"6. Prohibition to teach to all who cannot prove their ability by the proper certificate and good deportment. "7. That the supervision in teaching belong to the provincial chiefs; and in regard to the moral and religious to the parish priests. "8. That the normal school have a practice school for boys, under the charge of the pupils." Doubtless the commission was influenced by the work of the above-mentioned official. The chief point of debate in the meetings held by the commission was that of the teaching of the Spanish language. One of the most influential and active members of the commission was Fray Francisco Gainza, then vice-rector of the university of Santo Tomás. He voted against the teaching of Spanish in the schools on the grounds that a unified language might open the door to Protestantism in the islands, but he was overruled by the votes of all the rest, even Fray Domingo Treserra, a Dominican. Governor Lemery, who took charge of the islands in the early part of 1861, also charged the Jesuit José Fernandez Cuevas to draw up a project for educational reform. The next step and the greatest one yet attained in the matter of primary education was the decree of December 20, 1863, [12] with its attendant regulations (q.v., post). The normal school provided for by this decree was formally opened January 23, 1865, although it had been in operation since May 17, 1864. As might be expected it was found that there were more scholars from the island of Luzón, who took advantage of this normal school, than from the Visayas and Mindanao, on account of the distance. On this account Barrantes advocates the founding of another school in Cebú. Teachers from the normal schools were placed in charge of their schools with great ceremony, in accordance with an order of the government, July 18, 1868. The most serious obstacles against which the Board of Education had to struggle were irregularity of attendance and the matter of vacations, as it was necessary to designate a distinct period in each province, and it was utterly impossible to follow the regulations. Also the management and supervision fails in great measure because it is diverted from the direct oversight into the hands of secondary officials. In 1836 there was but one school of primary instruction in Manila, which was attended by 80 pupils. In 1867, there were 25 schools, with an attendance of 1,940 children, a number which advanced by 1868 to 30 schools with 3,389 children. The results in the provinces were also remarkable for the same period. In 1867, thirty-eight provinces showed 593 schools and in 1868, 684, with 25 more in course of construction. (Pp. 147-151.) Barrantes's conclusions (pp. 166-168) are interesting. Among them are the following: