peculiarly desirable to attain, while even assuming that they are desirable his means entirely miss the end he has in view. They would not in reality largely increase the number of pupil-teachers, they would not give any impulse to studies beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic, and would not do anything worth speaking of towards helping small schools; for, while my right hon. Friend makes grants and spends an enormous sum of public money to be able to include them, he annexes conditions which would effectually exclude them. It is like the old story of the man who could not think of any way of roasting his pig except burning down his house. I beg to submit this also-that having got a system which works efficiently and economically, we should do wisely for the present to let it alone; and for this reason—that such is the feeling of nervousness and anxiety all over the country from the changes that have been made, and made under the compulsion of the Report of the Commission, that even a beneficial change-a change by which more public money finds its way to managers of schools-will be looked upon with jealousy, because it will shake the feel the small schools can only get the remainder by complying with very strict and difficult conditions which they are notoriously unable to comply with, for they are the very schools which, as he himself admits, are unable to satisfy the existing requirements of the Privy Council. So that the course we are asked to pursue is to make a grant for the aid of small schools, the lion's share, and much more than the lion's share, of which shall go to the large schools, which do not want it: and as to the remainder, to clog it with conditions which shall prevent the small schools getting even that. And that is what is called stimulating and assisting small schools! Sir, if that is not a waste of public money, I do not know what is. It is doubtless desirable to assist small schools if possible, but the difficulties are great. In assisting small schools there are two principles upon which we may proceed. If we are to give grants for efficiency, it is impossible to assist small and poor schools to the same extent that we do large ones. If we are to give it for need, we may indeed do that, but it will break down the whole system. Between these two alternatives we are placed, and what I submit is that my righting that this matter is not likely to be tamhon. Friend has not extricated himself from either. He has not broken down his system by giving to poor schools, but what he has done is this-while he has had in view giving assistance to small schools, poorly supported and weak in their staff, he has really given a quantity of prizes to large schools that do not want it. I do hope, therefore, that the House will pause before they grant £70,000 to be expended in this manner. As I said before, it is not here that the shoe pinches ; it is in a different direction-it is in the inability of the voluntary system to extend itself all over the country. I think my right hon. Friend has turned his attention in the wrong direction. The problem he had to solve was not to give more grants to schools that do not want it, in the vain hope of giving it to those which do, but to extend the system and make it pervade the country. Education I know has an all-atoning sound, and it appears very invidious to refuse anything that is asked for in its name. If my right hon. Friend can show us that this money will do any substantial good to the cause of education, by all means let us vote it; but, till I am answered, I shall maintain that I have shown the House that the objects which my right hon. Friend wishes to attain are not objects which it is pered with. I think managers of schools are entitled to this security as long as the system under which they act does really perform what its projectors contemplated. As long as schools go on increasing, and the attendance of children becomes larger year by year-as long as the grant is kept within reasonable proportions, we should not interfere with it and alter the conditions, because the inference is obvious, that the same interference which in a hot fit adds to these grants, may, in a cold fit, take away from them. Nothing is more desirable than that those on whose money we count to support the schools should feel that they have something permanent and definite on which they can count, and adapt their arrangements to it. I am quite sure that the changes which were made in 1862, however much they were repined at at the time, have given the present system a new lease and a new chance. I do not regard that system as abstractedly right, and I have never concealed that opinion; but I should be most unwilling to see it swept away, because before a new system could be organized on its ruins-and it has struck deep roots into the country-the education of one generation of Englishmen would be nearly lost in the course of the transition from the old to the new. Try, therefore, by all the means you can to extend the system where it has not yet reached; keep it economical, that it may be popular and tolerable; above all things, look carefully to its efficiency, and then I think we shall be in a condition, when some few years have passed, to see whether the system can be moulded or extended