But the calculations of the Com- 5,000,000l. It was time that mittee of Council had been Parliament should check and vitiated by the migratory and control this wasteful expendiwandering habits of some of the ture. He contended that the children, an evil for which no Report of the Commissioners, practical remedy was provided which had been cited in favour by the Revised Code-while the of the existing Code, was conReports of the inspectors had demnatory of it and fatal to the been paraphrased. He com- whole system. He denied the plained that those who thought religious results upon which so that morality and religion should much stress was laid; it had have precedence of reading, writ- failed in these results, as it had ing, and arithmetic had been in those of reading, writing, and ridiculed, and that the evidence arithmetic; and he cited evihad been unfairly used to cast dence showing that the answers groundless imputations upon the of children under examination parochial clergy and the masters. indicated only a recollection of Insisting that there was no evi- dry historical facts. Not subdence to justify the overthrow of scribing to the entire Revised the existing system, he entreated Code, he pointed out its great the House to pause before it gave improvements upon the Code of its sanction to the Revised Code, 1860. One point not noticed in especially considering the time the debate, he said, was and manner in which it had been nature of the teaching under brought before Parliament. the existing system, which was pitched too high; it was too ambitious, cramming the headboys instead of instilling elementary education into the great mass. A great blot upon the Revised Code was, that it did not deal with the Training Colleges, which received a large amount from the public taxes, though originally founded upon self-supporting principles, and it was in evidence that the subscriptions had fallen off since the Government had paid so much. Indeed, witnesses of the highest credit declared that the system of national education had suffered from this cause that Government grants had crippled private energies. He had come to the conclusion that, if the education was to be conducted on right principles, the grants should be gradually withdrawn, and the country taught to run alone. Mr. Bernal Osborne said he could not see why so much odium had been cast upon Mr. Lowe, to whom he gave great credit for industry and moral courage in grappling with cumbrous details unintelligible to the many and puzzling to the few. He had laid bare the principle and working of the whole system, and it was not surprising that he should have provoked an outcry from those who had been nurtured by the large outlay under this artificial system. The question was, how far the Revised Code would be advantageous to the public interests, and good for the public in general. The existing system had cost in 20 years 4,500,000l., the expenditure growing up unchecked by Parliament; and, according to Dr. Temple, the system would ultimately cost, if carried out, Mr. Adderley observed, it was agreed on both sides that some Revision of the Code of 1860 was necessary; the only question was as to the time and mode of the revision. The proposed revision had been unjustly characterized as intended to revolutionize the present system; its apparent object was to limit the interference of the Government, and to revive the action of voluntary agency, which had been overlaid by Government aid. So far the proposition was wise; but the mode of carrying it out was a more difficult question. After referring to certain points which had been misunderstood by the opponents of the Revised Code, he observed that there were two difficulties which he could not at present see his way through. One was the proposal for the individual examination of every scholar, not having heard by what machinery it was to be carried out. The other was the effect which various causes, diminishing attendance during the examination, might have upon the income of schools. One great object of the Code ought to be to spread the Government grant, and extend the use of it throughout the country, the poorer districts keeping aloof from the Privy Council through terror of Government inspection,-an objection which the Revised Code would remove. He deprecated the discussion of this question in relation to particular interests; the primary consideration to be kept in view was, the good of the labouring classes, and how far Government should come in aid of voluntary action. If that had broken down, then let the Government take the management into its own hands; but, if the voluntary principle was still alive, let means be taken to check Government interference. Mr. L. Gower defended the proposals of the Government from some of the objections brought against them. He considered that the fears expressed in regard to the financial prospects of the schools were much exaggerated. Mr. Liddell objected generally to the Revised Code, and especially to the system of grouping according to age. He doubted some of the statements contained in the Reports of the AssistantCommissioners, upon which portions of the Revised Code had been founded. Mr. Baines considered that it was a great fault in both the old Code and the new, that the public money was in a very large degree wasted upon schools which needed it the least, or not at all, while those that required most had little, or none, of the Government grant. He referred to instances of large sums given to schools in wealthy districts, where parents were able to pay for the education of the children; and in some cases, the managers did not know what to do with the capitation grant. This was a gross abuse of the public charity, which had a demoralizing effect, and other injurious consequences. He appealed to strong testimony in support of this assertion, and contended that, in a very moderate percentage upon the wages of the working classes, there existed a large fund untouched for the education of the poor; and that, if the people were left to themselves, it would make greater progress; their ability, and their willingness to make provision having been demonstrated. Sir J. Pakington stated the reasons why he was obliged to support the Resolutions of Mr. Walpole. He had seen no reason to alter his opinion of the Privy Council system, which was too costly, too centralized, and did not reach the districts where Government aid was most required. He cited figured statements, showing the comparatively small number of children educated at schools, receiving Government aid, and the new plan did nothing to meet this difficulty. There was but one mode of correcting the evil-namely, by establishing some local agency and control. He agreed with Mr. Baines, that much money was expended in undue grants to schools; but the Revised Code would not correct this evil. He believed that, while such schools would be as well off as now, others would be abandoned altogether. He did not defend extravagant grants, but extravagance was a relative term, depending upon the effects produced by the outlay. He adverted to certain salutary recommendations of the Commissioners, which the Committee of the Privy Council had passed over and ignored. The question before the House, he observed was not one of principle, but of details; and with respect to one of the details the proposal of making the Government aid depend upon the examination of each childhis opinion was that, if adopted, it would cut away the good now derived from the system, and