The Sun.
London, England, 1861-12-11 00:00:00

in an infant school can learn little or nothing under

the proposed test.
"But, while we refrain from expatiating on the
above points and other matters of detail, we must
urge as a principal objection that the test tends to
exclude from school dull and irregular scholars and
those whose home training is most defective (the
very class of children for whose benefit the Parlia-
mentary grant should be made most available), for
such scholars it will not pay to teach. . . And,
while the proposed test will thus prejudicially affect
the lowest grade of scholars, we greatly object to
that provision of the Revised Code which excludes
from Government aid (should they have once passed
in Group IV)all children above 11 years of age,the
very class whose prolonged attendance at school
i
has hitherto been considered of such high mport.
ance, whereby the progress of national education
will be impeded, and advancement in every branch
of religious and secular learning most seriously
checked.
" V. The regulations of the revised code with re-
spect to pupil teachers are of such a character that
the class must be greatly deteriorated, and compa-
ratively few (especially boys) will complete their
term of pupilage under its provisions. The conse-
quences will be prejudicially felt first in the elemen-
tary school, and then in the training colleges. The
pupil teachers will leave the schools just as they
begin to be really serviceable ; and their deficiency
in number and mediocrity of attainment will de-
prive the training colleges of the requisite supply of
students, and subsequently the country of an ade-
quate supply of trained teachers for elementary
schools. How, again, can it be expected that school
managers will be willing to engage the services of
pupil-teachers, and pre-pay their salaries, accord-
ing to the local rate of wages, on the mere chance
of being reimbursed on such pupil-teachers passing
a successful examination before her Majesty's In-
spectors at the end of the year ? . . •
"It has, indeed, been urged by defenders of the
Revised Code that no local contributions are raised
to meet the cost of pupil-teachers. We reply, it
would cause a most unnecessary complication of
accounts to raise separate local contributions for all
the different heads of public expenditure. Nor can
this objection be allowed to have any weight so
long as 20s. are raised locally to meet every 10s. of
public grant, taking the grant to each school as a
whole. This proportion is recognised as reasonable
by the Revised Code itself, and deemed satisfactory
by the school managers, who are content with and
have never asked for more than one-third of public
money to meet two-thirds of local contribution.
" In conclusion, allow us, my Lord, to express our
conviction that, in the discussions respecting educa-
tion during the last few months, justice has not
been done to the Privy Council system. Many gen-
tlemen now actively engaged in the cause have no
personal knowledge of the state of popular educa-
tion as it existed prior to 1846. They can scarcely
realise the vast change which has taken place both
in town and rural districts. They are not aware
that trained and qualified teachers could not be
obtained, even by those who were willing to pay
high salaries. Nor could suitable candidates be
found to resort to the few training colleges then
existing, even when education was offered them free
of all expense, Nothing short of the fostering hand
of the State, in paying the stipends of pupil-teachers,
and providing the cost of their training, together
with the prospective advantage of an honourable cer-
tificate of merit, carrying a definite money-value,
could ever have introduced into the ranks of our ele-
mentary teachers a body of men and women such as
we believe are unequalled in any other country.
However forgotten, these facts are undeniable; and,
consequently, the charge against the Privy Council
system, that it has unnecessarily ' petted the
teachers' and protected them by bounties, is ground-
less. We further venture to assert, as the result of
our observation and experience, that it is not easy
to over-estimate the practical value of the teacher's
augmentation, conditional, as it is, on a satisfactory
report of his school. It acts alike as an encourage-
ment and a stimulus. The excellency of the system,
and the striking success which has attended its ope-
rations, during the brief period of 9 years which
have elapsed since the first band of teachers trained
under its provisions entered upon their arduous
work, have been fully acknowledged by the Royal
Commissioners, on testimony the most varied and
trustworthy.
"In the reports of her Majesty's Inspectors for
1860 it is stated (and on their experience and testi-
mony the country is prepared to rely) that in schools
examined reading is taught excellently well, or
fairly, in 89 per cent., writing in 91 per cent., and
arithmetic in 832 per cent., from which it is appa
rent that the rudiments of secular learning have
not been neglected ; and we submit that, if needful,
the standard by which the above-mentioned results
have been estimated may be gradually raised; and
that time and patience are alone required to pro.
duce results still more satisfactory and encouraging.
" Under these circumstances, school managers
and others interested in national education, who
have raised 8 or 9 millions of money in giving effect
to the existing Minutes of the Committee of Coun-
cil, and who have now above 1,000,000 scholars
under their charge, expected some measure which
might have improved and perfected, rather than
impeded and imperilled, so great a work in the full
career of its success.

