The Rev. Mr. CLAY: I have often talked over this question with the operatives themselves, and they always seemed to think the half-time system interfered more with the success of their trade than was necessary. I have generally asked them, "Suppose you do away with the half-time system and allow a boy or girl, instead of producing a certificate that they have been so long at school, to produce a certificate of Her Majesty's Inspector that they have attained a certain standard in education, whether that would not answer the purpose?" The great difficulty we have to contend with is, the shortsighted self-interested views of the parents, who seek to get as much out of their children as they can. Now what we have to do is, to make it the interest of the parent to educate the child; and if you establish this by a law that no child under 13 or 14 can be employed by a manufacturer, under certain penalties, except he produce a certificate from one of Her Majesty's Inspectors, there will be an immediate demand for children who have that certificate.

Mr. WORTHINGTON: I think Mr. Wilson told us there was great difficulty in assembling boys under 13 in a school attached to the works in Sheffield. Now, if I am not mistaken, under the Factory Act, it is quite open to employers to send them to any school and get a certificate of attendance, and have them examined by the inspector. I see no difficulty in recommending that plan to the Sheffield trades. If parents have their children working in the shops around them, whether in village or town, it appears to me that it would be extremely easy to make them attend the local or village schools, and procure there a certificate of attendance, and also pass the inspector's examination. I know of the Act having been applied in that way to one of the factories in the town in which I reside. Mr. Paget tells us, that those who go to school one day and work the other, are more intelligent in the school, and more efficient in their work, than those who work half-time each day. It may therefore, possibly turn out that it would not take more time to teach two boys working on alternate days than two working every day, for the increased intelligence gained at the school would enable them to learn their trade all the faster.

Mr. CHADWICK: With respect to the point about alternate days of schooling and labour, I think it rather an important educational point to state this, that experience shows that the value of the labour is enhanced by its being taken part of the same day as the schooling. Mr. Paget distinctly states the opposite as his experience, and I know some friends were very much in favour of alternate days, from the difficulty of taking up the work otherwise, but I think experience has shown that the work is improved by taking half-time work and half-time school on the same day. Manufacturers and others who have given their attention to the subject tell us, that there is nothing so wasteful and improvident as 13 or 14 hours' labour, and that in proportion as you shorten the hours and improve the methods, you increase the efficiency of the labour. You get more labour from the children by short hours, taking the whole year through, than you do by working them for long hours.

Mr. MACDONALD, President of the Miners' Association: The Mines Inspection and Regulation Act permits boys to go into the mines at ten, provided they can read and write, for which they must get the certificate of a competent schoolmaster. This regulation, however, on the part of the mining population, we feel is utterly disregarded and entirely inoperative. We appeal to the inspectors, who report almost always on that point, to prove our assertions; and we further declare our utter want of confidence in the system of individualism recommended by Mr. Wilson. We have seen in the colliery districts schools established by employers with the very best intentions. We have seen also that a number of the miners are very anxious for an improved system of education; but while the Legislature has made a step in that direction, we find it totally inadequate; and for the last twelve years our Association has been, and still is, working in this matter. A committee met in the close of last session of Parliament urging the necessity of a reduction of the hours of labour of the young in the mines to eight hours in the twenty-four; and I believe our mining population will never become socially worthy, physically strong, or intellectually great, till such a regulation is adopted. I may mention that the committee had only one day's sitting, and the witnesses we produced from the county of Northumberland

showed-and we shall be able to prove that the same state of things exists all over the mining districts-that the boys were called to their work at three o'clock in the morning, or four at the latest, that a caller went round in the interest of the employer, and boys of ten left their homes at a quarter or halfpast four, and returned at five in the evening at the earliest, but often as late as six or seven-a boy of ten years of age. Now we ask, even supposing these boys can read and write, can they ever in these circumstances become good members of society? If we depend on individualism, as Mr. Wilson would have us depend, the day will never come when these children will be educated. So much is this felt by the miners themselves that out of a body of 200,000 miners we have received 70,000 or 80,000 signatures calling on government to make it obligatory that no child shall work more than eight hours out of the 24, and that he shall go to school for a certain number of hours until he is 14 years of age. We will be able to show in the forthcoming inquiry that the average hours of the young in the mines is from 12 to 16 or 17 hours a day; and this state of things existing, we are convinced that the condition of the mining population never will and never can be improved.

