the luxury of protest and complaint; and in the present instance it is as unreasonable to denounce managers and teachers of schools for the outcry they are making, as it would be to express surprise that sheep are sometimes restive under the shears, or that eels do not always lie still to be skinned. But, whatever opinion may be entertained of the decency or justice of the present excitement, there is no doubt that an important collateral advantage will result from it. It is making the question of Education the question of the season; and the subject stands a good chance of being very widely discussed, very generally studied, and, at last, we may hope, permanently settled on a sound and reasonable basis. And, indeed, if the ruling spirits of the Council Office had wished to rouse a dozing public to the active consideration of this question, they could not have devised any plan so likely to effect their object as that which they have thought fit to adopt.

Moreover, the suddenness with which the thing has been done-the quick, dexterous, unexpected jerk with which the New Code has been thrown among us-has all the bracing effect on the popular energies of one's morning plunge into cold water.

It is difficult to know how much acquaintance with educational politics it is safe to presuppose among general readers. Some of the lay public are, no doubt, well versed in the subject; but a great many have very dim notions of the functions of the Committee of Council, of the nature of pupil-teachers, certificates, augmentation grants, and such-like mysteries of the craft. These things, then, the reader must bear in mind, have sprung out of the relation in which National or Elementary Schools stand to the Government. Formerly, the management of a school was a simple business. The Patron, or Clergyman, or Committee of Managers, raised funds by voluntary effort, appointed a master, imposed a school-fee, provided a few books, and a little apparatus; and the thing was done. The National Society

Society were founded early in the present century to promote the education of the children of the poor; Dr. Bell and Joseph Lancaster suggested improved methods of teaching and management; a stronger interest was awakened in the work; it began to be felt and believed that to educate effectively called for more system and method, for more scientific processes, for a more exalted view of the teacher's requirements and position; objections were started and answered; and, at length, popular opinion became ripe for a very important crisis for the interference of the State in the education of the people. This interference was, at first, extremely cautious in its nature, and very limited in its extent.

In 1832, the sum of 20,000l. was voted by Parliament, and administered by the Treasury, and was expended in grants for building schools, under the auspices of the National and British and Foreign School Societies. In 1839, the grant was raised from 20,000l. to 30,000l. and its administration was confided to a special department, constituted for that purpose, viz. the Education Committee of the Privy Council. Under the auspices of this central body, a very elaborate educational system has been called into existence, and the parliamentary grant has year by year increased, till, in 1860, it reached 800,0007.

Now it must be observed that the system inaugurated by the Committee of Council is one which by its very constitution must expand and develop, and must also carry along with it a corresponding expansion and development of the annual grant. Of late years, perhaps we may say from 1852, when the amount was 160,000l., the increase has averaged about 70,000l. per annum; and, if the existing system should be left undisturbed, this average increase will be steadily maintained for several years

to come.

A glance at the various uses to which the grant is applied will show that this result is inevitable. In order to take advantage of the parliamentary vote for

*

in connexion with the Council Office and open to the visits of the Government Inspector. It seems that in 1860 about 8,000 schools in England and Wales participated in the annual grant, while by the returns of the Education Commissioners it appears that there are in England and Wales about 23,000 public week-day schools supported by religious denominations. Hence, there were, in 1860, 15,000 schools still excluded from the benefits of the Council Office system. Of these schools, however, a certain number yearly qualify themselves for participation in the grant, and thus increase the demand made by national education on the public revenue. There is indeed no probability that the whole of these 15,000 schools would, even under existing arrangements, be able to meet the requirements of the Privy Council; so that we cannot settle future. education estimates by a rule of three sum, and say that, if 8,000 schools. cost the country a certain amount, the cost of 23,000 will be a proportionate amount representing the predestined maximum of the parliamentary grant. But, on the other hand, there has been a tendency to relax conditions and liberalize payments in favour of rural schools, which, if carried out to the full, might cause an increase above the estimated average, and even possibly go near to realize the seemingly exaggerated calculations of those who anticipate a steady upward advance to the formidable sum of five millions. As things are, how ever, it would be safe to reckon on a yearly increase in the payments to teachers. The Training Colleges annually send out nearly 1,500 students, entitled, as soon as they obtain schools, to an augmentation grant, which may be averaged at 167. This calls for an. increase in the annual grant of above 20,000. As additional schools come under inspection there must be a further increase in the payments to the pupil teachers and assistants, in the capitation grant on attendance, and in the costs of inspection itself.

It is obvious therefore that, as I before

grant is, under existing arrangements, certain and inevitable; and, however great the merits of the Privy Council system may be, and however justifiable the anticipated growth of expenditure, it is certainly time to consider whether that system is the best possible, and whether that expenditure is followed by corresponding results.

It was this conviction which led to the appointment, in 1858, of a commission to inquire into the state of popular education in England; and the report of that commission has, in its turn, led to the issue of the revised code, about .which so much is being said, and against which so many demonstrations have taken place.

