The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-14 00:00:00

which was to abrogate the present system of education. 1
That is a great question and one of the utmost importance.
The right hon. gentleman had become acquainted only with
the question so far as the name of Commons was concerned,
tinting the palmy days of national education and the powers
and achievetnents of the:Privy Council-office, but there were
many hon. gentlemen who remembered when the question
was in a very different state—l being one of them. I cannot
but remember the great results the labour* of the Privy
Council have obtained, tentatively, as the right hon. gentle-
man, chooses to consider it, and I cannot look at those labours
t without feeling that in the future history of this country the
establishment of our present system of education will be
a great result, which will redound much to the honour of
England. The right hon. gentleman seems to wish that
_ _ .

Parliament had more control over the Committee of Privy
Council ; but the right hon. gentleman forgets that some
years ago an office of great honour and authority was esta-
blished thE3 object of which was that there should be a clear

and constitutional connexion between the doings of the
Committee of Privy Council and this house, and that that
office is new occupied by the right hon. gentleman himself.
Though no one vrould say that the right bon. gentleman
had done anything which he was not entitled to do, yet
everybody felt that the Vice-President of the Committee of
Council for Education would certainly take no extreme step

with ut consulting the House of Commons. Hence the sur
prise at the manner in which the revised code was introduced
It was a measure which justified some explanations on the
part of the right hon. gentleman. The moment that Parlia-
ment was prorogued the revised code was published. I will
give rto opinion at present on the revised code, but all seemed
to be agreed that it would create a great revolution. The
right hon. gentleman proposes to sweep away the old sys •
tern and to substitute a new system of his own. That being
so, the house had a right to expect that it would have been
introduced to the house before the prorogation. As I believe
it was laid on the table when the prorogation was announced
it is quite clear that the revised code must have been for some
time in one of the despatch boxes of the right hon. gentle-
man. (Hear.) Is that a constitutional course on the part
of the right hon. gentleman, who regrets the house has not
sufficient control over the conduct of the Privy C,uncil ?
But I will ask this further question. Had the house the
slightest reason to expect that the Government were medi-
tating this change? I remember, in July, when the report
of the Commissioners was presented to the house, the right
hon. gentleman felt it his duty to make eeme observations
on the subject. He described the character of the report of
the total commissioners, and he gave his own opinion. The
right hon. gentleman said that the commissioners approved
of the existing system of education, and he added that the
Government themselves—l am speaking from memory—
felt this was a question on which they ought to speak man-
fully and boldly, and they had no hesitation in saying they
adhered to that system. 'Hear.) I ask hon. members on
both sides of the house whether that was not the impres-
sion of Parliament. (Hear.) I say nothing in vindication
of the existing system, or of the revised code. Then there
were the poor laws, and a great opposition was raised
against them. That opposition was from a political feeling
against having a powerful central authority. There was
also great opposition to the reform of the tariff, and that
also arose from a political feling that it might interfere with
our Industries. Now, when the question of education was
discussed in this country, and the present national system
was brought forward, we had to encounter both political
and religious jealousy ; yet the great enthusiasm of the
people in its favour overcame this double feeling against it.
In 1860 a complete code was laid upon the table of the
house, I will not pretend to maintain that there was no
necessity for a change in it, and I Will not enter upon the
discussion of the proposed change to-night, but what I wish
to impress upon the house is, that this system of popular
education, which, in the course of many years, was with so
much moderation, and with so much firmness, supported by
the administration of the country and the great enthusiasm
of feeling of a large body of the people was established ; it
was established under greater difficulties than the recon-
struction of our representative system, the reform of the
pauper code, or the commercial tariff, had to encounter, and
it produced a not less powerful effect upon the public mind.
Now, what should we have thought if the state of the law
in this country was such that on a day after the proroga-
tion of Parliament a minister of the Crown, not liking the
Reform Act of 1832, had abrogated it, and introduced a
new Reform Act—(hear)—or if the Chief Commissioner of
the Poor Laws had erased the whole body of minutes which
former commissioners had framed, and had introduced
a new code; or what should we have thought of the
President of the Board of Trade rescinding the model
tariff, and substituting a new commercial system founded
upon the principle of reciprocity ? (Hear.) The house
could not reconcile such a system to their minds. Indeed,
it wan beyond the dream of possibility, and yet we have
found that such a course can be pursued in this country in
the matter of popular education by the Committee of the
Privy Council. (Hear, hear.) Ido not mean to say that
the right hon. gentleman's principal—the President of the
Committee—has taken any step which was not perfectly
legal on his part; yet it is to be regretted that a minister
placed in so high a position as the right hon. gentleman
