The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-22 00:00:00

THE REVISED CODE.

Lord IL CECIL called the attention of the house to the
case of Derby-road School, Nottingham, to which the pro-
visions of the revised code had been partially applied, not-
withstanding the announcement that those provisions would
be suspended until they had been submitted to the judg-
ment of Parliament. The noble lord said he desired to know
whether the Government had kept faith with the house and
the managers of the schools, because it was understood that
nothing would be done until Parliament had decided in the
matter. - It appeared, however, that in some cases the pro-
mises made by the right hon. gentleman had not been ad-
hered to, as this case was an instance where the managers
of the school had applied for a grant of books and maps, and
had been refused by an answer sent in a printed form,
which showed it was the one always returned ; it simply
informed the applicants that the committee of the Privy
Council ha,' ceased to make grants of books and maps. He
(Lord It. Cecil) thought this was a direct breach of faith—
(hear)—with the house. The alarm throughout the country
was that the supply of money would be suddenly cut off;
now it appeared that that was so by the mere fiat of the
right hon. gentleman (Mr. Lowe) issued in the recess, in the
absence of Parliament, and before Parliament could be asked
to express an opinion upon the subject. Without books and
maps it would be quite impossible that a school could go on.
It was the same as if the grant of £250,000 for pupil
teachers had been cut off. It would seem that many pen-
sions had been refused already.
Mr. LOWE said that with regard to the matter of pen-
sions the noble lord was mistaken, and if he had given
notice of the question he would have brought the papers
and entered into all the details. Pensions were not given
but in exceptional circumstances, and the time for allotting
them would not come until after the period for the revised
code to come into operation. There had, therefore, been no
postponement of any claim, and indeed he had entertained
many applications during the present year. As to the book
grants, they were useful in the beginning of the educational
system, but they had become burthensome and employed a
great many clerks, and as the royal commission had re-
ported against them, the committee had, on their responsi-
bility, refused to grant them. In fact, however, they em-
ploy ed agents—the Messrs. Longman—in this matter, and
the arrangement with them was that they should have a
long notice. That notice had been given, and part of the
minute had done away with a part of the grant. It had
been found impossible to pursue a different course in conse-
quence of other persons in the trade having some of the
books intheir hands. This matter had nothing to do with
the revised code, and it was not an annual grant. If the
house should decide that the grant should be continued,
these managers of the Nottingham school would be entitled I
to the books. The Committee of the Privy Council had
decided this point upon their own responsibility, but as to
breaking faith with the house, or with any managers, it
never was intended or done. The right hon. gentleman
said, in answer to a question put by Mr. Lygon, that notice
was given to Messrs. Longman in the spring of last year,
he believed in the month of May.
Mr. DISRAELI said the question was whether one
minute or another was in force. The right hon. gentleman
admitted that under the existing system this application for
books would have been complied with, and then he de-
fended himself by stating that some unsatisfactory arrange-
ment existed with the publishers. But the notice to the pub-
lishers ought not to have anticipated that the revised code
would be adopted by the house. The question might not be
one of very great importance—not so great as many which
were included in the revised code. But what was more re-
markable was the want of tut and the want of conciliation
on the part of the right hon. gentleman in bringing these
amendments before the public notice. As the right hon.
gentleman was prepared to make considerable demands
upon the forbearance of the public, it was desirable that the
new orders of the council should be made clear to their un-
derstandings. So far as the law was concerned, the right
hon. gentleman had not a leg to stand on. He had given no
answer to the complaint of the noble lord, nor had he proved
that there had not been a total want of discretion. The
Privy Council was in a position in which the utmost discre-
tion was necessary, and they had shown a total want of it,
as well as of conciliation. It was wrong that the public feel-
ing should be offended, and in offending it, the right hon.
gentleman had shown a great want of administrative discre-
ion.