It. must, however, be observed that the revised code, though undoubtedly an effect of the commission, is by no means an exact expression of the opinions and recommendations of the Commissioners. On the contrary, though, with some modifications, it borrows from their report one or two of its leading features, yet, in some points-as more especially in its way of dealing with training. colleges-it takes a course directly opposed to their suggestions and to the evidence on which those suggestions are based. Now, the Commissioners' report pronounces a verdict, in many respects, very favourable to the existing Privy Council system. But, while it acknowledges that, among other important results, a great increase has taken place in the number of children at school throughout the country, that the influence exercised by the elementary schools is very salutary, and that their tone and discipline are generally good, it accuses them of a very serious shortcoming as regards the teaching of the rudiments of education. In spite of trained teachers, active inspectors, and first-rate machinery, a very large proportion of the children of the working classes fail to acquire sufficient skill in reading to enable them. to make any practical use of the accomplishment. This is the deliberatelypronounced verdict of the Royal Commis sioners; it is supported to a very great

their annual reports; and no one, as far as I know, has come forward to controvert it. On this point managers and schoolmasters seem rather disposed to allow judgment to go by default.

In the absence, then, of any rebutting evidence we have no alternative but to believe that the statement of the Commissioners is in the main true. And if so, what follows? Why, surely, that a change of some kind is wanted. The least that should be required from an elaborate educational system, aided by State grants, is that those who take advantage of it should, as a rule, acquire the ability to read and write. To give this is not necessarily to educate in the full sense of the word, but it is to furnish the indispensable instruments of education. Where this is not given, it is very hard to say what is given; for a child who leaves school without being able to read is never very likely to do much for its own self-improvement, and will very soon lose those moral and religious impressions which it may have received through its attendance at school and its submission to school discipline.

Now, if these two facts-a necessarily increasing expenditure and an important deficiency of results-be clearly proved, no one will venture to deny that some modification of the existing system is called for. And, indeed, this is admitted by many violent opponents of the revised code. We may take it for granted, therefore, that, with the exception of some with whom personal interest outweighs every other

con

sideration, the objection is, not to change in itself, but to the particular changes proposed, and to the manner in which they have been forced on the country. If this be so, we may hope that a full and free discussion of the subject will lead to suggestions on the one side, and concessions on the other, which may bring about a satisfactory and conclusive adjustment of the question. It is my wish to make this paper a humble contribution to this desirable result.

A careful examination of the revised code leads to the conclusion that its

(1) Economy of expenditure. (2) Simplification and decentralization of system.

(3) The securing of a certain minimum of well-defined practical results.

Now, with regard to the first of these, the question at once suggests itself, Is retrenchment demanded, and is it desirable? The national expenditure is, indeed, sufficiently great, and has excited considerable indignation amongst financial reformers. Economy in the outlay of public money is popular in the abstract; but opposition is sure to be excited when any particular item is selected for economical experiment. And certainly the Education Grant is not a very grievous offender. Its progressive increase may have called attention to it; but, after all, when we consider the importance socially and politically of the work it aims at doing, we must admit that its aggregate amount is comparatively insignificant. It must, I think, be insisted on that, if the State is to take an efficient part in the promotion of National Education, and at the same time to extend its aid impartially to all whose position and necessities are the same, the public grant can never be less than 800,000l., and ought to be considerably more.

But this is one of the first things to be settled, and on its settlement the future of education depends. What is to be the maximum of the parliamentary vote? Are we to stop short of a million, and say to educational expenditure, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther?" If so, then the system must be adapted to this law of finality, and schools now in receipt of public money must submit to a reduction in their grants in order that as many schools as possible may participate in the distribution. Abstract justice seems to require this; and yet it is certain that education will suffer by the enforcement of such a rule-for more good is done by the bestowal of liberal grants on a limited number of important schools than by the scattering of scanty streams of benefaction over a very wide surface.

in connexion with the Council Office and open to the visits of the Government Inspector. It seems that in 1860 about 8,000 schools in England and Wales participated in the annual grant, while by the returns of the Education Commissioners it appears that there are in England and Wales about 23,000 public week-day schools supported by religious denominations. Hence, there were, in 1860, 15,000 schools still excluded from. the benefits of the Council Office system. Of these schools, however, a certain number yearly qualify themselves for participation in the grant, and thus increase the demand made by national education on the public revenue. There is indeed no probability that the whole of these 15,000 schools would, even under existing arrangements, be able to meet the requirements of the Privy Council; so that we cannot settle future. education estimates by a rule of three sum, and say that, if 8,000 schools. cost the country a certain amount, the cost of 23,000 will be a proportionate amount representing the predestined maximum of the parliamentary grant. But, on the other hand, there has been a tendency to relax conditions and liberalize payments in favour of rural schools, which, if carried out to the full, might cause an increase above the estimated average, and even possibly go near to realize the seemingly exaggerated calculations of those who anticipate a steady upward advance to the formidable sum of five millions. As things are, how ever, it would be safe to reckon on a yearly increase in the payments to teachers. The Training Colleges annually send out nearly 1,500 students, entitled, as soon as they obtain schools, to an augmentation grant, which may be averaged at 167. This calls for an increase in the annual grant of above 20,000l. As additional schools come under inspection there must be a further increase in the payments to the pupil teachers and assistants, in the capitation grant on attendance, and in the costs of inspection itself.

