educational philanthropists are determined to carry their point, perhaps without force if they can, but by force if they must.

Mr. Richson himself, with his benevolent heart, does not seem to know where he is going. He is really too good for his company; and if his efforts should be successful, he may not improbably repent of his share in establishing a system of which the vital powers must be penalties and policeman.

We have, however, the capabilities of Mr. Richson's plan as estimated by himself.

2349. Chairman (to Mr. Richson).—Do you conceive, if it is only the indifference of the parents (that keeps children from school] that that indifference will be at all done away with by adopting the Manchester and Salford scheme?

Ans.— Yes, I think so. The more the children attend school the greater [more] the parents excite one another, and the greater the inducement they have to send them to school. More than that, upon the principle of a rate, if the working classes were compelled to pay their quota of the rate, I think that very fact would induce the father to send his child to school.

The first stimulus, a mutual excitement among parents as to the schooling of their children, it would be very pleasant to see in action, although we cannot see very clearly how the Manchester and Salford bill is to create it; but the second is the most singular mode of operation we ever heard of for a system of gratuitous education.

CHAPTER IX.

MANCHESTER COMPARED WITH OTHER TOWNS.

One point more, before concluding this part of the subject, we have to notice. It has been loudly asserted that Manchester is the worst educated place in England, and that you cannot compare it with any other, agricultural, commercial, or manufacturing, without perceiving its inferiority. On the face of it, one of the tables furnished by the Census office strongly confirms this representation, and much use was made of it for this purpose. It was quoted by Mr. Richson in his second examination (2393), and more particularly brought forward by one of the members of the Committee.

2531. Mr. W. Miles (to Mr. Adshead).- Taking the Census returns as now presented to the House in their amended form, would you consider the state of education in Manchester satisfactory, when I call your attention to other districts in which education is in much greater proportion to the population ; and when I state, that in the York district education prevails as 1 in 6:39; in Leeds as 1 in 8; in Hull as 1 in 8:6; in Liverpool as 1 in 8.26 ; in Birmingham 1 in 9:59 ; and in Manchester and Salford 1 in 11.60 ?

Ans.-I consider the ratio of education as presented in Table 11, Paper No. 2,* which is given as 1 in 9, as the return of the parents and heads of families, to be as satisfactory as we might expect in Manchester.

2532.-We find in the Census papers a table which seems to justify the statement made as to the comparative proportion of scholars to the population. It is headed, “Day scholars in various large towns,' signed 'George Graham, Registrar General,' and we have a right to suppose that these calculations are correct?

Ans.-Certainly. 2533.—If it appears that the Manchester and Salford educational districts

only stand as 1 in 11.60, are the Committee to understand, after what you

have stated, that you consider that is a good ratio for those to be educated ?

Ans.-I ain aware that in Paper No. 2, Table 17, 1 in 11.60 is given as the educational ratio of Manchester ; but Table No. 11, also in Paper No. 2, gives 33,744 “ scholars,” or a ratio of 1 in 9, which I should consider a fair ratio for a district like Manchester.*

We had the gratification of seeing this skirmish “come c#,” and we were somewhat amused with the stubbornness of the respective combatants. As for Mr. Miles, he was evidently resolved upon victory, and he thought his ground impregnable when he found that his pet Table was actually "signed George Graham, Registrar General." “We have a right to suppose these calculations correct,” he exclaimed, with an eye of triumph ; and Mr. Adshead replied with becoming modesty, “ Certainly." But now, Mr. Miles, if you really will take the trouble to look at Table 11, you will find that that also is “signed George Graham, Registrar General," and must consequently be supposed to be correct. Now the ratio of scholars to the population as given in that table actually is, as Mr. Adshead stated it, i in 9, or rather 1 in 8.75. You have, then, two returns, apparently inconsistent one with the other, and it is proper you should seek after some method of reconciling them. The truth is—and you

will see it when you are cool enough to look after it—that Table 17 gives the number of Day scholars," or of children attending at day schools; while Table 11 gives the number of scholars," or of children under instruction. The former are as 1 in 11:60; the latter as 1 in 8.75. Your Table 17, therefore, upon which you relied so confidently, is utterly worthless and delusive.

CHAPTER X.

POVERTY IN MANCHESTER.

Assuming that he should triumphantly show a lamentable deficiency in the numbers under education in Manchester, Mr. Richson elaborately endeavours to demonstrate that poverty is, to a large extent, the cause of that deficiency; since, however, he has made out no alarming deficiency here, it might not be too much to say that his case breaks down in the outset, and that no revelations as to the poverty of the people of Manchester can remedy its fundamental weakness. We proceed, nevertheless, to examine what in this respect he has alleged.

