HC Deb 25 July 1864 vol 176 cc2067-81
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I rise, Sir, to ask this House to do an act of generosity and of justice. This House is one of the highest authorities in the realm. There is, technically speaking, no appeal from its decision. But if by circumstances it should have been led to do that which is not founded in justice, there is an appeal which I am sure must always be successful when made. We know that the approval of the House of Commons is one of the highest objects of ambition to every man engaged in the service of the country; and we also know that its censure is felt most deeply by any man on whom it may happen to fall. I have said that, technically speaking, there is no appeal from the decision of this House, but there is, nevertheless, an authority to which, in reality, such an appeal can be made; and that authority is one which is always ready to hear everything that can be alleged in favour of the person wronged, and is always open to listen to the truth when stated, though the truth may be in opposition to its original belief and conviction. The authority to which I allude is the House itself. I am quite sure that if it can be shown to the House that the decision at which it may have arrived in any case, whether affecting an individual or a department, has been arrived at hastily, or without full consideration, or upon inadequate grounds, an appeal to its sense of justice can never be made in vain, and that it will always be ready to set right that which it may have done wrongly. On the 12th of April last there was a debate in this House, and a Resolution was proposed inculpating a right hon. Member as well as a Department of the Government. The right hon. Member is my right hon. Friend the Member for Calne (Mr. Lowe), and the Department of the Government is the Committee of Council for Education. The noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) moved a Resolution affirming that the Report of the Inspectors of Schools had been mutilated as produced to this House, that that mutilation had deprived the Reports of their proper value, and that the practice was at variance with the understanding on which those Inspectors were originally appointed. My right hon. Friend, feeling that in the course of the debate a question had arisen which, in his opinion, involved an imputation on his veracity, with a nice sense of personal honour, and at variance, I am bound to say, with the advice of his friends, tendered the resignation of his office, and took upon himself the censure which the Resolution implied. That being so, we thought the matter could not be allowed to rest there; and the decision of the House having been founded on a misconception, and on a want of sufficient explanation, we deemed it right that a Committee should be appointed to investigate the matter, and to ascertain on what grounds the Resolution had been proposed. I am not at all seeking to impugn the conduct of the noble Lord who moved the Resolution, or that of those Members who voted for and carried it. They acted on their honest and sincere conviction, though I think I can show that that conviction was founded on error. It was determined, at all events, that a Committee should be appointed; and our first Motion was that the Members of that Committee should be named in the usual way. We thought it essential that my right hon. Friend should serve on it; but he declined to do so, and we were unable to persuade him to retract the decision. The Committee were eventually nominated by the General Committee of Elections. That Committee met and made the Report which is in the hands of the House. Now, the Resolution of the 12th of April has been, in my opinion, entirely negatived by the Report, and, that being so, I propose to the House to rescind a Resolution at variance with the deliberate Report of a Committee so appointed. The Resolution passed by the House was to the effect that the Reports of the Inspectors of Schools were mutilated, and, therefore, were deprived of their value; but the Committee reported, as hon. Members are well aware, that, in point of fact, it was not correct to state, as was stated in the Resolution, that from those Reports was excluded everything that was unfavourable to the views of the Committee on Education, or that those things only were inserted which were in their favour. The Committee found that passages were admitted—some favourable to them and some unfavourable—that there was no partiality in that respect, and that a fair representation was given of the opinions of the Inspectors of Schools. The Committee say that disquisitions on matters not belonging to the cognizance of the Inspectors had been omitted, and that they think such omission was right and proper. They also say that such a supervision is essential to the working of the Committee of Council as it is now constituted. Therefore, the Report of the Committee appears to me entirely to exculpate my right hon. Friend and the Department to which he belonged from the charges which were implied by the Resolution of the 12th of April. I therefore propose to the House the Resolution which I now place in your hands— That this House, having considered the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the practice of the Committee of Council on Education with respect to the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, is of opinion that the Resolution passed on the 12th day of April last, with reference to such Reports, ought to be rescinded, and the said Resolution is hereby rescinded.

