876. Mr. Walter.] Would there be anything really analogous between the constitution of the Poor Law Board and that of such a Board as has been suggested by the Right Honorable Chairman, namely, the local Board, corresponding with the Board of Guardians, working in conjunction with the central Board?-Not in its present constitution.

877. Would not the material difference between them be this, that the Poor Law Board does not contribute a large proportion towards the rates, and that the Education Department does do so?—I think that there is a most essential

distinction.

878. Do you think that any system is likely to be adopted by Parliament which provides for the distribution of a large sum of money entrusted to a central department by the local authorities? -I am afraid not.

879. With regard to the possible extension of the grant, can you state whether the department has experienced any difficulty in the progressive increase of the number of the schools which are in receipt of public grants?-It experienced, at one time, very great difficulty until its method of conducting business was simplified; those simplifications have not been entirely completed, inasmuch as portions of the old code, especially with respect to pupil teachers, have been retained; but, no doubt, a large portion of the business might hereafter be transacted without any great difficulty.

880. What is the number of schools at present in receipt of an annual grant ?-Something less than 8,000.

881. Supposing that that number were increased to 10,000, would it involve any extraordinary amount of labour or expense to carry out that extension ?-I cannot think that it would.

882. Supposing that the grant were administered under the same conditions as at present, would the office raise the slightest objection?I should say not.

883. Is the only objection which they do raise, as to the modification of the conditions which at present are imposed?-I think that the most experienced members in the office feel that the present system is not adapted to be universal, although it may be capable of extension; but that the main objection to getting rid of the conditions is, that we should be getting rid of the best security which we have for an efficient education.

884. By "universal," I presume that you mean the extension of the grant to all schools, whether they are at all worthy of it or not?Yes; I conceive that the standard of worth would very soon be lowered if it were to be a principle of our present system that it was to be extended over the length and breadth of the country.

885. But supposing the standard of examination not to be lowered, but that only certain other conditions were dispensed with, can you see that there would be any difficulty in the office carrying on the present system, and applying it to any school that would come up to that standard?I think that if you broke down the present conditions you would very soon be extending assistance to all the schools in the country, and the present system is not well adapted to that.

886. Would that be the case provided you could repose confidence in the discretion and honesty of the inspectors?-I think that the inspectors must, sensibly or insensibly, deal

M.P.

31 March 1865.

with the schools according to the efficiency of the school, and that if they get into a district H. A. Bruce, Right Hon. where the schools are backward and bad, their standard is almost necessarily lower than where the schools are good; and that tendency, I believe, is universally admitted to exist. I think that there are very few inspectors who would themselves deny that they were operated upon by it more or less; and I think that if mitted schools throughout the country without insisting upon the present conditions, you would find very soon that the standards upon which the grants were made were essentially lowered.

you ad

887. I presume that the standard at present adopted is that which is considered sufficient, and no more than sufficient, to keep up a proper system of education in schools to which the grant is applied?-Yes, that is no doubt the case; but even that standard is dealt with by different inspectors in a very different way, according to their characters and opinions.

888. Might not the case of schools which were candidates for the Government grants be treated in a manner analogous to that of the examinations for the Civil Service, in which certain requirements are insisted upon, and the candidates who do not come up to those requirements are rejected?—Yes, I think you might make a very good scheme upon paper; but after all, that scheme would depend upon the manner in which it was carried into effect by the inspectors.

889. Supposing the inspectors were desirous of doing their duty, and were not desirous of lowering the standard of education, but simply of seeing that no schools which presented proper results were rejected, where is the difficulty in their performing such duty?-I can make no other answer than that which I have already made.

890. You speak of the distinction between schools which do not require grants on the one hand, and those which receive on the other hand less than they require; how would you describe schools as not wanting grants?-In districts where the general rate of wages was very high.

891. You would not apply that to the willingness or unwillingness of the gentry or of persons residing in the neighbourhood to contribute, but to the condition of the classes receiving education in those schools?-My answer had especial reference to the condition of the classes receiving education, but it has always been a principle under which our system of education has been administered that a certain amount of local effort should be made either by the owners of property or by those who profited by the school teaching.

892. But would you consider that the fact of any particular school being under the patronage of a nobleman for instance, or any person of that kind, brought it under the description of a school which did not require assistance ?-Certainly

not.

893. Mr. Thompson.] In any change of Government is it not usual for the Lord President and the Vice President, and all the other Members of the Committee of Council, to go out with the Government as a matter of course?-Yes.

894. In the Home Office there is a permanent Under Secretary, is there not?-Yes; just as there is a permanent secretary in the Education Department.

895. That is to say, an Under Secretary who does not change with the Government-Yes.

Right Hon. 896. On the India Board I believe there are H. A. Bruce, men who have been in India, and who are acquainted with the country?-Yes.

M.P.

31 March 1865.

897. The Board of Admiralty is partly composed of naval Lords, all of whom have seen actual service?—Yes.

898. In the Customs the Commissioners are permanent officers, are they not?—Yes.

899. Then it is only the Board of Trade and the Education Department which are managed by a Committee of Council in each case, where there are neither permanent Boards nor any members of the Board or Committee who are practically acquainted with the working and carrying out of the business for which the office is constituted?-I think it would be very difficult to lay down any general principle as to the manner in which these arrangements as to the permanent and temporary portions of the different offices were conducted. Nearly every office has a permanent department, and I think every office has a department which shifts with the changes of the Ministry.

900. Is it your opinion that the addition of one or more Commissioners or permanent members of the Committee who have been practically engaged in the work of education would be an assistance and improvement to that Committee? I think not; I think that upon all questions of detail as a matter of fact, the opinions of the most experienced inspectors are invariably called in, and with respect to the policy as to whether the changes proposed are feasible, or whether they are suited to the temper and feelings of the country at the time, I think that a committee consisting of members of the Cabinet is the best consulting Board that you could have.

901. Lord Robert Cecil.] You stated that you thought it of importance that the department should be strongly represented in the House of Lords; what particular advantage do you think arises from its being strongly represented in the House of Lords ?-Discussions upon education may be introduced, and are frequently introduced into the House of Lords as well as into the House of Commons, and I think it important that the department should be represented there by a Minister who is acquainted not only with the general outlines, but with the practical working of the system.

902. Do you think that it is more important that the Education Department should be strongly represented in the Lords than is the case with regard to the India office, for instance ?-I think it is in its present state a question requiring a representative of experience and of authority in the House of Lords.

903. Do you think it a more important subject than the Government of India?-Certainly

not.

904. Is it your impression that there are more debates in the House of Lords upon education than there were upon the subject of India?—I think that debates are not very frequent in the House of Lords on either subject.

905. Then what residuum of importance would you discover in the presence of a great Minister of State representing the Department of Education in the House of Lords?-Because I think that great questions of policy with respect to India are matters of discussion in the Cabinet, whereas matters affecting the education question in general are less the subject of con

sideration there than questions affecting India would be.

906. Do you mean to say that the consideration of important questions should be reserved for the Cabinet, but that questions of detail should go to the House of Lords?-What I intended to say was, that in debating upon questions like those affecting India, there might be members of the Cabinet who were competent to take part in those debates, but that that is less the case with respect to a complicated question like that of education, which is a question dealing so much with small details, and not with large principles.

907. Then may the Committee take it to be your opinion that the Department ought to be represented in the House of Lords by a Minister of State capable of dealing with small details ?— Yes, as well as with large principles.

908. You imagine, from the share which the Lord President takes in the business of the office, that he would be eminently qualified to deal with small details ?-I am satisfied that there is no one set of questions in the office with which the Lord President is not familiar; from time to time, in some shape or other, they are brought before him; and I have found from my own practical experience, that no question comes new to him.

909. I suppose that when the Lord President has to answer a question in the House of Lords he can never do it without consulting the Vice President? I am not aware that he ever consulted me, and I am quite sure that since I have been connected with the present Lord President, no question has ever been put to him which he was not competent to answer himself, without consulting anybody.

910. Is that the case, even with reference to questions of detail ?---On questions of detail he might possibly (as any other superior in an office would do) confirm his recollection as to what the practice was, but I never can recollect any instance in which the Lord President was at fault as to what was the practice of the office.

911. Can you state what is the practice now with regard to the Conscience Clause under your administration?-It is the same as that which was described to the Committee by Mr. Lowe.

912. Will you be good enough to give a description of it yourself?-Whenever a grant is required for a school in a parish which, in our opinion, is only capable of effectively maintaining one school, we ask for answers to questions as to the number of persons of different denominations in that parish. If it appears that while the majority are Churchmen, there is a certain appreciable minority of Dissenters, of one-fourth, onefifth, or even one-sixth (or in some cases where the number was large I think I have required it where there was one-seventh), the grant is refused unless the Conscience Clause is admitted.

913. In what case do you think that a parish is incapable of supporting more than one school? -The rule which I found established, and to which I have adhered, is that when the number of children to be accommodated is under 150, the parish cannot support more than one school.

914. Have you any rule to guide you with regard to that variation of the fraction from onefourth to one-seventh, between which you state that the practice of the Department oscillates ?— Where the number is a large number, such as 140, for instance, and it is proved that the parents of many of the children are Dissenters, I

should

should not, in that case, consider it right to make a grant to the school in connection with the National Society, without taking proper security for the religious convictions of that minority; but where the number of children was 60, and one-seventh only of them were Dissenters, the number would be so small that I should not think it necessary to insist upon the Conscience Clause. I do not mean to say that that practice can be logically defended; it is one of the unsatisfactory results of the state of that question; but I found the practice so established, and I did not consider myself justified, at any rate for the present, in carrying it any further.

915. Have you ever attempted to construct, for your own guidance or for that of your subordinates, any arithmetical table indicating the cases in which the Conscience Clause should be required? I have not done so. The cases are invariably decided by myself, and are considered with very great care and anxiety. I confess that I should be very glad to be acting under a more definite system.

916. Have you no kind of rule of a more definite character than that which you have stated to guide you in your anxious considerations upon the subject?--No; my anxiety has arisen from the indefiniteness of the rule. Of course, if the rule were that wherever there were any Dissenters the Conscience Clause should be introduced, which is perhaps the right mode, as at any rate it is the logical mode of dealing with the question, I should have no difficulty at all.

917. Has the Lord President had no voice in such decisions ?-No; but immediately upon entering upon my office, I consulted the Lord President as to the general principle upon which I should act, and I have always decided those cases in accordance with the principles of which he then approved.

918. But he gave you no principles, because, as I understand, you have no definite rule?—Not more than I have stated.

919. Then what he told you was, to do what you thought best?-Within the limits that I have mentioned, that was so.

920. But how do you proceed in your own mind in deciding that question between a fourth and a seventh; have you any considerations or motives by which you are guided?—Yes; the question is whether the number is or is not considerable enough to justify me in refusing the grant, when the refusal might prevent the school from being built.

921. Then probably the obstinacy of the clergyman is one of the elements in the consideration of that question; is it not?-No.

922. Is not the probability that the school will not be built one of the elements in the consideration of the question?—Yes.

923. And that depends mainly, does it not, upon the decision of the clergymen ?-I consider it very possible that if the Conscience Clause is insisted upon, the clergyman will decline the grant, and the school will not be built; and then I have to ask myself whether it is worth while for the sake of a very few, that so great a misfortune should be inflicted on the parish; it is a question of degree.

924. But it being a question of degree, have you never put it into an arithmetical shape? Never.

925. Of course if it does not exist for your own information, still less does it exist in the case

М.Р.

of possible applicants for aid?—They have had Right Hon. such explanations as we have given in Parliar H. A. Bruce, ment, and such as we have given in correspondence; but I think they must all be aware that a great deal does rest upon the mere volition of the Lord President and the Vice President.

926. You do not pursue the practice which was observed by Mr. Lowe, of concealing from them that you will forego your refusal if the Conscience Clause is offered?-I think the correspondence is conducted very much in the same way as it was when Mr. Lowe was in office, but I think it is always clearly indicated that the objection is not absolute, but that it depends upon the admission of certain securities to Dissenters; the letter always conveys that meaning.

927. In fact, the letter does very distinctly state the conscience clause as the condition upon which the grant will be made, does it not?—The promoters of the school are asked what security they offer to Dissenters when a certain number of Dissenters are found to exist; on their returning an answer that they offer none, then a refusal follows. We presume, therefore, that they connect the two ideas together.