It was, of course, a necessary and important part of Mr. Richson's duty, in making out a case for eleemosynary aid, to show how many persons, or what proportion of the population in the school district, were in circumstances to require it. This he has attempted to effect by the joint operation of two methods.

In the first place, by means of the assessors' books, he divides the assessments to the poor rate into various classes ; the gist of this division being to show how many houses are assessed at less than £18 a year, which turn out to be 86 per cent. of the whole, (6). From the houses he

* The ratio is about the same if you take the whole school district, the scholars in which are retumed at 44,598.

advances to the population, assigning 5 persons to each house; and thus he obtains the number of persons residing in houses assessed under £18, which he states at 336,149. The value of the number so arrived at consists in this, that Mr. Richson assumes that people residing in houses assessed under £18 are “in a class of life to avail themselves of common elementary schools,” (33). The children within the school age, or between

. 3 and 15, belonging to this portion of the inhabitants he sets down at 84,566. The assumption just stated was put to a practical test by an examination of 23 schools, from which it resulted that, in 1276 families, 6 per cent. of the children resided in houses assessed above £18 a year.

One step was thus made, and the class of persons likely to avail themselves of common elementary schools was ascertained. Not all these, however, would require educational alms; consequently, a further step was taken, which Mr. Richson himself shall describe.

We were not satisfied with this form of return alone, he says, because we thought, if we could ascertain the incomes of the parents of the children attending the different schools, we should still nearer approach the condition in life of the children attending the schools ; accordingly, through the agency of some of the teachers, we obtained the income of 777 families, in connexion with 12 schools, .. I found 12 per cent. whose income was under 10s. a week; 41 per cent. nearly, 10s. and under 20s.; 274 per cent. 208. and under 30s. 15 per cent. 30s. and under 50s.; 1} per cent 50s. and under 60s. ; and 21 per cent. above 60s. a week. That is, of the 777 families, there were 95 that were under 10s.; there were 103 that were from 10s. to 15s. ; 215 from 158. to 20s.; 126 from 20s. to 258.; 87 from 25s. to 30s.; 85 from 30s. to 40s.; 37 from 40s. to 50s.; 12 from 50s. to 60s.; and 17 above 60s., (12, 13, 16).

Such were the facts which were ascertained, and which formed the basis of Mr. Richson's calculation, and of the significancy of which he spoke with great confidence when previously questioned by a member of the Committee.

12. Mr. W. Miles (to Mr. Richson).—Will you just explain to the Committee the data on which you have formed the opinion that for those below £18,* it will be necessary to provide education ?

Ans.- I think I can show that to the Committee most conclusively. In a subsequent answer (73) to Mr. Gladstone, Mr. Riehson stated that what we have given above were the only data” on which he proceeded. The reader shall now be informed of the conclusion at which he arrived.

The conclusion I arrived at is this : that, at the very lowest estimate we could make as to the children who would use these common elementary schools, we must include all those residing in houses assessed under £18 a year; and hence I have assumed that such a proportion of the population as reside in houses [assessed) under £18 a year, or rather the children of that population, is the proportion of children for whom we ought to provide education, (16).

We confess ourselves greatly embarrassed by this answer, inasmuch as it contains nothing relevant to the matter under investigation. All it states is Mr. Richson's conviction, that “all those residing in houses assessed under £18 a year would use the common elementary schools ; " but this we have had before, in answer 12. That which Mr. Richson is now inquiring after, is the proportion of this population who may be

66

a

regarded as requiring pecuniary aid in educating their children ; but upon this point the answer tells us absolutely nothing. In this dilemma we have referred again to notes (perfectly trustworthy) of the examination taken at the time, and there we find the answer given as follows :

The conclusions I have arrived at were these, that the very lowest estimate we could make, as to the children who would use these common elementary schools, (and require pecuniary aid), is 75 per cent. (of those) residing in houses (assessed) under £18 a year, and therefore it was necessary to consider such a proportion of the population who reside in houses (assessed) under £18 a year, or rather the children of that population, as the proportion of children for whom we ought to provide education.

The answer thus given is relevant to its object, and supplies the information required. We can only suppose, that in the correction of the proof, Mr. Richson's attention was accidentally diverted from the immediate scope of his statement, and presume that he will thank us for supplying a lapsed element of vital importance to his case. We shall now proceed as if the answer which we have supplied, and in which we have interpolated a few words obviously required by the sense, were actually in its proper place in the blue book.