MR. HOWES

Sir, as Chairman of the Committee I should wish to say a few words on this Question. If it had come on at an earlier period of the evening I should have thought it my duty to go at some length into the matters connected with it, but at this time of night I cannot be expected to do so. In the first place, however, I trust sincerely that the House, although this Motion has been brought on at a late time of night, and at a late period of the Session, will not object to it on the ground of time, knowing as we do that the noble Lord is extremely limited as to time, and it being absolutely imperative that this question should be set at rest once and for ever. Whatever different opinions there may be on this point and on others which may arise in the course of the debate, I hope there will be no difference upon one on which the Committee were unanimous—that the personal honour of the right hon. Member for Calne is absolutely and entirely clear and untouched. If any doubt of the sort has existed in the mind of any man in or out of this House, I trust it will be set at rest henceforth and for ever. As to the conduct of his Department, it is quite clear that for many years it has exercised a censorship and control over the Reports of the Inspectors. The Committee found unanimously that such a power existed, and that it had existed for many years, and, moreover, that it had been exercised with fairness and without excessive strictness. The noble Lord has analyzed the terms of the Resolution to a certain extent. I should be unwilling to discuss the meaning of the word "mutilation." The Committee considered that point. They refer to it in their Report, and they say that it must always be a matter of opinion whether the omission or alteration of any portion of a document has or has not an important bearing with reference to that which is admitted or is permitted to stand. The following words of the Resolution of the 12th of April are to the effect that there has been an exclusion of matter unfavourable to the views of the Department, and matter admitted which is favourable to them. If that is true, it is true to the letter, and yet the converse is: also true; and if the converse be added to the Resolution it has no effect whatever, and becomes a caput mortuum. Then comes the point which is really at issue. The Resolution affirms that the censorship of the Reports is at variance with the under- standing originally existing on the appointment of the Inspectors. It seems to me that this Question entirely depends upon this consideration—Is this body of men entirely under the control of the Department and under the orders of the Department, or is it a body of men absolutely independent of the Department? If it is a body independent of the Department, then, of course, any supervision or alteration of their Reports is a most improper proceeding; but if it is considered that the Inspectors are clearly officials of the Department and subordinate to its regulations, then, of course, no complaint can arise. The mistake—for so I must call it—appears to me to have arisen in this way: When the Committee of Council was originally formed, Parliament, no doubt, required information on various matters connected with education, and was anxious to receive not only facts, but opinions, however discordant, to assist the Department in hitting on some system of education which might be supported by the Government. That necessity for ascertaining these various opinions ceased in the course of a few years, when the system was established. Then the Reports became quite of a different character, it became no longer necessary to have this mass of opinions, and the Reports assumed their present character. It seems to me that the error of the noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) originated here. I trust, however, that there will be no opposition to the Motion of the noble Viscount. I trust that the noble Lord the Member for Stamford and the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter) whom I see opposite, and other hon. Members who supported the Resolution, will acquiesce cordially in the noble Lord's Motion for the rescinding of that Resolution. The Resolution of the 12th of April appears to me quite unsupported with facts, and I may say is entirely at variance with them. I do not see, indeed, how the Resolution can assist the views of the hon. Members to whom I have referred in the matter. Their views appear to me to be to reassert the right to receive from the Inspectors all the information they may choose to give, both as to matters of fact and matters of opinion. If that be their object they ought to proceed, not by a Resolution of this kind, but by an entirely different course. They ought to move for an inquiry in far more general terms; in some such terms, in fact, as those suggested by the right hon. Mem- ber for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) when the appointment of the Committee was proposed, and which would have considerably extended the inquiry of the Committee. If such a Committee had been obtained, those who supported the Resolution of the 12th of April might have appeared before it to support their views; but I believe they would be far more free if they were relieved from the Resolution now standing on our books. Therefore, I cordially support the Resolution of the noble Lord.

MR. WALTER

Sir, I have no hesitation in saying at once that I have not the slightest desire or intention to oppose the Motion of the noble Lord, both because I think that the main object aimed at by the Resolution which it is now proposed to rescind has been fully attained by the inquiry, and also because I should be sorry to be guilty of want of respect towards the Committee, which, I think, was selected with great fairness, and which has also conducted the inquiry with great fairness, and whose Report, though I cannot concur to the full extent in the description of it given by the noble Lord—indeed, I should be disposed to take exception to some of his expressions—still points in the direction indicated by his Motion. The only thing I do complain of is, that the noble Lord should not have availed himself of the power which he might undoubtedly have exercised to give this Motion precedence over the Orders of the Day, so as to afford to many hon. Members who have been forced to quit the House from sheer exhaustion an opportunity of stating their opinions upon it. The Report states that the principle involved in the object of this inquiry, and in the Resolution of the 12th of April, is important. That is undoubtedly the case; and I may add that it has acquired an adventitious importance from the unfortunate circumstance to which that Resolution led—the resignation of my right hon. Friend the late Vice President of the Committee of Education—who, actuated by feelings most honourable to himself, but hardly called for, in my opinion, by the occasion, considered the Resolution to be a reflection on his personal