1414. Chairman.] I BELIEVE you are Secretary to the National Society, are you not?—I

am.

1415. How long have you held that position? -Since 1849.

1416. I presume that your duties as secretary of the National Society of necessity make you very conversant with the state of education throughout the country?-So far as regards Church schools that is so.

1417. You have, I presume, correspondence with the managers of Church schools in almost all parts of England ?-In England and Wales.

1418. Is not the natural result of that to give you a very good general idea as to the state of education in the country?-So far as mere correspondence and seeing people go, that is the result. 1419. Of course your information is mainly, if not entirely, founded upon correspondence?Yes; and upon personal visits that I may receive

at the office.

1420. But it is no part, I apprehend, of your duties as secretary of the National Society, yourself, to make visits to the schools in different parts of the country?-None whatever.

1421. Your duties are entirely discharged at the office of the National Society, are they not? -Entirely; Ι may say that it is stated in the charter of the society that they are not to interfere in the management of the schools; and therefore when a school is once built their work is at an end.

1422. Do you mean that the society are active in the establishment of schools, and not in the superintendence of them after they are established? -Quite so.

1423. From the nature of your duties and your communications with the managers of Church schools throughout the country, I presume you must have heard of the existence of complaints which have been mentioned before this Committee, with regard to the sudden changes on the part of the Education Department, and surprises which have been rather perplexing to the managers of country schools?-Undoubtedly, I have from time to time heard such complaints.

1424. Have you heard of them much ?-Sometimes I have heard much and sometimes little.

1425. Over what period of time have you heard of them?-More or less ever since I have been secretary of the society, I should say; but of course I have heard more since the Revised Code was adopted.

1426. Have you heard any extensive complaints with regard to the introduction of Supplementary Rules?-They were mentioned to me by several people at the time they were first promulgated.

1427. What is the nature of the complaints with regard to these Supplementary Rules? That they appeared to have been put into the hands of an inspector, and to have been sent by that inspector to the school shortly before his visit; the rules not having been made public before that in any way, as far as was known.

1428. Do you mean that a Supplementary Rule bearing directly upon the conduct of the school was brought down by the inspector, and so communicated for the first time ?-Yes, that was the first intelligence which I ever had of the Supplementary Rules.

1429. You mean that the first intimation that you received as to the Supplementary Rule was in the shape of a complaint from a country manager to that effect?-Quite so.

1430. When was that?-That was in February 1864; that was the first time I ever heard of the Supplementary Rules.

1431. What Supplementary Rule was it?—I first heard of them when they were sent to me in manuscript, a correspondent of mine having taken a copy of them, and having sent that copy to me asking me if I could throw any light upon them, or give any information about them.

1432. Did he send you the whole of the rules? -I think that subsequently he sent me the whole of them, but in the first instance he sent certain of them.

1433. They were those, I presume, which affected himself, were they not?-Yes, and those which he thought were contrary to the Revised Code as published to the world.

1434. Were those Supplementary Rules ever submitted to Parliament?-I do not think that they had been at that time.

1435. Did they ever assume the shape of minutes? They have been printed in the last issue of the Revised Code in 1865, but to the best of my knowledge they were not printed up to that time.

1436. Did you only hear the complaints about those Supplementary Rules from one correspondent? I heard of them afterwards from others.

1437. Are you able to state to the Committee from what you heard from different parts of the country whether the mode in which those rules were issued gave great and general dissatisfaction ?-Yes, I believe people thought that they were put upon them suddenly and without notice.

1438. Was it thought that the substance of them was at variance and inconsistent with the Code which had been just promulgated?-Yes, it was thought that they were imposing fresh conditions which were not to be found in the words of the Code.

1439. And which were also inconsistent with the words of the Code ?-They were so far inconsistent as being a more stringent rule which did not appear to be in the Code.

1440. Have you heard of any dissatisfaction in the country, arising from the appointment of inspectors' assistants?-Not exactly dissatisfaction, but rather apprehension, I should say, as to what might be done, than as to what had been done.

1441. Can you state what has been the nature of any communications which you have received, with respect to the inspectors' assistants ?-The apprehensions were, that the inspectors' assistants might come into a school under the simple written order of an inspector, and might examine in religious subjects.

1442. Has that practically been done?! am not aware that it has been done.

1443. You only state that as an apprehension? -I have been asked the question whether there was anything to forbid their examining in religious subjects.

1444. Are you aware whether they have undertaken those examinations?-No, I am not. 1445. Have you heard any complaints that the

appointment of those assistant inspectors was at all inconsistent with the Order in Council of 1840, which required the approval of the Archbishop? -That has been one ground of apprehension; that by examining in religious knowledge those men would exceed the terms and the spirit of that Order in Council.