Some light is thrown upon the manner in which Mr. Richson arrived at his conclusion by the following qnestions and answers.

74. Mr. Gladstone (to Mr. Richson).—What income do you think places a family above the need of any eleemosynary assistance ?

Ans.— I think if they have more than £1 a week they can provide education for themselves.

75. Mr. W. Miles.-Would you not put down less than £1 a week ? Ans.-Yes, in my own private opinion.

76. At what amount of wages would you, in your own private capacity, say that a person should send his children to school ?

Ans.—I do not know that I can fix that; it is mere matter of private opinion. 77. Surely you have formed an opinion upon that point ?

Ans. It will depend, of course, upon the number of children. It is a difficult question to answer.

Mr. Richson here acknowledges that he had formed no opinion as to the amount of wages which ought to be considered sufficient to enable parents to pay for the schooling of their children, and yet he had set himself to calculate from a table of wages, the number of those who could not do so! This was evidently calculating without any principle to guide him ; it was guessing, and guessing in the dark. One is somewhat curious to know what can have been the result of such an operation,

“ The very lowest estimate " which Mr. Rich son “could make,” was that 75 per cent. of those residing in houses assessed below £18 would require eleemosynary aid. Here it is, of course, fair and necessary tu extend to the whole of this population the rates of wages which he had ascertained to exist in the 777 families his agents had visited. Now, upon referring to the table of wages, we find that, beginning from the lowest, 75 per cent. of them includes all rates up to 25s. å week, and more than half of those from 25s. to 30s. To our astonishment at such a calculation we shall give no utterance ; that it is worthless must be too obvious to need affirmation.

In presenting the substance of the first division of his evidence in the form of conclusions (69), Mr. Richson brings up this subject in a somewhat different form. Speaking of the 27,000 children now attending common elementary schools, he says that nearly two fifths of the children attending these schools are such as do not need eleemosynary assistance in procuring education.” We do not see how this new proportion of “ nearly two fifths " is obtained. If 75 per cento, as previously asserted, do want aid, there can be only 25 per cent., or one fourth, who do not want it. Let us take it, however, as it is given, and say that three fifths, instead of three fourths, of the children now at school require educational charity. This ratio, of course, may be extended to those not at school-a fortiori, indeed, since those who do not attend are assumed to be poorer than those who do. We have only now to stretch our thoughts from the children to the parents from the 84,566 children to the 336,149 inhabitants whom educationally they represent — and we shall arrive at the proportion of the population whom Mr. Richson contemplates as in need of charity. Three fifths of 336,149 is 201,634. Let our readers now hear Mr. Baines.

It is then, says Mr. Baines, the deliberate opinion of the promoters of this bill, that 201,634 of the inhabitants of Manchester and Salford need eleemosynary assistance in procuring education. It cannot be necessary to characterize such an opinion ; but it may be permitted to ask the Committee to reflect on the light which it throws on the project itself, and on the consequences to society if Parliament should listen to gentlemen whose benevolence seems quite to have blinded their judgment. Our experience of the old poor law ought to be a solemn warning against these new methods of pauperizing the community, (1558).

In his second examination, Mr. Richson confesses his admiration of the acuteness of Mr. Baines's criticism, and he does his best to evade it; with what success our readers shall judge.

I beg to say, he replies, that I have not ventured to express an opinion whether these 201,634 inhabitants of Manchester and Salford do or do not require aid in procuring education. . . I repeat the assertion that two fifths of the children attending these schools are such as do not require eleemosynary assistance. I express no opinion of the remainder, (2391).

The reader is certainly startled, as the Committee were, by the last sentence in this extract. It forces upon us the conviction that its anthor did not go to College for nothing. He is clearly a master of evasive logic. He “expressed no opinion of the remainder.” No: but his statement implied one. Conceive him addressing a company of persons thus.— Two fifths of you are honest men; I express no opinion of the remainder.' Would the remainder' judge that no aspersion was cast upon their integrity ? We feel sure that, upon consideration, Mr. Richson must be ashamed of this evasion, especially if he should read over again those passages of his evidence which we have quoted at the beginning of this chapter. For ourselves, however, we can wish nothing better than that the rev. gentleman should be taken at his word ; since it will then follow, that he had been devising a vast scheme of educational charity for persons of whose condition in life he had “ expressed," and of course, had formed “no opinion !" As pretty a piece of Utopianism, we think, as has been exhibited in modern times.

On the third day of Mr. Richson's examination, the question of the rate of wages was thus resumed.

492. Mr. Bright (to Mr. Richson).—You stated some particulars as to 777 families.