compelled to learn it now, nor would they be compelled if the suggestion were adopted. In the 4th Schedule, for the teacher there were several alternative subjects—those which they might study, and for which they would get marks, but which were not compulsory. The elements of physical science formed a part of those subjects, and a knowledge of them was implied, sufficient to qualify for teaching young classes. Then, the higher mathematics formed one of those possible subjects which were not compulsory. By Article 21 of the Code a grant of 4s. was given to every scholar who passed a satisfactory examination in two of the specific subjects. One of those specific subjects was elementary science. In the table of Schedule 4 there would be found the subjects physiology, mechanics, and botany, these more than covering the proposed addition. Well, if the managers wanted their teachers to earn the money for elementary science under Article 21, they would say they must have a scientific teacher in the same way as if what was proposed by the hon. Member for Maidstone was carried out an elementary scientific teacher would be required. It would, in either case, depend on the managers, and they would be as likely to adopt the same course in one case as the other; and there was, practically, just as much pressure brought on the teacher in regard to these special subjects now as before. He believed the real difficulty lay in defining the lessons to be given, and the actual practical difficulty of bringing science into the standard of examination. In Article 28 there was a technical subject list. When they got into Standard 4 they found they had optional examinations in grammar, geography, and history, with definitions of the requirements under the different heads. Well, the difficulty would be imposed on the Department of having something corresponding with this de-
  1654
  finition. He believed his hon. Friend had hit the difficulty—namely, that the Inspectors were more ignorant of science than anything else. Many of the Members of that House felt that they had not been properly taught elementary science. But he believed that was not an insuperable difficulty. Let them obtain from Germany an exact statement of the operation of the law as to these examinations. If his hon. Friend went to a Division he would support him; but he would advise him not to do so, as he wanted the Department to consider the subject thoroughly for another year. He would repeat, in a word, the argument of the hon. Member for Maidstone. He had said that, in this class examination, they should give 2s. or 4s. to each scholar of 17 years of age if they passed an elementary examination on certain subjects. He did not think that would interfere with the needlework included in the present programme; and, so far as the rest of it went, it would mean that with the boys science and history would be taken instead of grammar and history, or science and geography instead of grammar and geography. The only question was this—Was elementary science as desirable as these other three subjects? Well, he liked the study of history and geography, but he did not think it was more necessary than science; and those who thought the acceptance of this proposal would lead to cost were wrong, because it would merely be the substitution of one subject for another. Well, he did not see why important results should not be produced in many districts by the adoption of this proposal. He was convinced that, if more attention was given to this subject, the difficulties which at first presented themselves would disappear. He would conclude by making this suggestion—that the Department should find out between now and next Session how this was done in Germany, and should tell the Inspectors that they must acquire a little knowledge of elementary science in order that they might be able to conduct examinations in natural science.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes 80; Noes 48: Majority 32.—(Div. List, No. 199.)

  NATURAL HISTORY MUSEUM, SOUTH KENSINGTON.—OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. E. JENKINSrose to call attention to the present form of the buildings for the Natural History Museum at South Kensington. He had given Notice of a Resolution, which he could not, owing to the Forms of House, now move—
  "That it appears from their existing state that a deception has been practised on this House in relation to the plans and estimates, and that a Select Committee be appointed to investigate the matter, with power to call for papers and to examine witnesses on oath, and to report to this House."
  He said he was sorry to stand between the House and the Committee of Supply; but the terms of his Motion were of such a startling character that he deemed it advisable to bring it forward at the earliest moment. In 1870 the then Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Lowe), in answer to a Question from the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Beresford Hope), said the Report of the Committee appointed to inquire into the disposal of the Natural History Collection at the British Museum, which recommended the erection of a Natural History Museum on the Thames Embankment, could not be carried out without taking a considerable quantity of ground belonging to the pleasure ground on the Embankment, and that no steps had been taken to carry out the Report. The Government for the time being were of opinion that a Natural History Museum would be better situate in the suburbs than in some central place in town, where people might conveniently get at it; and, consequently, that all-absorbing place, South Kensington, was selected as the site for a Natural History Museum. The original Estimate for £350,000 included a description of an entire building. The next reference to the building showed that that Estimate had not included fittings, and that the cost of the building would be increased by £45,000. After accepting certain estimates and plans the Government had been induced to make additions to them without first consulting Parliament. Last year an enormous Estimate was sprung upon the House for £171,000 odd for internal fittings, and that was only an approximate Estimate. He wished to know who was responsible for the deception of
  1656
  Parliament? He had seen the building the other day and found that the scaffolding was being stripped off before the two towers were completed—and without any intention of completing them—in order that the two annexes might be added to the building. Immense factories had been erected in the centre of the ground, for what purpose he knew not, except it might be to boil whales. The House had, year after year, been jockeyed into expenditure on South Kensington. It might have been desirable that that expenditure should take place; but the House had not been dealt fairly with. The matter was one of some importance, considering how much money had been spent on Museums at South Kensington.
  MR. BERESFORD HOPEsaid, he had listened with much interest to the ingenuous speech of the hon. Member. It was refreshing to hear a young mind brought to hear upon the existing state of things with so slight a knowledge of the antecedent circumstances. The hon. Member had drawn a very formidable indictment against two delinquents whom he wished to crush—namely, the South Kensington authorities and Her Majesty's Government; only it was unfortunate that neither of them was at all concerned in the matter. The building in question was a branch of the British Museum, and the persons who had brought about the present state of affairs were the Members of the Liberal Governments under which the country had flourished till five years ago. Parliament became pledged to this particular way of dealing with these collections on one memorable occasion some 15 or 16 years ago—when Lord Palmerston, for one night only, left the Leadership of the House in the hands of his Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gladstone), who succeeded in inducing the House to purchase the site of the Exhibition building, and then tried hard to get them to buy the building itself also, only that they turbulently declined to make the purchase, notwithstanding the subsequent persuasion of Lord Palmerston, who, on return, pointed out that if they would only buy the building, and stick a little plaster on, it would make a very decent Natural History Museum. With regard to the Natural History Museum, it had much better have been placed on the

  1657
  Embankment. A forlorn hope was led in behalf of this good course by his noble Friend the Member for Haddingtonshire (Lord Elcho), who obtained a Committee of the House to inquire into the matter. This Committee, on which he (Mr. Beresford Hope) served, reported favourably of the plan; but it was too late, and the plea of expense prevailed. Still, if it was necessary to erect the building at South. Kensington at all, it was much to be regretted that, owing to Mr. Ayrton's parsimony, it had been found necessary to build it in a hole. He believed that for no greater sum than £7,000 the ground on which the Museum stood might have been filled in to the level of the roadway. Part of the expenses of which the hon. Member complained was due, no doubt, to the fact that the design originally adopted was by Captain Fowkes, who was an engineer, and not an architect, and that, though clever, it was found to be impracticable, and that it was, consequently, necessary to commission the architect, Mr. Waterhouse, who had been called in to carry it out, to prepare an entirely fresh one. On the subject of the increased expense the House might, perhaps, be enlightened by the Government, who probably knew of the matter by tradition, or they might be informed by some Member of the Opposition who could speak from actual experience. He could not see what room there was for deception in the erection of a building ostentatiously carried out, with the full knowledge of successive Parliaments. If it was necessary to boil whales in the interests of science; it must be done, and even the hon. Member for Dundee could not do it in a tea-kettle. The building itself was to be a central school of science, in many of its most important branches, and not a place for furriers' refuse. The annexes, no doubt, were not specially artistic, and a great deal might be said against the buildings at the back, and in particular against the chimneys that had been made to look like bell towers; but, after all, the grand collection of the Museum would be exhibited satisfactorily, and then its first object would be gained. The question of cost was one that never could be settled à priori, but had to be determined by a tentative process. Probably too small a sum had been originally asked for. That was the whole grievance, and he trusted
  1658
  he had been able to throw some light on the subject.
  MR. GERARD NOELmaintained that the charge of deception had not been borne out by the facts the hon. Member had brought forward. The facts as to the plans and estimates were these. In 1864 architects were invited to compete with designs for the Natural History Museum, and the first premium was bestowed upon Captain Fowkes, who was directed to put himself into communication with the Trustees of the British Museum. Unfortunately, however, he died, and Mr. Waterhouse was appointed to carry out his plans. But when the matter was gone into further it was found that Captain Fowkes's plans were totally inadequate; and a printed Correspondence on the subject, which was moved for by the present Judge Advocate General, clearly showed that they were dropped and others substituted in their stead, and that Mr. Waterhouse was appointed architect. It also appeared that certain features of the original design were left out of the Estimate. The salary of the Clerk of the Works, to which exception had been taken, was not included in the original Estimate. As to the Estimates themselves, the first Vote taken was for a sum of £6,000; that was in 1868. But on the 2nd of August, 1870, when a further sum was asked for, it was stated in a foot-note that the total Estimate and the details of the scheme were then still under consideration. This was when Mr. Ayrton was First Commissioner and when Mr. Waterhouse was appointed architect. All this appeared upon the Papers, so that it was not true that Parliament had been deceived. Parliament had known exactly what had occurred from 1868 until the present time. In 1871–2 £40,000 was voted, and £350,000 was the sum named for the total Estimate. In 1872–3 a further sum was voted, and tenders were obtained which amounted to £395,000. Mr. Ayrton at that time struck out many details, among which were the central towers. The original contract had been made in 1868; but it was found in 1872 that since then the prices of labour and materials had risen, so that in 1873–4 the Estimates had to be revised, and £43,000 additional was added to cover the increased prices and to include the salary of the Clerk of the Works and the expenses of warming, ventilating, &c. In