928. May I ask you on what grounds the number 150 has been selected as the number under which two successful schools cannot exist in a parish?-It has been found by long experience that that is the number at which a school can be most cheaply and efficiently carried on. It must be remembered that when we speak of 150 we do not speak so much of an average attendance of 150 as of the number that would be on the school book.

929. Have you never known a school with 75 children on the register which was successfully and cheaply conducted?-Yes, where there has been an energetic and able clergyman, there have been such cases, but as a general rule, and I think that the experience of every one must be the same, where there are two small schools of that number in a parish they injure each other.

930. Would you rather that a parish of 150 children had two schools of 75 each, or no school at all?-I should rather that they had two schools of 75 each.

931. Having that preference, would you rather that the State aided them in having two schools of 75 each, than that they should have no school at all?-You must draw the line somewhere; and wherever it is drawn some similar objection would be raised. I took the number as I found it.

932. Altogether, would you think it a severe criticism upon the system to say that it is very indefinite and vague?-I think that that is a most just description of it.

933. And you would not be sorry for the sake of your own comfort if it assumed a more definite shape?--I should be very glad.

934. If the House of Commons took off your shoulders the task of making rules for the system, would it not very much increase the ease with which you conduct the office?--Yes, I think so.

935. Do you not think that the managers would be better satisfied, or at all events that they would feel that it was more necessary to acquiesce, if they were told that the Legislature had come to a certain decision on a point, rather than that it had been arrived at within the walls of an office?—I think that there is no denying that; there is of course the other side of the question; but I believe that there can be no

31 March 1865.

31 March

1865.

936. Do you not think that the great object in the system, the great condition of its efficiency, considering it to be a partnership system, is that there should be confidence between the managers on one side and the State on the other, who together contribute the money by which it is carried on?-Yes, I think that that is a most important object to attain.

937. Would you not admit that it is absolutely vital to the proper working of the system? -I think that it can hardly work well without a complete understanding, and a mutual confidence

between the Government and the managers.

938. That being of such vital importance, do

you not think that a mode of action which should tend to secure that confidence, ought to be adopted, even though it involved difficulties of form, and greater delay in operation, rather than another system which did not secure those advantages?—I think that it would be necessary to weigh the whole question well, both as to the advantages and disadvantages of proceeding by Bill, or by Minute, which I suppose is the point to which the Noble Lord's questions refer. It must be remembered, on the other hand, that before the large changes which were lately introduced, the proceedings were by Minute, and the Committee of Council, and the managers got on very comfortably together. Great changes were introduced, involving, as changes always do, much inconvenience, and from that time to the present, no doubt the relations between the managers and the office, have been less agreeable than they were before, but I do not think that it follows from that, that the feeling would be restored by an alteration in the mode of legislating upon education.

939. Was there not this difference between the earlier experience and the later experience of the office; that in the earlier times, every change was made in the direction of giving more money to managers, while in recent years, enormous changes have been made in exactly the opposite direction?-I think that that has had a great deal to do with it.

940. Do you not think that managers would much prefer that the change should be under the supervision of a body, such as Parliament, in which their greatest confidence was placed, when those changes were hostile to themselves?-The changes were made by Parliament, after a long discussion in Parliament, and in fact, to a very

great extent, on a system which was dictated by Parliament, and not suggested by the office.

941. But, from your knowledge of the House of Commons do you not think that the confidence of the country as to any change is far greater when the proceeding is by way of Bill than when the proceeding is by way of Minute?—There can be no question that it is; but whilst I say that, I still retain my opinion that the great changes which have caused the discontent of the managers were effected after ample opportunity had been given to Parliament to express its opinion upon those changes.

942. But even then, were not the changes which were ultimately agreed to rather in the body, namely, the Privy Council and the supershape of a compromise between the legislating vising body, namely, the House of Commons, than in the shape of regulations originated by Members of Parliament themselves ?-I am not sure that that is a correct description. I presume that those Members of Parliament who were

opposed to the Revised Code as it was first introduced, consulted together as to the changes which they would suggest; and I know that, as the result, very important changes were introduced, after very full consideration and discussion.