Professor FAWCETT: I beg to ask, is the feeling very strong among the workmen ?

Mr. MACDONALD: The agitation was commenced so early as 1848. We began by claiming education, and have continued from one year to another; in 1855 having 30,000 signatures to our petition, 1860, 72,000, and last year as many as 84,000. We think these facts show that the mining population are becoming impressed with the necessity of education.

Professor FAWCETT: I never listened to any statement in my life with more interest. It is most satisfactory that such a state of things should exist among the people themselves, but it seems to me astonishing that this admirable request should have been made for so many years without receiving more attention than it has yet done from the House of Commons. I am curious to know, because it may guide me when I take my seat next year, what has been the fate of these petitions, and why they have met with no more attention. I think the request does infinite credit to the miners, and it surprises me that that request should have required to be repeated year after year, and that at the end of seventeen years this matter should have remained unsettled.

Mr. MACDONALD: In 1858 we presented a petition with 45,000 signatures, and in 1859 with 50,000. That led the government to move in the matter, and here I must pay a tribute to the late Sir George Cornewall Lewis, who took up the matter warmly, and carried a bill in the Lower House; but, unfortunately for us when the bill came up to the House of Lords the employers' interest prevailed, and it was so thoroughly remodelled, through the opposition of Lord Granville and others, that we were left with a measure which was a shadow without a substance. We resumed our petitions from 1861 to 1864, and we at length prevailed on Sir George Grey to give us a select committee to inquire into the alleged grievance. Unfortunately, as you are all aware, the session was of such a nature that no committee could go on, and we had only one day's sitting. But we are promised that it shall be reappointed in the coming session, when I hope the gentlemen who hear me will give us every assistance, and that we shall get such a committee as to enable us to bring legislation to bear on the state of things in the mining districts.

Professor FAWCETT: I thank you for the information given us, and I, for one, will not forget it.

Dr. HALL: I regret that I did not hear Mr. Wilson's paper, but I know his views pretty well, and, after he has told us that 86 boys under 13 are employed in one establishment in Sheffield, I have only to express my hope and prayer that the Factory Act will be applied to the trades of Sheffield, especially the grinding trades. Taking up the question in a medical point of view, I say of my own knowledge that the boys at the grinding wheels of Sheffield are exposed to physical disadvantages that make them decrepit in body and enfeebled in mind. It is no use talking of the apathy of the parents; they are ignorant themselves, and they are bringing up their children in exactly the same condition in which they themselves have lived. When I find, as I have found, boys of seven, ten, and

twelve engaged at the grinding wheels, I think that if ever there was a town in which the children required the protection of the Factory Act, it is the town of Sheffield.