so as to be worthy to be a national system, or whether it must give way to something more logical. Of this I am quite sure, that those are the worst enemies of the system who, for whatever reason, tamper with it-whether from feeling the difficulties which managers have to contend with, or perhaps from a feeling of the great popularity to be gained all over the country by undoing changes which were wrought out with so much unpopularity to those who made them. If once it is understood that he who tries to economise the public money and to secure efficiency is only labouring to give some one else a douceur to give away and so acquire popularity, the death knell of the system is sounded, and it must make way for something which, whether more efficient or not, will be more in accordance with the feelings of Parliament and the reasonable wants of the country. Amendment proposed, To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "this House dissents from so much of the Minute of the Committee of Council on Education as small schools, which is quite true. But he has added that he does not look on the exclusion of small schools from sharing in the grants as an evil. My right hon. Friend stated on a recent occasion that his position was one of isolation, and that he could not get any one to agree with him. But in this instance he does not even agree with himself; because in 1862, when he explained the Revised Code to the House, after having enumerated 964 parishes, in five counties only, having a population of less than 600, which derived no assistance from the State, he said "These districts contribute to the revenue equally with others; and it is exceedingly desir- MR. LOWE: Will the right hon. Gentleman allow me to explain? What I said was, that I thought the exclusion of small schools was a great evil; but that it was not a great evil that small schools should be more expensive to maintain than large ones. MR. CORRY: I am glad to find that my right hon. Friend admits the exclusion of small schools to be a great evil. It must, therefore, be desirable to give them some assistance. My right hon. Friend went on to state that although it had been provides for an increase of the Grants now made complained that under the existing system to Primary Schools,"—(Mr. Lowe,) -instead thereof. the education given in schools was almost exclusively confined to reading, writing, and arithmetic-grammar, English hisMR. CORRY: Although I am no longer tory, and geography being neglected-he connected with the Department which this did not think that that was an evil, beMinute concerns, yet as the author of the cause the great object in educating the plan on which it is founded, I think it children of the poor was to teach them right to say a few words in its defence. reading, writing, and arithmetic. On a My right hon. Friend has stated that while former occasion I quoted the opinions of be regarded it as a great mistake to add some of the most intelligent of the in£70,000 to the Education Vote, he would spectors of schools, who agreed in regretnot complain of that large expenditure if ting the practical exclusion of higher subhe believed it would conduce to any useful jects. I do not want to introduce any purpose; but that not believing it would very ambitious system of education; but do so, he felt it his duty to oppose it. II certainly think it desirable that children qui agree that if this additional expendi ure would not serve any useful end the House ought to refuse to grant it; but I am convinced not only that it will be usefully employed, but that the state of education in some of the schools receiving a public grant is becoming such as to render it absolutely necessary. My right hon. Friend has remarked that one of the objects of the Minute is to give assistance to VOL. CLXXXVI. [THIRD SERIES.] should know something of the country in 2 Q I hap school, that he had never learnt anything | children for grants according to their age had to We cannot think that the oppoof geography, and had never heard of be withdrawn. sition which this measure, adopted upon the resuch places as Dublin, or Edinburgh. I commendation of the Royal Commissioners, enthen asked him whether he had been at countered rested upon good grounds. The school the Roman Catholic or at a Protestant itself, for the purpose of instruction, must, of school? He said a Protestant, and when course, have continued to be organized according I further inquired if he knew the differ- in fact, far oftener than not. The change of arto proficiency; but age and proficiency coincide, ence between a Protestant and a Roman rangement for examination (supposing such a Catholic, he said, "Oh! the Roman change to be necessary, which it is not) would Catholics are people who burn candles in have been partial only. The reason for examin the daylight," which this intelligent ing according to age was this; the amount of proficiency required by Standard VI. represents the youth considered a convincing proof of the minimum of book instruction which can be put to errors of Popery. I am not quite cer- practical use in life. Less than this is almost sure tain whether the boy's answers may not to be forgotten, because it cannot be used with have put it into my head that this was a pleasure or profit." common