" On these grounds we deeply deplore the publi-
cation of the Revised Code. The almost unanimous
verdicts of educationists is against it. Of whatever
improvements the scheme of education according to
existing minutes is susceptible, the Revised Code
neither suggests such improvements nor assists to
their attainment. We entreat that any future
change in the administration of the educational
grant may be confined within the limits of the
minutes of 1846, 1853, and 1860, and be consistent
with the principle of them • and that the structure
of the present system of education may be main-
tained entire. The Revised Code, on the contrary,
introduces changes so organic and fundamental that
no modification of its regulations can give satisfac-
tion. We, therefore, earnestly implore your Lord-
ship to withdraw a document which has occasioned
such wide-spread alarm, and thereby to restore that
confidence and co-operation between the Educa•
tionists of Great Britain and the Committee of
Council which has hitherto so happily prevailed ;
the interruption of which, for however short a period,
we regard as a public calamity.
" Signed on behalf of the Central London Com-
mittee appointed for the withdrawal of the Revised
Code,
" CHARLES R. ALFORD, M.A., } Honorary
"REGINALD GUNNERY, M.A., Secretaries.
" 11, Adam-street, Adelphi, Nov. 29."
Earl GRANVILLE observed that from the number
of persons composing the deputation, and the length
of time the memorial and names had taken in read-1
ing, it would be obviously inconvenient if every
gentleman present were to deliver an address. He
did not know what arrangement the committee had
made in this respect, but was anxious as far as
possible to fall in with their wishes.
The Rev. R. GUNNERY (one of the honorary
secretaries) said the deputation desired to submit
their case entirely upon their memorial.
Earl GRANVILLE—Then, I understand that you
wish to hear at once what I have to say in answer,
and that no gentleman present desires to add any-
thing to the statement of the memorial.
The Rev. C. R. ALFORD said that some gentle-
men might wish to state their views as to what
would be the operation of the Revised Code in the
districts they represented. (Cries of No, no.)
Archdeacon SINCLAIR said if further explanation
were required they would be anxious to give it.
Otherwise it would be advisable that one :or two
only should state from their experience what would
be the probable result.
Earl GRANVILLE—I understand, then, it is your
wish that no further observations should be made,
but I hope it will be equally understood that Mr.
Lowe and I would have been most ready to listen to
anything you might have thought desirable to urge.
We have been most desirous for information on the
subject over since this question arose, and we are
anxious for the fullest discussion. We have re-
ceived in our communications a large amount from
each side, many approving the principle which the
memorial condemns, and many complaining of it.
I admit that in dealing with so large a measure as
this we expected that certain blots would be hit.
We are anxious to make such alterations in the
details as may meet the wishes of the country, but
the prayer of the memorial is if I understand it,
that the Minute should be withdrawn, and I an;
bound at once to say that I cannot give any
satisfactory answer to the deputation on that
point. I believe that the piineipleison.t e which
is perfectly defensible, and that the
more
by 1 is
con-
sidered the more it will be approved the coun-
try. (Cries of No, no.) You are certainly a
large majority against me, but I state what is Illy
own opinion. I would point out to the depu• ation
that all are agreed upon one principle—a principle
which I feel very strongly myself—namely, that
it is desirable that State assistance should continue
to be given in aid of voluntary effort for promoting
education, and I think it is worthy of your atten-
tion, collectively and individually, to consider whe-
ther, after a Royal Commission has been appointed
by one Government, and has reported to another
Government, and that GoTernment has found rightly