Mr. WILSON in reply: I am by no means satisfied, after hearing Mr. Chadwick, Professor Hancock, and other gentlemen, of the practicability of the half-time system. Then, as to teaching apprentices, I pointed out that alongside the man there is work to be done which is really boy's work, and which the boy can do quite as efficiently as the best workman. The grinder wants a lad to work with him, and he will not want another till the lad is 18 or 19. For the first six months the lad is positively a loss to him, and he does not earn so much with him as he would without him, having to teach him. Now the periods of the boy's labour are very intermittent; it is quite uncertain what part of the day he may be wanted, and no skilled workman would ever think of taking another lad on half-time, only to turn him adrift when the first boy got beyond 13. Whatever may be said as to the antiquated fashion of apprenticeship, I believe the day is far distant when it will be abolished in Sheffield, and for this reason, that simple as the trade may appear, there are few that require more really skilled workmen. The result of my experience is that, as a rule, lads who begin at 11 or 12 make the best workmen; but, at the same time, I think they should be educated before that time. I may describe the trade, not so much as one of intellectual skill, but training to a delicate touch, because a man grinding a penknife cannot see it when it is on the stone. To acquire this educated touch the boy must begin young, and those who begin young acquire more refinement of touch than those who come into the trade later. With regard to the 86 children under 13, I would remark that is a small proportion out of about 3,000 persons employed; and among these 86 the probability is that there are not three under 12. It is not a work in which there is excessive overtime. Then as to night work, it will become a very serious consideration if masters must erect additional mills so as to have the whole work done by day, and more especially now that the French and Belgian masters are coming in to compete with us. Mr. Chadwick speaks of the dirty appearance of the boys, and says, if the boys are not cared for it is time the State should interfere; but I say the boys are cared for, and not so badly treated by their masters as he supposed. As to the hours of work, they are not excessive in the grinding branches, but in the case of the small master cutlers there is great difficulty in preventing overwork. It requires little capital to set up as a master cutler, and the small master is not in the habit of paying wages till he has sold his goods to the factory on the Saturday night. Hence the necessity of the men often working very hard on the Fridays to get the job completed, that the master may be able to get them their wages on Saturday. And as the little master has to go out on Mondays and Tuesdays to seek orders at the factories, and as he has no capital to purchase a stock of materials, his workmen cannot set to work in the beginning of the week, having nothing to work at. There is, therefore, great advantage in working at a well-regulated manufactory, not so much on account of any difference in the wages, but in the regularity of the work. I believe, therefore, the great necessity for interference lies not with those who work in the factories, but with those who work at home; and I am sure Professor Fawcett will agree with me in saying there is great difficulty in carrying out any government control there. You may regulate the work of the grinder by stopping the wheels at given hours, but where one may work in his own shop, you cannot institute a vexatious system of espionage. All the factory inspectors of the country cannot tell the hours which a man may work. The resolution read by Mr. Chadwick was then put and carried unanimously.

THE REVISED CODE.

"Does or does not the present Mode of Government Payment for Particular Subjects promote the Efficiency of Education in Primary Schools?"

In addition to the paper on this subject by the Rev. G. H. Fagan to be found at p. 308.

Mr. JOHN PATON read a paper, entitled "The Teacher's view of Payment for Results," in which he expressed his approbation of the plan which had been pursued by the Committee of Council on Education, previous to the introduction of the revised code. He did not deny the soundness of the principle of payment for results. The new system secured definiteness of aim, discouraged pretentious and showy teaching, and put a strong pressure upon the teacher to look to the progress of each scholar. But there was a danger in its making education too mechanical. There was no inducement to the teacher to carry education beyond the paying point. It caused managers and teachers to regard simply the pecuniary grants, and all that did not tend to produce an increased result as to these was hardly taken into account. Mr. Paton also pointed out that the revised code had had an injurious effect on the system of pupil teachers, which he considered the most valuable part of the Privy Council scheme.

Mr. SPRAY also read a paper condemning the present system of education.

DISCUSSION.

Mr. J. G. FITCH: The writer of the last paper has a school of about 100 pupils, and is able to speak from what takes place within his own sphere, but when he has so great and important a question to deal with as the effect of the revised code on the intelligence and efficiency of the primary schools for the poor, his inductions should be spread over a much larger area. As one of Her Majesty's Inspectors I have had, during the last official year, to examine 24,000 children, and of these I can assert that the percentage who can read moderately well, write a fair band, and do a simple sum of arithmetic with intelligence and accuracy, is very respectable. Even educationalists, who are most opposed to the revised code, are prepared to admit that it has had the effect of raising the standard in our schools of the elementary subjects of reading, writing, and arithmetic. In the preceding paper, by Mr. Paton, founded, I believe, on accurate knowledge of the subject, the writer has stated that the effect of the revised code has been to cause that the higher subjects of instruction should be neglected. I am sorry to say that I have no doubt about the fact, for I see evidence of it every day. The writer asserts that managers and teachers are, to a great extent, neglecting all branches of education, except such as bear a money value under the code. The censure for such a state of things attaches to the teachers and managers rather than the government. No doubt the latter say that they will pay for certain indispensable things which admit of easy measures, but it is rather too much to infer that they are indifferent to other and higher branches of education for which, it is true, they make no pecuniary grant. I can say for myself, and many of my colleagues, that, after having fulfilled the examination under the revised code, we examine, so far as the pressure of official duty will allow, in the other and higher branches of instruction.

