MR. KINNAIRD expressed his entire concurrence in the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). Within his recollection-and he had had the honour of occupying a seat in the House when the original measure was proposed in 1837-no more important matter had been brought before the House. It was one which, in his opinion, was worthy of the gravest consideration of Parliament. system seemed to him to be robbing Peter to pay Paul. over it. I say, Sir, that is a monstrous degate's) question was this:-In the event state of affairs, and one which, if suggested of any failure on the part of any school, of as an hypothesis a year ago, would have either the Protestant denominations or the been thought utterly incredible. Well, Church of England, in proving the suffiwhether all the complaints urged against ciency of the religious instruction given the Revised Code-whether the lamenta- therein, would the penalties, which under tions of the schoolmasters and those va- the new Code were to be attached to such rious classes of people with whose feelings failure in respect of religious teaching, be the right hon. Gentleman so deeply sym- under the new Code the same as those for pathized and referred to in such a conso- the failure on the part of those schools in latory tone-whether they are right or the teaching of reading, writing, and arithwrong, they have a right to receive the metic? expression of public gratitude for having arrested at least the course of those violent proceedings, for having taught us the ignominious position which we were occupying as regards our control over one of the most important departments of the State, and over affairs which so deeply interest the people of this country. I am therefore far from regretting the excitement which the publication of the Code has caused. I think its warmest admirers —if it have warm admirers-should feel some consolation that the House of Commons, through the feeling thus excited, should have an opportunity of in some degree exercising that control which belongs to them over this important department of the State. I hope the House will agree not to enter to-night into any discussion of the question. It is too vast and elaborate for any hasty criticism; and I hope, when it is considered, it will be considered in a spirit worthy of, I will say, so soleinn a theme. I hope the Government will find it convenient to inform us on what day they intend to ask the opinion of the House, and that they will fix upon an interval which, without being unnecessarily long, will enable the House and the country to pronounce maturely upon the subject. The new MR. CAIRD wished to know if he understood the right hon. Gentleman, that while Scotland was exempted from the Revised Code, the present system was to be maintained? LORD ROBERT CECIL said, he understood the right hon. Gentleman to say, that there would be no loss on the part of the schools under the proposed system, and yet the estimate would amount to not more than £500,000. The MR. LOWE:* I did not say that there would be no loss to the schools generally. I said I thought there need be no loss if proper measures were taken to comply with the conditions of the Code. noble Lord also misunderstood me-I did MR. NEWDEGATE said, before the not include in the £500,000 the capitation right hon. Gentleman answered the ques- grant and other items. With regard to the tions which had been put to him, he wished question of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. to refer to one point upon which he hoped Caird) it was intended that Scotland should that he should receive an answer. The remain under the present system until right hon. Gentleman stated that Roman further steps should be taken. I have Catholic and Jewish denominations did not now to answer the right hon. Gentleman permit any examination into the religious the Member for Bucks, who raised a sugmatters taught in their schools; he then gestion and asked a question. The right went on to state, as he (Mr. Newdegate) hon. Gentleman asked, supposing that the understood the right hon. Gentleman, that Ministry after the Reform Bill had been under the scheme which he proposed the passed had presumed to abrogate it, what schools of the Protestant denominations should we think? Why, Sir, I should would not be examined in religion; but he think they were mad. Then the right hon. further added that the Church of England Gentleman said, "You waited until Parliaschools would be examined on religious ment had separated; you left us in the matters under the supervision of the two dark, and then you presented a Code Archbishops of our Church. His (Mr. New-working a great revolution, abrogating all that has been done before." Now, how is | Thus, I not only stated the substance of it in fact? The new Code could not come the Code, but I also made a complete into immediate effect. The first exami- statement twice in the same speech of nations under the new Code could not take what we intended to do. The Code was place until after July 29, 1862, and there- laid on the table on the 29th of July, fore, long after Parliament would have had seventeen days after I made the speech, an ample opportunity of judging of it. although at the time I had hoped to be Next, as to a point upon which the right able to lay it on the table at an earlier hon. Gentleman dwelt with a minuteness date, but the matter being one of comwhich astonished me. I expected a dif- plexity, so many persons had to be comferent complaint-I expected that I should municated with that there was a longer be told, having troubled the House at such delay than I desired. When the right hon. length, that I had made my speech of last Gentleman says we intended to withdraw year over again. It is a total misappre- the subject from the consideration of Parhension to say that the House knew no- liament and the country I assure him thing of the intention to propose a Revised that he is mistaken. The very object of