1446. But if they did not do so, would they contravene that Order in Council?—I have heard people express the opinion that their appointment did altogether exceed that Order in Council.

1447. Inasmuch, I presume, as they were virtually inspectors, and their appointment did not receive the sanction which was provided for by that Order in Council?-Quite so.

1448. Do you think that any dissatisfaction has arisen from the issuing of the minute with regard to endowed schools?-A great deal.

1449. Have you heard much of that ?-A very great deal.

1450. Has the complaint arisen from all parts of the country?-Yes, the complaints have been general.

1451. What has been the nature of those com

plaints? Simply that people thought that the Revised Code was for a time at least to be a settlement of the terms upon which the public money voted by Parliament should be distributed. They made their arrangements under that Revised Code, and exactly a year from the time at which that Code was sanctioned by Parliament there came a Minute materially altering the Revised Code on the subject of endowed schools, and, to use a phrase which has been commonly used, confiscating to the purposes of the State the amount of the endowment.

1452. And that was after the Revised Code had distinctly dealt with the question of endowments, was it not ?-Quite so.

1453. Did you receive complaints from Church of England schools very generally upon the subject of the Endowment Minute?-I think that I received more complaints about that than upon any other subject that I ever had complaints about, unless perhaps upon the subject of the Conscience Clause; but I think that the number of complaints as to the Endowment Minute was second only to the number as to the Conscience Clause.

1454. Did the National Society, as a body, take any action with regard to that Endowment Minute?-Yes; we addressed a memorandum or memorial to the Lord President, or to the Committee of Council, I forget which, but it was practically to the office.

1455. Was that memorial founded upon the opinion of the society as to the actual impolicy and injustice of the Minute itself, or was it mainly founded upon the inconvenience of so great a change being made so soon after what was considered a final settlement?-Both those grounds were urged in the memorial, as I remember distinctly.

1456. And the Committee of the National Society, I presume, entertained a strong feeling upon the subject ?-They did.

1457. Did they consider it as a just ground of complaint against the system of administration of the Education Department?-They did.

1458. Have you heard complaints from school managers as to the mode in which their correspondence with the Education Office has been conducted, as regards attention to applications, and points of that kind ?-There have been

several complaints, more especially lately, of the long time which has elapsed before they could get a matter settled and brought to a definite issue. I think that those complaints have increased lately.

1459. Does that complaint refer to applications not being answered, or does it refer to lengthened correspondence as the result of an application?— Perhaps to both those points.

1460. But have you heard distinct complaints that an application directed by letter to the office is not attended to so promptly as it ought to be as a matter of business?-Certainly I have.

1461. Have you heard that complaint from many quarters ?-From a considerable number.

1462. I presume that in none of these cases you have personally experienced inconvenience, but that you are only reporting to the Committee what has been brought under your notice as secretary of the society?-It is entirely what has been reported to me by others; it has been no business of mine to interfere.

1463. Have you heard any complaints, that the answers when sent did not appear to come from the heads of the department? Yes, I have certainly heard such complaints.

1464. What shape have these complaints assumed?--I will give one as an instance. I remember, last year, a correspondence being sent to me, I think from Berwick-on-Tweed, on the subject of the Endowment Minute, in which a correspondent had asked the Committee of Council that the question whether the children of fishermen were to be considered as constituting children in a rural school, might be considered specially by their Lordships. He believed that it was a point which deserved some settlement, and a settlement by authority. That was in the month of September, and within two days he got an answer to say that my Lords considered that they must abide by their former decision. His remark to me upon that was, that he supposed even a country clergyman would know that at the end of September my Lords were hardly likely to meet and give an answer to an application in 48 hours, and he felt that the matter had not, in all probability, been brought before their Lordships.

1465. May the Committee infer that your correspondent was under the impression that upon every occasion of an answer to a communication from the office, my Lords were convened for the purpose?-No; he only said that that was a point which ought to have been considered by the head of the office.

1466. I presume that a large proportion of your country correspondents would be rather perplexed if they were called upon to define what "my Lords" meant?-Perhaps they would.

1467. But the answer appears in that case to have referred to some former decision ?-It did.

1468. And it was not within the knowledge of your correspondent what representative of the office might have been there to dictate that answer?-It was not.

1469. It was mere supposition on his part, was it not?-Yes.

1470. Do you know any other case in which there has been a complaint of letters being answered in a summary mode by officials without bearing the sanction of the heads of the office?I cannot now call to mind any other distinct

case.

1471. Do you think that the very great number

ber of forms that have to be gone through in every case of application to the office, is a subject of complaint?-Certainly.

