The Sun.
London, England, 1868-08-26 00:00:00

ECONOMIC SCIENCE AND STATISTICS.

In this section a paper of great importance was read by
the Rev. G. FITCH, one of the assistant commissioners to
the Schools Inquiry Commission. The author dealt with
the subject of endowments for educational purposes, and
stated that the commission to which he had been
attached had found that there were no fewer
than 820 endowed schools lying between the
extremes of schools designed to promote elementary edu-
cation, and schools such as Harrow, Eton, and Winchester.
The gross annual value of the charities to which these
schools belonged was £336,201 ; a part of that
sum, however, was appropriated to almshouses or
similar objects. After all deductions were made, the
income amounted to £105,184 for the management of
the schools, besides £14,264 in the form of exhibitions
generally intended for the use of such pupils as should pro-
ceed to the universities. These sums, however, repre-
sented inadequately the resources of the foundation schools;
for, besides them, there was in nearly every case a freehold
schoolroom, besides grounds, and a dwaling-house, or
houses, for the master, and for the reception of
boarders ; and all this was additional to any fees
which were charged to parents. The amount of
.education-varied considerably. The richest foundation in
the kingdom was Christ's Hospital, with a net income of
£42,000: while a few schools were endowed with nothing
more than a small tenement, which served as a school-
house. There were nine foundations with incomes
exceeding £2,000, thirteen others with upwards of £l,OOO,
,fifty-nine with less than £lOO and more than £5OO ; 272
with less than £5OO but more than £100; while the re-
mainder were endowed with less than £lOO per annum each.
The paper proceeded to shew that similar inequalities
appeared in the local distribution of the schools, and then
iliscussed the constitution of bodies of trustees, the free-
hold tenure of the masterships, and other hindrances to
the proper development of the schools. At present there
were three authorities for rectifying abuses and
creating new schemes Parliament, the Court of
Chancery, and the Charity Commission. But as
no one of them ever initiated proceedings or dealt with a
school or group of schools on any general plan, they
provided no security for the continued efficiency of the
schools or for their development according to the
future needs of the people. The statesmanship of the
future would probably revise the whole law of inheri-
tance, and ask boldly by what right the pious founders
of those institutions were to go on for generations legis-
lating on a subject on which private, irresponsible, and
local regulations were likely to be especially mischievous,
and on which the supreme intelligence of the nation, as
represented in Parliament, ought first to be heard.

Miss Becker absorbed all the interest, however, to-day.
The visitors, instead of inquiring into the effect of this acid
or swarming 'to hear a professor illustrate the uses of that
discovery, instead of betaking themselves to pure science,
crowded to hear Miss Lydia Becker discourse upon the
supposed differences between the minds of men and
women. The greatest interest was manifested in the pro-
ceedings. An hour before the lecture commenced the
room was filled, and if good elocution might be taken as
satisfying., those who attended must certainly have been
pleased, for the paper was well read. The lectures-contended
very vigorously against the supposition that there was
any inferiority in the female mind as compared with that
of the male. No such thing really existed. The apparent
difference was caused by the difference in the education.
Woman was not educated as the man. How could she be
expected to be on a par with him? But these differences
ought no longer to exist. It was really a shame tha.
the woman was not allowed to participate in the educes
tional advantages which were offered to the man. From
the universities—from their privileges, from their honours
—the female was virtually excluded. This ought no longer
to 113 so. There was nothing in the mind of woman
which really stamped her as an inferior being. People
thought thee was because it was the fashion to say so.
If jastice were done, tile same educational advantages, the
same honours, and the same rewards would be given alike
to men and women. The result would be that the infe
riority would disappear. Such was Miss Becker's argu,
ment. But the means in many cases got impatient, and
with little gallantry shouted out their disapproval it
unmistakeable terms. There were not wanting those,
however, who by their applause shewed that they
acquiesced in the general tone of the paper. A vigorous
and interesting discussion followed the lecture, c'iarac
terised by much warmth, and a resolution was passed,
requiring the Association to appoint a committee to take
into consideration the best means for promoting the scien
tific education of women.

