Board? Of course, I cannot state all that passed but I know that the Poor Law Board knew nothing of the circumstances of the case when the transfer took place, and they were certainly not informed by the Privy Council Office of the liability they would incur on that transference. 1217. But the act of transfer must surely have been deliberated npon between the Poor Law Board and the Privy Council Office?—That is a secret matter of which it is not possible I can have any knowledge, but so far as the facts relating to the case are patent, I cannot think that there was any such deliberation, because the Poor Law Board were so utterly unacquainted with the circumstances of the case. 1218. You have no knowledge as to whether the Home Office also took part in the deliberation?-I do not know, it is not possible that I can say. 1219. Although approving of the general policy, you have spoken of great inconveniences which you think might have been avoided; were those inconveniences greater than those which are inseparable from the transfer of any one department to another?--I think they were such inconveniences as could easily have been avoided had anyone like myself, who is thoroughly acquainted with the business of both departments, been consulted. I saw the inconveniences which would arise the instant I heard of the transference, and I tried to remedy them, but I could not get any attention paid to the matter. 1220. Is it within your knowledge at all that no inspectors were consulted on the matter?-There are four inspectors belonging to my department, and I am quite certain that not one of them was consulted as to the policy of the measure, nor was officially informed of it till four months after it had been passed. 1221. But have you not stated that you have less objection to their not having consulted you, and of course equally to the fact of those inspectors in your department not having been consulted, than to their not having consulted others who were more intimately acquainted with these arrangements?—I was the only person who resided in London who was acquainted with the practice in both offices, and therefore I was always at hand; and before so great a change was made, I think the person who alone knew all the modes of working in each office ought to have been consulted. I mentioned it not as the question seems to imply, because I complained of any discourtesy to myself, but on account of the inconvenience to the public service. 1222. Mr. Bruce.] You spoke of hasty and inconsiderate changes being made, and you gave as an illustration the transfer of the Poor Law Board schools from the Privy Council Office to the Poor Law Department; are you not aware that the transfer of other schools was simultaneously made to the Home Office Department?—Yes. 1223. Can you for a moment suppose that this change would have been effected without a consultation, and probably a long consultation with both those departments?-Looking at the facts of the case, it was perfectly clear to me that there could not have been much consultation, because I found that the Poor Law Board authorities were totally unacquainted with the liabilities which would come on them in consequence of the transfer of the Department. 1224. Do you suppose that the Privy Council Office has any power to transfer any portion of Esq. its jurisdiction to any other department, without E.C.Tufnell, the consent of that department?-Consent may have been given, but I think there was no explanation of the liabilities which would follow from that consent. 1225. Did you not say that this transfer was owing to the Revised Code ?-I say that it was done at the same moment, but it had no reference to the Revised Code. 1226. Are you not aware that under the Revised Code provision was made for the inspection of Poor Law schools as well as of Home Office schools?-The Revised Code merely transfers the Department to the Poor Law Board. 1227. The date of the Revised Code is the 9th of May 1862, and the date of the Minute under which those schools were transferred to the Poor Law Board is the 21st March 1863; does there not therefore appear to be an interval of nearly a year between the two?--The only effect of the transfer was to place upon the Poor Law Board a liability of which they knew nothing, as I found when the transference took place. 1228. But I understood you to give, as the greatest instance of the haste and inconsiderate conduct of the Privy Council Department, their conduct with respect to the Revised Code, and this as one of the instances connected with it, can you connect in any way this transference with the Revised Code?-I do not connect them in any way, except that I believe that it was decided upon at the same time; it had no reference to the chief defects of the Revised Code. 1229. Have not the pupil teachers in the Poor Law schools been always paid on a different system from that in force with respect to the pupil teachers at other schools?-Yes, they were paid just half the amount that was paid in other schools. 1230. Were they not paid one fixed sum on Lady-day each year?-They are paid at the time when they go out of their apprenticeship. 1231. But is there not one fixed time for making the payment; are you not aware at what time the payment was made to the pauper schools?-The pupil teachers were always paid whenever they entered training schools; the money was given on the condition that they should enter training schools, and if they did not do so, they were not allowed to have any at all. 1232. I said just now, that the payment was made in March; I believe that it was at Christmas; are you not aware that the annual payment was made at Christmas?-It was made whenever they entered training schools; sometimes it was at Christmas, and sometimes it was February before it was paid. 1233. How soon did the difficulty occur to you in consequence of no provision having been made as to which department should pay the pupilteachers?