It is obvious therefore that, as I before

grant is, under existing arrangements, certain and inevitable; and, however great the merits of the Privy Council system may be, and however justifiable the anticipated growth of expenditure, it is certainly time to consider whether that system is the best possible, and whether that expenditure is followed by corresponding results.

It was this conviction which led to the appointment, in 1858, of a commission to inquire into the state of popular education in England; and the report of that commission has, in its turn, led to the issue of the revised code, about which so much is being said, and against which so many demonstrations have taken place.

It must, however, be observed that the revised code, though undoubtedly an effect of the commission, is by no means an exact expression of the opinions and recommendations of the Commissioners. On the contrary, though, with some modifications, it borrows from their. report one or two of its leading features, yet, in some points-as more especially in its way of dealing with training colleges it takes a course directly opposed to their suggestions and to the evidence on which those suggestions are based. Now, the Commissioners' report pronounces a verdict, in many respects, very favourable to the existing Privy Council system. But, while it acknowledges that, among other important results, a great increase has taken place in the number of children at school throughout the country, that the influence exercised by the elementary schools is very salutary, and that their tone and discipline are generally good, it accuses them of a very serious shortcoming as regards the teaching of the rudiments of education. In spite of trained teachers, active inspectors, and first-rate machinery, a very large proportion of the children of the working classes fail to acquire sufficient skill in reading to enable them to make any practical use of the accomplishment. This is the deliberatelypronounced verdict of the Royal Commissioners; it is supported to a very great

their annual reports; and no one, as far as I know, has come forward to controvert it. On this point managers and schoolmasters seem rather disposed to allow judgment to go by default.

In the absence, then, of any rebutting evidence we have no alternative but to believe that the statement of the Commissioners is in the main true. And if so, what follows? Why, surely, that a change of some kind is wanted. The least that should be required from an elaborate educational system, aided by State grants, is that those who take advantage of it should, as a rule, acquire the ability to read and write. To give this is not necessarily to educate in the full sense of the word, but it is to furnish the indispensable instruments of education. Where this is not given, it is very hard to say what is given; for a child who leaves school without being able to read is never very likely to do much for its own self-improvement, and will very soon lose those moral and religious impressions which it may have received through its attendance at school and its submission to school discipline.

con

Now, if these two facts-a necessarily increasing expenditure and an important deficiency of results-be clearly proved, no one will venture to deny that some modification of the existing system is called for. And, indeed, this is admitted by many violent opponents of the revised code. We may take it for granted, therefore, that, with the exception of some with whom personal interest outweighs every other sideration, the objection is, not to change in itself, but to the particular changes proposed, and to the manner in which they have been forced on the country. If this be so, we may hope that a full and free discussion of the subject will lead to suggestions on the one side, and concessions on the other, which may bring about a satisfactory and conclusive adjustment of the question. It is my wish to make this paper a humble contribution to this desirable result.

A careful examination of the revised code leads to the conclusion that its

(1) Economy of expenditure. (2) Simplification and decentralization of system.

(3) The securing of a certain minimum of well-defined practical results.

Now, with regard to the first of these, the question at once suggests itself, Is retrenchment demanded, and is it desirable? The national expenditure is, indeed, sufficiently great, and has excited considerable indignation amongst financial reformers. Economy in the outlay of public money is popular in the abstract; but opposition is sure to be excited when any particular item is selected for economical experiment.. And certainly the Education Grant is not a very grievous. offender. Its progressive increase may have called attention to it; but, after all, when we consider the importance socially and politically of the work it aims at doing, we must admit that its aggregate amount ie comparatively insignificant. It must, I think, be insisted on that, if the State is to take an efficient part in the promotion of National Education, and at the same time to extend its aid impartially to all whose position and necessities are the same, the public grant can never be less than 800,000l., and ought to be considerably more.

But this is one of the first things to be settled, and on its settlement the future of education depends. What is to be the maximum of the parliamentary vote? Are we to stop short of a million, and say to educational expenditure,

66

Thus far shalt thou go, and no farther?" If so, then the system must be adapted to this law of finality, and schools now in receipt of public money must submit to a reduction in their grants in order that as many schools as possible may participate in the distribution. Abstract justice seems to require this; and yet it is certain that education will suffer by the enforcement of such a rule-for more good is done by the bestowal of liberal grants on a limited number of important schools than by the scattering of scanty streams of benefaction over a very wide surface.