m ^'M J,1 ,,i>u'. ^-^< ^r*^ ^■v: / 9 THE SCHOOL BOAED FOR LONDON. A PLEA FOE BETTER ADMINISTRATION. ^11 %.^^xt%% DELIVEEED IN THE COUET HOUSE, MARYLEBONE, NOVEMBER, 1881, BT JOSEPH R. DIGGLE, M.A., Qnt of the Members for the Division of Marylehone, WITH APPENDICES CoNTAiNiKO Notes on Highbe Elementabt Schools, etc., and Division Lists of Members Voting upon Impobtant Subjects AT THE LONDOIsT SCHOOL BOAED. J. MARTIN & SON, PRINTERS, 18, LISSON GROVE, N.W. 1882, Professor Marks, in moving a vote of thanks to Mr. Diggle, said, that he was doing no more than speaking the senti- ments of all present in acknowledging the full and honest statement which had just been made. He had never listened to a more conscientious or faithful discharge of duty. But the statement had caused him deep sorrow and mortification. The remedy, however, was in the hands of the ratepayers, who should be united in this matter, like the old political unions, instead of acting like a rope of sand. He hoped that the address just delivered would be printed and circulated throughout the metropolis, and if necessary he should be glad to givers towards that object. Several other gentlemen having spoken in the same sense, the Chairman, Mr. William Brooks, undertook to carry out the evident wish of the meeting. Note. — It is mainly owing to the sudden and unexpected death of Mr. Brooks that the publication of this address in which he took so deep an interest, has been so long delayed. That delay, however, has enabled me to add occasional notes in some places in elucidation of the various points upon which stress is laid in the address. J.R.D, March f 1882. ADDRESS DELIVERED AT THE MAEYLEBONE COUET HOUSE, 1881. Ladies and Gentlemen, it desire, at the outset of my remarks, to indicate clearly the character of this meeting, and the object we have in view. This is not an electioneering meeting. Our object is not to solicit votes. The end I have in view in addressing you to-night is simply to explain what appear to me to be the general conditions under which the work of the School Board is now being conducted, and the principles by which it is being governed, so that you may be able to form for yourselves an intelligent opinion as to whether these conditions and principles are so satisfactory as to induce you to perpetuate them. And the present time, when we are sufficiently removed from the excitement of an election, seems a specially opportune one for the consideration of these matters, without their being involved with other and personal considerations. I have, besides, another object in view. The London School Board is the one great Metropolitan body which is directly repre- sentative of the ratepayers. It levies, year by year, enormous sums from the rates for the purposes of education. And yet the work the Board is elected to do is generally so little understood, and the right methods of doing it so imperfectly apprehended, that there is some danger lest overburdened ratepayers should direct against the work of education itself that sense of irritation which springs from the obvious fact that the cost of the work is somehow much greater than it was ever expected or intended to be. I fear this feeling of resentment is a growing one ; and it continues to grow because the work of the Board is not sufficiently explained, and, most of all, because the reforms which can reasonably be demanded in the administration of the Board are not clearly indicated. The heavily-taxed ratepayers should look for a remedy not in antagonism to the necessary work of education, but to much needed reforma- tion in the administration of that work by the School Board which they elect. The London School Board are now in the eleventh year of their existence. They have 303 schools, affording accommodation for 252,363 children, and these schools are actually attended by an average of 213,365 children. Each of these children has cost the ratepayers this year directly £\ \2s. ']d. Indirectly, of course, through the Government Grant, each child has cost very much more. Exclusive of the rates and taxes, the children's school fees form the only contribution to the fund from which the cost ol this education is defrayed, and they amount to only 8^. 5^. per child, so that the gross yearly cost of the education of every child in our Board Schools being /^2 17^. 9^/., each child has cost the ratepayers this year, directly and indirectly, £i 9^. 4^. This is the cost merely of educating the child in the ordinary school. It does not include what is spent upon Industrial Schools, or in enforcing attendance at school under the Bye-laws, or of office expenditure, or of the repayment of the loans which have been obtained for the erection of school buildings. These are additional items of the Board's expenditure, and amount to /'30o,ooo every year. It is not unreasonable to ask what we get in return for this vast expenditure, and whether we might not obtain precisely the same result at a much less cost. What we get is the yearly education of over 200,000 children, who are being trained to fulfil the duties of citizenship, I trust, better than would have been the case if the School Board had not existed. No one doubts that the general advance of intelligence amongst the people thus obtained is of enormous benefit to the State, just as general ignorance is fruitful of danger. But whilst freely admitting this, the question still arises whether the same result might not be obtained at a much less cost to the community. In deciding the question we are not without ample facts to guide us. For side by side with the system of Board Schools, there exists, in London and elsewhere, the pre- existing system of efficient elementary Schools, which the Board School system was intended not to subvert, but to supplement. Now, in the non-Board Schools of London during the past year an average of 178,000 children have been educated. The education given in these schools, as tested by H.M. Inspectors, has been equal to, if not better than, that given in our Board Schools. But what has the education of these children cost the community ? Directly, it has cost the community absolutely nothing, as compared with the annual cost ofjfi 12s. yd. of each of the 213,000 children in the Board Schools. To a candid observer of the two systems it would seem absolute folly to attempt to undermine in any way the old system of non- Board Schools, so long as they do the work of teaching the children efficiently. The result of such an attempt, if successful, would be, from a financial point of view, almost to double the education charge upon the rates ; and from an educational point of view, to lessen the opportunities of competition, of friendly rivalry, of intro- ducing variety into the subjects taught, and of adopting new me- thods of instruction. If all the Elementary Schools of London were to become Board Schools, they would present an aspect of dull uniformity and rigid routine, pleasing enough, perhaps, to a lover of red tape, but extremely distasteful to every true friend of education. And yet there is some danger of this. The tendency of the Board's action is to undermine the old system.* And an influential party at the Board misses no opportunity of furthering this ten- dency to the utmost of their power. The effect of this action will become more evident year by year in the diminution of non-Board Schools, and even now its progress can be distinctly traced. The year 1876 is the middle year of the Board's eleven years' work. At that time non-Board Schools provided 287,1 16 school places ; there are now only 266,071, being a decrease in five years of 21,000 school places in non-Board Schools. But that is not all. In 1876, the average number of children on the rolls of these Schools was 259,436 ; the average number now is only 228,249, being a decrease in five years of 31,000 children. So that there is a double process going on. The number of non-Board Schools is being steadily diminished on the one hand ; and on the other, the remaining Schools are being, by slow degrees, drained of their children, and are thereby rendered more costly to those who undertake the * Vide Appendix, page 25. management of them. The effect of this double process, if con- tinued, will be to throw directly upon the ratepayers of London the cost of educating 178,000 children, which is now borne by the •benevolence of persons who were earnest in the work of education before the Board system was established. To me, this seems to be a deplorable tendency, and one about which the electors should be so informed as to be able to measure its disastrous results. I said a few moments since that it was not unreasonable to ask whether we might not educate the children in our Board Schools as efficiently as we do at a much less cost to the community. And here, again, the existence of non-Board Schools helps us to form a right judgment. The figures I am about to quote from the Govern- ment Blue Book, 1880 — 81, differ slightly from those I have before quoted from the Board returns, because they refer to different periods. The total cost of educating a child in a Board School in London is stated in the Blue Book at/^2 17^-. 