1472. Have you ever considered whether that is a ground of complaint which might be easily god rid of?-I have sometimes thought that the forms, with reference particularly to applications for building grants, are somewhat multitudinous. 1473. You consider that they are unnecessarily voluminous ?-I have thought so.

1474. Do you think that they might be simplified, without disadvantage?—I have thought so. 1475. Is it not the case, that the regulations of the office with regard to teachers' houses have also been complained of?-Yes, very frequently by promoters of schools in small rural parishes.

1476. What ground of complaint has arisen with regard to teachers' houses?-That the same requirement is made for a teacher's house in a parish of 5,000 people as in a parish of 250 people, and that in a parish of 250 a house with parlour, kitchen, scullery, and three bed-rooms, must be provided, which house is probably only to be occupied by a mistress, who will have thrown upon her a house which she finds very expensive to keep up, and altogether unnecessarily large.

1477. There have been somewhat similar complaints, have there not, with regard to the requirements as to the size of the school-rooms ?—There were complaints at one time of the very narrow school-rooms which the Committee of Council almost always insisted upon, and which were found to be inconveniently narrow, and I have understood that they were found so by their own inspectors when built.

1478. Do you think that these complaints with regard to the requirements as to teachers' houses, and the injudicious dimensions for school-rooms, tend to show that evils arise from the centralised system of the Education Department, and from those things being laid down by an office in London, without reference to the real requirements of the different localities?-Certainly.

1479. You trace the evils to that cause?I do.

1480. Does that suggest to your mind an opinion that the present system might be much improved if some local organisation were created? -No doubt, if you could make the officials of the office more conversant with schools than perhaps they are, they would get that practical experience which, as has been commonly remarked to me, they are wanting in now.

1481. Your opinion seems to be that the business of the Education Department is carried on by officials who are not conversant with schools? They are not practically conversant with schools.

1482. Is it not your opinion that that is an inconvenience which is almost necessarily inherent in administering such a system by a central department unaided by any local information? Perhaps it may be so.

1483. From your long acquaintance with the subject of education, has it ever occurred to you that some local organisation might be established by which the extension of education over districts which are now neglected might be very much facilitated?-I confess that I have never been able to see my way very clearly to any feasible plan.

1484. Have you ever considered any of the various plans which have been suggested for the purpose? I considered the plan, for instance,

which was suggested by the Education Commission.

1485. What is your opinion of that?-That seems to be more workable than any other plan I ever heard of, but I foresaw difficulties in that plan.

1486. Is it your opinion that if the Education Department were administered, that the head, or heads, of it felt at liberty to direct their attention to the whole country, they might not engraft upon that recommendation of the Commissioners some system which might have a beneficial effect all over England?-I confess I see difficulty

about it.

1487. But is it your opinion that those difficulties would be insuperable if there was a real wish to accomplish the object?—I am afraid the difficulties would be insuperable, and chiefly on the question of the religious teaching of the schools.

1488. Do you think that the religious question would necessarily oppose insuperable difficulties to a plan similar in substance and principle, though perhaps not in exact detail, to that which was recommended by the Royal Commissioners? -I am afraid it would be, so far as I can see.

1489. I presume you think it would necessitate the adoption of a Conscience Clause?-Yes.

1490. And would that be, in your mind, fatal to it? I do not say that it would be fatal, but I think that it would drive out the clergy from schools in a great measure.

1491. Do you think that that would be a necessary result of it ?-I think that it would be so to a very great extent.

1492. The Conscience Clause has formed the subject of a public correspondence between the society with which you are connected and the Education Department, has it not?-It has.

1493. I need not question you, therefore, with regard to the opinion of your society upon that clause; but can you state to the Committee whether you think that the committee of the National Society have entertained a strong objection, irrespective of the merits of the clause itself, to the mode in which it has been introduced and brought into action?-Yes, they have certainly expressed an opinion that it had been brought in without, so far as they knew, any Minute or any authority for it.

1494. Whatever opinions may be entertained by different persons upon the policy of that clause, you would agree that it is impossible to deny its importance; and, therefore, are you of opinion that, looking to its great importance, it ought to have been fairly brought before Parlia ment, and made the subject of a Minute?-I think that such a change as that ought to have been made in that way.

1495. Was it so introduced as to take the Church schools by surprise in any way?-Certainly.

1496. When did you first hear complaints from the managers of Church schools of the introduction of that clause ?-It was in June or July 1860.

1497. It was not before that time?—It was not before that time; those were the first cases which were ever brought under our notice.

1498. What was the nature of the complaints which were then brought before you?-That the introduction of this clause had been a condition of the Parliamentary grant in aid of building a school.