-The moment that I heard in the street, as I have mentioned, that my department was to be transferred, and saw it confirmed by a little paragraph in a newspaper, I made some inquiries (I forget all that I did now) as to whether the Poor Law Board had been, so to speak, indoctrinated in the matter of the liabilities which they would incur; I found that no arrangements had been made, and I knew, consequently, the embarrassments which would occur, and therefore I applied to Mr. Lowe. 1234. What was the whole sum payable to pupil-teachers?-It varies every year according 7 April 1865. 1236. Was not the point to be decided whether or not the Privy Council Office or the Poor Law Board should provide this sum ?-That was the point which was undecided, and which I think ought to have been decided before my office was transferred to the Poor Law Board; it was not decided, and therefore, I suppose, that there could not have been any proper communication by the Privy Council to the Poor Law Board. 1237. Do you trace that want of proper communication to the constitution of the office?Yes. 1238. You stated that you had a difficulty in finding the Vice President; did you ever write to him for the purpose of making an appointment with him?-No; my duties are very heavy, and I should probably have had to give up a whole day if I had made an appointment with him, so that I trusted to finding him at some time or other in the office. 1239. Are you not aware that Mr. Lowe was very frequently engaged as a Member of Committees of this House?—Yes; and I think that it is one of the errors of the constitution of the office to have one of its chiefs engaged in other work. 1240. Is that a peculiarity of the Privy Council Department?—I think that a department which has so much business to go through in detail as that department has, ought to be administered by persons who, with the exception of the head of the department, are not in Parliament. 1241. But do you not suppose that the head or heads of the different departments who are in Parliament may be subject constantly to serve on Committees such as this, for instance ?-Of course that would be so. 1242. And, if so, would they not be necessarily absent from their office ?-Certainly; and I think that that forms the strongest reason why you should have Members in the Committee of Council who are not Members of Parliament. 1243. This question was purely a question as between the departments, was it not?—Yes. 1244. Why was the settlement of it delegated to you and not taken up by the officers of the department? The settlement was not delegated to me; I interfered, perhaps, extra-officially, but I am tolerably certain that if I had not done so the pupil teachers would have lost their money altogether. 1245. On the occasion on which it was settled, Mr. Villiers himself attended at the Privy Council Office, did he not?-Yes; Mr. Villiers accompanied me to the Privy Council Office, and you at once settled the matter. 1246. You have made it your chief charge against the constitution of the office that the Revised Code was put in operation without sufficient thought and consultation; and you have stated as your chief charge against the Revised Code that it would have the effect of destroying the pupil-teacher system which you so highly value; do you adhere to those opinions ?-Yes. 1247. In so doing, are you aware what is the number of pupil teachers who were admitted during 1864 ?-I believe the number to be 2,568, according to a Return which has been presented to Parliament. 1248. Do you know what was the average number of pupil teachers annually admitted under the Old Code?—I should observe that I believe that the Return is utterly and entirely incorrect, and that there has been some enormous error in the office. That number has not been admitted. 1249. What reason have you for bringing so serious a charge against the office ?--I have made extensive inquiries in all parts of the country with respect to the engagement of pupil teachers, and I would warrant the truth of this fact, that their numbers are falling off in the ratio of at least 50 per cent. Further than that, in the last Report of the Committee of Council, they state, in one part of it, that the pupil teachers have increased in the last year (that is, in the year 1863), while, in the reports of the inspectors, which form the great bulk of the book, every inspector who alludes to the subject, declares that they have very largely decreased. There is a discrepancy in that which it is impossible to account for, except on the ground that there has been some error in the Statistical Department of the office. 1250. Do not the inspectors say that a great number of pupil teachers who would formerly have gone to a training college, have, in conse quence of the application and effects of the Revised Code, transferred themselves to other occupations? They say that; but they also say that the number of new pupil teachers is at least 50 per cent. less than it was before; and I have not the least doubt, from the inquiries that I have set on foot in various parts of the kingdom, that such must be the case. 1251. Are you aware by what means the office becomes informed of the appointment of pupil teachers?—I cannot say; but I believe that they are incorrectly informed. 1252. You must surely be aware that they are informed by the managers themselves?-I do not know how the blunder is committed, but I am perfectly certain that there has been a very great blunder committed in the statistical returns of the office. 1253. In making that statement, do you set your impressions against the care and honesty of the officers of the Department?-I take my impressions from facts. The Report of the Committee of Privy Council, as given in the volume which I hold in my hand, is contradicted by their own inspectors in every report touching on this particular subject that this volume contains. 1254. Are you prepared to make that statement, after having made an analysis of those reports?