aggravate an evil now existing. Another feature of the scheme he saw with deep regret-the ignoring of a class of schools the most destitute and most deserving of assistance. Mr. Lowe, after a brief reply to Sir J. Pakington, observed that it seemed to him there was really no question before the House, as there was no opposition to going into Committee; he did not, therefore, think it necessary then to discuss the questions raised in the debate, as they must be gone over again in the Committee. He obviated an objection suggested by Mr. Adderley, as to the machinery for the individual examination of each child, and answered effectively certain charges made against him by Mr. Whiteside. He noticed a few topics connected with the question, and, as to the expense of the existing system, he showed that it was much greater than that of education in France, Ireland, or Scotland, repeating what he had formerly said—that the present system was neither efficient nor cheap, and that the scheme proposed, if not both, would be one or the other. With reference to the alleged neglect in the Revised Code of morals and religion, he reminded the House that the Code annexed all the old conditions to the grants, adding another condition that of examination; and he showed how these conditions would be enforced. As to the case of pupil-teachers, or paid monitors, of which so much had been said, he insisted that their condition, which was now precarious, would be very much improved under the new system. The Revised Code was not all he wished, but it was acknowledged that the present system required great alteration, and the Govern ment were ready to consider in the most conciliatory spirit, any propositions made in the Committee. The motion for the House to go into Committee was then agreed to. A short time before the Houses adjourned for the Easter Recess, Earl Granville stated in the House of Lords, the modifications which, in consequence of the discussions that had taken place, the Government had resolved to make in the Revised Code; they were principally these-the sum of 4s. a year was to be given on the average yearly attendance of each pupil; 8s. for reading, writing and arithmetic, for every pupil who should attend 200 times, subject to a deduction of 1s. 3d. in case of failure in attendance. The group ing of pupils for examination was to be made in such manner as the managers might think best. The education grant would be made answerable for any deficiency in the stipends of the pupil-teachers. The grant might be withdrawn, if religious instruction should beneglected in Church of England Schools. Any future revision of the Code was to be laid before Parliament, for one month before its coming into operation. The Government, the noble Lord stated, did not entirely approve of these alterations, which were concessions made to the wishes of the House of Commons. But any further alterations would, in the opinion of the Government, render the whole scheme worthless. Mr. Lowe made a similar statement in the House of Commons, explaining that the concessions were made in deference to the generally-expressed wish of that House. Mr. Walpole accepted with cordiality the concessions proposed by the Government, and suggested that an interval should be allowed before resuming the discussion, in order to the final settlement of the question. On the 5th of May, the debate on the modified Code, came on in the House of Commons. It was opened by Mr. Walpole, who said he wished to state the reasons which had led him to the conclusion, that it would be right and wise for Parliament to accept the Revised Code as now modified, though he had some doubts as to the working of it. The Government, he observed, had virtually acquiesced, in point of principle, in almost every one of his Resolutions, as he showed by comparing the Resolutions with the proposed modifications; and, considering the spirit in which they had met the objections urged against the Revised Code, it would be ungenerous, in his opinion, to try to obtain larger concessions. reviewed the objections which had been raised to the Government proposals during the recess, indicating the extent to which he agreed with or dissented from them; and, in conclusion, tendered his thanks to the Government for meeting the objections to the Code in a fair and liberal spirit, expressing his willingness to accept it, not as a final settlement, but as a trial, till it could be seen whether it worked well. He moved, as a matter of form, his first Resolution: "That, where it is proposed to He give Government aid to elementary schools, it is inexpedient that the whole amount of such aid should depend on the individual examination of each child in reading, writing, and arithmetic." Mr. Henley observed that he was bound to acknowledge that the Government had gone further to remove objections than could have been expected, and that he agreed with Mr. Walpole, that the House must not be held pledged to the Code as modified, but must see how it worked. He then examined, at considerable length, and in much detail, various parts of the scheme, protesting against certain positions laid down by Mr. Lowe, in his published speech, touching religious instruction, especially that the Committee of the Privy Council had only to deal with secular matters, and (unless he had misunderstood him) that they had nothing to do with religious teaching. Sir J. Pakington quite concurred with Mr. Walpole that, after the concessions made by the Government, in deference to the opinions expressed in Parliament, whatever he might think of the probable working of the Revised Code, there was no sufficient ground for further Parliamentary opposition. At the same time he regretted that, owing to further time not being given, a fair opportunity had been lost of bringing this difficult question to a final settlement. He regarded the present Code as not even an approach to a settlement, but as experimental only. Lord R. Cecil agreed that the concessions made by the Government were liberal, for that the test of results had been practically abandoned. He was willing that the new Code should be tried as an experiment. Mr. Lowe said he was happy to find that the House accepted the propositions of the Government; he should, therefore, not re-enter into the discussion of the whole subject, but merely answer questions put to him. With reference to the protest of Mr. Henley on the subject of religious instruction, he had said nothing that was new, but he sought to give a true and fair account of the working of the system; and the concessions left the matter of religious teaching just as it was, the Committee of Council standing impartial between all religious bodies. Mr. Walpole's Resolution was then withdrawn. Mr. Walter afterwards moved the following Resolution:-"That to require the employment of certificated masters and pupil-teachers by managers of schools, as an indispensable condition of their participation in the Parliamentary grant, is inexpedient and inconsistent with the principle of payment for results, which forms the basis of the Revised Code." The question thus raised, he observed, was a simple one; it was a question of free trade, of open competition, and of payment with reference to work satisfactorily done. He did not prefer a bill of indictment against certificated masters and pupilteachers; those who chose to employ them might continue to do so; all he asked was, that those who did not wish to employ them might not be compelled to do so. He urged reasons and |