7f^. In a non-Board School it is £z OS, lo^d. One may naturally ask, with some astonishment, why the Board should in any way attempt to sup- plant a system equally efficient with their own, but less costly in the gross expenditure of 16s. ^\d. per child. But this is not the full measure of the absurdity. This gross expenditure o^£z ijs. 75^. per child in our Board Schools is met by these receipts : — the rate- payers contribute ^i 13J. yd.; the child's school-pence amount to Hs. ^d. ; and miscellaneous sources to i^. o|^.* In non-Board Schools the gross expenditure oi £z os. \Q>\d. per child is met, by voluntary subscriptions, 9^. i\d. ; the child's school-pence amount to 1 3 J. 2j^. ; and miscellaneous sources to 33". o\d.^' So that you see the non-Board Schools not only cost 16^". <^\d. per child less to manage, but when the cost of management has to be borne, the ratepayer is not required directly to bear any portion of it. On the other hand, the child in the Board School not only costs i6j. ^\d. more to educate, but when the cost of management has to be pro- vided, the ratepayer is required to pay /^i 13 J", "id. per child directly to the support of it. With these facts before them, are the rate- payers desirous that the Board should monopolise the education of the children of London ? ♦ The difference between these receipts and the gross expenditure is^madc up by the Government grant. Vou will have noticed in the figures I have just given that, while the child in the non-Board School pays 13^. i^d. in the course of the year, or $^d. per week, the child in the Board School pays only Ss. 4(f. per year, or less than 2^d. per week. Those who are acquainted with these matters have been frequently amazed that the Board should allow such a state of things to continue. Even so long ago as August, 1S79, Mr. Forster, the author of the Education Act, speaking at Bradford, said : " I find that the average of your fee is 3^^. per week. That is very largely above the London average, and I should like some of my friends of the London School Board to come down, and see if they could not get some little hint and advice from Bradford in that matter." Mr. Forster, with his large experience and knowledge, is not an authority on this matter who can be easily put aside. He contented himself with the expression of a modest hope that members of the Board would take ** some little hint and advice from Bradford." But this is a pro- ceeding derogatory to the self-sufficient dignity of some members of the Board. They are not tolerant of advice from any quarter ; and two years have elapsed without their having accepted the invitation given by Mr. Forster. Perhaps, however, the electors in a year hence may give them "some little hint and advice" more applicable to the level of their understanding. We have a party at the Board who are in favour of free education, that is, of the total abolition of fees in our Board Schools. Free education for the child means needless, unequal, and heavy taxa- tion to the taxpayer. If this policy were to prevail, the Board would extinguish at once that other system of Schools which they are at present slowly undermining. That, however, is not the ground of my opposition to this policy. I believe that the policy of ** free schools " is bad in principle, and from what I have observed of the results upon the attendance at school of those children whose fees are now too indiscriminately remitted, I believe that it would have a bad effect upon the work of education.* The * In the debate in the House of Commons, on May 19th, i88o, Mr. Mundella pointed out that this was the case in the American Free Schools. " The constant complaint in America," he said, ''was the absence and irregularity of attendance of the children at school." Mr. J. A. Campbell also staled that *• in Dumfries- shire, where there was free education, the average attendance was only during the last four years from 62 to 68 per cent, of the number on the books." And from time to time our divisional superintendents have remarked upon the irregular attendance of children whose fees have been remitted, policy represents a feeling, unhappily, far too prevalent, of relying too little upon individual effort, and too much upon State aid. That is a feeling which, if encouraged to grow, has most demoralis- ing results. It tends to efface individual character, to paralyse individual energy ; and to substitute for them reliance upon outside help. This reliance upon outside help is the pauper spirit, which all our education should tend to remove from amongst us. Nothing could be more unfortunate than to infuse it into our educational system. Although, however, I am strongly opposed to the abolition of school fees, I am prepared to admit that there are, on the Board, some who hold, in good faith, though I believe mistakenly, that it would be the best way of dealing with the difficulties constantly arising from the exercise of our compulsory powers. And I do not complain of their honest advocacy of that policy. But what I com- plain of is this — that the majority of those who adopt the policy of free schools invariably vote for any reduction that may be proposed in a school fee, notwithstanding what may be known as to the general ability of the parents to pay a higher fee ; and also that, in fixing a school fee for a new school, their constant endeavour is to fix the fee as low as they possibly can.* I will give an illustration from our own neighbourhood. In December, 1879, the school fee of an Infants' Department was raised from 2d. to ^d. But an attempt was at once made arbitrarily to reduce the fee again to id. I made enquiries at the school, and found that no children were in arrears with the school fees ; and that practically there was no difficulty in obtaining the higher fee. And yet the Board continually pressed the Educa- tion Department to consent to the reduction. The consequence is, that their consent having been at length obtained, nearly 200 children in that school are now paying a fee of id. per week less than their parents were perfectly willing and able to pay. Arbi- trarily to reduce a fee which parents are willing and able to pay, and in that way to impose an additional charge upon the School Board funds, seems to me culpable mismanagement, and is simply a waste of public money. Take another example from our own Division. As you are aware, the subjects which may be taught in our Elementary Schools are * Vide Appendix, pages 26 and 27. enumerated in the Education Code, which is issued yearly under the sanction of Parliament. Among the subjects which may thus be taught is the French language. Some years ago, one of the members of the Board, without the knowledge or consent of the Board, arranged that a teacher of French should visit and teach French in certain of our Marylebone schools. He also arranged that the French teacher should be paid by the children who received teaching from him. *• For this purpose the ordinary teachers of the school received a fee of id. per week in addition to the ordinary school fee, and this additional fee was never entered in the fee books, but was paid over at once to the French teacher. A short time ago this practice came to the knowledge of H.M. Inspector, and the Local Govern- ment Board Auditor, who surcharged upon the Master of one of these schools the sum of /'ss, being the amount of extra fees received in addition to the ordinary school fees for six months, although the sum had been paid to the teacher of French. The surcharge was made on the ground that the regular school fee covered all the instruction given in the school, and that it was illegal to charge for any purpose whatever any additional fee. The whole subject therefore came before the Board : and it was pro- posed that the Board should in future pay the French teacher, but that the school fee should remain as it was. To that proposition I moved an amendment to the effect, that the school fee should be raised by the id. per week, that the children had been readily paying, so that the charge for this instruction should not fall upon the School Board Fund. The votes on that amendment were equal, 20 for and 20 against, and Sir Charles Reed, who had once voted against the amendment, gave his casting vote against it, and it was therefore lost. What was the result ? It was this, that the ratepayers of London are now charged with the total cost of this special French teacher, which had before been borne by the parents of the children who derived benefit from it. This again seems to me to be an absurd but none the less a culpable misuse of public money.