whom is the Lord President chiefly concerned? -With the Vice President.

172. Can you state to what extent business is conducted between the Lord President and the Vice President, or what amount of labour the Lord President, for instance, really undertakes, or is not that within your knowledge ?-It is not within my direct knowledge.

173. Mr. Thompson.] You have stated that you think that when the Committee of Council is called together for the consideration of important questions, it would be better if those questions could be decided by some person or somebody possessing both general knowledge and detailed knowledge?—Yes.

174. Are you never called in on those occasions? I am almost always called in at some part or other of them.

175. And of course you are prepared to furnish all your detailed knowledge for the information of those members of the Committee who decide upon those questions of general policy?— Yes.

176. Is not the Vice President there?—Yes. 177. Is he not there as a matter of right? Yes.

178. Is it not the case that he is present at all those meetings, unless he be accidentally kept away?—Yes.

179. And is not he, from his constant communication with you, thoroughly conversant with the working of the system throughout the country?-Yes.

180. So that, what with your knowledge and his knowledge, the fullest information of a practical kind is before those members of the Committee who have to decide those questions of general policy?—Yes.

181. You stated that the functions of the Committee of Council were merely negative, but of course, if two or three alternative propositions were put before them, they would consider the comparative merits of those questions, would they not? Yes.

182. In fact, would they not treat that business as any other body assembled for business would do, excepting that they do not originate any suggestions?—Yes.

183. Mr. Adderley.] Is the reference of the Vice President of the office to the Committee of Council anything more than the reference of the head of any other office to the Cabinet upon matters of importance?-The Committee has an existence, as I said before; but whether the Lord President and the Vice President would submit to be outvoted by the Committee I do not know. The case has never arisen yet, and I can give no opinion upon that point.

184. Mr. Thompson.] With reference to the supplementary rules, did I rightly understand you to state that they were framed by the Vice President and yourself?-Yes, in the main. I should not like to say that any given rule in that series might or might not have been laid before the Lord President; but in the main they were framed, like important instructions, between the Vice President and myself.

185. You consider that you have the power of framing supplementary rules with the consent of the Vice President?-Yes.

186. Then in fact the supplementary rules are framed, are they not, by an authority different from that which sanctioned the Minutes ?-The

illustration that I spoke of was that of judge- R. W. W. made law. The administration of any given Lingen, Esq. Minute raises cases under it; those cases are decided, and the decisions become subordinate rules.

187. In any case have those subordinate rules neutralised or limited the action of the minutes? -They may have limited them possibly; but of course I should argue that the supplementary rules had always been warranted by the Minute, and fairly fell under it.

188. In your opinion it was so, or you would not have considered that it was in the authority of yourself and of the Vice President to pass it? -No.

189. You have referred, have you not, to the parochial organisation in Scotland?-Yes.

190. And you would wish to see a parochial organisation in England?--I should like to see a local organisation; I use the word "local" advisedly, because I am not prepared to say yet whether or no a Board, exactly like the Board of Heritors in Scotland, would be the best Board in England; but so far as the parochial Board in Scotland is a local Board, I should like to see a local organisation in England.

191. But we might have a county Board, or a Board for a large district, or the organisation might be in minute divisions, similar to those in Scotland; would you like to see in England anything so minute as the parochial organisation in Scotland? I should prefer the local organisation, which would have the best chance of being adopted in this country; whether it be based on the county, the union, or the parish, I should look upon with comparative indifference, if there was a chance of having anything of the kind.

192. Have you ever considered how, if there was such a system introduced in England, you would meet the difficulty arising from the differences of religious opinion?-I always thought that the diffculty was successfully met by the Manchester Bill of 1853.

193. Mr. Forster.] With regard to the local organisation, would you limit your opinion to this, that if the distribution of the grant is to be extended to the 11,000 schools which are at present excluded, it might be by local organisation, and that such local organisation should be upon the principle that there is no local agency for distributing money granted by the Government without at the same time granting an agency for raising money?—Yes.

194. You have stated that there are other functions of the Committee of Council besides the distribution of the grant to elementary schools; have you anything to do with those other functions?-There are the normal schools, where the schoolmasters are trained; those pass through my hands.

195. Is there anything else?—No.

196. You have nothing to do with the Schools of Art or Science?-The Lord President and the Vice President have, but I have not.

197. And you are unable to give the Committee information as to the relative parts which are taken by the Lord President or the Vice President or by the Committee of Council in the performance of these functions?-I have no knowledge whatever of that.

198. Referring to a question of the Right Honourable Chairman, you stated, did you not, that it is at your discretion whether you refer

21 March1865.

R. W. W.

any matters of doubt which may arise in daily Lingen, Esq. correspondence with schoolmasters or managers, or any complaint which may be made by them as 21 March to the receipt of money to the Vice President or 1865. not? Yes.

199. I understood you to say that you believed that it was the practice in other departments, with regard to those matters of complaint in daily routine, that it was at the discretion of a permanent officer whether they were referred to the chief of the department; is that so?-Such is my impression.

200. Is it not the rule, or the custom, for you to head any letter which is sent down to the Manager with an instruction that answers are to be addressed in a particular way?—Yes. 201. In what way?-That they are to be addressed to the Secretary.

202. That is to yourself?—Yes.

The

203. Is that course adopted in other offices?In almost every office you will find at the head of the letter, or inside the envelope, a direction to whom the answer is to be addressed. reason is, that I may be away from the office on a given day, or I may be away for my holidays. The correspondents, without some such direction, almost always address their letters to the name of the person who has signed them.

204. Do you know that it is the usual practice in the Home Office, that letters upon the daily routine should not be addressed to the Secretary of State on Home Affairs, as in your office, they are addressed to yourself as a permanent official? -I have no means of knowing.

205. You stated, did you not, that you considered the Lord President the supreme officer of the Education Department ?-Yes.

206. And no doubt you would consider yourself the chief executive officer?-Yes.

207. I think I understood you also to state that since the appointment of a Vice President you have had very little personal communication with the Lord President?-No.

208. Do you find any disadvantage from the fact that you, as the executive officer, are not in personal connection with the chief of the office?

It is very difficult to define exactly what is meant by personal connection with the chief of the office. I take to the Vice President all the points which I wish to refer; but a day scarcely ever passes, and certainly a week never passes, in which I do not see Lord Granville once or twice.

209. Still I understand you to state that the rule of the office is that you communicate with the Vice President, and therefore, through him, with the Lord President; and I also understand you to state that the Lord President is the supreme official, and that upon him ultimately rests the responsibility; do you find it no disadvantage to be obliged to communicate with the chief responsible official through another official? -My official intercourse stops with the Vice President. If it goes further, it is the Vice

President's action and not mine.

210. Are the Committee to consider that from your not being brought into personal contact with the officer at the head of the Department you are at no disadvantage ?-I am not at any disadvantage. I wish to state, in answer to these questions, that I do not at all admit that I am not in communication with the Lord President. I have the freest access to him at

any time when I wish to see him, and, as a matter of fact, I do see him constantly by his sending for me, or with regard to letters which he has received, about which he has something to say to me; but, officially, as a matter of obedience, and as a matter of routine, I refer, for my orders, to the Vice President, and not to the Lord President.

211. Then are the Committee to understand by that that the rule of the office is that you communicate with the Vice President ?-Yes.

212. But that you individually are in such a relation with the Lord President that you would feel yourself perfectly at liberty to seek access to him directly upon any matter?-I do not think that I should feel at liberty, as a strict matter of right, to appeal to the Lord President against an order of the Vice President. The question has never arisen, but my own notion of official subordination would be, that each officer is under the orders of the one who is over him, and that beyond him he has no one else to look to.

213. From whom do you receive orders?— From the Vice President.

214. Do you, as the chief executive officer of the Department, consider that you are under no disadvantage in not receiving your orders from the Minister who is at the head of it?—I have found no disadvantage.

215. What education business is actually conducted by the Vice President without reference to the Lord President?-I should say that ninetenths of all the education business with us is conducted by him.

216. Would cases of complaints or matters of doubt in letters from schoolmasters or managers, which, as you have stated, you refer to the Vice President, be decided by the Vice President without reference to the Lord President?-In most instances, they would.

217. With regard to the appointment of the officers, the inspectors and the staff at the Central Office, is that done without reference to the Lord President? That is done wholly by the Lord President.

218. Is it done by the Lord President upon his own discretion, or with reference to the Committee of Council?-On his own discretion.

219. With regard to the Minutes, I understood you to state in answer to the Right Honourable Chairman that when a Minute was prepared you received your instructions from the Lord President; you afterwards qualified that by saying that that answer applied to the condition of things before a Vice President was appointed?—It would be very difficult for me to state in every instance whether I have suggested a Minute or whether I have received instructions for it. The Minutes almost always have their origin in the correspondence and working of the office; something arises which requires solution. If I had brought a succession of references to the Lord President he might, after a certain time, have given an order for a Minute to be prepared, or I might have suggested a Minute myself. The origin of the Minutes would be as various as the work of the office.

220. You have stated that nine-tenths of the education business, you would consider, would be transacted by the Vice-President, without reference to the Lord President. Can you tell the Committee of any part of the education business respecting which it is a rule of the office,

that

that it shall not be conducted without reference to the Lord President?-No, I do not think that there is any part, except the appointments, respecting which there is any rule of that kind either expressed or of practice. If a new rule had to be made, certainly the Lord President would have to be consulted. For instance, the decision of all cases which fairly fell under the code would be made by the Vice President alone, unless he, in his discretion, thought it necessary to consult the Lord President on any point of unusual difficulty.

221. Then, are the Committee to understand that the principle of distinction between business which is not referred to the Lord President, and business which is so referred, is that the Vice President has the management of the distribution of the grant as at present settled by Parliament, and that he consults the Lord President upon any intended alteration in the mode of distributing it?—Yes.

222. Are the Committee also to understand that the rule would be that when there is such a consultation with the Lord President, the Committee of Council would also be consulted?— That might or might not be so.

223. Is there any record of the proceedings of the Committee of Council?-Not unless they pass Minutes.

224. Who keeps them?-The Minutes as they are passed are put into a book, and I have that book. 225. You have already stated, have you not, that you are not always present at those meetings?

-I am not.

226. In case of such a Minute being passed, would you, as a matter of rule, be called in as Secretary to record it? If I were not present at the meeting, the Lord President would give me the Minute afterwards, and say, "This is "This is passed."

227. At present all the Members of the Committee of Council, excepting the Vice President, are Members of the Cabinet, are they not?-Yes.

228. Have you ever known of any Member, excepting the Vice President, who was not a Member of the Cabinet?-Mr. Baines, the President of the Poor Law Board, was not I think a Member of the Cabinet all the time that he was a Member of the Committee of Council. He was made a Member of the Cabinet sometime after he accepted office at the Poor Law Board. If that was so, that is the only instance of the kind which I recollect.

229. What power do you conceive to rest in the Committee of Council to modify the grants for elementary schools without their being submitted to Parliament?-As the Code now stands, they must lay every Minute upon the table of the House, if the House is sitting, for one month before they can act upon it.

230. Then, with regard to the supplementary rules upon which questions have been asked, do you consider that such supplementary rules are for the purpose of modifying the grant?-No; they are for the purpose, I should say, of putting into operation the articles of the Code.

231. Would you consider that such a rule as this, which is No. 6 of the Supplementary Rule's which were issued last year, that "No grant will be paid to a school (not being one for infants only) unless a class be presented at least as high as Standard III." is a modification of the money grant already settled by Parliament?-No; I

should say that that was an instruction to the R. W. W. inspectors, and to the managers of schools, as to Lingen, Esq. the interpretation put upon the articles which require a school to exhibit a certain character of efficiency if the grant is not to be reduced. That is the mode in which the article will be put in force.

232. I suppose, then, that the Committee are to understand that you consider that such a rule is the interpretation which the administrature of the office have a right to put upon an arrangement to which Parliament has consented? -Yes.

233. With regard to such interpretations, is any fresh interpretation which is recorded by a rule always submitted to the Lord President before it is issued ?-It would depend very much, I think, upon its importance.

334. There is no rule on the subject?-There is no rule upon the subject. Lord Granville has repeatedly stated that a new rule of practice should be submitted to him.

235. There being no rule that such new interpretation should be submitted to him, is there any rule that it must be submitted to the Vice President?-I should never think of originating such a rule without laying it before the Vice President.

236. You do not know whether it is a kind of business that would come before the Committee or not?-Unless under unusual circumstances, a question of that kind would not come before the Committee.

237. May I ask you for what reason Rule No. 6 was made by the Committee, that no grant should be paid to a school (not being one for infants only) unless a class be presented as high as Standard III. ?-When the Revised Code was first put into operation, in some instances the whole school was presented under Standard I., which is, in fact, the standard of A, B, C. That was considered not to be a bonâ fide acceptance of examination for the school, and then the question arose, "How are you going to define examination? What will be a fair compliance with the rule?" And, in the progress of that discussion, Rule No. 6 (if that be the number of it) was arrived at.

238. I am not asking for your opinion, or expressing any opinion myself, as to whether such a practice is or is not desirable; but is it not a fact, that as the schools were presented a much larger grant of money would have been received than according to the rule which you enforce by this Regulation No. 6?-Undoubtedly.

239. Then the Committee are to understand from that, that the grant of a very considerable amount of money may be determined by yourself and by the Vice President?-Yes, the lax or the strict administration of every article in the Code would make a great financial difference.

240. Lord Robert Cecil.] You have stated, I believe, that you hold it to be the duty of yourself and of the Vice President to ascertain that a certain character of efficiency was presented by the school before the grants of the Revised Code were given to it?-My answers had reference to that supplementary rule, and how it came to be established. I said that there were articles in the Code which spoke of the efficiency of schools, and that if the whole of the children in a school were presented under Standard I., we should have to come to a conclusion whether or

21 March

1865.

