On the adjourned discussion in the Commons, Mr. Walpole moved a series of resolutions against making the whole of the aid depend on examination, against grouping by age, and the examination of children under seven. He referred to the length and breadth and strength and depth of feeling which agitated the country, and declared that religion would go to the wall. Mr. W. E. Forster opposed the code, which he said would destroy the system, and blamed the Government for forsaking the recommendations of the Royal Commission. After a long debate Mr. Lowe replied in a splendidly luminous argument, but expressed the desire of the Government to meet the wishes of the House. They were willing that a substantial part of the grant should depend on the general report of the Inspectors, and they gave up grouping by age. Mr. Walpole accepted the alterations proposed and withdrew his resolutions.

After the acceptance of the revised code there was a general disposition to wait until its results could be tested. But for several sessions proof was afforded of the bitter personal hostility its author had raised against himself, by his interference with what had come to be regarded as proprietary rights. He was the object of attack from all quarters-from school managers to monitors in the country, and from Inspectors to office boys in his own Department. It had been the practice of the Education Department, in certain cases, where extraneous matter was introduced in the reports of Inspectors, to send them back for revision. A difference arose between one of the Inspectors and the office in regard to this practice. Upon this Lord R. Cecil moved a resolution "that the mutilation of reports and the exclusion of matters adverse to the views of the Committee of Council, were violations of the understanding on which the Inspectors were appointed." The disappointed and angry faction of Tories and Denominationalists combined to make a personal attack on Mr. Lowe,

in which they were joined by some professed Liberals. The subordinates of the education office were induced, in violation of discipline and trust, to communicate some official matters to the leaders of the Opposition. Mr. Lowe was weakly defended by his colleagues, and the Tories were allowed to snatch a division, in which the resolution was carried by a majority of eight. Mr. Lowe, who had made the question one of personal confidence, resigned his office. A Select Committee was afterwards appointed to enquire into the circumstances, and they entirely exonerated him. On the motion of Lord Palmerston the previous resolution was rescinded. The authors of the attack, however, had the personal gratification of driving from office the most able Minister who has yet held the post of Vice-President; who, if he initiated no large measure for the establishment of education on a broad and liberal basis, brought the system which existed to a practical test of usefulness, and converted a pretentious, but delusive plan, into an actual educational experiment.

Mr. Bruce succeeded Mr. Lowe at the Education Department, and in moving the estimates of 1864, insisted on the right of the Department to refuse grants for building where a conscience clause was not accepted. This now became the regular practice of the Department, and led to many differences between the office and the National Society. The first effect of the revised code was to lessen the money voted for education by Parliament. In 1865 the grant had fallen to £693,078; and in 1868 to £511,324.

With the death of Lord Palmerston in 1865, a new movement for domestic reform began; but for several sessions the question of the franchise occupied the first place. At the beginning of 1866 the liberal party was strong and united, Earl Russell being at the head of the Government;

but before the end of the session its majority of seventy was scattered and disorganised. Lord Derby succeeded Earl Russell. The Duke of Marlborough became Lord President, and Mr. Corry, Vice-President. The new Government on their accession brought forward no projects for the extension of education-but they raised the grant on examination, from two shillings and eightpence to four shillings. Mr. Bruce introduced a permissive bill to enable boroughs to levy rates for education. It proposed to trust a school committee with the management of the funds. The Committee was to be chosen in corporate towns from the Town Council, and in other places from the general body of ratepayers.

In 1867 the controversy was renewed in the House of Lords. The Queen's speech had said, "The general question of the education of the people requires your most serious attention, and I have no doubt you will approach the subject with a full appreciation both of its vital importance and its acknowledged difficulties." Parliament had been summoned in November, on account of the Abyssinian war. Earl Russell took the occasion to move a series of resolutions on education, but the Lords declined to enter upon the consideration of the subject in the brief limit for which they sat. On the reassembling of Parliament, the Duke of Marlborough introduced a bill to regulate the distribution of sums granted by Parliament for education. It was proposed that Her Majesty should be empowered to appoint a Secretary of State, who should have the whole range of educational matters under his consideration and control ; should administer the grant, and propose to Parliament such schemes as he might think fit, to promote education. The terms of the revised code were to be put into an act of Parliament. The Government proposed to admit secular schools to a share of the grant, and to impose a conscience clause on all schools. Compulsory rating and compulsory

attendance were avoided. The bill passed the second reading, but was afterwards withdrawn.

Mr. Bruce also re-introduced his bill of the previous session, which was supported by Mr. Dixon. This measure emanated from the Manchester Bill Committee. Its provisions were extended to meet the case of local authorities who neglected their duties. It was made applicable to the whole country, and the important provision was added that all schools should be free. From the parliamentary discussions of the time, it would appear that Mr. Lowe had put forward during the recess a scheme for secular education by means of rates. The session was also memorable for the recantation of Mr. Baines, who brought up the deliberate and revised judgment of the Congregationalists, who had determined to place their schools under Government control and assistance.

Through the exertions of Mr. Melly and Mr. Dixon in 1869 an enquiry was obtained into the educational condition of Leeds, Manchester, Liverpool, and Birmingham, and resulted in the valuable reports of Mr. Fitch and Mr. Fearon. The Endowed Schools Act was also passed this year. In the same session the Marquis of Townshend brought forward a bill for compulsory attendance, and secular instruction in day schools. This was the last of the numerous abortive schemes which during the preceding half century were placed before Parliament.

CHAPTER V.

PERIOD. FROM THE FORMATION OF THE LEAGUE, 1869, TO THE PASSING OF THE EDUCATION ACT, 1870.

In the new political movement which began upon the death of Lord Palmerston, it became at once apparent that the education question would take a foremost place. In the discussions upon the reform of the representation, Mr. Bright had predicted that the inevitable consequence of an extension of the franchise would be, that the people would at once demand an education system worthy of the country, and adequate to its needs. The strong current of feeling in favour of a comprehensive law was beginning to be manifested on all occasions. throughout society. It was impossible to take up a newspaper or magazine, or to follow the public life of any large town, without discovering how deeply the attention of a part of the community was engaged upon the subject. It was evident also that public opinion was taking a much more intelligent and comprehensive grasp of the question. The people were tired of the tinkering process, and of half measures. Permissive legislation which was so fashionable in Parliament, was in disrepute in the country, and there was an earnest call for a measure based on the two principles of compulsory rating and compulsory attendance.

At the conference held in Manchester on the 15th and 16th of January, 1868, strong expression was given to these views. This meeting was called by the Manchester Education Bill Committee, and was attended not only by the group of Lancashire men who had led the way in all agitations of the subject for thirty years, but by educationists from many other