* But that is not quite the whole result of such mischievous waste. At the Government examination every child who being thus * Vide Appendix, page 28* 16 Specially taught passes an examination in French earns from the Educational Department a grant of 4s. To whom do these 4s. grants on passes go ? Not to the Board, and thus to the general school fund, nor yet to the special French teacher, but to the ordinary teachers in these schools, who do not specially teach French. Thus the Board now pays, what the children were willingly paying before, the entire cost of this special teacher of French. The result of his teaching is an increase in the number of those who pass in French at the Government examination, and in a corresponding increase in the amount of grant. And last of all, the increased grant goes not to the teacher who specially teaches French, nor to the Board who pay him, but to the ordinary teachers in the school who are systematically occupied in teaching subjects other than French. Under these circumstances it is not too much to say that such action results in a culpable misuse of public money. I am constantly asked what hope there is of a decrease in the School Board Rate. I have now sufficiently explained the existing state of affairs to enable you to arrive at your own conclusion. For my part the hope of a decrease is daily a lessening one. I cannot hide from myself that the normal increase of the children of London for whom the Board must provide, and each of whom will cost nearly 33s. a year: and the abnormal increase of children in our schools owing to the gradual and steady undermining of non- Board Schools : and the culpable laxity of the Board in the matter of school fees,* to mention nothing else, point to the same result, in a continuous increase of the School Board Rate. And another item of the Board's expenditure, that on teachers' salaries points in the same direction. Our teachers are paid from two sources. One portion of their salaries is derived from the School Board Funds and the other from the Government grant. Both portions are variable, and both as at present provided, must increase. Take the first portion of the salaries, viz., that which comes directly from the general school fund. Under this head every head master • On March 2nd, 1882, the Education Department wrote to the Board as follows : — •* Before long it will become necessary to invite the serious considera- tion of the Board to the whole question of fees in the very numerous schools in Peckhara and Camberwell, as at present, they have been arranged on no intelli- gible system, and in some cases, are notoriously too low." 11 commences with at least /'no a year and may advance by yearly increases of /"lo to a maximum of/ 210. Similarly an assistant master is appointed at /"60 and by yearly advances of £1 may reach /"no : a head mistress may rise from /"go by yearly increases of /"6 to/'iso, and an assistant mistress from / 55 by yearly in- creases oi £ I to /'go. These yearly increases of /'lo, /'6, £ ^y £^ ensue as a matter of course upon the school passing a good examination at the Government inspection. The constant advance of the portion of our teachers' salaries under this head must there- fore inevitably occur until a very large proportion of the teachers approach their maximum. But they have not yet reached the maximum : and consequently from March, 1880, to March, 1881, the average increase under this head was in the case of a head master, /'3 19s. 3d. : head mistress /"z 12s. 3d. : assistant master /"2 gs. 6d.; assistant mistress £z 3s. 7d. The total increase in expenditure under this head during that year amounted to /"24,ooo. Take again the second portion of the teachers' salaries. It is derived from the Government grant. The whole of the Govern* ment grant upon examination goes to the teachers. The head teacher takes one-half of it: and the remaining half is divided equally among the assistants. Our schools are constantly increas- ing in efficiency, and are therefore earning a higher Government grant. But the Board receives no pecuniary benefit from this source. Although increased regularity of attendance may result from the action of the visitors, and the children being kept more regularly at school may learn more, and in consequence pass a better examination, the whole of the benefit is bestowed upon the teacher. Under this head during the year ending March, 1881, each head master received an increase oi £^ 17s. 2d., each head mistress £^ 2S. : each assistant master £1 14s. 3d. and each assistant mistress 18s. 5d., or a total increase of /"i4,7oo. I doubt whether any scheme of payment could have been devised which would have had so little to recommend it as this. It is singularly unfair both to the teachers and to the Board. It acts unfairly to the teachers in two ways. Under it their salary is paid irregularly, and is uncertain in amount. One portion they receive in equal monthly instalments, and the other they receive in a single sum some weeks after the Government inspection. Such a method 12 of payment invites the teachers to involve themselves in pecuniary difficulties owing to the temptation there is to forestall the Govern- ment grant by borrowing upon it. Nothing could be more un- fortunate for the whole body of teachers than to be exposed to such a temptation, and the fact that some of them give way to it weakens the hold that they should have upon the respect and regard of the general community.* But the system is also singularly unfair to the general interests of the Board. It exposes the teacher to the strong temptation of paying attention to the brighter and more intelligent of the children : of filling the school with them : and of therefore neg^ lecting the poor and uncared for children, who are the especial charge of the Board. While it is the chief interest of the Board to get all the children to school, the chief pecuniary interest of the teacher is only to have those who will earn a large grant at the Government examination.! The system therefore works badly from a purely educational point of view. But it also works badly from a financial point of view. As the children year by year through the Board's action commence their training in the Infant Schools, they are better prepared to pass the Government examina- tion in the senior department than the neglected children of nine years ago were. The work therefore of teaching them is less difficult than it was, but the whole of the pecuniary benefit derived from the increased Government grant falls to the share of the teacher, who with less effort than before obtains that increased payment which ought really to be received by the Board. And indeed when the present scale of salaries was fixed it was never intended to work as it is now working. After the scale had been * It leads to even worse results than improvidence. On March 2nd, 1882, the Board had to dismiss their most highly paid teacher, first, because for six months he received salary on account of an assistant supposed to be working in his school, but who had really left the school, without accounting to the Finance Department for the amounts received : and second, because after being warned as to the first offence, he immediately afterwards applied to his own use the school fees received from the children for two consecutive weeks. f The Bye Laws Committee receive constant complaints of teachers excluding from the schools children who will not pass at the Government Examination t and in one instance, at least, there was a case in which) a child being at school and having nearly made his 250 attendances, the parent was asked to keep him away from school so that the child could not be examined* 13 fixed the Government largely augmented the payments upon passes ; and the Board through negligence allowed their scale to remain unaltered although it had been fixed under totally different circum- stances.