—Yes; the report declares at the commencement that there has been an increase of pupil teachers; but the body of the report, which inspectors, goes directly contrary to that conclucontains all the practical information from the sion. I have looked minutely over those reports, and I find that only eight of the inspectors allude to the subject; and these eight all mention the falling off in the number of pupil teachers. 1255. Does not that volume contain the reports of 30 inspectors?—I do not know how many it contains, but only eight of them allude to the subject, and those eight are unanimous in contradicting the statement contained in the Privy Council Report. 1256. It contains the reports of half the inspectors, does it not?-Yes. 1257. Is it upon the authority of those eight inspectors inspectors that you make a charge involving the credit of the office in so grave a matter?-I make the charge also on account of the inquiries which I have made elsewhere, and I am perfectly certain that there is some error committed in the statistical returns of the office. The pupil teachers have fallen off enormously, and that may be proved by the small number which now enter training schools in comparison with the number which used to enter such schools. The number of male pupil teachers who entered training schools at Christmas, 1862, which was before the Revised Code was issued, was 1,128; last Christmas it was reduced to 591. 1258. Would not that show the number of pupil teachers which entered five years ago, and not the number which entered last year?-It would show the number who were entered last year; they must have entered first five years ago. 1259. But we are talking now of the number which entered last year; and, admitting that the number of pupil teachers did fall off in consequence of the alarm which was excited by the Revised Code, I wish to ask you whether you are aware of the number who entered last year? -I mean to say that the number of pupil teachers fell off in consequence of the Revised Code; whereas this Report says that it did not fall off.. 1260. The Report, I believe, states that there was an increase upon the number who had entered in preceding years when there had been an exceptional and very great falling off in consequence of the Revised Code, is not that so?-I do not know; it may be less, but I can test the number of pupil teachers that there were in 1862. The whole number of male pupil teachers were 7,963, and in 1864 they were reduced to 5,725. That reduction is in the whole number of males engaged; that is a very large reduction. In the evidence which has been given before this Committee by Mr. Fraser, who is the only practical person who has been examined, he declared that the race of pupil teachers was largely diminished, and that it would shortly cease altogether; that statement is exactly corroborated by what I have heard from all parts of the country, and I have no doubt of its general truth. 1261. Have you never known instances of general and public impressions being corrected by careful inquiry?-I have made very careful inquiries in many parts of the kingdom, and I believe there is no doubt whatever about it. One of the inspectors told me that the number of pupil teachers had fallen off one-half; another told me that where there were formerly 75 applicants there are now only 24. 1262. When was that?-Lately; a month or two ago. Another inspector tells me that 24 pupil teachers have given up; another tells me that where there were usually 30 coming forward, he had this year only three; another tells me that the number of male pupil teachers has decreased 75 per cent.; another told me that 19 pupil teachers had declined to follow the business of teaching, and that 35 schools had adopted the monitorial system permanently. 1263. Your conclusion from all that is, that there must be either some error or some falsifica tion in the returns?-There is no falsification, but there is an error. 1264. You stated, did you not, that you thought the Scotch system one which would be very ap Esq. plicable to the increase of education in England? E.C.Tufnell, -I think it might be possible to get money in aid of schools by the introduction of something like the Scotch system. 1265. May not the Scotch system be said to have broken down in providing for the increased number of schools required?-It has broken down in the populous places, but in the small country places it has not broken down. 1266. It has resulted, in fact, in not meeting the wants of those districts where the population has increased largely, and where more than one school is required?-But those are precisely the districts where there is the least difficulty now in extending schools. The difficulty chiefly arises, I apprehend, in country districts of small population. 1267. But you could hardly have one system for the country and another for populous places? -If I might suggest the plan which I should like, it would be that there should be a power of rating either the tenants or the landlords to a certain amount, and that that power should only be exercised at the will of the Privy Council. I think that in general the power would not be required in very populous places, because in such places there is generally very little difficulty in getting schools supported. It is in small country districts where the chief difficulty arises. 1268. You stated that in making changes in the Minutes the inspectors were not consulted; do you mean to say that no inspectors are consulted on those occasions ?-I do not know all the inspectors, but all those to whom I have spoken on the subject have told me that they have never been consulted on any of those changes. most experienced inspectors have told me that. 1269. Is not Mr. Norris an experienced inspector?--Yes. The 1270. Is not Mr. Cooke an experienced inspector?