1499. Were there many cases brought before you in which the introduction of that clause in the trust deed was made a distinct condition of a grant?-Four cases were brought before us in the first instance, which came in, as I may say, all at once, and they were all cases in Wales.

1500. What was the exact nature of the alle

gations which were then made to you on the subject? That the introduction of this clause had been made by the Council Office a condition of a grant.

1501. Therefore, I presume, you would say that the Council Office was, in fact, enforcing the adoption of that clause, would you not?They were saying, "We will not give a grant unless you take that clause."

1502. They said, "You shall not have the money without it," did they not? That was what they said.

1503. What was the result in those cases; were the clause and the money both rejected?In one case the Committee of Council, I think, withdrew their condition; in another case I believe that they found that the trust deed had been already executed-and in the case of Llanelly, the grant was certainly refused altogether.

1504. What was the fourth case?-In the fourth case also I think that the Committee of Council withdrew their regulation.

1505. Were those the first cases of which you heard? Those were the first cases, and they were followed by others.

1506. Are you able to state to the Committee what were the proportions as between Church people and Dissenters of the population in the parishes in those four cases?-I am afraid that I am not able to state that.

1507. Are you able, without entering into the exact particulars, to state generally what the proportions were ?--In the case of Llanelly, in which the Committee of Council persisted in requiring the clause, the population was very large. It was 16,000, and there was already more than one dissenting school in the parish.

1508. That was not a case in which only one school could be established?-No.

1509. Can you state what were the circumstances affecting the district in which the school in question was to be built ?-There was a good deal of discussion between the Committee of Council and the promoters of the school as to the facts of the case, and I really am hardly able to say what the circumstances were.

1510, Are you prepared to state whether, in that portion of the parish which would have benefited by the school, the proportion of Dissenters was very large as compared with the Church population? I am afraid that I can hardly do so.

1511. Can you state to the Committee in any one of those four cases, what was the proportion of Dissenters to Church people, in the parishes to be provided for?-I can do so with regard to some subsequent cases, but not in those cases.

1512. After those four cases, when did you next hear of strong complaints upon the introduction of the Conscience Clause?-Some cases were brought under the notice of the Committee at the end of 1861.

1513. How many cases were then brought before you? There were four, which the Committee then brought under the notice of the Lord Pre

sident. A deputation went to him upon the subject.

1514. From what parts of the country?-One was in Herefordshire; another was in Oxfordshire; another was at Bristol; and the fourth was in Buckinghamshire.

1515. Then they were all English cases?They were English cases, all of them.

1516. Do you know the proportions of Dissenters and Church people in those parishes respectively?-In the case of Chrishall and South Stoke, the proportion was about two-thirds Church people, and one-third Dissenters.

1517. Was there only room for one school in that case?—No; the population was small in both

cases.

1518. What was done in that case?-The Committee of Council insisted upon the Clause, and the grant was declined.

1519. Do you think that they were wrong?I certainly think so, because in those two cases every householder in the parish asked for a school in connection with the National Society.

1520. Do you mean that all the Dissenters wished for a school in connection with the National Society?-Every one; a memorial was sent up to the Council Office.

1521. Do you mean that all the Dissenters objected to the Conscience Clause?—They signed a petition to the Council Office requesting that a grant might be made on the usual terms.

1522. Do you infer from that fact, that onethird of the population being Dissenters, wished their children to be brought up as Church people?-I do not suppose that they cared very

much about it.

1523. Do you mean that they were not very zealous Dissenters ?--I should think not.

1524. You seem to assume that they were not very zealous in their dissenting views; supposing that they had been very zealous, do you think that it would have been right to expose them to the alternative of either having their children uneducated, or of having their religious convictions violated?-I do not know that their religious convictions would have been violated.

1525. Would your religious convictions be violated, if your child was educated and brought up in religious opinions of which you did not approve? So far as I know the practice of the clergy of the Church of England, they, with very few exceptions, make very careful allowance for the religious scruples of Dissenters, and they are what is commonly called very tolerant and liberal towards them.

1526. Assuming that to be generally the case, it would become a question whether that which it is right to do must always be done voluntarily, or whether it must be prescribed by law ?—Quite so; but there is a great difference between the two things.

1527. Have you ever heard of a complaint in largement of a school already in union merely any case where a grant was refused for the enbecause that school was in union with the National Society?-Yes, there was one case, the particulars of which we forwarded to the Committee of Council, which occurred subsequently to those four which I have just mentioned.

1528. When was that?-That must have been in the year 1863.

1529. I presume, from what you say, that an application was made for a grant to enlarge the. school?-Yes.

1530. Was