schools should be subject to restriction. (1) Before the close of the session all the bills were withdrawn.

In 1856, Lord Granville, the new President of the Council, brought in a bill in the House of Lords for the appointment of a Vice-President of the Council, who would be responsible to the House of Commons for the distribution of the grant, now enormously increased by the capitation grant, which had been extended by Minute to boroughs. The bill passed, with slight opposition, and Mr. Cowper, afterwards known as Mr. Cowper-Temple, and the author of the clause bearing his name in the act of 1870, (2) was the first Vice-President. The President of the Council also submitted a bill enabling towns and parishes to rate themselves for purposes of education, but no effort was made to pass it.

The House of Commons was meanwhile the scene of some stirring debates. Lord John Russell, no longer fettered by the responsibilities of office, moved a series of twelve resolutions, covering the whole field of the education controversy. They affirmed the necessity of the revision and consolidation of the Minutes of Council; of an increase in the number of Inspectors; the formation of school districts; an enquiry into the available means of instruction; the proper application of charitable trusts; the power of rating; the election of school committees, with powers of management; the reading of the Scriptures; and a scheme of indirect compulsion, to be carried out by employers. In regard to direct compulsion, Lord John said: "I do not think it would be possible, I should be glad if it were, to compel the parents of these children to send them to school. I do not think you could, by any enactment, reach the parents in such places as Birmingham, Sheffield, and others, in which, however,

1 Newcastle Report, 312.

2 Section 14, prohibiting the teaching of religious formularies,

we have to lament the greatest evils arising from neglect of attendance at school." (1) But at last something like an adequate view of the necessities of the case was being taken, since the estimated cost of the plan was placed at £3,240,000.

A curious combination of parties made common cause against the resolutions. In the discussion and divisions which took place upon them, Mr. Gladstone and Mr. Disraeli, Sir James Graham and Mr. Baines, Mr. Henley and Mr. Milner Gibson, Lord Robert Cecil and Mr. Cardwell were found acting together.(2) On the other side Lord John Russell was cordially supported by Sir John Pakington. At the outset of the discussion it was evident that a majority of the House had determined to subject the author of the motion to a humiliating defeat. The Government gave their late colleague only a half-hearted support, and would not assume the responsibility of founding a measure on his proposals. Mr. Henley moved on the discussion of the first resolution that the Chairman leave the chair. The debate was several times adjourned, and Lord John, in the hope of avoiding defeat, abandoned the greater part of the resolutions. The manœuvre, however, did not avert the catastrophe. Sir James Graham, who had been converted to Mr. Baines's views, strongly opposed Lord John Russell's plan. Mr. Gladstone spoke in favour of a system on the established basis. The Nonconformist leaders went to Mr. Henley and told him that they were going to vote for him on the ground that State education involved a danger to definite religious teaching. At this special time the Voluntaryists were making despairing efforts to sustain their failing cause, and Mr. Baines, Mr.

1 Hansard, T. S., 140, 1955.

2 Mrs. M. A. Baines, whose name is familiar in the educational discussions of this time, and who was one of the first advocates of compulsion, has sent the author a cartoon by "H. B.," which refers to the resolutions in question, and which reproduces the figures of the most prominent parliamentary advocates of education at this time.

Hadfield, and Mr. Miall were indefatigable in urging their opinions on Parliament. Mr. Henley's motion was carried by the unexpected majority of 102. As a curious illustration of the prejudice which still existed against education in some quarters it may be noticed that in the course of these debates Mr. Drummond, a member of the House, instanced two celebrated criminals of the day, Palmer and Sadleir, as the results of education, and exclaimed, "It really seems as if God had withdrawn common-sense from this House."

In the following year Sir John Pakington renewed his attempt to pass a bill for cities and boroughs, and was supported by Mr. Cobden; but the sudden dissolution of Parliament on the question of the China war interrupted its progress, and the election which followed decimated its supporters. Out of doors public opinion was supplying constant pressure, and amongst the incidents of the year was the conference at Willis's rooms, at which the Prince Consort presided. About this time Mr. Keith Johnston, the geographer, published a diagram, giving a comparative view of the percentage of the population of various countries in Europe receiving instruction. From this it appeared that England stood tenth on the list.

Sir John Pakington was a member of Lord Derby's Ministry which went into office in February, 1858. It was on his motion that the Duke of Newcastle's Commission was appointed. Sir Charles Adderley was Vice-President of the Council, but his accession to office had materially moderated his views on the question. He said, "Any attempt to keep the children of the labouring classes under intellectual culture after the very earliest age at which they could earn their living, would be as arbitrary and improper as it would be to keep the boys at Eton and Harrow at spade labour." The expression did not point to progress, but happily that was not dependent on the favour of officialism.

The appointment of Mr. Lowe as Vice-President of the Council in 1859, as a member of the Ministry over which Lord Palmerston presided until his death, and the acceptance of an inspectorship by Mr. Fraser, the present Bishop of Manchester, were guarantees, at any rate, for an intelligent investigation of the existing system. Their accession to office marks, not so much a new era in national education, as a revolution in the Government methods of management. In the many fierce conflicts which have raged around this question, there have been none more bitter than those which are associated with the name of Mr. Lowe. Of all our Ministers of education he has left the deepest impress of individuality upon the system, in its official character, and provoked a hostility more unmeasured than any other politician. For four years he was the object of the most implacable and envenomed attacks from all persons who had the smallest interest in the details of the Government administration; including those who were anxious to extend and reform the powers of the Department, and those who wished to abolish it altogether.

The reforms initiated by Mr. Lowe were wholly confined to amending the Privy Council system as it existedand in no degree to extending it, or substituting for it a more general and comprehensive plan. Judging from the vigour and fearlessness with which he executed his task it may perhaps be regretted that he did not undertake the larger achievement of laying down the lines of a complete system. But the Government of which he was a member was not disposed for any grand or heroic measures. Lord Derby had gone out on the question of reform, and on the accession of Lord Palmerston, there set in the easy, do nothing," rest and be thankful" period, which lasted for five years. It extended to all branches of government, and was a constant wet blanket upon the agitation for domestic improvement.

Mr. Lowe's course at the Education Department was determined by another active consideration-and that was, Mr. Gladstone's resolve to cut down the cost of government. The education estimate of 1859, Mr. Lowe's first year at the Department, was £836,920. The vote had increased to that amount from £160,000 in the preceding six years. There was a strong and just presumption that the efficiency and the utility of the system were not advancing in proportion with the cost.

Mr. Lowe, in moving the estimate, announced that the Ministry did not propose to take any new step until the Duke of Newcastle's Commission had made their report. He sketched the good and bad points of the system, though he hardly seems to have gauged the actual amount of friction and dissatisfaction which existed. The advantages, to his mind were, that it relied on an existing machinery, which was a stimulus to liberality, and had given proof of strength in tangible results. It was defective in that it did not reach districts most in need of assistance, but that could only be remedied by fundamental alterations. There was also a constant tendency to devour the Department. Another fault was, that public money was spent on schools founded on exclusive principles. The public was justified in asking that before grants were made to denominational schools, they should require in the trust deeds a conscience clause, protecting the children of parents who objected to religious formularies. This was done in many instances. (1) The exclusive system was wasteful, and increased the labour and cost of inspectorship by at least a third. At the then rate of progress, Mr. Lowe estimated that the grants would eventually be two-and-a-half millions per annum.

1 About 1850, it became the practice of the Department to require the insertion of a conscience clause where aid was given to new schools. but the custom was not general.