  1659
  the present year, he (Mr. Gerard Noel) had moved to increase the Estimates by £14,000, on the ground that the building would be very incomplete and imperfect if the centre towers were not added, and the Vote was passed two or three months ago. As to the fittings, it had always been understood that those which were necessary for the accommodation of the specimens had never been included in the Estimate. The fittings to which the hon. Member alluded as being so included were doors and other things which were required in any ordinary house. The contract with Mr. Waterhouse expressly stated that it was made exclusive of fittings. With regard to the architectural design, he need not express any opinion, as it had been settled long before he had come into his present Office. He believed it, however, to be worthy of the British Museum and a credit to the architect.
  MR. RYLANDS: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Beresford Hope), in a burst of his accustomed eloquence, has attempted to draw the attention of the House away from the main point which my hon. Friend had in view in bringing this matter forward. I am one of those who always listen to the criticisms of the hon. Gentleman with reference to questions of fine art and architecture, upon which he is necessarily so great an authority, with the greatest respect; and I am also not unwilling to make allowances for him for the pains he has taken on this occasion for throwing on the former Government the responsibility of the large expenditure which has been incurred on account of the Natural History Museum. The hon. Gentleman has gone out of his way to make an attack upon Mr. Ayrton in connection with these plans. I will, however, say this of Mr. Ayrton—that the country is very much indebted to the late First Commissioner of Works for the constant care and attention which he gave to the expenditure for national purposes, and the control which he brought to bear upon enthusiastic Gentlemen, who, like the hon. Gentleman opposite, are inclined to spend public money upon anything which appears to them to be good and useful in the most lavish way. But I venture to say that all the remarks which the hon. Gentleman has made with regard to national improvements of this sort are in no way questioned by my hon. Friend,
  1660
  and they are certainly not questioned by myself. I agree with the hon. Gentleman entirely that in this sort of national expenditure it would be false economy to stand in the way of any arrangement that might be necessary for the proper care of such a Museum which is to give the opportunity to the public of taking advantage of studying these collections. Upon this point there is not the slightest question. But what is the question? It is not a question, let me say, between the political occupants of the Treasury Bench, whether on one side or the other. We are perfectly aware that when right hon. Gentlemen come into Office for a certain period they find permanent officials of the Government at the Offices. Those permanent officials are continually taking steps which often result in a very large expenditure for certain objects; and what we complain of is that the Government are misinformed by those permanent officials themselves, and, in consequence, bring Estimates before the House in such a manner as to keep the House without full information as to all the facts of the case. That is the complaint which my hon. Friend makes, and I must say that I think my hon. Friend has substantiated his complaint. It may be that the expenditure has been perfectly justifiable; but what we complain of is that the whole amount of the expenditure was not stated at first. It is no answer for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, owing to certain changes in the plans, there has been a considerable addition to the original Estimate. [Mr. GERARD NOEL: I did not say there had been any change of plan.] The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly right in correcting me. There is, practically, no change in the plan. The Estimate to which my hon. Friend called attention—the first Estimate of £350,000—was the plan which was approved by Mr. Water house; and, therefore, there is no question as to the previous plans which were adopted by the Government. Our complaint is, in terms, that the whole amount was not stated, and that when the House of Commons considered the matter there was a suppressio veri. We see that by the subsequent proceedings, and we are entitled to say that the Votes have been inconsistent with the statements made by the Department.
  MR. GERARD NOEL: I said that the first contract was made in the year 1868, and that the tenders were invited in 1872—four years afterwards. During those years the price of terra cotta, labour, and other things, had risen, and there was also the salary of the Clerk of the Works.
  MR. RYLANDS: It is true that the contract was made in the year 1868; but we are alluding to the year 1871. It was in the year 1871 that this Estimate of £350,000, for carrying out Mr. Water-house's plans, was accepted. That is the Estimate which was laid on the Table, and it was laid on the Table as the total Estimate for the work which had been decided upon, including the "architect's commission, salary of Clerk of the Works, fixtures, fittings, warming, lighting, ventilation, &c." Those are the words. Now, I am not blaming the right hon. Gentleman. He certainly is not responsible, because it was done long before he came into Office. But I must say that I do not think any sufficient answer has been given to the complaint of my hon. Friend. I hope, now that the matter has been brought forward, the right hon. Gentleman will look more closely into the Estimates before giving information to the House.

  SCOTCH SOCIETY FOR PROMOTING CHRISTIAN KNOWLEDGE.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. M'LARENhad the following Notice on the Paper:—
    "To call attention to the Second and Third Reports of the Endowed Schools and Hospitals (Scotland) Commission, and the Appendices thereto, respecting the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge, and to move an Address for Return respecting the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge, incorporated by Royal Charter under Letters Patent granted in 1709 and 1738 respectively, in continuation of the financial information given by the Secretary and Directors of the Society, when examined before the Endowed Schools and Hospitals (Scotland) Commissioners, and printed in the Appendix to their Second Report 1874 (pages 248 to 260), and in continuation of the statement made by the Commissioners, in their Third and final Report 1875, that 'this is the largest fund in Scotland applicable to educational purposes generally;' that it 'may be valued at £200,000, accumulated since their incorporation in 1709 from subscriptions, donations, and legacies, and greatly increased by judicious investments in land. Their annual income is about £6,000' (page 137). The Return to include a Copy of the last balanced annual account of income and expenditure, and
    1662
    to give the names of the schools and teachers, with their salaries, now supported by the Society. Also to show to what extent the Directors have diminished the number of their schools annually since the passing of
    'The Education (Scotland) Act, 1872,' as was contemplated in the evidence given by them before the Commissioners; also to show the sums expended annually in promoting each of the four purposes to which the Directors proposed to apply the surplus funds to the Trust, as specified in the Third Report of the Commissioners (page 138)."
    The hon. Member said, he was aware that, from the fact of a Division having already taken place on going into Committee of Supply, he could not move the terms of his Motion; and, therefore, he proposed to confine himself to the first part of it, which called attention to the Report of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. The Society for the Propagation of Christian Knowledge in Scotland was founded in 1709, and was entirely a charitable institution. Some hon. Gentlemen seemed to think that it was a private foundation; but no error could be greater than to suppose anything of that kind. The words of the Patent were—
    "We, understanding the charitable inclinations of many of our subjects for the raising of voluntary contributions towards the promotion of Christian knowledge and increasing piety and virtue in Scotland, especially in the Highlands, Islands, and remote corners,"
    and so on. That showed that it was not a foundation formed by one individual—as many institutions were—who gave a large sum of money. The Letters Patent sanctioned the collection of subscriptions, donations, legacies, and funds of all kinds for the purpose of propagating Christian knowledge in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and in other remote parts. When the Secretary and Directors of this Society were examined before the Commissioners it was seen, as was stated in the Report of the Commissioners, that this was the largest fund in Scotland applicable to religious purposes generally. This fund was now of very large amount, and was, in the opinion of the Commissioners, applicable to educational purposes generally. The Commissioners said—
    "It might be valued at £200,000, accumulated since their incorporation in 1709 from subscriptions, donations, and legacies, and greatly increased by judicious investments in land. Their annual income was about £6,000."
    It appeared to him that the Society had been managed, not as one for spending the