Code. It happens that last year, when framing the Code in this way and laying the Estimates were before the House, I it upon the table was that that might hapnot only discussed the recommendations of pen which has happened—that during the the Commissioners, but I explained the vacation public attention might be drawn details of this very Code, and I will now to the subject, and that we should have take the liberty of quoting a few words a discussion upon it with the advantage of from the speech I made on that occasion. all the light which could be thrown upon I saidit by those who took an interest in education. Owing to that deliberate act, we have had full discussion, which will have a great effect, whatever may become of education in this country. Had I wanted this measure, upon the future destinies of to play fast and loose, I could have kept the Code to myself, and laid it upon the table on the first day of the Session, and have trusted to its passing through in the pressure of business; but, instead of that, I took a course which was certain to lead to a full discussion; therefore, the right hon. Gentleman is rather ill informed upon the facts when he charges me with at"Having thus secured attendance, we propose laid upon the table some very important tempting to evade discussion. I have now to go a step further. We propose that an Inspector shall examine the children in reading, modifications, which will materially affect, writing, and arithmetic. If a child pass on the I am sure, the views of many Gentlemen. whole, the full capitation grant will be given; but We hope the effect of these Amendments, if he fail in writing, for instance, one-third of the when hon. Gentlemen have had time to grant will be withdrawn; if he fail in both read-consider and weigh them, will be to reing and writing, two-thirds will be withheld; while if he fail in reading, writing, and arith-move many objections to the passing of metic, no portion of the grant will be paid." And then, so anxious was I that the House should understand the purport of the Minute, that I ventured upon a bold experi It seems to me that it is quite possible to suggest a system which may do something to remedy these defects [those pointed out by the Commissioners]. What we propose to do will be embodied in a Minute, which will be laid on the table as soon as possible." I went on to explain what the Minute would be "We propose, therefore, to give the capitation grant on the number of attendances of a child above a certain number, provided always that the school is certified by the Inspector to be in a fit state, and provided also there is a certified Master." I went on to say that ment. I said this Code; but if, unfortunately, we should be mistaken and all concessions should be unavailing the matter will remain with the House, and it will be for those who are dissatisfied to take whatever steps they Government to fix any particular day, but may think advisable. It is not for the hon. Gentlemen will have an opportunity of reading the Amendments, and when they have they can take whatever steps they think fit. With respect to the question of the hon. Member for North War "I can hardly hope that I have made myself intelligible. The matter is one of considerable complexity, and I may be allowed to recapitulate the main features of our plan. We propose to give capitation grants on each attendance above a certain number-say above 100. We also require that there shall be a certified master; and, lastly, the grants will be subject to reduction upon failure in reading, writing, and arith-wickshire (Mr. Newdegate) I did not say metic."-[3 Hansard, clxiv. 734.] there would be any change in the manner of religious inspection; I only stated what is now the practice-that the Inspectors do inspect upon religious subjects in all Church schools, but not in the schools of Dissenters. MR. NEWDEGATE said, what he wanted to know was whether, where the inspection was extended to religious subjects, the failure on the part of any school in proficiency upon those subjects would be followed by the same penalties under the new Code as were attached to failures in reading, writing, and arithmetic. MR. LOWE said, the penalties will be these. If the Inspector reports that the religious instruction in a school is not satisfactory the grant is now withheld altogether; but if he reports that it is defective, Clause 47 of the new Code makes it lawful for the Committee of the Privy Council to withhold a portion of the grant, not less than one-tenth or more than one-half; and that power of a partial withholding is given now for the first time. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I have heard with satisfaction what has fallen from the right hon. Gentleman upon the subject of the complaint made by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli), and, as I think, not without reason. The right hon. Gentleman has now assured the House that he had no intention, by the mode of proceeding he has adopted, to take Parliament by surprise or to deprive it of the security which long practice had conferred upon it. I am convinced that a great part of that feeling in the country on this subject to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred has arisen from an impression, in which I confess I participated, that the course he pursued of laying the new Code upon the table upon almost the last night of the Session was not in consonance with that frankness and fair dealing towards the representatives of the people, which I am sure the noble Lord at the head of the Government always wishes to be practised. In 1852, when Lord Derby was in power, some changes of far less importance were proposed with regard to the existing Code, and the principle was then laid down and concurred in equally by Lord Derby and by Lord John Russell, that it was the duty of the Privy Council Department to take care that all Minutes should be communicated to Parliament to enable them