case of neglect in all schools, and so have led to the inquiry which resulted in the framing of this Minute. My right hon. Friend alleges that if the reading, writing, and arithmetic are not in a satisfactory state it affords a conclusive argument against teaching boys grammar and history; but I remember quite well that when I proposed my Minute, some weeks ago, my predecessor in the office of Vice President of the Council (Mr. Bruce) for whose ability and judgment everything that I saw when I was in that office inspired me with the greatest respect agreed with me, and disagreed with my right hon. Friend; for he stated that, in his experience, in whatever schools the higher subjects were successfully taught, there also reading, writing, and arithmetic were also found to be most carefully attended to. Therefore, my right hon. Friend (Mr Lowe), I think, fails to make out his argument that teaching the higher subjects tends to weaken the instruction in the elementary branches. With regard to the number of children examined and their proficiency, I will again state what the latest statistics show. The average attendance of children in England and Wales for the year ending the 31st of August was 863,240, of which number 566,371 were presented for examination. 284,027 of these passed the three lower standards, and upwards of 80,000 in the fifth or higher standard. But the number of those who passed Standard VI, or the highest standard, was 13,000 only, out of a total of 566,000. My right hon. Friend stated, not in a speech, but in a much more formal manner that is to say, in the Report of the Committee of Council for Education for the years 1861-2, drawn up by himself and by my noble Friend Lord Granville"We regret that our first proposal to examine Only 13,000, therefore, out of 566,000 My I found, moreover, a great diminution in the supply of candidates for the certificate, threatening to break down the whole system of certificated teachers, it appeared to me that my duty was clear to take immediate action, and I lost no time in submitting the outlines of the Minute for the consideration of the Cabinet. I do not care whether I violated the rules of political economy or not; my object was to improve the quality of the teaching in the schools by increasing the number of pupilteachers; and, notwithstanding the sinister auguries of my right hon. Friend, I have no doubt that the Minute will effect the object at which it aims. My right hon. Friend says that before the introduction of the Revised Code, the salary of a pupil-teacher was £15 on the average of the five years of apprenticeship. But at that time the State paid the salary of the pupil-teacher, and the State always pays more than persons in private life. I inquired a short time ago from a very intelligent diocesan inspector what was the average rate of payment to pupilteachers in his district, and he told me about £9 a year. That was in a rural district; in an urban district it would undoubtedly be higher. But, at all events, the rate of £15 put by my right hon. Friend is far above the present average even in large towns. As to the cost of an extra pupil-teacher, you must remember that additional teaching power can hardly fail to produce additional results of teaching; and that it must, therefore, be assumed that the number of passes would be increased by the employment of a greater number of pupilteachers. In looking over one of the Inspectors' Reports recently received, but not yet presented to the House, I found a particular school mentioned, in which a pupil-teacher having been dismissed, through the poverty of the school, there had been a falling off of 30 per cent in the number of the passes, and, of course, the payment on results to which the school was entitled was diminished in proportion. It may naturally be inferred that if, under this Minute, a pupil-teacher is again employed in this school, the payment on passes would be restored to its former amount, which would be a further contribution towards the salary of the pupilteacher. My right hon. Friend is of opinion that the educational conditions required by the Minute are too stringent, and that few schools will be able to fulfil them; but they were very carefully con In sidered by my right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board (Mr. Gathorne Hardy), by my right hon. Friend the Secretary for India (Sir Stafford Northcote), by Mr. Lingen, and by two of the inspectors of schools, and they all came to the conclusion that they were not too severe. point of fact, the conditions, in general, require less than what the average of schools now accomplish-our object being to place the increased rate of payment within the reach of indifferent schools, and thus lead to their improvement. One of the points made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) was that this additional grant of £8 would be mainly for the benefit of large schools which did not want it, to the exclusion of others by which it was really more needed. But I can assure my right hon. Friend that he is quite wrong in that respect. He says all these large schools are very rich. I believe a great many of them are very poor. A clergymanthe incumbent of a parish in London-told me some time ago that the managers of the school in his district were