or wrongly, that although great results have un- I
doubtedly arisen from the existing code, those re-
sults are not tantamount to the sum of money given
for the purpose, and have in consequence proposed
a system by which they consider those results may
be augmented—l think it is worthy of your con-
sideration whether, under these circumstances, it is
desirable that we should revert entirely to the old
system of the Minute of 1846. I will not go into ,
details. In short, I abstain from making any pledge
whatever as to the course which her Majesty's Go-
vernment may pursue upon this subject. There is
only one point I would remark upon. In the pre-
sence of many gentlemen, the great majority of
whom are clergymen, I hardly expected to see, not-
withstanding the violence of the denunciations we
have heard as to the apprehended effect of the code,
the same charge repeated of danger to the religious
instruction of the people. Almost every great change
has been subject to some charge of that sort. At one
time the objection was lest we should inspect the
religious instruction given in the schools, and I do
not wonder that there is extreme jealousy on this
point, for it shows that in the mind of the great
majority of educationalists it is necessary that we
should in one way or another combine religious with
secular instruction—(hear)—but I cannot under-
stand, and I assure you I have given my best atten-
tion to the subject, how the new code can affect that
question. The very first deputation I received here
was a very interesting one of about a dozen or more
clergymen labouring in schools in populous or poor
districts of the metropolis. They unquestionably
made out a strong case—a case unfortunately al-
most too strong for themselves—as to the pecuniary
results of the new code upon their schools. One gen-
tleman adverted to the injury that it would do to
the religious teaching, whereupon another clergy-
man got up and said he was sure every one present
would agree with him when he said that he did not
attach a feather's weight to the religious part of the
subject, and he added that he should be ashamed of
himself as a manager of schools—and the great ma-
jority of the clergy were, he believed, of the same
opinion—if he thought this code would enable them
or allow them to make the slightest alteration in
the religious instruction given them in the schools.
It is clear that as to teaching, reading and writing
are with us as much a part of the religious as of
, secular education. If you keep a child at school for
a certain length of time, and do not teach him to
read and write, the religious instruction you may
give him would have but little effect upon that
child when he left school. Ido not wish to argue
the question, but I am anxious that so large and
respectable a deputation should not for one moment
suppose that the Committee of Privy Council enter-
tain in the slightest degree the notion that it was
possible to diminish the efficacy of the religious
teaching in schools. I do not think it would be pro-
per, before the meeting of Parliament, to enter into
any discussion in defence of the new code, or to re-
fer to any alteration of detail which it may here-
after be thought desirable to make. I wish merely
to correct some misapprehension whiclasappeared to
have gone abroad as to our intentions and motives.
Mr. LOWE understood the memorial to say that
the new Minute altered the position of the whole
body of the existing pupil teachers, If that was

intended, that was an error.
The Rev. R. GUNNERY—The prospects which
they looked forward to on the faith of the broad-
sheet, and of which by the revised code they would
be deprived.
Mr. LOWE—There are, I believe, 8,000 teachers,
male and female, and 15,000 or 16,000 pupil

teachers.
The Rev. R. GUNNERY—The memorial states that
it cancels positive engagements with upwards of
20,000 pupil teachers.
Mr. LOWE—Yes, but they are all included in the
20,000, and unless some statement has been made
that I am not aware of to show that we cancel any
engagement with pupil teachers, that is an error.

Mr. MARTIN—The inducements held out to the
pupil teachers were those advantages which they
were to enjoy after passing through their pupilage
and obtaining certificates of merit, and but for which
they would not have become pupil teachers.
Mr. LOWE-But I submit you cannot call that a
positive engagement.
Mr. MARTIN—The broadsheet contains a state-
ment that, after passing through the state of pupil-
age, persons shall go to the training college, and
aft©r obtaining their certificates enter upon a new

state of things, under which their Lordships grant,
in aid of salary to every master and mistress, cer-
tain sums, according to the conditions set forth in a
table annexed; and it is clearly inferred that, as
long as the conditions are met by the parties, those
grants will be continued, and those grants belonged
to the teachers exclusively, and to the general funds
of the school. On the faith of that I have appren-
ticed many teachers who have given up £5O or £lOO
a year, believing that upon their complying with
the required conditions their engagements would be
permanent.
Mr. LOWE—Do I understand you to say that
whatever is on the broad-sheet is an engagement,
so long as a single pupil teacher remains to take the
benefit of it ? (Hear.)
Mr. BAXTER observed that most of the teachers
had sacrificed other opportunities upon the faith
that their position as teachers, if once obtained,
would be permanent. Was it likely that if it had
been supposed that the Committee of Privy Council
reserved to themselves the power of revoking the
allowance at their pleasure, a single pupil-teacher
would have accepted the offer ? He believed that the
course now proposed would not advance the cause
of education, but retard it. It would have been better
to have adopted a lower standard of remuneration
in the first instance, and have adhered to it, than to
have fixed a higher one and receded from it, because
such a course would destroy the confidence of the
scholastic profession throughout the kingdom.
Earl GRANVILLE could not agree that it would
have been better to have worked with an inferior
system upon that ground, nor did he think it could
be held that a system dependent upon an annual
Parliamentary yote could be regarded as permanent.
But, whatever, the differences of opinion on the sub -
ject, he was convinced that they all felt honestly
and seriously desirous of promoting the education
of the poor and of combining religious and secular
instruction. That was the desire of the Government,
and he had no doubt it was equally the wish of all
present. The Government would make their full ex-
planation to Parliament, and Parliament alone, to
whose verdict he was bound respectfully to bow,
must ho the judges of the advantages of adopting a
new code. Certainly, on the part of the Govern-
ment, he could give no hope that it would be with-
drawn until Parliament had had an opportunity of
pronouncing an opinion upon it.
Archdeacon SINCLAIR having thanked the noble
earl for his courtesy, the deputation withdrew.