—I do not think that he had been much consulted on the Revised Code. I know that his opinion went directly against it. 1271. Do you mean that it follows that, because the Revised Code was not in accordance with his opinion, therefore he had not been consulted ?— No; I am not aware that he has been consulted. I forget what his answer was when I spoke to him about it, but generally the inspectors were certainly not consulted. 1272. Viscount Enfield.] By what department were the salaries of the Poor Law schools paid last year, by the Poor Law Board or by the Committee of Council?-The Committee of Coun cil, after a considerable correspondence, granted the money; the Poor Law Board had not the money. 1273. Was any understanding arrived at between the two departments as to the future payment or non-payment of the pupil teachers ?-I believe that an understanding has been arrived at that the Poor Law Board will pay them in future. I should mention that the difficulty at first with the Poor Law Board was, that their legal advisers had given an opinion that they had no power to devote a part of their funds to the payment of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses for the instruction of pupil teachers. 1274. Do you mean out of the 33,000 l. which is allowed them?—Yes. 1275. When you said that you went with the President of the Poor Law Board, and that you saw Mr. Bruce, and that he settled it, were you 7 April 1865. 1278. And so far as regards the others, is it still in abeyance ?--Yes. 1279. You stated that, as regarded the question of policy, you did not object to the transfer of your department to the Poor Law Board; do you speak the sentiments of your three colleagues, as well as your own? Yes; I believe that they have not the slightest objection; indeed I had so little objection to it, that I actually made a formal proposal on the subject myself, some years ago. 1280. Do you think that if due notice had been given to yourself and your colleagues, and to the Poor Law Board, no evil would have arisen from such a transfer, but that the evil arose simply from want of due notice being given?-Not simply that. I think that if they had consulted me as to the arrangements to be made before the office was transferred, all the difficulties which have occurred would have vanished, because I could have explained to them where the difficulties would arise of which Mr. Lowe did not seem to be aware. 1281. May I ask what was the difficulty, in your opinion?- The payment of the pupil teachers, and the payment of the masters and mistresses for instructing the pupil teachers. The Poor Law Board had no funds for paying them. 1282. Mr. Walter.] Does not the great difference between the Revised Code and the former system, consist in the different principles on which the pecuniary arrangements between the managers and the office are carried out? Yes. 1283. Under the old system, did not the office undertake practically to provide and pay for the machinery by which the schools were taught? Yes. 1284. And under the new system, they have nothing to do but to pay the managers for results; is not that so?-Yes. 1285. Would it not naturally follow, when managers found out that the machinery was no longer paid for by the State in a direct manner, that they would probably exercise much greater freedom in the choice of such machinery, and that they might dispense with certain instruments, which were no longer paid for directly? -They do dispense with certain matters of education, which they used to supply, and which have now entirely disappeared. 1286. Am I right in saying that the office paid for the pupil teachers under the old system, and that now they do not do so?—Yes. 1287. Would it not naturally follow from that, that managers feeling that the machinery is no longer paid for by the State would cease to employ it? That has been the result of the Revised Code. 1288. Have you heard any complaints on the part of managers, that they cannot get pupil teachers when they want them ?—Yes. 1289. Has that been the case to any great extent?—Yes; to a very great extent. 1290. Is it not the case that in many schools where pupil teachers were formerly employed, either assistant teachers or ministers are employed now?-Yes; I think that the great danger under the Revised Code is lest we should revert to the old monitorial system. If the Committee wish to know what that is, I would refer them to the report made to the Committee of Council by the Rev. Baptist Noel and Mr. Tremenheere, 30 years ago. 1291. Is it not the case that many assistant teachers are employed now where they were formerly not employed?—Yes; but if you undermine the pupil-teacher system, you undermine the training schools. 1292. But do you not think that the managers of schools ought to be allowed some freedom in the choice of masters for their schools?—Yes. 1293. If the payment is made on the principle of the ascertaining of results by the inspectors, do you think that there is anything wrong in principle in allowing the managers to use those instruments which they think best qualified to produce those results?—I think that the main evil consists in only exacting such very inferior results as those which are enforced by the Revised Code. 1294. Is it not the fact that the Commissioners who conducted the inquiry some years ago which led to the Revised Code, discovered that certain results which it was most important to obtain, had entirely or nearly failed to be secured under the that those results are now secured by the Revised old system? They did so; but I do not think Code; I think that the deficiencies which the Commissioners found out were owing to causes different from those to which they attributed them. and arithmetic, were they not?-Yes. 1295. Those results were, reading, writing, 1296. Are not those things which can be ascertained by inspection ?-So can many other subjects which are not so ascertained now. 1297. But with regard to those particular subjects, if they are not secured is not the grant proportionately diminished?