obliged to work it at the minimum cost possible-which he explained to mean that, whenever the limit as to numbers prescribed by the Code was reached, they suspended the further entry of children, as their funds could not afford the expense of an additional pupil-teacher. That is a state of things far from satisfactory. The effect, then, of this Minute will be not only to give assistance to necessitous small schools, but also to such large schools as may require it. I should have thought that my right hon. Friend would have been the very last person in the House to object to the Minute, because its objects are in strict conformity with the views which he himself expressed in the year 1862, but which the Revised Code has in some respects failed to realize. It offers some assistance to small schools with the view of helping them to fulfil the conditions which would entitle them to a public grant-and this my right hon. Friend stated to be in accordance with every principle of policy and justice. holds out inducements to improved teaching, and I have shown that, under the existing system, the results fall far below the minimum which my right hon. Friend considers indispensable. It encourages the employment of a pupil-teacher where there are sixty-five children in average attendance, instead of ninety, as at present, and the original draft of the Revised Code, as prepared by my right hon. Friend, pro It posed that there should be a pupil-teacher for every thirty children. If you are of opinion that one unassisted teacher can be capable of instructing eighty-nine children of various ages, vote with the right hon. Gentleman-if not, vote with If you consider the results of the examinations, as shown by the statistics I have quoted, to be satisfactory, vote with him-if not vote with me. In short, if you wish to discourage education you will vote with him, but if you wish to encourage it, you will vote with me. me. regard to males than females; and therefore he thought that the Government had done right in giving the greater stimulus to male teachers. No doubt with regard to small schools the great difficulty had been that they did not receive sufficient assistance from educational grants. In many small parishes there did exist schools; but the education was of a very defective character, and he understood that it was the intention of the Government gently to draw these schools within their influence, and to supply them with a higher class of teachers, MR. POWELL said, that on former in the hope that education might receive a occasions he had made complaints of the corresponding advance. He believed that continual changes of the system, on the under the proposed system a considerable ground that they produced uncertainty number of small schools would be drawn and prevented its extension and expansion. within Government influence. The right But the difficulty arose to a great extent hon. Gentleman omitted to consider that from the fact that all the changes as schools increased they would require an had been in the direction of economy. increased number of pupil-teachers; that It was rather surprising, in the present they must increase the number of pupilstate of politics, to find the right hon. teachers to supply the place of those who Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) such a persistent passed into training colleges; and that inadvocate for fixity and permanence of ducements must be offered to managers to system. The right hon. Gentleman looked effect these objects. He (Mr. Powell) upon the Revised Code with the view of thought that it was a wise and just prosome ancient law-giver, who desired that vision that children must pass a higher his laws should remain in a state of fixed- standard in a greater proportion before the ness. The right hon. Gentleman himself schools could derive advantage from the stated, before the Committee on Educa- increased grant; for there was reason to tion, that hesuppose that the children were too often kept within the lower standard. He believed that the absence of teaching in the higher subjects was a great deficiency of our present system, and that they should teach reading and writing with a double object-first, that of merely teaching it; and secondly, that of impressing the minds of the pupils with higher knowledge. In some parts of the Continent education had been narrowed, as with us, to its very elements; but last year a proposal was made to improve education in France, and part of the plan was to teach geography and the history of the country. The Minute appeared to him to be beneficial. "Considered the Minutes as they then existed did very well, and felt like Lycurgus did when he made the Spartans promise to keep his laws until he came back again." But even Lycurgus was a benevolent MR. BRUCE said, his right hon. Friend (Mr. Lowe) had divided his attack on the Minute into two parts. In the first place, he said that nothing was required; in the second place, he argued that if anything was required the present attempt to overcome the objections to the Revised Code was ineffective and futile. Great as had been the exertions of his right hon. Friend, great as had been his courage, and great as had been his public virtue in passing that Code, still he (Mr. Bruce) was far from saying that |