* Some attempts have been made to alter it : the most conspicuous of which has been made during the existence of this Board. The gross inequality of the present system of payment became so evident that a singular effort was made to reform it, After much discussion it was clear that the Board were practically unanimous in believing that the teachers should be paid fixed salaries, from a single source, rather than variable salaries from two sources, one of which was largely uncertain. The difficulty arose when the basis upon which the salaries were to be fixed had to be ascertained. By a majority of one the Committee agreed to adopt the basis of school accommodation. They said if a master teaches in a school which will accommodate 200 boys we will give him £\ per school place, that is/^200 a year. If the school will accommodate 400 boys he shall receive /^i each for the first 200, and los. each for the second 200, that is/"3oo a year. The teachers of girls and infant schools were to be paid upon a similar basis. Both in Committee and at the Board I objected to tlys method of fixing the salaries. I did so, because it seemed to proceed upon an entirely wrong assumption. The work of a teacher does not depend upon the size of the school in which he happens to be teaching, but upon the number of boys he has to teach. The recommendation left out of account this obvious and essential fact. Whether the school was full or not — and 40,000 out of our 250,000 places are regularly vacant — if it provided accommodation for 200 boys the head master was to receive £zqq. The scheme was nothing more than the endowment of space. But I did more than object. 1 proposed an alternative basis, which though defeated by one vote on the Committee, was submitted to the Board and com- mended itself to so numerous a body of the members that it proved fatal to the original recommendation which was ultimately with- drawn. The proposal I made was this, that the basis upon which the salaries should be fixed should be the average attendance of the children at the school, not the accommodation of the school. I proposed in fact the endowment of work, not of space.f And it * Vide Appendix, page 29. f Vide Appendix, page 28. u seems to me that that was an equitable principle upon which we might have proceeded. It is a principle of so flexible a nature as to adapt itself to the varying circumstances of diiferent localities. It recognises the cardinal element of successful teaching to be regularity in the attendance of the children at school : it would harmonise the whole work of the Board, since the first interest of School Board visitors and teachers would be that which is the first object of the Board, viz., the regular attendance of children at school. The principle is not a new one. The Government recog- nise it largely as the basis of their grant, and I believe they will use it more largely in the new code for which we are looking. Nor do I doubt that eventually it will be adopted by the Board as the basis upon which the teachers should be paid. By so doing the Board will remove a fertile source of complaint, for no reasonable person can object to our teachers being paid, and even liberally £0, for actual teaching work which they do. The present system dissatisfies alike the teachers, the Board, and so many of the public as comprehend it. It generates extravagance and shiftiness among our teachers and perpetuates wasteful expenditure at the Board. The sooner therefore it ceases to exist, the better it will be for all concerned. The tendency to perpetuate old abuses, such as these I have indicated, convinces me that the electors cannot at present look for a decrease in the education rate. For the regular expenditure of the Board must of necessity, for a considerable time to come, be an increasing one. The repayment of the/"4,ooo,ooo of loans, con- tracted for the purchase of sites and the erection of schools, will yearly absorb a larger portion of the rate which is levied. No doubt the increase of the assessments upon which the rate is levied will be large ; and the same rate per pound will produce a larger return. The increased assessment resulting from the quinquennial re-assessment this year will, in all probability, keep the rate of the School Board down to bd. in the pound for the coming year ; but I shall be much mistaken if, in the following year, from the opera- tion of the causes I have described, the rate is not over 6d. in the pound. Whether the electors desire the rate thus to increase, out of all proportion to the results achieved, is for them to consider and determine. 15 I turn now to a subject upon which public interest is at present greatly excited. I refer to the subject of Industrial Schools. I candidly admit that I went on the Board somewhat prejudiced against the Industrial Schools Committee. The cause of that feeling was the action taken by the Industrial Schools Committee of the late Board in connection with the ship Shaftesbury. You will remember what that action was. They were authorized to expend upon the purchase and furnishing of that ship a sum of ^15,000. They told the Board they could do it for that amount, and then, without the knowledge or consent of the Board, they involved them in liabilities to the extent of /'43,ooo.* Such un- business-like proceedings were calculated to arouse prejudice and distrust ; and they did so. It soon became evident that the Indus- trial Schools Committee of the present Board were being dominated by the same influences which had proved so disastrous during the late Board. Although, however, I had so much reason to distrust the Committee, I rarely voted against their recommendations. Sometimes I voted for them ; but generally I refrained from voting altogether. Before long, however, several incidents ripened rny passive prejudice into active opposition. I take one illustration. The ship Shaftesbury is provisioned partly by local tradesmen on shore near to where she is moored, and partly by a firm in the city. It was discovered that the arrangement with the latter purveyor was to give him 10 per cent, upon the total expenditure as his commis- sion. The result of that arrangement was that the more he pro- vided, the larger was his profit. It placed, in fact, a premium upon extravagance. When this became known, the Board instructed the Committee to obtain tenders for these goods. That was on the 17th March. On the 5th May, the Committee asked the solicitor if a form of tender which they sent was a suitable one to issue. He suggested one or two slight alterations, and returned it the follow- ing week. And yet up to a fortnight ago nothing had been done to carry out the instruction of the Board of the 17th March, and the old vicious system remains still unaltered. Can you wonder that a Committee is openly distrusted which refuses to carry out the instructions of the Board } Take another illustration of a similar kind. When the Shaftesbury * Vide Appendix, pages 32 — 34. was moored at Gray's, the Thames Conservancy only allowed her to be placed in that position owing to the repeated pressure put upon them by the Industrial Schools Committee of the late Board. It was a costly undertaking. That, however, seemed to give zest to the proceeding ; and so the ship was moored where the Thames Conservancy Board desired that she should not be moored. During the existence of this Board, the only member of the Board who has had any naval experience, Captain Berkeley, R.N., has repeatedly warned the Board that the moorings of the ship were unsafe. But his warnings have been constantly ignored. There are even lady members of that Committee who presume to know more about ships than an officer of the navy, just as there are members of the Board who think they understand the conditions of public education so well that they can afford to ignore the advice of Mr. Forster. Pretentious ignorance of this kind kept the Shaftesbury where she was. But in the storm of last January she drifted from her moor- ings ; the lives of 300 boys were seriously endangered ; and it was only by the strenuous efforts of the officers, and the aid of one or two steam tugs, that she was at length got into dock. This entailed, besides the risk of a frightful calamity, an immediate loss to the Board of more than/' 1,000 ; for the Shaftesbury is not now adapted for sailing, and, being topheavy and adapted for stationary pur* poses, she is extremely unwieldy when loose from her moorings on the river. In consequence of this occurrence, the Board, on the 14th August, instructed the Committee to ask the Admiralty that an officer might be sent to inspect, and report upon, the moorings of the ship. But the Committee, as usual, did nothing ; and on the 14th October, the ship again broke loose. Six days after this, on the 20th October, the Committee wrote to the Admiralty, as they had been instructed to do on the 14th August; and early in Novem- ber the officer sent down reported that the position of the ship was absolutely unsafe, and that she must be removed. She was conse- quently taken across the river, and all cost of the hole originally dredged for her reception, as well as that of the heavy ballast of the ship to keep her in that hole, is therefore another dead loss to the Board and to the ratepayers. Can you wonder, I ask, that a Com- mittee