Then came a paper by Mr. Payne on that subject sc
fruitful of debate—Education. The particular rptestior
discussed in this case was—the relations between learnins
and teaching. A low.' and earnest discussion followed.
It should be added tbat the proceedings in this depart
mmt nearly emptied the other sections, and the proceeq
inns in these were generally dry and uninteresting, ;=`-^-

THE TIYPENDITURE OF THE (Y)UNTRY.

Mr. Childers addressed a large meeting of his constitu-
ents at Pontefract on Monday night. After dealing with
the Irish Church, he went on to speak of the financial
condition of the country. In 1862 (he said) our expendi-
ture for everything except public debt was little more than
£43,000,000. In the following year the expenditure was
redncedto £40,840,000; in 1864 it was reduced to 240,000,000;
and in 1865 to £39,680,000 ; so that in these three years
the Liberal party reduced the expenditure by £3,390,000 a
year. In the three following years the public expenditure
was increased by the Conservative Government from
£.39,680,000 to £43,730,000, or allowing, as they must, a
margin for the change in the method of accounts—and he
thought £860,000 was the outside to be allowed for such a
change—the increase in the three years was not less than
£3,190,000 a year. But more than that, the expendi-
ture of the Liberal Government always fell below the
original estimate ; the expenditure of the Conservative
Government always exceeded the original estimate. What
was the result? During the years when the Liberal
Government was in power, there was altogether a surplus
of £12,850,000. And how was that applied? It
enabled the Government not only to reduce the
national debt by a large amount, but it enabled
them to take off taxation to the amount of
not less than £13,880,000, or an average of £2,776,000
a year. And what was that taken off ? " There was
£3,900,000 taken off tea, £1,700,000 taken off sugar,
£300,000 taken off timber, and the rest was taken princi-
pally off the income tax, and partly off smaller matters of
taxation. That is to say, that £6,000,000 a year was
saved by thrift of the Liberal Government, and put into
your pockets by the reduction of taxation on the
articles to which I have referred. And what is the
case now ? The deficit last year, putting the Abyssinian
expedition altogether out of question, was £13,000 ; this
Year, according to the statement of the Chancellor of the
Exchequer, the deficit is £148,000 ; so that, instead of
finding an average reduction of the taxation to the amount
of £2,700,000, as you experienced under a Liberal Govern-
ment, you find an average deficit of something like
£lOO,OOO a year. What is the result of it all ? The result
is this, that on the one hand the policy of a Liberal Govern-
ment is to reduce the public charge, to keep the depart.
ments within their estimates, to diminish the taxation of
the country, and to reduce the national debt—(cheers)--
whilst on the other hand the policy of a Conservative
Government has been to increase the public charge, to
allow the departments to spend more than the estimates,
the result being the creation of a deficit, no reduction of
the national debt, and no reduction of taxation. But wo
may be told that there were certain charges the Conserva-
tive Government had to meet, and at first it was said that
these charges were the result of the neglect of the
Liberal party in respect of the great fighting services. We
had debates in Parliament on this subject. There was a
debate in the House of Lords, in which the late First
Lord of the Admiralty, the Duke of Somerset, took
part, and the charge was withdrawn, or put at
least into a more moderate shape, and there was
a debate in the House of Commons with respect to war
affairs, and it was admitted that there was no neglect on
the part of the Liberal party in dealing with the army.
Between 1860 and 1865, in the improvement of the social
and sanitary condition of our soldiers and sailors, the late
Government spent no less than £2,000,000. This was
done to carry out a highly economical plan, but it cost a
great deal of money, and it did not justify any increase in
the estimates and any absence of reduction in taxation.
Of this £2,000,000 no less than £500,000 or £600,000 was
spent for the enlargement of barracks, not less than
£300,000 or £400,000 for the enlargement of military hos-
pitals, not less than £256,000 for improving the sanitary
arrangements of barracks, and not less than £25,000 in
giving quarters to our married soldiers. In addition
exceptional sums were spent for the purpose of protecting
our commercial harbours and stations at Bermuda, Malta,
and Gibraltar—an amount of expenditure which, if neces-
sary, did not justify any attempt to increase the estimates
of the country."