The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-24 00:00:00

THE REVISED CODE.

Lord R. CECIL asked the vice-president of the com-
mittee of coancil whether the committee of council held
that they were discharged of all liability to the pupil teach-
'° under article 54 of the revised code by paying, in ac-
' eeswith paragraph 36 of the instructions, to the
man
_the amount of the pupil teachers' stipends and
gratuities
the, or whether, in the case of manager declining to
pay over
hounndetyoas received, the committee would feel
themselves
And whether, in re see the pupil teachers paid in full.
ber of children at tiltdeitillg the managers to report the num-
ot
trh:chools who did not some under the
terms of article 4
surevised code, as " children belong-
labour,"ing to the classes who
hented themselves by manual
the committee
mini:shed either managers or
inspectors with a definition of
"manual labour."
Mr. LOWE said the noble lordwr laboured under a strange
misapprehensi,n in regard to bio °face
of money advanced by the committos 'oraelY) that sums
gers of schools were in danger of being ?mticil to mana-
bezzled. He (Mr. Lowe) knew of no such_ PP,l,ied, and em-
it was a great Pity that such a thing shodd7: ua thought
the case ofso respectable a body as the managers:lSchools
However, to answer the question more directly,wou
,;
say that the Committee of Privy Council knew no body is
the schools but the managers ; and when they had had paid
the money voted by Parliament to the managers, the corn.
mittee stood discharged of all liability. In all cases, not
excluding the very improbable one supposed by the noble
lord, the pupil teachers would be without a remedy against
the committee of council. With regard to the noble
lord's second question, as to whether the committee had
made any definition of the term " manual labour " with
a view of excluding the children of certain parents from
the schools, the noble lord was quite mistaken in sup-
posing that the committee had made a regulation exclud-
ing the children of such parents. What the committee
had done was to order that the children of such parents
should be entered in a separate column from the others,
in order that the parents should be made to contribute
towards their education. The committee had not sup-
plied any definition of the term "manual labour ;" but no
doubt, when they had had experience of the classes of per-
sons who sent their children to the schools, they should be
able to frame a more satisfactory definition of the class in-
tended to be described as living by manual labour.
Lottl R. CECIL said he had no desire whatever to accuse

managers of embezzlement, but, at the same time, it was
quite possible they might retain money through misappre-
hension, which ought to be paid over to the pup 1 leachers.
Well, then, in the case of such misapprehension, ho desired
to know whether the committee of council would give any
further validity to the promises made to th 3 pupil teachers.
Mr. LOWE said the question answered itself. If mana-
gers declined to pay money over after their tttention had
been called to the matter, they could not be said to do so
under misapprehension. (Hear, hear.) In such case, all
that the committee of council could do would be to strike a
school off the list of those entitled to share in the grant.