The Sun.
London, England, 1863-05-06 00:00:00

IRE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, MAY 6, 1863.

those who had not been in a training college, but who were
capable of standing an examination ill reading; writing,
and geographye- jttet the Very class of whom country clergy-
men Stood so much in need. Well, the grievance was that
they would not give the giant to schools taught by teachers
who would not submit themselves to be examined, who were
either too ignorant, too wayward, too conceited, or too timid
to do so. (Hear.) But they refused to trust the youth of the
country in the hands of persons of whom they knew nothing
except that they were unwilling to pass an examination in
the very elements of learning. In the next place, as to the
number of the schools with la spect to which their text was
applicable. It had been stated authoritatively that more than
15,000 schools were excluded from the grant. Well, at a
future date he would undertake to prove that the figures
from which that deduction was made were utterly unreliable,
and that the compilers of those statistics were in entire
ignorance of the real number of the unassisted schools. It
must be quite obvious that the present proposal would
have the effect of destroying the training colleg s. Now,
if that was to be done, let it be done openly and
decidedly, and not through the instrumentality of a casual
alteration in the system. The system of the revised code
was yet untried ; still, he had great confidence in its success.
But not only was it untried, but it had been shorn of its
original vigour. They had to give up the system of group-
ing by age, and they had to weaken the examination test.
And there was this point a'so, to which the attention of his
hon. friend had not been called. Very many duties were
cast upon the schoolmaster. He had to keep a record as to
his school, end a registry of the number of attendants that
entitled him to receive the capitation grant for his school.
He had the arrangement of the children for examination,
and he might pack them by placing them in the wrong
classes. Well, then, was it too much to require that, as
much as possible should be known as to th integri'y and
intelligence of a person so placed ? They had the means of
acquiring that knowledge now, and they had something like
a hold over the masters; but rob them of those facilities,
and they would be paying away the public money upon the
faith of men whose previous history they might be en-
tirely unacquainted with. Let them abolish the test and
consider how many inspectors it would be necessary to
keep going upon errands round the country. He confessed
he might have some hesitation in adhering so strictly to
the rule with respect to certificated masters, if the interior
class of teachers had not been introduced. But every one
whom he had consulted had admitted that the certificated
teachers were the corner-stone of the existing system; and
hat if they flung them away they would be upholding a
worse system than even that from which they had emerged.
With regard to pupil teachers, it was the duty of the
Government to provide them with efficient teachers.
The educated schoolmaster was also of great assistance
to the clergyman. The children who frequented the
sch of had never before come in contact with a man so
cultivated as the teacher. They could not depend for his
efficiencyon the managers, who might have chosen a teacher
without knowing anything of his qualifications; they could
not depend on the inspection, for it often only lasted a few
hours ; the only thing they could depend upon was the test
of examination, and ho trusted the house would maintain it.
(Hear.) Let them consider the impression which an effi-
cient schoolmaster was capable of producing upon the young
and plastic minds of children; and they should be careful
that the man to whom they entrusted so much should come
up to the standard which they wished them to attain. They
would not trust a man to cut a diamond who had no skill
in cutting diamonds; and yet the children of the country
were worth many diamonds. (Cheers.) They also owed
it to the public that they should not only do their best, but
influence them as far as they could in the right direction by
precept and example. These were the grounds on which
he trusted the house would not ask the Privy Council to
give up the certificate, which was the only means by which
they could judge of the efficiency of a teacher. This was too
important a matter to be bartered away for a few shillings.
If it was not to be maintained as it now was, let it to be
altogether abandoned, and let them revert to the old state
of things. They had provided 3,000 more schools than ex••
isted in 1859, while there were also 27,000 more children in
attendance at school. The expenditure last year was c nly
£770,060, and for this year the estimate would be
£804,000 ; but, according to the calculation of Sir T. Shut-
tleworth, if the expenditure were to be regulated by the in-
crease, it would amount to upwards of £1,200,000. For all
these reasons he trusted the house would not substitute for
the new system, which was yet untried, but which, as far as
they had gone was working well—that they would not substi-
tute for it one which could not yield the same substantial
returns. (Cheers.)
Mr. DUTTON said that anybody who knew anything of
schools must be aware that the difficulty was not in getting
the school built ; and it always struck him as the greatest
blot upon their system of education that the Privy Council
gave no aid towards the great expenses in rural districts,
where the master or mistress were not certificated; and if
the hon. gentleman divided upon that point, he would go
into the lobby with him.
Mr. F. POWELL differed from the hon. gentleman who
introduced the motion that there was any over-education in
the country. It seemed to him that the hon. member for
Berkshire took a one sided view of the system. He regarded
the question from an agricultural point of view, having the
rural schools present to his mind, whilst disregarding the
schools in towns. Something had been said about the aver-
sion to pupil teachers ; but he trusted the day would never
come when masters would be unwilling to give instruction
to, and receive assistance from, pupil teachers. The hon.
gentleman quoted a speech from a report to show that it was
no part of the Liberalism of France to give schools to inef-
ficient teachers. He thought the experiment of testing by
results should be allowed a fair trial ; but the could not ap-
ply the system of testing by results to reading, writing, and
arithmetic, as such a test could only be obtained from the
future career of the pupils.
M. SALT thought it very undesirable that any change
should be made in the new system until it was fairly tried.
He did not now say whether the new code was good or bad,
but, as a manager of a school, he felt it was his duty to
carry out the system sanctioned by Parliament. What they
were doing now was experimental. They would know more
and more by-and-by, and the language of the managers of
schools should be, " Let us alone until we see how the new
system works."
Mr. ADDE RLEY said he gave credit for perfect sincerity
to the mover of the resolutions, but he could not altogether
follow the hon. gentleman who seconded the motion. He
thought the aim and object of all public grants should be
the improvement of the previous system of education. There
were hitherto three tests established to entitle a zehool to a
grant; first, that elementary instruction should in every
case be given and received ; secondly, the test of inspection
both as to the state of the school and the attendance and
general competition; and thinly, that the schools should
be under certificated masters. The hon. member for Berk-
shire (Mr. Walter) now proposed to do away with the last
two of those tests within twelve months, and to open the
public treasury to all those schools which fulfilled the firs