BB

Mr. GILLESPIE, after quoting at some length from a letter of Sir J. K. Shuttle. worth, on the subject of the capitation grants, referred to the discouragement given to religious instruction under the revised code, and was of opinion that the schoolmaster, not being paid for it, would cease to direct attention to it, and would limit his attention and teaching to reading, writing, and arithmetic, for which he was paid. He, therefore, felt that the present mode of government payment did not promote the efficiency of education in the primary schools.

The Rev. J. L. SHORT gave the history of a leading school in a town in the west of England, with which he was formerly connected, in which the Scriptures were read morning and evening, and all those moral principles which should guide us as citizens were instilled; dogmatic teaching being left to the different pastors. One-third of the cost was raised by school pence, one-third by voluntary subscriptions, and one-third was gained by government grants. Such was the success of the school, and of the education therein given, that the neighbourhood was lifted from a low, sensual, and degraded condition to one that, at any rate, was full of hope and encouragement. Moreover, the beneficial influence of the school was extending year by year. The system was carried out with eminent and increasing success till the time of the fatal introduction of the revised code. The tendency of the code was to limit, and that very materially, the breadth of the education given, and to concentrate the attention of all concerned to that which would benefit the income of the school. The inspectors would do what they could to counteract this evil, but after getting through the technical examination required by the code, they have no time to spare for anything else.

The Rev. J. H. JAMES was prepared to endorse every statement which had fallen from Mr. Short, and said that the subject was anxiously considered at the Wesleyan conference, and the unanimous opinion was, that if the efficiency of the education in our schools was to be maintained, it must be maintained in spite of the revised code. Under the old code there was the greatest encouragement to give the soundest education and the broadest culture. The reverse is the case now; what is done is done in spite of Mr. Lowe and his department.

Dr. HODGSON: I cordially concur both with Mr. Short and Mr. Fitch that, so long as the revised code is conducted by inspectors of intelligence, experience, and liberal views, so long will everything be done that can counteract the mischievous effects of the revised code; but, having been lately down in Oxfordshire, I visited a village school, which I fear may be taken as a fair specimen of its class, and I found that in that school was going on that very process of deterioration and degradation of which we have heard to-day. I found that grammar had been given up, and geography had been given up; in fact, the whole time and thoughts of the teacher are concentrated on what would pay. Mr. Fitch remarks that government does not forbid these subjects, but I ask what is the principle on which government should proceed in awarding endowments in one direction rather than the other? I say that the principle should be the reverse of that which is adopted. We all admit that the subjects which are put aside by the revised code, are really the essentials, the bones and marrow, the sinews and life-blood of education; and that reading, writing, and arithmetic, are merely the instruments of education. As, then, the omitted subjects are the most important, government ought, by every possible means, to stimulate teachers and committees to work up these subjects, which, if left to themselves, are in danger of being neglected. In a pamphlet published by a gentleman, who represented Mr. Lowe at a meeting of teachers held at Birmingham about four years ago, it is expressly noted that the object of the revised code was to limit the amount of the education of the poor. I feel that this is an ignoble sentiment, and one which ought to be repudiated in every society. The only way to elevate the rich is to elevate the poor, and there can be no degradation of the poor, without a corresponding degradation of the rich.

Mr. DRONFIELD appeared as a working man, and as the representative of working men, and expressed his regret at the cheese-paring economy of the government in the reduction of the salaries of the teachers, and in the decrease of the number of pupil teachers. He could personally testify to the great amount of good which had been effected in that district from the establishment of large