fully to understand what was going on, not only before they were called upon to decide whether the contents of the Minute re quired Parliamentary interference, but even before they were called upon to vote the money by which the new Minute would be carried out. I was glad to hear the assurance of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) that he had no intention of depriving the House of that security which practice has given it. As to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, I listened to it with the attention and interest to which upon every ground it was entitled, and I agree with my right hon. Friend that it is undesirable, after hearing the important modifications now proposed, to enter at present upon any discussion upon them, or to commit ourselves to any opinion without due consideration, Whether the right hon. Gentleman is correct or not in the opinion he has just expressed with regard to the proper mode of proceeding-and I am disposed to believe that he is correctthere can be no doubt among those who have heard his speech, that his proposals, regarded either in their original form or in the altered shape in which they have been submitted to us to-night, must become the subject of careful consideration in this House; and therefore I think it is most desirable that we should reserve our opinions until we have that opportunity which must arise of discussing the extensive changes which even now the right hon. Gentleman proposes. I confess I am surprised at the apparent inconsistency between the right hon. Gentleman's language to night and that which he held during the last Session. I find that last Session, referring to the new Code which he was about to introduce, he said, "It leaves the whole system of the Privy Council intact." That language was not forgotten, and it was, I think, very much on account of it that the public mind was aroused, and rendered somewhat indignant at finding laid on the table of the House at the extreme end of the Session a Code which was generally regarded as entirely upsetting the system of the Privy Council. To-night the right hon. Gentleman has stated-I took down his words, though he may possibly have intended them to have a more limited application than I am now giving them-" that our only plan is to sweep away the existing system;" and almost his last words in alluding to that system were that "it is unworthy to be a permanent and definite system." tion this discrepancy to show that we have reason to complain of the course which has been taken; because, view the change with I men favour or disfavour, nobody can deny that (tleman to-night; for the House will bear it is most extensive. I do not wish to use in mind that that speech consisted not so any harsh terms towards the right hon. much of a vindication of the Revised Code Gentleman, but I think the feeling of the as a powerful attack on the existing syscountry has been that it was not ingenuous, tem and its imperfections. I refer to those not frank, not consistent with that fair opinions of mine to convince the right hon. dealing with which we are accustomed to Gentleman and the House that whatever be treated by the Government, that a my opinions may have been of former plans, scheme such as this should be laid on the I am willing to approach the subject, when table at the very close of the Session after it comes on for discussion, in a spirit of the previous declaration that it would leave fairness and impartiality. the whole system of the Privy Council intact. The right hon. Gentleman has referred to the speeches made on this subject during the recess. I wish, therefore, now to state that I have during the recess carefully abstained from using any expression which could commit me to any definite opinion that should fetter my action in this House. And although I have avowed impressions unfavourable to the scheme, I have always accompanied them with the declaration that I should await the explanation, which, doubtless, the Minister for Education would make when Parliament re-assembled. I entertain the same feeling still; and I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that nothing that I have said out of this House, no impression that I have formed from the right hon. Gentleman's speech to-night, shall prevent my approaching the consideration of this question, whenever the proper time for it arrives, in the most impartial and dispassionate spirit. I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that the right hon. Gentleman could not have committed a greater error than by treating this, as he did at the commencement of his statement, as an unimportant matter. It is a matter of grave importance. At the same time, I own that I am one of those few Members-certainly a minority in this House-who have never been advocates of the existing system. For many years past I have held one uniform language on this subject. I have always said that if you attempted to educate England and penetrate every corner of the country, as you ought to do under the existing system, it would be found too costly and too highly centralized to admit of its satisfactory working. This has been my opinion for years. Again and again I have expressed it in this House and out of this House. I have not changed my opinion; and if I wanted confirmation that this opinion is not without some foundation, I might appeal to the Report of the impartially-constituted Commission, and I might appeal to the able speech of the right hon. Gen MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I wish to make one observation rather in support of the opinion expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), and also with the view of eliciting a more definite answer from the Government as to the mode in which this Minute is to be discussed. I agree with my right hon. Friend in thinking it would have been convenient if the Government had felt it expedient to name a specific time at which this great alteration