condition. It was true the hon. gentleman had somewhat
modified that view in his speech, so that those schools should

only be entitled to a portion of grant ; but he thought

when dealing with public money) it would always be found
very dangerous to make any exceptions to the general rule

once established. (Hear.) The result was generally found

to be that after a short time the exception became the rule,

He was disposed to apply the grant to cchools for the poor,

. ,
but not to poor schools. The hon. gentleman asked that
the poor schools might be admitted to a participation in the

public grant upon answering the tests of attendance and
examination. But he wished to ask, were those schools ex-
cluded now ? Certainly not. Those schools might obtain
the grant if they chose, but they would not. The first
obstacle was pride, and the second was the reluctance to
submit to the examination of the Government inspector.
He had had numbers of applications to contribute to
schools, but when he had offered to do so on condition

that there should be a Government inspection, his offers
had been regularly refused. The hon. gentleman also
objected to the money spent upon certificated schools.
The hon. gentleman concluded by moving, as an
amendment, to leave out after " applicable," and insert
"to schools only of the working classes, but to all of
them alike, in the way of proportionate aid to voluntary
support; subject to the favourable report of the inspector,
and to tests of at least elementary instruction being given
in them by teachers in all respects qualified."
Mr. HENLEY said he had heard a very good speech
from his right hon. friend opposite (Mr. Lowe), but it was
obvious that that speech would have applied to the state of
things three or four years ago, but not now. He would,
however, vote for the resolutions of the hon. gentleman
(Mr. Walter), because he believed they would be for the
advantage of schools spread over a considerable area of
. _

country which had been taxed for the last 16 or 17 year;
without showing any sign of discontent. He could not
_ _

support the propositions of the right hon. gentleman oppo-
site (Mr. Lowe), because he did not believe they would do
any good to the great number of village schools. He espe-
cially disapproved of that portion which provided that a
school of perhaps 30 children should be left to the care of a
pupil teacher of from 20 to 25 years of age, probably with
no mother or other relative residing near her. The lower-
ing of the certificate would effectually pull the quality of the
schools down to a lower state than previous speakers ima-
gined. They were going to increase the schools in number
and lower them in quality, which he thought bad policy.
All schools containing any considerable number of pupils
would for their own sakes prefer having trained to untrained
masters and mistresses. He cautioned the house against
adopting a system that would reduce the schools to a very
low state indeed. Two things were necessary, viz., that
Education should be based on religious training; and se-

condly, that the system should be made more elastic, s•-as
to take in the large number of outsiders—the ragged schools

and the Arab population—and not allow them to go whole-
sale to a place that must not be named—(hear)—without

holding a helping hand out to them. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. PULLER was of opinion that it was better to meet
the resolutions proposed by the hon. member for Berk-
shire with a direct negative than by the amendment pro-
posed by the right hon, gentleman the member for North
Staffordshire. The resolutions, if adopted, would mate-
rially affect the management of the schools, and if they de-
Parted from their present system and relaxed their check
and control over it, the Government would soon have in
their hands the 'whole expense and control of the education
of the country,
Sir S. NOWTHCOTE said he did not understand that