    1663
    annual income which they had obtained in the manner pointed out by the Charter and Letters Patent, but as a Society for accumulating large sums of money with which to purchase estates in three or four counties in Scotland. If the money which had been invested in the purchase of estates had been applied for the benefit of the poor illiterate Gaelic-speaking population in the Highlands, and Islands, and other remote parts of Scotland, he thought it would have been far more advantageously spent than in accumulating large sums and buying large estates. The estates were now valued at £192,000. He thought it was a matter very well deserving of the attention of the Government. He knew that the Commissioners had devoted a great deal of attention to the subject; and three of them, Members of this House, and now present, believed that the Government would have done well to consent to grant the information sought for as an unopposed Return. He did not impute any bad motives to anyone; but it was a fact that meetings of the Society were held in secrecy. The subscriptions to the Society had now dwindled down to almost nothing; whereas, formerly, they were very large. He remembered being a subscriber about 40 years ago. There were no subscriptions, no public open meetings, and no information whatever was laid before the public as to what was done with the £6,000 a-year which the Society enjoyed. He thought that, under those circumstances, with the various educational works that were being carried on, and especially having in view the poverty of the people in that particular section of Scotland which was pointed to in the Charter first obtained by the Society—that a great deal might be done with those large funds to promote the interests of the people in those remote districts. The managers of the Society said, in their examinations before the Commissioners, that at one time they had 295 schools under their control and to support. They explained that they did not build the school-houses; but they paid salaries to the teachers, and other charges, as arranged with landowners and others, who agreed to build the houses. But they also said that, in consequence of the passing of the Education Act of 1872, they contemplated surrendering a
    1664
    large proportion of the schools to the School Boards; and at the time they gave their evidence they stated that they had already surrendered 40 schools. Now, he should like to know what was done with the money formerly employed for the support of these schools? He thought the Society should be compelled to give a copy of its accounts and balance-sheet for last year. That was a most reasonable request. There was not an educational foundation in Edinburgh, Glasgow, Aberdeen, or any part of Scotland which did not print and publish its balance-sheet. This Society, however, was a secret Society—he used the words advisedly. Nobody knew anything about their operations; their transactions were conducted in private. It might be the best managed Society in the world, or the worst managed, for anything he knew; but what he protested against emphatically was the secrecy with which everything connected with the Society was done. He held that it was not for the benefit of the public that such large sums should be administered in secret; and he thought this was a case where the House of Commons should take steps to protect the interest of those who were originally intended to be benefited by the Society under their Charters. He might mention, as showing how contrary to the spirit of the original foundation of that Association their present system was, that the first Charter expressly stated that they must never accumulate any fund so that its annual product should exceed £2,000. The Government of the day were jealous of that system of heaping up money and investing it, buying property with it, &c.; and they accordingly restricted the Association to that sum of £2,000 a-year. But, by the second Charter, which the Association obtained some years afterwards, they got that restriction removed; and, therefore, at the present moment, there was no legal obstacle to their buying estates, by means of their annual income, in place of expending it for the benefit of the poor Highlander, to whom the annual income both morally and legally belonged. The Commissioners very properly asked what they intended to do with all that money, now that they proposed to get rid of the schools? and they named certain objects to which it would be applied, among other things, in support of missions, and certain bequests to churches

    1665
    in Scotland; though he held it to be doubtful whether, under their Charter, they had the power to make these grants to churches. There was a great deal of money to be spent, and they made four propositions to the Commissioners with respect to it, which propositions the Commissioners had summarized in their Report. With the fear of the Secretary to the Treasury before his eyes, who, he knew, desired to go on with the Estimates, he would not enter on these propositions, or, indeed, say one-half of what he had intended to say; but what he wished to ascertain by his Motion was, whether this Society had spent any money on those four propositions, and, if so, whether they had any balance left, and how much? In short, he wanted to know what the Society had been doing for the last 12 months? He thought Her Majesty's Government blameworthy in not having at once agreed to give this Return. If they had proposed any limitation or qualification upon the Return, he should have been happy to have met them; but he had got no encouragement, having, on the contrary, been met with a point-blank refusal.
    THE LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. WATSON): I think it well that I should interpose at this stage of the discussion, because the Government have been charged with wrongfully refusing these Returns. I do not think it is in the least degree necessary to argue any of the special questions which the hon. Gentleman has raised with regard to the administration of this fund, because it appears to me that the granting of the Return would be objectionable upon grounds entirely apart from what may be the merits or demerits of the present administration of the revenues of the Society. No doubt this Society, which is a body of private individuals associated together for charitable purposes, have now very large funds under their administration. I repeat, that this is a body of private individuals associated together for charitable purposes, for collecting subscriptions and employing them in promoting, according to their views, religious knowledge within the four corners of Scotland. In what manner that ought to be done, and whether they have really discharged the purpose which they set before themselves, are matters which it is not for us to inquire into; but
    1666
    it is ridiculous to suppose that a Royal Charter is needed in Scotland or anywhere else to levy or to collect subscriptions, and to apply them to charitable purposes, or that a bank or any other institution, by obtaining an Act of Parliament, becomes in any sense a public Department or Office, from whom the Government are at any time entitled to call for Returns. No doubt it is a common thing to ask for Returns in continuation of previous Returns; but here we are asked for Returns—
    "In continuation of the financial information given by the Secretary and Directors of the Society, when examined before the Endowed Schools and Hospitals (Scotland) Commissioners, and printed in the Appendix to their Second Report 1874."
    I venture to say that if the fact of a body of men, or of an individual, appearing before a Commission of this House, and there giving evidence as to the financial condition of the body of which he is a member, or of his own private affairs, is to be made the groundwork for extracting from him a continuation of that information, that is contrary to all Parliamentary procedure. No doubt, Returns are very widely moved for, and I am sure that the present Government—any more than their Predecessors—are not amenable to the charge of not yielding wherever the demand is reasonable. But if you ask for Returns of this kind simply because information has been given before a Committee, I do not see how any private individual may not be called upon to exhibit the contents of his books, or the particulars of his business. The two things have no earthly connection with each other; and it is a great mistake to put forward in a Motion like this any such fact, as that information has been given before a Committee in order to justify a continuation of that evidence in the shape of a Parliamentary Return. I do not see, if you are to introduce that rule, how any private Society or party who have had a Charter which confers certain privileges upon them would not be liable to be called upon to furnish Returns. That is a matter which is contrary to the practice of this House, because there is an obvious distinction to be drawn between continuing Returns which have been presented from year to year and asking for such Returns as are now asked for. There is the greatest possible distinction between the charac-

    1667
    ter of the information to be given in continued Returns and the character of the information which is obtained, and quite legitimately obtained, before a Royal Commission or before a Committee of this House. A Royal Commission, or a Committee of this House, are entitled to ask for and to acquire information of the most delicate and confidential character; but I venture to say that that rule does not in the least degree apply to Returns. But I will not rest upon that alone. In this case there was a very elaborate and searching inquiry carried out by the Commissioners referred to in this Notice under the Schools and Hospitals (Scotland) Commission. That inquiry was directed by this House with a view to legislate upon the subject-matter of these very schools and endowments, whether private or public; and one of the schemes which fell within the legitimate scope of that Commission was the Society in Scotland for Propagating Christian Knowledge. Accordingly, not only were the position and the monetary affairs of this Society very fully investigated, but the Commission reported upon them. It is necessary to attend to what followed on the Report. It was treated by the hon. Member for Edinburgh as if it had been a nullity; but the fact is that it was made the foundation of legislative action in this House, and the plain meaning and the intention of the Act of last year is simply this—that those institutions, whose affairs had been investigated by the Royal Commission, should have from the passing of that Act two years' grace to make up their minds as to whether they should voluntarily bring in schemes for the alteration and adjustment of their own constitutions. I am happy to say that a great number of those institutions which were included in the scope of the Act have already acted upon that provision; but I do think it would be an entire violation of the principle upon which that Act proceeded, and of the object which the Legislature had in view in passing it, if you were now to deal with those institutions whose two years' grace has not expired by investigating their affairs in the interim, with an ulterior purpose, with the object of which we have not yet been made acquainted. It was intimated at the time the Act was passed, and there was a common assent on both sides of the House in the matter, that in the
    1668
    event either of the institutions failing to re-constitute themselves, by or without a Provisional Order, they would at the end of that period of grace be dealt with in a manner which would admit of no refusal—in other words, they would be dealt with summarily and compulsorily, instead of having time and leisure given to them to propose any self-amendment. Now, I think, upon those last grounds, even supposing the Return was a proper one to make, which I do not admit, it would be very inconvenient to interfere at present with any one of these institutions which fall within the scope of the Act. Under these circumstances, I think the Government are justified in declining to grant the Return for which the hon. Gentleman asks.
    MR. C. S. PARKERexpressed, as one of the Endowed Schools Commission, a feeling of great regret that there should be any difficulty in obtaining information as to the present position of the Society. The gentlemen representing the Society at the time when the Commission asked information made no difficulty whatever in giving it, and made no suggestion that there was anything of a confidential nature in what they laid before the Commission. Indeed, so frank and full were their answers, that it would be unnecessary now to renew the inquiry, were it not for one or two peculiar circumstances. The whole system of the Society was undergoing a change at the time they gave evidence before the Commission. Hence, they were not able to tell the Commission for certain what their future policy would be. For the Education Act had only recently been introduced, and, under it, they saw it was necessary to give up their existing mode of granting aid, while their new policy had not yet taken shape. The chief difficulty in administering the affairs of the Society in a manner satisfactory to Scotland arose from this. At the time of the Disruption a large proportion of the contributors joined the Free Church; and the legal question having been raised, whether the business of the Society might be conducted through agents belonging to the Free Church, the Law Courts ruled that it might not. In consequence of that decision, a large number of the warmest supporters of the Society had to stand aloof from it; and, inasmuch as many of the schools to which the funds were ap-

