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

child when he left school. Ido not wish to argue
the question, but I am anxious th it 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 efficicy 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 which appeared 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
after 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. Oa the faith of the 4I have appren-
ticed many teachers who have given up 1,50 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 vote 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 be 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.