is openly distrusted who, after one terrible warning, will, for a second time, endanger the lives of the 300 boys on that ship 1^ before they will take the means they were instructed to take of ascertaining whether the ship was safely moored ? Conduct of this character ripens open distrust into active hostility. And these are by no means isolated instances. They are simply evidences of the ordinary influences which dominate the Com- mittee. The swimming bath in connection with the Shaftesbury furnishes a further example of the permanence of the old, unbusi- ness-like spirit which has attended the whole inception and deve- lopment of that scheme. In April, 1880, the Committee urged upon the Board the advisability of teaching the boys how to swim. They stated that a swimming bath on shore would cost/'395, and a floating bath ^'3 85. It was pointed out that in the Navy very simple and inexpensive means were adopted to teach swimming ; but the minds of the Committee were set on having a bath, and on having that bath on shore. The Works Committee were accord- ingly instructed to furnish the Board with an estimate of the cost. They did so on November 18th, and the estimate amounted to /'675, instead of /'3Q5. It was stated that the large discrepancy arose from the fact that the first estimate had provided for the digging out of the bath, but had omitted altogether* the cost of connecting it with the water. The Board then decided that the bath should be provided at a cost of/'675. The total cost, however, up to the present time has been/'gyS, that is, /"301 over the second and revised estimate. The necessary work is, however, not yet finished. I do not know what the total cost will be. But I know this : that the boys have only used the bath once ; that the bath is on shore, near the place where the ship was unsafely moored, and where she can never be moored again ; and that now the bath is on one side of the river, and the ship, with the boys who have to be taught to swim, is on the other. I ask if this is a method of doing business which is likely to engender confidence and trust ? The course which, under these circumstances, they ought to adopt seemed clearly indicated to those members of the Board who desired that the business of the Board should be conducted in an efficient manner. Their duty clearly was to vote for the dis- solution of the Industrial Schools Committee. Any other course would have been an invidious one. I regret to say that the Board, 18 by 1 8 to 17, declined to take that course.* But we shall have reason to regret still more that it was not adopted, unless the new Chair- man of that Committee, for whom personally I have much regard, retraces the course which his predecessor unfortunately followed. The policy of the previous Chairman was characterized by features which are happily infrequent in English public life. He was un- mindful of the duty he owed to the Board, and too desirous of centralizing authority in his own hands. This was the way in which he dealt with the affairs of the St. Paul's Industrial School. What are the facts with regard to this School 7 It is not a School for the management of which the Board is directly responsible. The law allows the Board to contribute to the establishment of any such institution a sum of/'io for every place put at the disposal of the Board. St. Paul's School was established for loo children, and the Board contributed /'i,ooo towards its establishment. They had therefore the right of filling every place in the school with boys under their charge. So that, although private persons subscribed about /'300 towards the original establishment of the School, it was to all intents and purposes restricted in its use to the children which the Board might choose to send. Notwithstanding this, the Board had no direct share in its management. The Managers of the School were the persons who had subscribed the /'300 I have mentioned. The principal of these was Mr. Scrutton, and he was at the same time the Chairman of that Committee of the Board which sent boys to the School. That is how the Board and the School have become popularly identified. No doubt, although technically we had no share in the management of the School, we cannot avoid whatever responsibility we may have incurred through trusting too much to the discretion of one individual. And the Board certainly was extremely lax in taking the proper steps in order to ascertain how the School was being conducted. For since 1875, there have been no meetings of the Managers of that School, and, since then, the sole person who is responsible for what has happened has been the late Chairman of our Industrial Schools Committee. Further, when charges against the management of this School were first brought before the Board, they were absolutely ignored by him. All inquiry was resisted ;t and a Committee of Inquiry was appointed * Vide Appendix, page 34. f Vide Appendix, pages 33, 35. 19 eventually only because some of the boys set fire to the building, and at their trial, the presiding Judge characterized the institution as *'a den of torture." I was a member of that Special Committee of Inquiry. When it was proposed to stop the inquiry because Mr. Scrutton engaged to state publicly that "grave irregularities" had taken place in the School, I was alone in urging that the inquiry ought to proceed, and that unless it did so proceed, the public would certainly and properly have grave cause for dissatisfaction. But the Committee desired to put an end to the public recital of the cruelties alleged to have been practised in the School. The result has been precisely what I anticipated. The public is, no doubt, gravely dissatisfied. It is popularly supposed that the Board wish to hush the matter up. I still hope the inquiry will be continued and completed. Meanwhile, I cannot express my opinion upon the merits of the case. It would not become me, as one of the Committee of Inquiry, to do so ; but I am convinced that the matter cannot remain where it is, for the Home Secretary has promised that a Royal Commission shall investigate the whole system of Industrial Schools. It will be the duty of that Commis- sion to inquire whether the repressive system alleged to have been in practice at the St. Paul's School is inherent in the whole Indus- trial Schools system or is only an occasional and hateful incident. They will have to inquire whether it is desirable that the control of these Schools should continue to remain with the Home Office or be transferred to the Education Department. And, finally, they will have to inquire whether it should still remain within the province of an educational body to take children from their homes, and to support, clothe, and educate them, mainly at the public expense ; or whether that is not the province of the Poor Law, and ought to be transferred to that Department. For my own part, I indulge the hope that this special means of training children may not be long required, and that the class of children who are now liable to this special treatment will year by year be so largely diminished that the ordinary school system will suffice for all the needs we shall then experience. I must allude to one other subject before I conclude this address. The work of education as carried on by the Board, is at the present time exposed to the great danger of over centralisation. As you 20 are aware, the Education Act of 1870 gave to School Boards the power of delegating to bodies of managers chosen by them, all or any of the functions of the Board except the raising of money. It was seen from the first, that it would not be possible for the mem- bers of the Board unaided to supervise efficiently the work of the numerous schools under their control. On the Board, this system of Local Management, instead of being encouraged, is being syste- matically rendered useless.