943. Do you not think that the effect of it was that it was an agreement between the Ho-nourable Member for Cambridge University and his friends on the one side and the Government on the other; but that all outside those two circles had very little influence on the result?—That may be a correct description; but I am unable to say what means the Opposition took to carry into effect the changes which were suggested.

944. Do you not think that probably the Revised Code would have been subjected to a great deal more change if each clause had been read by the Chairman at the table, and each Member had had an opportunity of moving his own amendments on it? I think that probably we should be still debating it if that had been so.

945. No more ample admission of the greater amount of control which proceeding by Bill gives to Parliament could be made?-Nor, at the same time, could any more ample admission be made of the difficulty of proceeding by the mode which the Noble Lord suggests.

946. Do you think that Parliamentary Government, although it is an admirable institution generally, is not conveniently applicable to educational subjects ?-I think that such changes as those, or the greater part of them, could hardly have been effected by means of an Act of Parliament.

947. Chairman.] You held the office of Vice President of the Committee of Council during the year 1858 and part of 1859, did you not?-1 held that office during Lord Derby's last Adminis

tration.

948. As a Member of this Committee you have heard the evidence which has been given by two gentlemen who have held the same office, Mr. Lowe and Mr. Bruce, stating their views with regard to the nature of the office, those views being very much opposed to each other; to which of those views does your experience lead you to incline?-I rather take Mr. Lowe's view as to the Vice President's relation to the Lord President being like the relation of an Under Secretary to a Secretary of State, than the view of Mr. Bruce, who seemed to think that the relation was different, and that the Vice President has more responsibility than an Under Secretary.

949. I understand you to state that you incline to the opinion expressed by Mr. Lowe, that the office of Vice President of the Committee of Council is, to a considerable extent, analogous to the office of an Under Secretary of State? Yes.

950. What was your feeling with regard to any degree of responsibility to the House of Commons for the business transacted in the office?—I think the whole responsibility is with the Lord President as the head of the office; the Vice President simply, according to the words of the Order in Council, assisting him when they are together, and acting for him in his absence.

951. Was your feeling throughout your tenure of office, that the person solely responsible to Parliament for the conduct of the business in the office was the Lord President?—Yes.

952. Are you of opinion that the fact of two gentlemen of so much ability and so much experience as Mr. Lowe and Mr. Bruce, both having held the office, and taking very different views of it, affords in itself some proof that it is desirable that the position of that office should be better defined? I think so, certainly.

953. Would your experience in the office of Vice President of the Committee of Council lead you to the opinion that the business to be transacted by the Education Department, is of such a nature as to require two Ministers in the position of the Lord President and Vice President for its administration ?-I think decidedly that it does not require two Ministers, and therefore I

think its being administered by two Ministers is mischievous.

954. Do I rightly understand you to be of opinion that the business of the office might be better conducted, and with a more intelligible responsibility to Parliament, if the management of that office, like that of most other offices, were in the hands of one single Minister ?-I think one single Minister would administer the office far better; he would take much more interest in his work, and he would feel constantly pressing upon him the responsibility of his conduct of the office; and, moreover, supposing the Lord President and Vice President not to coincide in opinion, which is a very possible case, that the Vice President would have the disagreeable office of advocating in Parliament views in which privately he might not concur.

955. During the time you held the office, were your communications with the Lord President very frequent ?-I had communications with the Lord President constantly.

956. Was the Lord President in the habit of attending very constantly to the educational duties of his Department?-He was, I think, daily in the office, but of course he had other duties besides those connected with the Education Committee.

957. Was the division of the work of the office in your time the same as has been described by Mr. Lowe and Mr. Bruce to be the case under Lord Granville ?-Quite so.

958. Then I presume that your frequent communications with the Lord President were in the nature of consultations upon points in which you sought his judgment to guide you in matters which you would otherwise have decided yourself, and with respect to which you would have felt no hesitation as to your own competency to decide them?—I should have felt perfectly competent to decide them, though I should say that I think that Lord Salisbury's experience in public life is much greater than mine, and that he was much better qualified to be the head of the office than I was.

959. But still, irrespective of any opinion which you may entertain as to your own personal qualities, looking only to the proper discharge of business, I apprehend your opinion to be that such decisions would have been better and more properly made, and under a stricter sense of re