R. W. W. not that school was in the prescribed state of Lingen, Esq. efficiency; and so Rule 6 was made.

21 March 1865.

241. But you hold yourself at liberty, under the provisions of the Revised Code, to refuse the grant allowed by that Code to any school which does not present a certain character of efficiency? -If I do not answer the question for one moment, it is that I wish to show upon what basis I am speaking. The Code lays down that, under certain circumstances, the grant is to be withheld or reduced, and under the head of "Reduction," the efficiency of the instruction is one of the questions which the Code mentions. Under that article it is the duty of the Vice President, or whoever for the time being represents the Committee of Council, or of the Secretary, to judge of the efficiency of the school.

242. And therefore, if in his judgment of the efficiency of the school sufficient efficiency is not presented by the school, the grant would be refused or reduced ?-Yes, that would be so.

243. Do you hold yourself at liberty to place whatever interpretation upon the word "Efficiency" your own judgment may dictate?-Not wholly so, because those supplementary rules are really limitations of the arbitrary power. For instance, it is no longer open to hold, that if you have six classes, you shall present a class under every standard, or under all the standards except the highest; the rule was laid down really as an instruction to the country, and as a limitation of the purely arbitrary power.

244. But is it not a limitation which issued entirely from your own authority, and which it is competent for the same authority to withdraw? Yes, it is competent for the same authority which issued the rule to withdraw it.

245. Therefore, although you may from time to time issue general indications of the policy of the Council in that respect, does it not still remain within the power of the Council to reduce or refuse the grant at will by placing such an interpretation as it may think fit upon the words "efficiency of the school?"-I should say, not at will.

246. I do not say necessarily in each particular case, but it will, speaking of particular classes of schools? So far as the Articles of the Code leave a question open, within those limits, and assuming for a moment due notice to be given to all persons concerned, I do hold that the administrators of the office have a discretion left to them.

247. The Code places no limits upon the discretion allowed to the administrators of the office in interpreting the word "efficiency?"-I think that the Code mentions that the grant is to be made or refused upon the inspector's report. am not at this moment quite certain, but there would be that limit undoubtedly.

248. With reference to your own personal part in the government of the office, have you ever decided alone upon letters of instructions, or upon supplementary rules of any kind?-Upon letters of instructions in former years before 1856, I should think that I might have done so, but not on letters of any importance, certainly.

249. You have never done it since?-To the best of my recollection, I have not; but, again, I should wish to put in the limitation as to questions of any importance. There is no doubt that in the mode of filling up any particular form, or in the mere details of administration, I may have done it.

350. You have stated that the supplementary rules were generalisations from questions of practice that had arisen in the office. Were those questions of practice individually decided by yourself, or were they individually decided with the assistance of the Vice President?—I should imagine that in cases where the question was in the least degree new, I took them to the Vice President.

251. For instance, Rule 7 states, that "a deduction of at least one-tenth will be made from the grant to a school (not being one for infants only), if no class be represented above Standard III." Did that condition originate with yourself, or with the Vice President, or with the Lord President, or with the Committee of Council?Those supplementary rules were discussed between myself and the Vice President; they grew up by degrees.

252. That is to say, they grew up out of individual cases which were presented to you for decision? They grew up out of the reports of the inspectors, showing that the children had been presented either under Standard I., or under Standards I. and II.

253. Surely that cannot be with respect to Rule 7, for it says, "A deduction of at least onetenth will be made from the grant to a school (not being one for infants only), if no class be presented above Standard III."-Yes; but the cases which suggested the necessity of a rule were those cases in which whole schools had been presented under the lowest standards of all. The point to be settled was, what should be the minimum that should satisfy the Committee of Council in the examination of a school, and it was settled that managers ought to present at least one class above a certain minimum; but the cases that had raised that question were cases where all the children had been presented either under the lowest or the two lowest standards.

254. Had it never occurred to yourself, or to the Vice President to your knowledge, at the time that the Revised Code was under discussion, that such a question must of necessity arise ?-I should not have expected that any one would have presented a whole school under the lowest

standard.

255. You could not imagine that there could be a school newly got together of which the children would be so ignorant that they would not be able to rise above the first or the second standard?--Not an ordinary elementary school. It might possibly be so in the case of a ragged school.

256. Then are the Committee to understand, as a matter of fact, that it never occurred to you as possible, that any difficulty would be raised as to the standards in which the various classes were to be placed at the time that a Report was presented to the Crown, stating that the managers would be left to select their own classes for their own children?—I could not state that that difficulty was unforeseen. It was one of those points that had undoubtedly to be settled in practice; there would be difficulty under it.

257. You mentioned as to the conditions of the building grant, that they were laid before Parlia ment in Mr. Adderley's Return; are they still the same as they were before?-The forms have not been changed in any essential particular.

258. Do all questions as to whether a building grant is to be made or not come before you, not