    1669
    plicable were under the charge of Free-Churchmen, a continual difficulty arose in administering the funds, for if it happened that the master of a particular school was not a member of the Established Church of Scotland, it was not possible to employ him as an agent of the Society. In some Highland districts, where the Free Church was very strong, and the Established Church almost non-existent, it was hardly possible to conduct the operations of the Society through agents belonging to the Established Church, and this caused a great desire that the matter should be looked into. The Endowed Schools Commission was not composed of Liberals only. The late Sir William Stirling-Maxwell was a Member of it, and he joined in recommending that this legal restriction to the Established Church should be removed. Since that time an Executive Commission had been empowered to give effect to such, recommendations. But as this Society had as yet shown no disposition to go before the Commission, it was a very natural desire on the part of the hon. Member for Edinburgh to put pressure upon the Society to do so; and the hon. Member had said nothing in his speech to justify anyone imputing to him that he had any special scheme in view, or wished to interfere, except so far as to express the strong desire there was for more information. Though it was not possible to bring a Motion before the House on this occasion, and though it seemed that, even had it been possible, the Government had thought it necessary to refuse to accede to it, yet he hoped this short discussion would not be without its effects. For if the Society was still disposed to act in the same spirit as it did five years ago, he saw no reason why, after this strong expression of opinion, they should not voluntarily give such information as they had to impart, and if they also came before the Executive Commission with a scheme, they would be acting wisely. The Established Church of Scotland recently made overtures to the non-Established Churches, and expressed an earnest desire to co-operate with them in Christian work. That desire was reciprocated by the non-Established Churches; and it seemed to him that if ever co-operation was to be begun a fairer opportunity could not arise than this if in those parts of Scotland where the people did
    1670
    not belong to the Established Church, the Established Church would consent to co-operate with other Churches in the work of Christian education. He trusted that the Society would take this view of the matter, and would submit proposals in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission.
    MR. RAMSAYsaid, that he could not allow the discussion to close without expressing his regret that the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate should have thought proper, on what he feared would be regarded as purely technical grounds, to refuse to accept the Motion of the hon. Member for Edinburgh. The Motion itself did not contain the slightest allusion to any desire on the part of the hon. Member to interfere with the operations of the Society. He felt satisfied that if the right hon. and learned Gentleman had inquired, the Society would have expressed its willingness to give all the information which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had asked for. He was quite satisfied of that; because that body had not only given evidence before the Endowed Schools and Hospitals Commission, but also gave evidence, in 1865, to the Education Commission, of which he had had the honour of being a Member. The Directors of the Society would deprecate this refusal, because they had come before the latter Commission, and had given evidence of the total inefficiency of the way in which their funds were applied; and, being excellent gentlemen, anxious for the good administration of the affairs of the Society, they would have been glad to have this opportunity afforded them of placing before the public a full statement of the way in which their funds were now administered, as the hon. Member desired. In 1865, before the Education Commission, the Inspector of the Schools of the Society came forward, and said that the education in these schools was of a very low character indeed, and it was an exception to the rule if they had what was called an efficient teacher. The Society was originally intended to promote the cause of education in the Highlands and Islands. The first Letters Patent were so framed that it could only be applied to male teachers. The second Letters Patent were granted for the purpose of affording to females instruction and training in the industrial

    1671
    branches of education, as those were then understood. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman thought fit to apply to the Directors of the Society, he would have got not only the information which the hon. Member for Edinburgh had asked for, but a full account of all that had been done to carry out some amendment in the various schools which were scattered throughout the Highlands and Islands; and as the funds were originally intended for the behoof of the Highlands and Islands, he (Mr. Ramsay) would deprecate any change which would take away from those districts the advantages of the funds, particularly at a time when the Hebrides and other Islands of Scotland stood so much in need of extraneous aid for educational purposes. He hoped the right hon. and learned Gentleman would soon be able to place on the Table of the House such information as the Directors of the Society could furnish as to the operations of the institution. He believed such Returns would go far to show that there was no cause for the jealousy existing regarding their transactions, which took their rise in the secret way in which, as his hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh had said, the administration had been heretofore conducted. The Society ought, he thought, to have the chance of doing, even in an informal way, what the hon. Member for Edinburgh suggested—namely, furnish an account of their administration of this important fund.
    MR. FRASER-MACKINTOSHsaid, the funds of the Society were very much for the benefit of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and he had heard with a great deal of disappointment the answer of the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate; for, from information which had reached him (Mr. Fraser-Mackintosh), the people in those districts had looked forward to this Motion being agreed to, and thought there could be no possible objection to it. It was for the interests of the Society itself that due publication should be made, and those concerned should have full knowledge of the affairs, before any scheme was submitted to the Endowed Schools Commissioners.
    SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKEsaid, as Chairman of the Commission to which reference had been made, he hoped the hon. Member for Edinburgh, who showed
    1672
    such high respect for one recommendation of that Commission, would show equal reverence for some others. It might not be right to make demands upon such Associations as this until some option had been given them to take advantage of the Act. He could not, however, recognize the force of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's the Lord Advocate's objections. These institutions were not private institutions. They were public institutions, and open to the criticism of Parliament now, and he hoped also in the future. A particular recommendation of the Commission with regard not merely to the present but to the future was, that they should be regarded as public bodies, and placed under the obligation of laying under a public officer their accounts before the public year by year, so that the public should know how the work was being carried on.
    SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYthought hon. Members opposite were showing a little unreasonable impatience in this matter. The two years of grace given to these institutions was not a long time to wait. He thought the Government's refusal of these Returns was perfectly justifiable.
    SIR GEORGE CAMPBELLsaid that, after the strong expression of feeling which had come from so many Representatives of Scotch constituencies, the Society would have the right to do away to some extent with the reproach of secrecy by communicating some of the facts connected with its working. It was quite within the power of the Society, if actuated by the motives attributed, to it by the hon. Member for the Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Ramsay), to give all the information which the hon. Member for Edinburgh desired.
    Main Question, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair," put, and agreed to.

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.
  SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  SUPPLY—CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

    CLASS IV.—EDUCATION, SCIENCE, AND ART.
    £1,521,168, to complete the sum for Education, England and Wales.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONobserved, that the Committee were aware that every year it was the custom, when