—Yes. 1298. Is it not rather a hardship to compel employ them, instead of availing themselves of managers who disapprove of pupil teachers to the services of others who may be better qualified?--I should be very sorry to compel managers to employ pupil teachers if they can produce as good results without them; but I should almost doubt whether that is possible. 1299. Have you never heard good schoolmasters complain of pupil teachers as being very inferior instruments for assisting them?-I never heard of a schoolmaster who did not think that pupil teachers were vastly superior to monitors. 1300. Have you never known a case of a good master who would infinitely have preferred having an assistant master to help him, to having two pupil-teachers ?-I can easily imagine that case, but I think that he would prefer having three pupil-teachers to having one assistant. 1301. Have you never heard of a good certificated master complaining of the great trouble, annoyance, and worry which pupil-teachers had occasioned him?-I always found in my experience that pupil-teachers were of the greatest possible assistance in the management of a school. 1302. Mr. Buxton.] With regard to support ing schools in somes cases by rates, do you think that it would be possible to keep up the parents' payments, or would it not extinguish the payments by the parents, if there was at the same time a system of rating in the parish for the support of the school?-I do not see why it should do so any more than in Scotland. 1303. In Scotland do they pay by rates and pence as well?-It is the heritors who pay it in Scotland. The poor's rates, as the Honourable Member is aware, are paid in Scotland half by the heritors and half by the tenants, but the schoolmaster's salary comes out of the pockets of the heritors, as would be the case indirectly, though not directly if it came out of the poor's rates. 1304. Do you think that it would be possible to keep up the payments by parents in England, although at the same time the parish was rated? -I think, perhaps, that the better way would be to get the landlords to pay it instead of the tenants; then the difficulty would not occur at all, and that would be precisely the Scotch system. 1305. Lord Robert Cecil.] Do you think that the landlords would like to pay that additional amount of taxation ?-Many of them do pay it now voluntarily, and I can easily imagine that they would agree to tax themselves to the very small amount which it would be necessary to pay in order to get a good master. 1306. I understood you to say that, as the grant is given now, any attempt to educate neglected parishes from the Consolidated Fund would prove an intolerable burden to it; is that so?-I think that the burden might become unnecessarily heavy, and that it might, perhaps, excite some further interest in the schools if some funds for their support were derived from other sources. 1307. Do you think that the burden would be equally as heavy upon the landlord as upon the tax payer?-I think that it would be extremely trivial. 1308. How can it be trivial as regards the landlord and heavy as regards the tax payer?Because I would only propose that the landlord should pay some small addition, so as to make up the difference between the cost of getting a good master and a bad one. 1309. Then you would not propose that the landlord should undertake the whole expense of the school; is that what you mean?-I would not. 1310. You just now expressed an opinion that pupil teachers were, to say the least, very desi rable, in order that a school should be well con- E.C.Tufnell, ducted; was there not a time when pupil teachers were not employed?—Yes. 1311. Will you state to the Committee what your opinion is as to the state of things at that time? The Committee of the Privy Council sent inspectors to many parts of the country in order to test the educational condition of the country at that time. I would refer the Committee to the Reports which were then presented to the Committee of Council, in 1840 and 1841. They would then see the lamentable state of education in this country at that time. Archdeacon Allen says, alluding to the state of educa tion at that time, that "of Education in that sense of the word, which includes the training and the endeavour to perfect the faculties of the entire man, there is none. No superintendence is exercised over the children during the hours of relaxation; and in but too many instances it seemed that the constant use of words in harsh reproof, and no unfrequent recurrence to the strap, was needed to preserve tolerable quiet and some slight appearance of order." "In very few of those schools was any acknowledgment made of dependence on the only Source of all Good, by public prayers at the opening or close of the day." "The deficiency of books was most lamentable." That is the state to which we are going back by giving up the pupil teachers. 1312. Mr. Bruce.] Do you think that the books would be worse, and that there would be less prayer?-I mainly alluded to the monitorial system. 1313. Lord Robert Cecil.] Is it your opinion that all the evils of the old system are in some considerable measure to be attributed to the monitorial system?-Yes; and I believe that most persons who have had experience of schools before and since the operations of the Committee of Privy Council are of that opinion. 1314. Mr. Howes.] Do you really think that with the present denominational system, a compulsory educational rate is possible?-I would not make it compulsory; I would give the power of rating either landlords or tenants, which power I would only call into operation at the fiat of the Committee of Council. It would be compulsory, with the assent of the parishes which wished for it, if indeed you could call that compulsory. 1315. Mr. Clay.] Do you think that the majority of the parish would in many cases wish for it?-If we only had to deal with the landlords I think that there would be very little difficulty in the matter. Esq. 7 April 1865. |