This motion came up for consideration on February 15, 1871.  In introducing it, he said that such a committee ought to consider:—­]

First, the general nature and relations of the schools which may come under the Board.  Secondly, the amount of time to be devoted to educational purposes in such schools; and Thirdly, the subject-matter of the instruction or education, or teaching, or training, which is to be given in these schools.

[But this, by itself, he continued, would be incomplete.  At one end of the scale he advocated Infant schools, and urged a connection with the excellent work of the Ragged schools.  At the other end he desired to see continuation schools, and ultimately some scheme of technical education.  A comprehensive scheme, indeed, would involve an educational ladder from the gutter to the university, whereby children of exceptional ability might reach the place for which nature had fitted them.

The subject matter of elementary instruction must be limited by what was practicable and desirable.  The revised code had done too little; it had taught the use of the tools of learning, while denying all sorts of knowledge on which to exercise them afterwards.  And here incidentally he repudiated the notion that the English child was stupid; on the contrary, he thought the two finest intellects in Europe at this time were the English and the Italian.

In particular he advocated the teaching of] “the first elements of physical science”; “by which I do not mean teaching astronomy and the use of the globes, and the rest of the abominable trash—­but a little instruction of the child in what is the nature of common things about him; what their properties are, and in what relation this actual body of man stands to the universe outside of it.”  “There is no form of knowledge or instruction in which children take greater interest.”

[Drawing and music, too, he considered, should be taught in every elementary school, not to produce painters or musicians, but as civilising arts.  History, except the most elementary notions, he put out of court, as too advanced for children.

Finally, he proposed a list of members to serve on the Education Committee in a couple of sentences with a humorous twist in them which disarmed criticism.] “On a former occasion I was accused of having a proclivity in favour of the clergy, and recollecting this, I have only given them in this instance a fair proportion of the representation.  If, however, I have omitted any gentleman who thinks he ought to be on the committee, I can only assure him that above all others I should have been glad to put him on.”

[That day week the committee was elected, about a third of the members of the Board being chosen to serve on it.  At the same meeting, Dr. Gladstone continues:—­