^ I need not dwell upon the foolishness of this policy. Nothing could be more advantageous to the proper working of our schools than the efficient control which can be exercised by a body of persons, living in, or connected with the locality in which the schools are placed. How is it possible that a body of fifty members, already overworked with Committee meet- ings at the Board, and in their own divisions, can have that inti- mate acquaintance with the changing details of their 303 schools that the several bodies of local managers may possess ? And yet a party at the Board put forth all their strength to render powerless a system which might be of the utmost use to the Board's work. The recommendations of Local Managers are ignored until some of the best men among them have resigned their offices in disgust. Teachers are trained to look to the members for the division, or to some member in authority at the Board, for an alteration of the school premises, or of the school staff, instead of to the Local Managers, who are responsible to the Board for the general man- agement of the schools. The result of this policy is to degrade the whole system of local management and not unfrequently to involve the Board in useless and costly expenditure.! I trust the ratepayers * Vide Appendix, pages 30, 31. f In February, 1882, the Local Managers of the Melvin Road, Penge, Board School, forwarded this protest to the Board. *' In view of the repeated refusals of the Board to entertain the suggestions of Local Managers on matters vitally aflfecting the efficiency of the school, and with the conviction that, in consequence, serious mistakes have been committed, both with regard to the site, and the construction of the proposed new building in Melvin Road ; also believing that the systematic ignoring of the opinion of the Local Management on subjects upon which their local knowledge should render them the most competent judges, involves a principle prejudicial to the best interests of the Board Schools gener- ally, and tends to discourage the acceptance of this office by the persons most qualified to fill it ; the undersigned managers respectfully enter their most serious and earnest protest against the present system which leaves Local Managers powerless to render efficient service ? " 21 will not allow this policy to be successful. If all authority is centred immediately in the Board you will have your schools less efficiently conducted, and more expensively and extravagantly maintained. I am glad to think that the Local Managers are themselves taking a deeper interest in their own continuance and are awaking to the necessity which now exists for a reform in the method of their appointment, and also for an extension of their powers. I hope that they may be successful through the aid of the general public in enforcing their views upon the Board. I must now thank you for the extreme attention to which you have been pleased to listen to this address. Some of the details may, perhaps, have been a little difficult to follow ; none of them, however, are unimportant. I have endeavoured to explain, though with less fulness than I could have wished, some of the important tendencies of our School Board administration at the present time. I have ventured to urge upon you the necessity of many reforms if our work is to be efficiently performed. I know the difficulties that stand now in the path of these reforms. There are those on the Board to-day who never lifted a finger to promote the education of the people, until they could try their experiments at the public cost, who will denounce any attempt at reform as instigated by a profound hatred of the Board. No such charge can, however, be laid against me. I have a deep and earnest sympathy with the work the Board has to do. For that reason I gave up other work which it was a pleasure to be engaged in, that I might take part in this larger work. It is because I care for the best interests of the Board that I am so anxious for those reforms, which will enable the work to be more effectively performed, and that I oppose so strongly those tendencies of a dominant and doctrinaire party which lessen the efficiency of the Board's work, and those unbusinesslike habits which degrade it in ihe esteem of the general community. Perhaps, this meeting to-night may give to the dormant desires of many an intelligent direction. Some men, perhaps, of sufficient leisure, and of liberal mind, with a love for the work, may be led by what is said to night to offer themselves to the public service at the ensuing election. The Board which is elected to care for the highest interests of the children should not be made, as some of its members make it to day, an aren«^ for the display of sectarian 22 animosities, and of political partisanship. The special work the Board are elected to do is sufficiently arduous and important to tax the energies of the best amongst us. It appeals to our most ^generous instincts, and I hope the appeal may not be made in vain. When that appeal shall have been heard, and the reforms that are needed shall have been won, the Board will be enabled to perform with increasing efficiency their grand and noble work. The administration of the Board has its failings, but it is not altogether defective. On the whole, and notwithstanding many mistakes, a splendid and a necessary work is being done, and, I believe, that the time will come when only the good which has been done will be remembered ; and when the memory of that which has been bad will have passed away. 23 APPENDICES. PROPOSED HIGHER ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS. The proposal to build in each division, except the City, a Secondary School containing two departments, one for girls and the other for boys, forms a distinct departure in the administration of the Board, and calls attention to the anomalous condition in which the provision for public elementary education now stands. The proposal as it was originally introduced in Committee provided (i.) that the Schools should not be reckoned in the statistics of the Board ; (ii.) that no child should be admitted who had not passed Standard IV. or an equivalent examination ; (iii.) that the School fee should be gd. per week ; and (iv.) that the instruction should be in the subjects recognised in the Higher Standards in the Code, viz. : Literature, Drawing, French, Needlework, Domestic Economy, Mathematics, Mensuration, Practical Chemistry, Theoretical Chemistry, Acoustics, Mechanics, Light and Heat, Physiology, Magnetism, Electricity, Botany and Latin. The first of these propositions was dropped in Committee, but the remaining three will be presented to the Board. Under these circumstances public attention will again be drawn to the regulations under which the Board proceed. The Act of 1870 charged them with the duty of providing, where it did not exist, suitable and efficient school accommodation for children be- tween the ages of five years and thirteen years. And the Board were authorised to compel all such children to attend school (Sec. 74). In the subsequent Act of 1876 a child was defined as meaning a child between the ages of five years and fourteen years. It will be seen therefore that, as the Board were compelled to provide schools for all children whom they could compel to go to school, the extreme limit of school accommodation had been reached when all the children between five years and fourteen years, of the Elementary School Class, had been provided for. Strictly speaking 24 then, the Board do not appear to have any legal right under the Education Acts to provide School Accommodation for children above fourteen years of age. It is at this point that the first anomaly presents itself. That anomaly is found in the Education Code issued yearly by the Education Department under the sanction of Parliament, and is one of many anomalies discoverable in that document. The Code states that an attendance may be reckoned for any scholar in a day school between the ages of three years and eighteen years, and if such an attendance is made the Government will pay a certain amount of grant for it. The result is that while under the Education Acts no obligation rests upon the Board in respect of children under five years or over fourteen years of age ; the Education Code increases the limitation in both directions by inducing the Board to provide for children between the ages of three years and five years, and between fourteen years and eighteen years, by the offer of a money grant payable upon their attendance at school. What kind of school, however, is it within the power of the Board to provide } It must be an Elementary School : and this is how an Elementary School is defined both in the Act of 1870 Sec. 3, and in the Education Code. *• An Elementary School is a School, or Department of a School, at which Elementary Education is the principal part of the Education there given ; and does not include any School or Department of a School at which the ordinary payments, in respect of the instruction, from each scholar exceed gd. a week." But can it be said that a School intended to keep children up to the age of eighteen years falls within the number of those at which elementary education is the principal part of the education there given ? If a boy is kept at School from fourteen years to eighteen years of age, during those years he requires an education of a character totally difi"erent from that which we understand by Elementary.