the hon. member for Berkshire wished to get rid of the
three conditions that were necessary for obtaining the Go-
vernment grant—viz., a high state of education, G vern-
meat inspection, and premium to certified masters—but
rather that the Government grants should produce certain
results in the improvement of education, and that the schools
should be stimulated by the visits of the inspectors and put
themselves in a way of further improvement. There was a
large number of the small country schools, and those main-
tained in towns for the poorer classes, that were unable to
take advantage of the Government grants; and so long as that
was the case, their system was standing on an unsound foun-
dation, and a remedy must be provided at no dis-
tant day. The proposed mode, by lowering the class of cer-
tificated masters, he thought objectionable. The system of
certificated masters, and the training of pupil teachers, was
an important branch of the education of the country, and,
instead of lowering it, he considered it would be better to
make some provision for that class of schools which was at
present excluded from any participation in the public grant.
He suggested the withdrawal of the first resolution, the
carrying of which would unnecessarily embarrass the Go-
vernment, and take the division on the second resolution in
regard to the inexpediency of requiring certificated teachers
to be employed in all cases.
Sir M. FARQUHAR pronounced himself as highly
favourable to the second resolution of the hon. member,
Mr. WALTER declared he was ready to withdraw the
first resolution, and allow the division to b 3 taken on the
second, which embraced the main question at stake.
Mr ADDERLEY having also withdrawn his amendment,
The house divided on the second resolution—

Ayes
Noes
Majority against the resolution ---• 35
THE ACT OF UNIFORMITY.
Mr. BOUVERIE moved that the house should go into
committee to enable him to amend the Act of Uniformity.
His object was to amend a portion of the act which was
comparatively unnoticed and obscure, and to repeal the Bth
section, which made it incumbent on deans, canons, pre-
bends, professors, masters of colleges, and all fellows, to
make a declaration of conformity to the Liturgy of the
Church previous to their admission to appointments or fel-
lowships. In 1860 the senior wrangler was Mr. Stirling, a
Scotsman, and although that gentleman took one of the
most distinguished degrees ever known at Cambridge, he
was unable to hold a fellowship at his college, because, being
a member of the Free Church of Scotland, he could not
make the declaration of conformity respecting the Liturgy
of the Church of England.
Mr. WALPOLE said, as he understood his right hon.
friend to confine his motion to one specific question, he
would simply address himself to that question. The motion
was to repeal so much of the Act of Uniformity as made it
necessary to subscribe a declaration of conformity to the
Church of England before one could become a fellow of the
University of Cambridge. Let them see what the conse-
quence would be in practice of assenting to the motion. A
proposition has been made in that house by Mr. Heywood;
it was proposed in two forms—one was that no declaration
should be required for the degree of Bachelor of Arts, and
the second was that there should be no declaration for
Master of Arts. The first proposition had been carried by
a large majority, and when the second was about to be put,
he (Mr. 'Walpole) pointed out that it would be necessary to
reconsider the first; and for this reason—that there were
two principles involved. The principle involved in the first
proposition was that the university should be open for the
purpose of education to all the subjects of the Queen ; but
the principle of the second was that the Government of the
collegues and their endowment might be acquired by those
who were not members of the Church of England. He asked
whether the house had not again recorded its decision in
1856, when the right hon. gentleman himself had charge of
the University Bill, and when a clause was proposed for the
admission of Dissenters. Seeing that the house had thus
solemnly recorded its opinion upon two occasions, he hoped
it would not reverse it without very strong reasons.
Mr. P. URQUHART said, if ever there was a proposi-
tion that would be for the advantage of the universities, it
was that of the right hon. gentleman behind him (Mr.
Bouverie).
Lord STANLEY said the proposition of 1856 was dif•

ferent from the present; and, looking at the circumstances
of the case, he believed the house exercised a wise discretion
in rejecting that proposition. The character and constitu-
tion of the colleges would not be affected if the motion be-

fore the home was carried, and he should give it his support
There was a growing opinion among the younger member.
of the colleges that some such change as that now con.
templated was inevitable. (Hear, hear.) .

Sir W. HEATHCOTE hoped the house would pause
before they did anything that was likely to overthrow the
decision of 1854 and 1856.
Mr. DUFF supported the motion.

Lord R, CECIL condemned the proposition, and hoped
the house would not assimilate the English to the German
universities. The noble lord concluded by moving the
adjournment of the debate, in order to allow of members
expressing an opinion with respect to the bill.
Lord PALMERSTON said that his right hon. friend in
taking this subject up, had given a notice so vague that he
had conveyed no intimation of the particular motion which
he intended to found upon it. No doubt the motion was of
considerable importance, and it would have been fairer to
the house if his right hon. friend had stated the particular
object that he had in view. (Hear, hear.) The present
stage, however, of the motion was equivalent to moving for
leave to bring in a bill ; but, inasmuch as the bill was con-
stituted of very little detail, and might be said rather to
involve a principle, it might be competent for the house, at
the first blush, to form an opinion with respect to it. At
the same time the question was ono with regard to which
parties of that house were entitled to full time for conside-
ration, and upon that ground he should not be indisposed
to vote for going into committee in order to allow of the bill

being introduced. He confessed, however, the question
raised required very grave consideration; and he must not
be understood as expressing any opinion in favour of the
bill by voting for going into committeee.
Lord R. CECIL then withdrew his motion for the
adjournment of the debate.
The house divided.
For going into committee
Against
Majority -22
The house then went into committee.
The resolution was agreed to, and leave was given to
bring in the bill. The 3d of June was fixed for the second
reading.