should have felt it his duty to take it. (Hear, hear.) 1
think no one will doubt that, whatever may be the opinion
formed upon the revised code and the existing system of
education, some means should be taken to ensure to Par-
liament a complete control over the doings of the Commit-
tee of Privy Council for Education. (Hear, hear.) Though
the act of the Government may have been justifiable, yet I
cannot conceive an act which essentially could have been
more violent or more unwise than that the moment Par-
liament was prorogued a minister should take the course
which the right hon. gentleman did, and abrogate and an-
nul all the existing minutes which have been in operation
for more than a quarter of a century, and give in its place
a new minute which, so far as I can collect, was to come
into operation without the House of Commons having any
control over it. (Hear, hear.) That is a monstrous state
of affairs, and one which, if it had been suggested last
year, hon. members would have agreed was utterly incre-
dible. (Hear, hear.) 'Whether the complaints against the
original and the revised code be right or wrong, the school-
masters have a right to receive the expressions of public
gratitude for having resisted this course of violent pro-
ceeding, and for having taught us our position as regards
our control over one of the most important de-
partments of the State. (Hear, hear.) Therefore, far
from regretting what has taken place, it is with the
warmest admiration we should feel that the House of Com-
mons has found its true position in this respect. I hope
the house will not discuss the subject to- night, but will
on a future occasion consider it in a spirit as solemn as
it deserves ; and I hope the Government will find it conve-
nient to give the house some time to consider• the subject
before they ask for its opinion upon it. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. NEWDEGA'IE said the right hon. gentleman op-
posite had stated that the children in schools of Protestant
denominations would not be examined in religion, and that
the children in Church of England schools would be exa-
mined on religious matters under the supervision of the
two archbishops of-the Church. The question he wished
to ask was whether, in the event of any failure on the part
of any school of either Protestant denomination or of the
Church of England, the penalties under the new code
would attach to that failure, and be the same as if there
were a failure on the part of those schools which only
taught reading, writing, and arithmetic?
Mr. KINNAIRD said he merely wished to exprEss hie
concurrence with what had fallen from the right hon. gen-
tleman the member or Bucks (Mr. Disraeli), and to say
that this was a matter which required the gravest consi-
deration of Parliament.
Mr. CAIRD wished to know whether the new code
would apply to the schools in Scotland.
Lord R. CECIL understood the right hon. gentleman to
say that he expected the estimate for these schools would
be abut £500,000. Did it not amount to more than that
sum at present ?
Mr. LOWE, in reply, said the whole estimate for the
department was no doubt considerably more, but £5,0,000
would be the sum required for these schools, and that it
was not intended to apply the minute to the schools in
Scotland. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Disraeli) had
asked what he thought of a minister rescinding the Reform
Act and promulgating a new one, and his answer was that
he should think he was mad. (Hear.) The right hon. gen-
leman then complained that the minute was net laid upon
the table' ntil the day before the separation of Parliament,
and that it would come into operation immediately. But it
should be remembered that the first examination under it
would not take place before the 25th July, 1862, and there-
fore not until after Parliament had properly dealt with the
whole subject matter. The right. hon. gentleman (Mr.
Lowe) then referred to his speech delivered in the house on
the 12th July last, showing that the new minute was ex-
plained to the house at that time. He was in hopes of lawas
y-
ing it earlier on the table than the 27th July, but that
found to be impossible. If it had been intended to with-
draw this minute from the consideration of Parliament, it
would not have been laid on the table at the end of a session.
The object of the Government in acting as they had done
was, that the minute should be thoroughly examined by
those who took an interest in the subject, and it had under.-
gone a full discussion. If he had wanted to play fast and
loose with the house he should have ?ursued a contrary
course, and would have hoped that other business would
have caused less consideration to be given to this matter.
The question was now in the hands of the house,and it would
be for the house to fix a day for its further discussion.
Mr. NE WDEGATE repeated the question which he
had asked.
Mr. LO WE said if an inspector reported that the religious
teaching iu a school was nut satisfactory, the grant would
be withheld altogether, but in regard to other matters it
would be in the power of the committee to withhold not less
than one-tenth or more than one-half of the grant. This
was a minor penalty introduce 1 for the first time.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he had heard with great satis-
faction the reason why the revised code was not introduced
at an earlier period of the last session. The house ought
not to be taken by surprise, or deprived of that security
which it had so long possessed in this matter. He would
refer the house to the proceedings under Lord Derby's Go-
vernment of 1852, when soma changes were introduced of
minor importance in reference to the education grant, and
all parties agreed that the house ought to have some con-
trol over the Committee of the Privy Council. He had
listened to the speech of the right hon. gentleman (Mr.
Lowe), but he thought it would be uudeeirable on this oo•