* And can any reasonable person explain why if the boy from fourteen years and onwards is to be taught any or all of the imposing array of subjects enumerated in the scheme, the Board are restricted to a gd. fee ? Most people understand that the limitation of a gd. fee was imposed because it was understood that School Boards were to provide the means of education for the children of parents, who could not afford to pay S5 more than gd. per week. But if under the guise of Elementary, a Secondary Education is to be given ; and under the pretence of pro- viding for the poor only a gd. fee is to be charged to the children of the more opulent class, it is high time that we reconsidered our position, and asked whither this policy is to lead us. A METHOD OF DESTROYING NON-BOARD SCHOOLS. By Section s of the Act of 1870, it is ordered that in every School District, " there shall be provided a sufficient amount of accommodation in public elementary Schools available for all the children resident in such district for whose elementary education efficient and suitable provision is not otherwise made." The duty of supplying this additional accommodation is laid upon School Boards. The question at once arose, in what manner should a School Board decide whether existing School accommodation was ^^ efficient and suitable''* Mr. Forster said, '* By 'efficient,'* I mean Schools which give a reasonable amount of secular education ; and by * suitable,'' 1 mean Schools, to which, from the absence of religious and other restrictions parents cannot reasonably object." For these purposes, he added, " we count all schools that will receive our Inspectors.'* Two conditions therefore are essential ; first, that a school should be under Government inspection, and second, that the conscience clause defined in Section 7 of the Act should be in active operation. Any school fulfilling these two conditions is within the meaning of the Act " efficient and suitable." I have pointed out in the address (p. 5) that the result of the action of the Board upon Non-Board Schools in London has been to diminish the number of children in attendance at such schools, in even a greater ratio than the number of the school places pro- vided by them. In this way, through the operation of unequal competition and low fees Non-Board Schools become much emptier than they would otherwise be. At this point a new policy reveals itself. On June i6th, 1880, Mr. L. Stanley moved, that the Board inform the Education Department with reference to Non-Board Schools, that *' their emptiness points to their unsuit- ability." It is obvious that if, having partially emptied a school of its children the Board can then step in and say : — because your 26 school is so empty, therefore within the meaning of the Act, it is not " suitable : " — the whole Non-Board School system must speedily be destroyed. There voted however for that letter 15 ; and against it 21. City . Chelsea Finsbury Greenwich Hackney Lambeth Marylebone Southwark Tower Hamlets. Westminster For. Miss Davenport Hill. Mr. Freeman. Prof. Gladstone. Rev. John Rodgers. Rev. M. Wilks. Mr. Lucraft. Mr. Saunders. Sir C. Reed. Hon. L. Stanley. Mrs. Westlake. Mr. Hawkins. Miss Richardson. Mr. Scrutton. Miss Simcox. Mr. S. Buxton. Against. Mr. Bonnewell. Capt. Berkeley. Mrs. Webster. Mr. Roberts. Mrs. Surr. Dr. Wainwright. Rev. T. C. D. Morse. Mr. Richardson. Mr. Ed. Jones. Mr. J. J. Jones. Mr. Heller. Miss Muller. Mr. White. Rev. J. J. Coxhead. Rev. J. R. Diggle. Mr. A. Mills. Mr, Corry. Mr. Charrington. Col. Prendergast. Rev. B. Belcher. Mr. Ross. FREE SCHOOLS. On July 7th, 1 88 1, it was proposed by Mr. Hawkins to abolish the school fees at the Orange Street School in Southwark. Ulti- mately that proposal was amended, and put to the Board in this form : — '* That the proposed resolution be referred to the School Manage- ment Committee, with instructions to consider the advisability of establishing a limited number of free schools in certain districts of the Metropolis." The voting, which was taken on the Previous Question, showed that there were 24 in favour of, and 13 against the amended resolution. City . Chelsea . Finsbury . Greenwich Hackney . Lambeth . Marylebone Southwark Tower Hamlets. Westminster For. Mr. Bonnewell. fMiss Davenport Hill. *Mr. H. Spicer. Mr. Freeman. Mrs. Surr. Rev. M. Wilks. fRev. T. C. D. Morse. Mr. Richardson. Mr. J. J. Jones. Mr. Olding. Mr. Kemp Welch. fMr. Heller. *Rev. G. M. Murphy. *Mr. White. Rev. J. J. Coxhead. *Hon. E. L. Stanley. fMrs. Westlake. *Mr. Hawkins. *Miss Richardson. *Miss Taylor. fMr. E. Buxton. fMr. Scrutton. *Mr. Potter. *Miss Simcox. Against. Capt. Berkeley. Prof. Gladstone. SirU.KayShuttleworth. Mr. H. Gover. Mr. Ed. Jones. Rev. H. Pearson. Mr. Stiif. Dr. Angus. Rev. J. R. Diggle. Mr. A. Mills. Mr. Charrington. Mr. S. Buxton. Mr. Ross. In a previous division, on May 5th, those marked *, together with Mr. Lucraft, Miss Muller, and Mr. Saunders, had voted in favour of asking the Education Department to consider the ques- tion of " Free Schools.*' In that division, those marked f voted against the proposal, 28 ON THE TEACHING OF FRENCH, WITHOUT CHARGING THE ADDITIONAL FEE OF \d. PER WEEK, WHICH HAD BEEN WILLINGLY PAID BEFORE. City . Chelsea . Finsbury . Geenwich Hackney . Lambeth . Marylebone Southwark Tower Hamlets Westminster . For (20). Miss Davenport Hill. *Mr. Spicer. Mr. Freeman. Prof. Gladstone. ^'Mr. Lucraft. *Rev. Mark Wilks. Rev. T. C. D. Morse. Mr. J. J. Jones. Sir C. Reed. Mr. Heller. *Rev. G. M. Murphy. Mr. Stiff. Dr. Angus. *Hon. L. Stanley. Mrs. Westlake. *Mr. Hawkins. **Miss Richardson. Col. Prendergast. Mr. Scrutton. *Miss Simcox. Against (20). Mr. Bonnewell. Capt. Berkeley. Mrs. Webster. Mrs. Surr. Mr. Roberts. Mr. Richardson. Mr. Saunders. Mr. Ed. Jones. Rev. H. Pearson. Mr. Kemp Welch. Miss MuUer. Mr. White. Rev. J. J. Coxhead. Rev. J. R. Diggle. *Miss Taylor. Mr. Corry. Mr. Charrington. Mr. E. Buxton. Mr. S. Buxton. Mr. Ross. Those marked ^ are in favour of Free Schools. TEACHERS' SALARIES. The Hon. E. L. Stanley moved (28th July, 1880) that "The salaries of Head Teachers shall be determined by the accommoda- tion of the school ; " to which an amendment was moved by the Rev. J. R. Diggle, to strike out the words '* accommodation of the School," and insert the words ♦* average attendance of children at the school during the previous school year." The division was taken on the amendment, that is, that the teachers should be paid in proportion to the teaching work actually done. dd City . Chelsea Finsbury . Greenwich Hackney . Lambeth . Marylebone Southwark For (i6). Mr. Bonnewell. Mr. Freeman. Dr. Wainwright. Mr. Lucraft. Rev. T. C. D. Morse. Mr. Richardson. Mr. Ed. Jones. Mrs. Fenwick Miller. Miss MuUer. Mr. Stiff. Mr. White. Rev. J. J. Coxhead. Rev. J. R. Diggle. Miss Taylor. Tower Hamlets Col. Prendergast. Westminster . Rev. B. Belcher. Against (22). Miss Davenport Hill. Mr. Spicer. Prof. Gladstone. Rev. John Rodgers. Mr. Roberts. Mrs. Surr. Rev. M. Wilks. Mr. Saunders. Mr. J. J. Jones. Rev. H. Pearson. Sir Charles Reed. Mr. Heller. Rev. G. M. Murphy. Dr. Angus. Mrs. Westlake. Mr. Hawkins. Miss Richardson. Mr. Ed. Buxton. Mr. Pearce. Mr. Scrutton. Mr. G. Potter. Miss Simcox. TABLES SHEWING THE PAYMENTS UNDER THE CODE at the time the teachers' salaries were arranged : and also the later and increased payments under subsequent Codes. Before March, 1876. On Average Attendance — (i) 5^- (ii) IS. for singing. After that Date. (i) 4J. (ii) 1.9. for singing. (iii) IS. for discipline and organization. 30 On Infants Presented — %s. if in mixed school, loj. if in separate depart- ment. On Examination — \s. each pass in Reading, Writing, Arithmetic. For Specific Subjects — y. in Standards iv. to vi. for each pass in not more than two subjects. Grant Limited to 15J. — Per scholar in average at- tendance. %s. if in mixed school. \os. if in separate depart- ment. 3J. in each pass. 4^". on average attendance for Class Examination in two subjects. 40J. or 60J. for each P. T. passing fairly or well. 4J. for each pass in ditto, etc., etc., etc. Children above Standard vi. may be examined and earn grants. Limit removed. LOCAL MANAGERS. On January 2 1 st, 1880, it was moved that the School Management Committee be instructed to consider the method by which Local Managers are at present appointed, with a view to making the Committees of the Board Schools more efficient. For, 20. Against, 12. City . Chelsea . . Miss Davenport-Hill. . Capt. Berkeley. Professor Gladstone. Mr. Spicer. Finsbury . ■ Rev. J. Rodgers. Mr. Lucraft. Rev. M. Wilks. Greenwich . Rev. T. C. D. Morse. Mr. Richardson. Mr. Saunders. Hackney . . Mr. E. Jones. Mr. J. J.Jones. Mrs. Fenwick Miller 31 Lambeth . Marylebone Southwark Tower Hamlets. Westminster For, 20. Mr. Heller. Miss Muller. Mr. White. Dr. Angus. Rev. J. J. Coxhead. Rev. J. R. Diggle. Mr. Corry. Mr. E. Buxton. Mr. Charrington. Col. Prendergast. Mr. Scrutton. Rev. B. Belcher. Mr. S. Buxton. Mr. George Potter. Against, 12. Rev. G. M. Murphy Hon. E. L. Stanley. Mrs. Westlake. Mr. Hawkins. Miss Richardson. On June 30th, 1881, a proposal was made by the Rev. T. C. D. Morse (Greenwich), seconded by Professor Gladstone (Chelsea), and supported by Miss Simcox (Westminster), to transfer the appointment of Head Teachers from the Local Managers to a Sub-Committee of the School Management Committee. This proposal was withdrawn, without a division being taken. On July 7th, 1 88 1, the managers of the Whitechapel group cf Schools asked if the Board would receive a Deputation from the Local Managers, so that if possible some satisfactory solution might be found for the difficulties of their present condition {i.e., the relations existing between the School Management Committee and the Local Managers). Instead of informing them what the Board rules with respect to deputations were, and to prevent the com- plaint again coming before the Board, Mr. Mark Wilks (Finsbury), moved and Mr. Scrutton (Tower Hamlets) seconded, "That the Chairman of the Board be requested to write and invite the memorialists to a conference with himself and the Chairmen of the School Management {i.e., Mr. Wilks) and the Works Committee {i.e., Mr. Stiff)." To this select body the names of Mr. Freeman (Chelsea) and of Mr. Scrutton were afterwards added, and no account of their interview has yet reached the Board. 3i THE SffAFTESBC/RnRAimNG SHIP. This ship was established for the purpose of training boys for the sea. In October, 1877, the Industrial Schools Committee replied to an enquiry of the Board " as to whether there is likely to be, in the future, a sufficient demand for lads for Sea Service to justify an addition to the present number of Training Ships." They stated : — *'The Exmouth only received boys on 26th December, 1876, and has not been established long enough to give the managers any opportunity of speaking with authority, as the boys enter about 12 years of age, and should not go to sea until they are 14. The his- tory of the previous ship Goliath shewed that the pressure on Capt. Bouchier was entirely in the direction of not having boys enough rather than having too many. This statement is made under special circumstances because the Chairman of the Industrial Schools Committee (Mr. Scrutton), was for many years Chairman of the Goliath and is now a manager of the Exmouth. " The Warspite^ it is believed gets rid of about ten boys a month, and that in a ship with only a little over 200 boys may be considered a very fair supply — quite as many as can be properly trained. " It is within the personal knowledge of the Chairman of the Industrial Schools Committee (Mr. Scrutton), who has been en- gaged with shipping for over 30 years, that ample facilities exist for obtaining situations for properly trained lads." It was upon these distinct statements, for the accuracy of which Mr. Scrutton was the chief, if not the only witness, that the ship was bought for /'7, 000. On October 14th, 1877, the same Committee stated that the ship could be fitted up for /'8, 000, making a total of /'is, 000. The total cost as eventually reported to the Board was /'43,474. Notwithstanding their previous statement that " ample facilities exist for obtaining situations for properly trained lads," the Com- mittee in October, 1880, asked the Board to establish a home for 100 boys near the docks, so that the existing difficulty of obtaining berths for them might be overcome. The Board asked how many boys were likely to go to sea. They replied in February, 1881, that up to Christmas, 1881, "90 boys would be eligible, of whom 60 would be willing to be sent to sea. But the Committee could not pledge themselves with absolute accuracy as the wishes of the boys 33 could not be known until three months before Christmas." The subjoined statement, dated December 13th, 1881, shows that from the establishment of the ship about three years before only 26 boys out of the whole number had gone to sea. The Committee's report that 60 would probably go in one year, was therefore totally erroneous. LIST OF BOYS DISPOSED OF SINCE THE ESTABLISH- MENT OF THE SHIP SHAFTESBURY. Admitted .... 489 Left:— Army -. Navy . . . . Merchant Service . 9 I 20 Two of these have since entered the Navy ; one has since obtained employ- ment on shore. Trades and domestic service 6 One of these has since entered the Merchant Service. Restored to friends 65 One of these has since entered the Time expired Transferred . Sent to Prison and Re- formatory . Absconded and dis- charged not having been recaptured Died . . . . Medically unfit Still in the ship . 17 Navy ; three have since entered the Merchant Service. One has "obtained employment on shore. Fourv^erQ dis- charged by Secretaryof State's warrant to some employment on shore. One was sent for three months only. Fifty-three were discharged, " time expired." Five of these are still on board the ship. One has entered the Merchant Service. 133 356 489 Under these circumstances, can it be said that this Ship has 34 fulfilled the object, for which she was bought, of training boys for the sea ? DISSOLUTION OF INDUSTRIAL SCHOOLS COMMITTEE. On 17th November, 1881, a division took place on the motion that ** The Industrial Schools Committee be, and it is, hereby dis- solved." For (17). Against (18). City . . Mr. Bonnewell. Miss Davenport Hill. Mr. Spicer. Chelsea . . Capt. Berkeley. Mr. Freeman. Finsburv . . Mr. Lucraft. Mr. Roberts. Mrs. Surr. Dr. Wainwright. Rev. M. Wilks. •Greenwich . Mr. H. Cover. Mr. Saunders. Hackney Lambeth Marylebone Southwark Tower Hamlets. Westminster Mr. Richardson. Rev. T. C. I). Morse. Mr. Ed. Jones. Mrs. Fenwick Miller. Miss Muller. Mr. White. Rev. J. R. Diggle. Rev. J. J. Coxhead. Mr. Charrington. Miss Simcox. Mr. Olding. Rev. H. Pearson. Rev. G. M. INIurphy. Mr. Kem.p Welch. Mr. Stiff. Dr. Angus. Mr. Stanley. Mrs. Westlake. Mr. Hawkins. Miss Richardson. Mr. Ed. Buxton. Col. Prendergast. Mr. G. Potter. Of the majority of 18, 11 were themselves members of the Indus- trial Schools Committee, viz., Messrs. E. Buxton, P^eeman, Spicer. Pearson, Prendergast, Potter, Stanley, Stiff, and Wilks, Miss Hill, •and Mrs. Westlake. 35 Ten of the majority, viz., Messrs. Ed. Buxton, Freeman, Hawkins, IVIurphy, Prendergast, Spicer, and Wi!ks, Miss Hill, Miss Richard- son, and Mrs. Westlake, together with Messrs. Pearce and Scrutton, had on March 17th, 1881, voted against a communication being addressed to the Managers of the St. Paul's Industrial School Tequesting them ** to apply to the Home Secretary for an order of discharge respecting the two boys, Little and Horton, who have been certified by the medical officer as unfit for industrial ■irainingi''' Eleven of the majority, viz., Messrs. E. Buxton, Freeman, Hawkins, Pearson, Prendergast, Stanley, Stiff and Wilks, Miss Hill and Miss Richardson, and Mrs. Westlake, together with Messrs. Gladstone, B. W. Richardson, Morse, and Scrutton, and Miss Simcox, voted, on November loth, 1881, against the Special Committee continuing their inquiry into the grave charges of mis- management and cruelty brought against the St. Paul's Industrial School. REPORT ON EXAMINATION IN SCRIPTURE KNOWLEDGE. The Rev. John Rodgers, on 28th July, 1880, and again in October, moved: — *'That a copy of Mr. Landon's Report be issued to the Head Teacher of each department of the Schools of the Board." This Report stated that the causes of failure were — unpunctuality on the part of the children, and want of earnestness on the part of Head Teachers, who, in some cases, against the rule of the Board, neglected to take part in the instruction, and left it to the Pupil Teachers, or even candidates, and in other cases treated the lesson like the multiplication table. The Rev. Brymer Belcher moved, and Rev. Joseph R. Diggle,M.A., seconded an amendment to add the words, " but that the attention of the Head Teachers be called to Mr. Landon's remarks respecting the failures in Standards, IV., V., and VI., and the causes suggested for them." This is the usual practice with other reports. In the course of the discussion, however, it was stated that Report had already been sent out from the Office without the 36 authority of the Board, and the amendment and the motion were accordingly, by permission of the Board, withdrawn. The following was then put to the Board as a substantive motion, and resolved accordingly: — **That the attention of the Head Teachers be called to Mr. Landon's remarks respectinsr the failures in Standards IV., V., and VI., and the causes suggested for them." J. Martin 8c Son, Printers, i8, Lisson Grove, N.W ;:^-y#^' '-?T^. ^> •|«?., 'm-^ '^ji»<:isi jwf^ '<%■ IT',. ■^^^ ':'^m ^'(.•'rere.K a^Bi^^- fV .'• .• »• i,. ^«^' «?■-■