    1673
    moving this Vote, for those who were responsible for the Estimates to make a statement, giving an account of the educational progress of the past year. He thought that every Member of the Committee who had read the Report which had been presented to Parliament for the year ending August, 1878, must admit that it contained a most gratifying account of the progress of elementary education. That Report had been most satisfactory as regarded increased accommodation in the State-aided schools. Statistics on this, as on other subjects, were somewhat dull and wearisome; but it was necessary to cite them, in order to a thorough understanding of the subject. He was sure, therefore, the Committee would excuse him, if he asked its attention for a short time while he stated the actual progress which had been made during the past few years. The practice had hitherto been to compare the progress of the year under review with that of the preceding year. Taking that test on the present occasion, the following were the results as regarded the State-aided schools:—The accommodation for the children had been increased by about 8 per cent, and it now, practically, amounted to very little short of 4,000,000 places. The number of children on the books was 3,496,000, being an increase of 11 per cent, whilst the average attendance was 2,405,197, and that also showed an increase of 11 per cent. There had been a considerable number of new schools, 506 being supplied by voluntary effort and 606 by school boards, and, altogether, the number of schools open was 16,293. As regarded the use made of this accommodation, they had evidence in the number of passes and in the payments by results, and they found that for this year there had been a considerable and gratifying increase in the percentage of passes in the "three R's." The number individually examined was 17 per cent in excess of the preceding year. In fact, whether they looked at the standard, or classes, or special subjects, they found, in each and all, a considerable increase. That was very satisfactory, because as compulsion came into operation, and a larger number of the "wastrels" were forced into the schools, it was to be feared that while the number of children in attendance might increase the examinations might not improve; but they
    1674
    had found the fact to be exactly the reverse. The system which had been adopted for some years past in the Education Office was to take the figures of the educational year ending in August, and on those figures to make such estimates and calculations as might enable them to lay before Parliament the sums which would be required for the ensuing financial year. The figures which he had quoted related to the educational year which ended on the 18th of August, 1878, and the Estimates he was introducing related to the financial year ending April, 1880. One of the most important features they had to consider in estimating their wants was any alteration that might be made in the Code as to the conditions under which grants should be made. Complaints had been frequently made that the Code was not very intelligibly drawn, and it had been the ambition of successive Vice Presidents to put it in a clearer and more compact form; but there were great difficulties in the way of effecting alterations. School managers and teachers had now come to understand the Code pretty well, cumbrous though it was; and he was not sure that it was not expedient, for some time to come, to make as few alterations in it as possible. This year there had, practically, been no alteration made that was worthy of the attention of the Committee, with only two slight exceptions. In the discussion which took place, some time ago, attention was called to the recitation regulation. He confessed that, for one, he did not look with favour upon the idea of children reciting long pieces of poetry, because the children mechanically repeated the words without understanding them. Attempts had been made to adapt the poem to be recited to the children's understanding; and, as a result of that effort, he found that in one town the piece favoured was "Johnny Gilpin's Ride to Edmonton." Amusing as that ballad was, it could hardly be said to be of a such a character as to justify a payment from the Consolidated Fund. In the result, the part of the Code which necessitated the recitation of a poem was struck out. The Chairman of the Cookery Committee at South Kensington had been in communication with the Department, and wished them to introduce something into the Code on the subject of cooking.

    1675
    Doubtless, there was no branch, of practical science in which the humbler classes more required instruction than in cooking; but the Department had not yet been able to meet the views of those who wished a course of practical cooking to be inserted in the Code. There was considerable difficulty in the way. In the first place, schools had not the necessary apparatus; in the second place, they had no proper test of results; and, next, it would be rather hard to impose upon the Inspectors the necessity of tasting every experiment of the children in practical cookery. He had no doubt, however, that in course of time they would be able to overcome this difficulty. Therefore, there had, practically, been no alteration in the Code during the year 1878. They had only now to estimate what the increase of children in attendance would be, and if the efficiency of the children was likely to improve; and they estimated that the increase would be 9 per cent, or 178,000 children, which brought up the average attendance to 2,717,800. They also estimated there would be an increase of 6d. per head in the grant earned, which raised the rate to 15 s. 9d. per head. Those two increases, taken together, brought up their Estimate to £2,481,168,beinganincrease of £334,804 over the original Estimate of last year. Of that amount, £315,000 went directly in new grants to schools, and the remainder, £19,000, went in payments to Training Colleges and the employment of additional Inspectors, which was necessitated by the increased number of children they had to examine. Now, he had already compared the results of the examination of the school-year, ending August, 1878, with those of the preceding year; and, interesting as those comparisons were in one sense, they were, it seemed to him, a little wide of the mark; because what they had to consider was not what progress was made in one year or another, but how far the educational supply met the actual wants of the country. Probably, the first point on which the Committee would like information would be in reference to the accommodation supplied. At the present moment there was school accommodation for 3,950,000 children. The school supply in the last 10 years had increased 95 per cent, and the actual number of children who ought to be at school had only increased 9 per cent.
    1676
    Applying the test to the whole population of England within the area of the school districts, they calculated that 3,400,000 children ought to be in constant attendance in the schools—that was, assuming that compulsion was universal throughout England and Wales—as a matter of fact, only 2,700,000 were in actual attendance. The accommodation, therefore, already provided was 500,000 places in excess of what the average attendance should be, and 1,300,000 in excess of what the average attendance was. He mentioned these figures, because the other day, somewhat unexpectedly, a discussion came on; and when he stated that, except in certain large towns, the supply was sufficient, his contention was somewhat disputed. No doubt, in the large towns, and particularly in London parishes, fresh schools would have to be erected, because the distribution was not equal throughout England and Wales; but, still, as every year the school supply was increasing in a greater ratio than the children who had to go to school, he thought they might arrive at the practical conclusion that the school accommodation was, or very shortly would be, quite sufficient to accommodate all the children who ought to be at school. Assuming, then, that all the children were at school who ought to be, they had next to consider how many teachers were required. They estimated that 33,000 teachers would be required. They had at the present moment 28,235 certificated teachers, 5,700 students, and upwards of 31,000 pupil teachers; so that the supply of teachers was ample for present wants; and considering the number who annually applied to be admitted to the ranks of certificated teachers, he thought they might go a step further, and say they would have sufficient for all their prospective wants. This was not to be wondered at, because the position of no class of persons had been so much improved within the last 10 years as that of the elementary school teachers. In 1870, the average salary of the masters was £95 12 s. 9d., and in 1878 it was £118 14 s. 3d.; whilst in the same period the average salary of the mistresses had risen from £57 16 s. 5d. to £71 2s. 2d. Last year, in the discussion of the Education Estimates, many hon. Members represented to him that there were great complaints made, not only on the part of the teachers, but

    1677
    also on the part of the managers, in consequence of the large number of Returns they had to furnish; and they especially indicated a certain Return which had to be made to the local authorities, which entailed much trouble and took up a great amount of time. He thereupon undertook to go into the question of Returns, and to reduce them as far as possible. He found that, valuable as they were, they did entail considerable labour on the teachers; and, therefore, after consultation with those who were well able to advise him on the subject, he came to the conclusion that they might altogether abolish that class of Returns. Therefore, the teachers had been relieved of the Returns of which they most complained. Well, then, as the school accommodation was in the greater part of England sufficient, and as the teaching power was also adequate, the next point they had to consider was whether the machinery for bringing the children to school was sufficient? The population of England and Wales was about 22,700,000, according to the Census of 1871, of which upwards of 13,000,000 were under school boards, and 9,500,000 under school attendance committees. As regarded the figures he had just mentioned, these, no doubt, were the figures of 1871; but in one sense that did not interfere with the effect of his argument, because the population of 1871 was divided, as it was now, into a rural and an urban population; and he was pointing out to the Committee that, assuming those figures existed at the moment, it would be found that of the population of England 16,000,000 were at the present moment under bye-laws, and that during the past year nearly 2,000,000 had placed themselves under the operation of compulsory bye-laws. Perhaps it would interest the Committee to know that the last parish which had unanimously adopted compulsory attendance was the parish of Hughenden. Therefore, at this moment there were under compulsory bye-laws no less than 70 per cent of the total population of England and Wales. The number of children, as he had before stated, who ought to be in attendance was 3,400,000, and the number they estimated who would be in attendance this year was 2,700,000; so that there was a very considerable gap between the number of those who were and the number of those
    1678
    who ought to be regularly at school. That might, undoubtedly, be accounted for by various reasons. Certain of his hon. Friends suggested last year the expediency of passing a short Bill by which compulsory attendance should be enforced throughout the whole of England. No doubt they would gain something in point of uniformity and symmetry if they adopted that course; but, on the other hand, hon. Gentlemen must recollect that the main cause of the success of the Education Acts of 1870 and 1876 was that they had been able to carry local opinion with them, and the local authorities had worked with them, and not against them. At the present moment, no doubt, there was a certain repugnance in certain rural parishes against the adoption of compulsory bye-laws; and if the House were to attempt to enforce compulsory attendance by Statute there would be very considerable difficulty in carrying it out. Therefore, he thought it was preferable to wait, in the certain hope that year by year the number of parishes in which compulsion was not in force would diminish. He thought he might say that as they had accommodation, teaching-power, and local organization, the account he had given was satisfactory. He believed they had made greater progress in developing their system of elementary education during the past few years than had ever been done by any nation before. But, of course, that had entailed a certain additional expenditure; and he now asked the attention of the Committee for a moment or two whilst he placed before them what that expenditure was. In the year 1870, previous to the introduction of the Elementary Education Act, there were 1,225,000 children in average attendance. In the year under review there were 2,560,000; so that the average attendance had more than doubled in eight years. The expenditure connected with the maintenance of schools in 1870 was £1,525,000. In 1878, excluding all expenditure connected with the interest on loans and the expenses of the administration of school boards, the expenditure connected with the maintenance of schools was £4,354,000. Dividing those amounts by the numbers of children in average attendance, they found that in 1870 the average expenditure per child was £1 5s.,

    1679
    and in 1878, £1 15 s. The Government grant, eight years back, was 9s. 9d. per child in average attendance; last year it was 15 s. 3d.; in the present year it would be 15 s. 9d. In the discussion on the Estimates last year, certain hon. Gentlemen, and, he believed, two right hon. Gentlemen opposite, impressed upon him the necessity of economizing, as far as possible, the grant annually voted to education by Parliament, and of considering the expediency of placing some limitation upon the amount which was annually so voted. Now, there were two causes for the rapid increase of that Parliamentary grant. The first was, that every year there were more children to be educated. They knew the number who ought to be at school; they knew the number who were there. Every year the margin between the two was diminishing; so that he had very little doubt that in a very short time they would, practically, have at school all who ought to be there. Then the growth of the grant would practically end, except so far as the increase of the population was concerned. The other main cause of the increase of the grant was the abolition of the limitation that was imposed in preceding Codes. His noble Friend the President of the Board of Trade (Viscount Sandon) removed that limitation, and at the present moment, provided after 15 s. per head had been earned by the children in average attendance there was a certain income derived from substitutions for fees, there was, practically, no limitation to the amount they could obtain from the Parliamentary grant. How rapid the growth had been of the sum annually earned by the children was instanced by the figures he had just given, which showed that in the nine years—1870 to 1879—the annual grant per child had risen from 9s. 9d. to 15 s. 9d. In the Report they had issued this year there was one paragraph which he believed had caused great concern to the managers of the board schools—
    "The time has possibly come when it may be necessary for us, in certain particulars, to revise a part of the annual grant."
    The annual grant, as at present payable, might be divided into two heads. Previously to the Revised Code of 1862, the grant was, practically, a capitation grant, and then it was converted by his right hon. Friend the Member for the Uni-
    1680
    versity of London (Mr. Lowe) into a system of payment by results. Still, a considerable portion of the capitation grant remained; so much was paid on average attendance. Now, that seemed to him to be the part of the grant to which it was necessary to direct their attention, if any reduction was to be made. He thought it would be hard at present, when there was so much distress in the country, and when there would naturally be great difficulty in raising the necessary subscriptions, if they were to permanently, with a stroke of the pen, diminish the income of the voluntary schools. On the other hand, they ought to let school managers know that they must not imagine, as a matter of course, that they were every year to obtain more money from the Parliamentary grant, and that the conditions were in no way to be altered. It seemed to him that, as regarded that part of the grant called the capitation grant, the course they ought to adopt was to apply some test to the children before it was paid. He could illustrate what he meant by referring to the Motion of the hon. Baronet the Member for Chelsea (Sir Charles W. Dilke), which proposed to reduce the grant by £100,000, referring, no doubt, to the sum that was paid for teaching music. He would suppose that all the schools claimed this part of the grant to give instruction in music, and, as a matter of fact, the Returns laid before Parliament showed that this grant for music was, practically, a capitation grant, as nearly 99 per cent of the children attending obtained it; and he thought it was a very fair matter for consideration in subsequent years whether or not they ought to attach some condition to the payment of that particular part of the capitation grant, by which the children should be required to have really some musical instruction and knowledge. That was the direction in which he thought they ought to go. He did not think they ought summarily to reduce without notice the grant which was payable to the managers of the different schools. At the same time, it should be distinctly understood that the Department considered themselves at liberty from year to year to make such alterations as they chose, and as might affect the sum previously obtained by any school. He knew that certain hon. Gentlemen thought they could not spend

    1681
    too much on education; and, therefore, any proposal by which a reduction or limitation of expenditure might be effected would necessarily lower the efficiency of the education given. To those who held that opinion there was a very instructive little paragraph in the table of statistics published annually by the Education Department. It might be found on page 10, and it was, perhaps, the most compact and informational paragraph in the Return. They would there find what the expenditure per child of the different classes of schools was, and what fees were paid by the children attending them. The cost of maintaining a child in a board school throughout England was £2 1s. 10 d. That rate was abnormally raised by the expenditure of the London School Board, which amounted to £2 13 s. 5d. per child, whilst the average expenditure of other school boards was £1 17 s. 4d. But the cost under any of the school boards was considerably in excess of the cost of maintaining children in any of the voluntary schools. The schools connected with the Church of England expended £1 13 s. 10 d. per child; the British, and other schools unconnected with the Church of England, £1 14 s. 11 d.; the Wesleyan schools £ 1 13 s.; and the Roman Catholic schools £1 10 s. Therefore, the first fact brought prominently before them was that the cost of maintenance in board schools, and particularly in the London board schools, was very much in excess of the expenditure in voluntary schools. The second fact, which was also made very apparent, was that there was a great difference in the fees paid by the children in these different classes of schools, taken in relation to the contributions which were made in support of these schools. The sources of income of all schools were—first, the Parliamentary grant; secondly, the school fees; and, thirdly, the voluntary subscriptions or contributions from the rates. Excluding for the moment the Parliamentary grant, they found, taking only the fees and voluntary contributions, the following results:—The fees paid by children in Church of England schools were, as near as possible, equal to the subscriptions and the endowments of those schools. The fees paid by Roman Catholic children were, to a very small fraction, identical with the subscriptions and endowments of
    1682
    those schools. The fees paid by British and Wesleyan scholars were more than double the subscriptions in support of those schools. On the other hand, the fees paid by children at board schools were very considerably less than half the contributions from the rates to their maintenance. Therefore, they found, first, that the cost of maintenance in the board schools, particularly in London, was far in excess of the cost of maintenance in other schools; second, that the fees paid under the more costly system were far less than under the more economical. But when they came to test results they did not find that the more expensive system was better than the less expensive one. The competition was very remarkable. In 1877 it was very close, and the board schools beat the voluntary schools by 1d., earning a Government grant of 14 s. 5d. as compared with 14 s. 4d. earned by the voluntary schools. In 1878, the voluntary schools turned the tables on the board schools, and beat them by 1d., having earned 15 s. 1d., to 15 s. 1d. There was another fact, which was rather remarkable, with reference to the expenditure in these different schools. As might have been expected, owing to the exceptional distress in all branches of trade, the subscriptions to the voluntary schools had greatly fallen off. There was only one denomination whose subscriptions had not fallen off—namely, the Roman Catholic. Considering the poverty of the population they had to educate, it was greatly to the credit of the Roman Catholics that they were able to return such good results for so moderate an expenditure. He wished now to point out what, in his judgment, were the defects in the present system of education. His noble Friend the present President of the Board of Trade very properly, some years ago, provided a Schedule of special or specific subjects to be added to the voluntary subjects taught in the elementary schools—those were the subjects in Schedule 4. So long as they had a system of voluntary education there could apparently be no objection to adding any number of special subjects to be taught in schools, because, if the results justified the extra expenditure which was incurred, the managers of schools would continue that expenditure. They would say—"We will only teach those sub-

    1683
    jects when we can afford to do so." They considered the subjects indicated by the Education Department as subjects for instruction when it was possible to give it. Therefore, they had to consider whether or not they could afford it; and, if they could, they made provision for that instruction. But in the case of particular school boards, like the London School Board, these specific or special subjects were regarded from an entirely different position. The school boards, having the rates behind them to meet their expenditure, provided masters competent to teach these subjects at great cost. But it must be apparent to everyone that it was absolutely impossible that the vast mass of children attending their elementary schools—whether voluntary or board schools—could have either the time or the capacity to pass through the special subjects which had been added to the compulsory subjects in the Code. That fact was very clearly illustrated by some figures contained in the Report. If the children were to learn as much as they could under these optional subjects, each child would obtain 8s. per head; whereas, in point of fact, the highest earning hitherto had been 11 ¼d. per head. There was also another objection which must be apparent to those who had considered the letters which had been written in reference to the proceedings of the London School Board and other large school boards. Those school boards, of course, obtained the best teachers that they could. Many of the teachers were placed in schools where the fees were very low on account of the poverty of the district, and where they depended for a large proportion of their salary on the various examinations which were held. Consequently, it was to the interest of the masters to bring into the schools children of a higher class, for whom those schools were not intended. The question which they had to consider was, how to remove those defects? He thought that it would be very unwise to prescribe any wholesale remedy. It seemed to him that they ought, if possible, to bring a perfectly sound but, at the same time, a compact elementary education within the reach of every child, that they should, if possible, apportion the cost of that education to the means of the parents, and also that they should give ample opportunities to those children who, either by their industry or their
    1684
    capacity, or by their aspirations, might wish to avail themselves of a more advanced or higher education. It did not, however, appear to him to be reasonable to expect that every child who attended an elementary school should pass through all the subjects which had been added to the Code. At the present moment their system of secondary schools was rapidly improving; and, in his opinion, they ought to endeavour to grade their elementary schools, and to make the character of the elementary education given in them dependent, so far as possible, upon the fees paid. In the majority of school districts in England there were only one or two schools; and the character of the instruction given in those schools, as well as the class of children educated, would be so similar, that it would be difficult to grade these schools. But in the large towns, like London, Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, where they had the advantage of very able school boards, it would be possible for them to move in that direction if they only received encouragement from the Education Department. They would be able to grade their schools to a certain extent, and to give opportunities to the poorer children to pass from the cheaper into the more expensive schools. In the past year a remarkable feat was performed by a boy who had been in an elementary school, and who in the course of a very few years passed through the school, and obtained a Scholarship in one of the older Universities. That fact seemed to him rather to indicate the direction in which they ought to go. Of course, they ought not hastily to attempt to proceed in any wholesale manner; but if those interested in educational matters would carefully consider the suggestion he had thrown out, and would endeavour to secure co-operation in that direction in the various great centres of population in England, he did not believe that the task which he had somewhat briefly indicated would be beyond their power to achieve. He begged to thank the Committee for having listened to him with so much patience; and he would only, in conclusion, say that it seemed to him that if they could work in the direction he had indicated he believed they would secure the most efficacious means of making their elementary schools lead to their Universities, and would provide a