should be deliberately considered and debated by this House. And not only should the time be fixed, but we may fairly ask that the change proposed should come before us embodied in such a shape that we may know what we are discussing. At present we only know two things-first, that grants are made in this House when we go into the Education Estimates upon a system known to and thoroughly understood by the country; secondly, that there is what is called a Revised Code laid on our table, which it requires some little care to compare with the existing system in order to discover the alterations it introduces and the points to which they extend. Then, there is this additional difficulty— occasioned by the statement, and the very proper statement, of the right hon. Gentleman to-night, putting the House in possession of the present views of the Government-namely, that the Revised Code is itself revised. I should be very glad if the Government can inform us in what shape the revision of the Revised Code is to be laid before us. [Mr. LowE: It is on the table.] Then, I should also put it to the Government that it would be convenient if along with the Revised Code they would give us in parallel columns the system as they had it before, and the altered system as they will have it according to the proposition of the Government. That is not an unreasonable request to make. When the noble Earl at the head of the Foreign Office (Earl Russell)-no longer, unfortunately, a Member of this Ilouse-recommended to us a variety of alterations in our system of education, he laid on our table a series of Resolutions, which enabled us to go into Committee and consider them seriatim and in detail. A similar course ought, I think, When we to be pursued in this instance. are to have a new system established, overriding the one upon which we have acted for so many years, it would surely be more convenient and proper that we should have the proposals placed on our table in such a form that we might adopt, modify, or reject them seriatim and in detail. If, therefore, the Secretary of State will assure us that something of that kind will be done in this case, I believe it will very much expedite the discussion, and enable us to bring it to a right determination. SIR GEORGE GREY observed, that when a Minute of the Education Committee was altered, the regular course was to lay the altered Minute on the table of the House, and then it would be open to any Member to object to that Minute or to any portion of it, and by a Motion for an Address to the Crown, or by some other mode, to take the sense of the House on the subject. This, indeed, was the proceeding contemplated to be adopted in another place by a noble Lord (Lord Lyttelton) who has given notice of a string of Resolutions with respect to the Minute which had just been the subject of explanation. The Government would also be bound to come to the House for a Vote of money for the purpose of carrying on the new system; and this would afford another opportunity to any hon. Member to object to the proposed modifications. MR. LOWE said, in explanation, that in his speech last year, referred to by the right hon. Baronet opposite, he alluded to the fundamental principles of the Privy Council system as that which was to be maintained intact, because the same speech contained the explanation of a proposition for sweeping away certain annual grants; and the passage in his speech of to-night, which had been referred to, also alluded to those annual grants and not to the fundamental provisions of the system. Copy of Minute to lie on the table. House adjourned at a quarter after Nine o'clock. VOL. CLXV. [THIRD SERIES.] HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, February 14, 1862. DESTRUCTION OF CHARLESTON EARL STANHOPE said, he desired to ask a Question of the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary in reference to a report in the newspapers that a second squadron of ships laden with stone had been despatched by the Government of the United States to be sunk in the Maffitts Channel of the harbour of Charleston. It was added that a third squadron was in the course of equipment, and was intended for a similar purpose. Now he (Earl Stanhope) desired to know whether the noble Earl opposite (Earl Russell) had received any information from Washington respecting these rumours, and if so, what course he intended to pursue in regard to them? He had been in hopes that the former despatch of the noble Earl would have settled the question, for it seemed to him (Earl Stanhope) to have laid before the American Government, in so comprehensive a form, and with such unanswerable arguments, the considerations that ought to guide them in regard to such enterprise, that he had hoped it would settle the question. It seemed to him to be a most worthy sequel to the policy with respect to American affairs which all parties were agreed in thinking had done so much credit to the noble Earl and had so fully vindicated the honour of the country, and to the approbation which had already been bestowed on that policy he begged to add his humble meed of praise. It was difficult to see how the sinking of large ships laden with stone on banks of mud at the entrance of a harbour could end in anything else but the permanent destruction of that harbour; and it was on that ground, as far as he could understand, that the measure originally put forward and afterwards defended. The permanent destruction of a harbour was not justified by the laws of war. War, undoubtedly, sanctioned many grievous acts, but it did not sanction any act of this kind. The permanent destruction of a harbour was not an act of war of man against man, or of nation against nation, but it was an act of war against the bounty of Providence, which had vouchsafed harbours for the advantage of commerce and for the civilizing influences of intercourse between one people and another. On this ground we were well entitled and K was |