    1685
    thoroughly sound system of national education in all its branches and in all its phases.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that the noble Lord had instituted a comparison between the results obtained that year and the preceding year. He thought that to obtain a proper comparison he should go a little further back, as it would be interesting to the Committee to know what had been the effect of the legislation. While the accommodation and the number of children upon the register had both increased 123 per cent in 10 years, the average number of children in attendance had only increased 127 per cent. The result of that was, that the average attendance had only just kept pace with the increase of accommodation in the schools. It was a satisfactory thing to find that they had 127 per cent more children in average attendance than they had 10 years ago. But it was not so satisfactory when they remembered that the attendance had increased only in the same proportion as the accommodation. It should be remembered that they had introduced compulsory bye-laws, and it was confidently expected, that larger numbers would be driven into the schools, which had proved to be the case. The noble Lord had astonished him by saying that, at the present time, the amount of accommodation for children exceeded by 500,000 what it need be.
    LORD GEORGE HAMILTONwished to explain that what he had said did not refer to the populous localities or large towns. Taking the total amount of accommodation throughout England, the result would be as he had stated.
    MR. CHAMBERLAINsaid, that, of course, he made allowance for that. He found that, from the Report of the Education Department in 1878, it was calculated the total number of children for whom it was necessary to provide accommodation in elementary schools was 4,899,000; and the Report went on to say that it was not to be expected that all these children would be put to school; and allowing, therefore, for that fact, seven-tenths of that accommodation would be sufficient. He ventured to say that was not the case; for if they turned to the Report of the Committee of 1878, on the first page would be found the statement that, whereas the average attendance during the scholastic
    1686
    year was 2,405,000 per diem, yet that 2,944,000 children were present on the day of examination. It was obvious that they ought to provide accommodation for the maximum number that might be present on any one day, when the number was greatly in excess of the average attendance. He hoped that the noble Lord would not rest satisfied with the present proportion of attendance. He found that at present they had accommodation for 3,492,000 children, whereas they had an average attendance of 2,405,000 children. The result, therefore, showed that if they were speaking in a manufacturing sense they would say that the schools had been working little more than half-time, and he did not see why they should not express in that manner their sentiments with regard to education. He wished that the noble Lord would look a little more kindly at the proposal to draw more children into the schools than could be done under the present system. The noble Lord seemed to throw every obstacle in the way of trying an experiment in the direction of increasing the attendance of children, and had, on the contrary, spoken of still further raising the school fees. Was it not worth while to consider whether the result they desired to bring about could not be achieved by lowering or abolishing the fees altogether? He did not, however, suppose that there would be any chance in that House of establishing universal free schools; but where the local authorities were willing to try the experiment they might do so. He thought that the Department should promote this, and not, as at present, reject all such proposals. Why should the country pursue a course with regard to education which no other country pursued? In all other countries, both Transatlantic and Continental, the tendency was either to lower or to abolish the fees altogether. He thought that the same experiment should be promoted in the education of this country, wherever such a thing was possible; but now, whenever a school board proposed to establish a cheap school, objection was at once raised, because it was supposed that the interests of the denominational schools would be injuriously affected. He was convinced that if the fees were generally reduced it would draw children into the schools, and, at the

    1687
    same time, the average attendance would come up in a much greater degree to the total amount of accommodation. He would now pass on to consider the results which had been already achieved. He always looked at the Return which gave the number of children passing Standards 4 and 6 as very important. The education obtained by children who did not come up to Standard 4 was not of a very high character. He confessed that it was a somewhat humiliating thing to find that during the last 18 months only 218,000 children passed in these Standards, being only 6¼ per cent of the children upon the register, and only 9 per cent of the children in average attendance at the schools. Assuming that the same number would ultimately pass in future years as in the years he tad quoted, the fact would remain that less than one-fifth of the total number of the children on the register would receive any education worthy of the name. He was glad to find—and in that he differed from the noble Lord—that the educational results in the board schools were better than the results in the ordinary Church schools. The noble Lord had told them that the board schools were more expensive than the Church schools; but the excess of expenditure on the board schools was only about 10 per cent over the expenditure of the denominational schools. As almost the whole of the board schools were in towns they, of necessity, cost much more than the denominational schools in the country. Taking that into account, the difference of 10 per cent between the cost of the two kinds of schools was very trifling, and was nothing more than might be expected. He thought the result showed very great economy in the administration of board schools. The noble Lord had also told them that the more expensive system of board schools did not give better results than the voluntary system. He tested the system by the results as shown in the earnings of the two classes of schools; but to depend upon the savings only as a test of results was not fair to the board schools; because, assuming that they were new schools, in the first year or two of their establishment they might not obtain a very large attendance. It was only after two or three years that the test of attendance became fair. The noble Lord would find that
    1688
    the total percentage of children who passed in all standards had risen since 1872, 15·09 per cent in the board schools, and were now. The per centage in the Church schools had, on the other hand, decreased in the corresponding eight years, and stood now at 9 per cent. He did not mean to say that the Church schools were less efficient than they were in 1871; but the examinations were more stringent than they were, and it was the fact that they had not shown any marked advance at all, while the board schools were advancing, and had shown better results than the denominational schools. The results of the board schools, according to these calculations, were 10 per cent better than those of the denominational schools; and if they cost only about 10 per cent more than the denominational schools the country might congratulate itself upon getting a fair return for its money. The noble Lord had alleged that the increase in the Government grant was due to the increase being made upon the capitation grant. [Lord GEORGE HAMILTON: The abolition of the capitation grant.] Including the amount for infants, the capitation grant now amounted to about 8s. on the total amount per head, the increase in the total sum received being in the grant for examination, which had risen from 4s. 10¾d. to 6s. 10¾d. He thought they had some reason to congratulate themselves upon the results already achieved, although he thought that they might be more satisfactory in many respects. He was bound, however, to say that he did not think the Department had any right to take credit for the results that had been effected; for some of their recent actions had been rather in the direction of obstructing where they ought to have promoted, and of promoting where they ought to have rejected. If the present policy of the Education Department were continued, it would become the most doctrinaire and the most centralizing of all the Departments of the Government. There seemed to be an attempt—though he would not lay it upon the shoulders of the noble Lord—to stereotype education throughout the country; and he could not conceive anything which would be more fatal to the interests of education. He would only give one or two illustrations of what he had advanced. In the case of the Birmingham School Board

    1689
    they wished to employ female teachers. The Department at first refused to allow them to do so; but, eventually, the noble Lord consented, and since that time female teachers had been employed by the Board. Although the Birmingham School Board was able, from its size and importance, to obtain the reversal of the decision of the Department, yet the small boards throughout the country would no more think of resisting the decree of the Department than of flying, and thus the Department would destroy all that liberty and that freedom in education which would produce the most beneficial results. He was very glad to find that the Birmingham School Board were not only permitted to employ female teachers, but had converted the Education Department to their views. In the Report of the Department, they stated that there were at present a large number of school mistresses employed in elementary schools who were at once the most suitable and most efficient teachers for two-thirds of the children attending those schools. It was also said that the Department most entirely sympathized with the remarks recently made by the Minister of Education in Japan. But he should like to know when the Department was converted to the views of a Minister of Education in Japan, and what made them now entertain his opinion that it was a desirable thing to have as many women teachers as possible in elementary schools? How was it, if they entertained those views, that they objected to the employment of female teachers by the Birmingham School Board, although they now alleged that the proposal had met with their entire approval? The questions in which the Department chiefly interfered were those concerning the building of schools; and the views there put forward were of the most absurd description. While he had the honour to occupy the position of Chairman of the Birmingham School Board, they proposed to build an infant school with a semi-circular bay, as being the most convenient form for the teachers to observe and direct the school. The Education Department said that they could not permit a school to be constructed with a semi-circular bay, and that it must be a square bay. He could not conceive the policy which dictated that sort of interference, and which re-
    1690
    fused to permit experiments which might be continued to very useful results. Recently the Department had also interfered in a more serious manner. They had interfered in what they styled "the interests of economy." He wished to put it to the noble Lord that he had no business to interfere between the ratepayers and their authorized representatives. The whole principle of the Education Act of 1870 was, in his opinion, that education was to be carried out, within certain limits, by boards representing the majority of the ratepayers in each district. If the boards incurred an excessive expenditure, the ratepayers had their remedy, for they could, turn the board out, and supply its place by men of more economical views. But if, on the other hand, the expenditure met with the approval and consent of the ratepayers, why should the noble Lord come down and reverse the decision of the majority of the ratepayers? In Birmingham a strong contest had taken place with respect to the action of the School Board; and the ratepayers, by an overwhelming majority, had expressed their approval of the action of the Board. With the full consent of their ratepayers, they had built schools which would be a credit to any school board in the Kingdom. They had not wasted the money of the ratepayers; but they had thought it right that the schools should be ornamental, and they had also thought it right to provide a fitting home for the work which they were to carry on. Their work had been submitted to the public, and in the election the ratepayers of Birmingham, by an enormous majority, had given their entire approval to the action of the board. To take another instance, he would draw attention to the architect's department. Of the gentleman who occupied the position of architect to the Education Department he wished to say nothing ill; but he did not think that he was likely to be a person whose practice or experience was likely to be greater than that of the local architects employed by the different boards throughout the country, who were generally gentlemen at the head of their Profession. It was too much to expect gentlemen of that kind to submit their plans to the official who undertook to be the architect of the whole Kingdom. A plan of the architect to the

    1691
    Birmingham School Board was submitted to the architect of the Department, who said that he would not approve of it, because the design was too expensive. He was asked what alteration he would suggest, and thereupon he took a ruler from his desk, and ruled off every projection from the school building until he had left it a brick block. Then he said—"That is the plan for an elementary school." In his opinion, such conduct as that was insulting to the architect, and insulting to the school board of Birmingham, and it was also insulting to the ratepayers, who had approved of the action and conduct of the board. He had one other representation to make against the Department over which the noble Lord so ably presided—namely, that the Department had interfered in numbers of cases where it ought not to have done so, and had not interfered in many cases where it was their duty to do so. The other day a Question was asked of the noble Lord with reference to the Horley school board, which was presided over by the vicar of the parish. The board refused to appoint the only candidate for a female teachership, on the ground that she was a Baptist. The noble Lord, from his answer, wished the House to infer that there was no general bann against the employment of a Nonconformist by the Horley school board; he also said that he had so many complaints with regard to that particular matter that he did not think it right to interfere. He (Mr. Chamberlain) would have thought that if he had had so many complaints he ought to have interfered. He would challenge the noble Lord to produce one case in which a school board, where there was a Nonconformist majority, had refused to appoint teachers who were not Nonconformists. Of course, such instances might exist in the annals of the Education Department; but no such case had ever come to his knowledge. In the case of the Horley school board it was admitted, by all the members of the board, that the female candidate was well qualified for the position; but the vicar of the parish objected to a Nonconformist being appointed. It was observed that if it had not been intended to appoint a Nonconformist that should have been mentioned in the advertisement, and he fully agreed with that.
    1692
    As it was, the unfortunate girl was sent back to her parents on account of her religion; and the same board also rejected a youth who was a candidate for a pupil scholarship on precisely similar grounds. If it had been intended to make religious belief a disqualification for the appointments, then that should have been indicated. He thought that wherever instances of the rejection of candidates on the ground of religious belief occurred the noble Lord would be justified, by common sense and by the good feeling of the country, in interfering to stop them. He sincerely hoped that the noble Lord would take the remarks which he had made in good part, and that he would allow school boards as much liberty of action as possible, as he believed that in that way the real interests of education would be best served.
    MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, that at that hour it was utterly impossible to discuss in an adequate manner the very important questions raised by the speech of the noble Lord. He hoped, therefore, that the Committee would not be taken to have assented to all the proposals of the noble Lord; but, at the same time, he did not wish it to be understood that he expressed his disapproval of them. He agreed with the noble Lord that economy ought to be considered as well as the improvement of education; but he would remind the noble Lord that, in 1876, the Government gave up what he believed to be the greatest safeguard to economy, as they would find day by day and month by month—namely, that each locality should find as much money as the Department. He was aware that that had been given up, because it had caused a good deal of difficulty to the noble Lord. With regard to the question of fees, he agreed that there would be a great advantage in grading schools in large towns; but it would be utterly impossible if the noble Lord carried out the intention he had foreshadowed in the debate upon the London School Board. He believed that by grading the schools what they wished to see would be accomplished; and the whole of the middle and working classes would be willing to send their children to the board schools, and pay for the better education of their children. They desired to provide a better education for the children as far as possible;

    1693
    but he agreed that it should be paid for by the parents. He had no further remark to make, except to express his concurrence with the views of the hon. Member for Birmingham, that the Education Department was not working as well as could be wished. He thought that it was in danger of becoming too much doctrinaire. It seemed to him that there were two points to which special attention was required in the conduct of the Department. He did not wish, in any way, to blame either the permanent Chiefs or the noble Lord; but he was only pointing out the difficulties they had to contend with. In the first place, be doubted whether inspections were as carefully conducted, or the Inspectors so carefully chosen, as they might be. The noble Lord should remember that inspection was becoming more difficult by the progress of education. They required the schools to be better inspected, both in knowledge and in educational teaching, than they were before. He thought also that, speaking generally, the Department was interfering with school boards and with the managers of schools more than it might. He hoped that the Department would not throw difficulties in the way of the labours of the school boards by seeming to think that it was necessary for them to decide whether any new school was necessary or whether it was not.
    Vote agreed to.
    Resolution to be reported.
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    "That a sum, not exceeding £266,766, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1880, for Public Education in Scotland."
    MR. RAMSAYobjected to so important a Vote being taken immediately before 6 o'clock, and moved that Progress be reported.
    House resumed.
    Resolution to be reported To-morrow;
    Committee also report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

  SUPPLY—REPORT.
  Resolutions [29th July] reported.
  MR. J. HOLMShad understood that the Government had promised not to
  1694
  take the Vote for the Consular Service until they had laid certain Papers with reference to it before the House. He found, however, that the Vote had been passed.
  Sir HENRY SELWIN-IBBETSONdid not think that there was any such understanding on the part of the Government; but he believed that the Papers in question would soon be in the hands of hon. Members. He hoped, therefore, that no objection would now be made. He would take that opportunity of correcting an error into which he fell in giving an answer to a question with reference to the salary of one of the Directors of the Suez Canal. He fell into the mistake of saying that during his absence from England, and while acting as Minister to the Khedive, Mr. Rivers Wilson also received his salary as a Director of the Suez Canal. He wished now to state that he found, on inquiry, that that gentleman did not receive his salary as a Director of the Suez Canal during his absence from England.
  Resolutions agreed to.

  TIPPERARY BOROUGHS BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. ARTHUR MOORE, Bill to constitute the Borough of Cashel, the Town of Tipperary, the Town of Nenagh, and the Town of Thurles into a Parliamentary Borough under the name of the Tipperary Boroughs, ordered to be brought in by Mr. ARTHUR MOORE, Mr. GRAY, Mr. MELDON, and Mr. O'SHAUGHNESSY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 271.]

  ENDOWED SCHOOLS ACTS CONTINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Lord GEORGE HAMILTON, Bill to continue for a further period the powers of making Schemes under the Endowed Schools Acts, 1869,1874, and 1876, ordered to be brought in by Lord GEORGE HAMILTON and Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 272.]

  REGULATION OF RAILWAYS ACTS CON TINUANCE BILL.
  On Motion of Viscount Sandon, Bill to continue for a further period the Regulation of Railways Acts 1873 and 1874, ordered to be brought in by Viscount SANDON and Mr. J. G. TALBOT.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 270]
  House adjourned at Six o'clock.