honour. I never took that view of it myself, as my right hon. Friend well knows; and many hon. Gentlemen, whose authority my right hon. Friend would be the first to acknowledge, fully shared that opinion. It appears to me that this misunderstanding, as it is termed in the Report, was owing to the construction put upon the word "mu- tilation." I believe the word was chosen rather from the want of a better word than from any other reason; but it certainly never was intended by it to throw any personal reflection on my right hon. Friend. In fact, if instead of the word "mutilation" we had used the words by which is described the practice of the Department— of which I may say we knew nothing at the time—if the Resolution had said, "In the opinion of this House the practice of sending back to the Inspectors their Reports to be altered by them and brought into conformity with the Minute of 1861. & c," instead of "the practice of mutilating," & c, it would equally have answered my purpose, and would have been strictly consistent with the fact. The question is, what really was the practice of the Department in the matter. It appears to be thought that the essence of the charges against the Committee of Council was their alleged practice of marking Reports; but I wish it to be distinctly understood that that is not a practice I should complain of. Nor should I object to the Department overhauling the Reports and exercising a kind of censorship over them. My right hon. Friend explained at great length, on several occasions, the history of the practice. He said it always had existed, but on one occasion a passage occurred in an Inspector's Report so wholly irrelevant and improper—a comparison between the state of chastity of Protestants and Catholics, or something of that sort—that the Minute of 1861 was framed. I am of opinion that such a Department could not be carried on without some degree of censorship over the Reports, and without the power of striking out irrelevant passages. But the gist of my complaint was that passages bearing on questions in controversy were unfairly struck out, and that the House had not the benefit of statements of fact made by the Inspectors within their own official experience. My right hon. Friend gave his own explanation of the practice of the Department. He stated that the reason which induced him to frame the Minute of 1861 was as follows:— The reason was my reluctance to strike out anything myself, as a matter of authority, from the Reports of the Inspectors. It appeared to me that it was a bad plan to strike anything out as a matter of authority, and then present tie Report to Parliament, as the Report of the Inspector. I thought it might raise a controversy between the Inspector and the Office, and that he would say, as, I believe, in some cases he did say, that the context was interfered with by striking out portions, and that the meaning of what remained was altered. I preferred very much, and it scorned to me, and to Lord Granville, to be the better course, to make the Inspector his own censor, and to collect into one Minute, instead of into different Minutes, what it was necessary to say on the subject of the Inspectors' Reports; and, if an Inspector happened seriously to offend, to call his attention to it, and to leave him to alter the Report. The practice therefore was, instead of striking out any passage in a Report, to send back the Report to the Inspector, with a notification that if he did not make it conform to certain instructions it would be suppressed. That, however, was more objectionable, as it seems to me, than marking the Report, and for an obvious reason. Here is a case in point. Mr. Watkins addressed a letter to the Committee of Council in the following terms:— I have the honour to return to you herewith the manuscript of my general Report for 1862, which I have received from you by this post, and to point out to you that, though it has been returned to me under the circular of August 27, 1862, no passage in it is marked as objectionable; I am therefore utterly at a loss to know what it is in my Report that is censured; I drew it up most carefully in conformity with your letter of instructions, and I believe that it is entirely both according to the spirit and the letter of that document; but I shall be most happy to consider any objections which may be pointed out to me and, if I can, conscientiously, alter the passages censured. I do not know what satisfaction Mr. Watkins got on that occasion, for it is not mentioned. I suspect it was very little, because in answer to another question Mr. Lingen said that my right hon. Friend the Vice President "considered it part of the policy of the Minute to say to an Inspector, 'This is not a Report which we will print at the public expense.' If the Inspector said, 'Why? there was no answer to that question; he was merely referred to his instructions." Again, in another part of his evidence, Mr. Lingen said— I should like to substitute the actual communications that passed between the Office and the Inspectors. Here is the Minute, stating what the Report ought to be; here is a Report sent in; here is the judgment of the Committee, that it does not conform to the Minute; the Inspector says, 'Why? The, answer is, that we do not consider it good policy or for the interests of the service to tell you; that was the course of things. I ask the House whether there can be a more unfair way of dealing with these gentlemen than this, to send back their Reports unaltered, and when they inquire, "What is it that you object to?—tell us, and we will revise it," to reply, "You must find that out for yourselves—we will not tell you; but if you do not make your Reports conform to the instructions we will not print them." That is the practice of the Department, and it is, I must say, as unsatisfactory and unpleasant a mode of transacting business with the Inspectors as anything one can possibly conceive. Such, then, being the existing practice, I wish to call the attention of the House to a statement in the Report of the Select Committee, to which I take exception, because it is at variance with fact— No objection," say the Committee, "is made to statements of facts observed by the Inspectors within the circle of their official experience, whatever may be their bearing on the policy of the Committee of Council. The House will recollect that the question turned very much on the alleged suppression of a particular Report by Mr. Longueville Jones. My noble Friend opposite and myself at the time the Resolution was passed stated that, as we were then informed, a passage containing statements not of opinion, but of fact, was suppressed because it was deemed at variance with the policy of the Department. I have here the Report of Mr. Longueville Jones. Four passages in it are marked in pencil. It is treated as an exceptional case, and the Select Committee, I am sorry to say, endorse the statement. It is an exceptional case, just in the sense in which when a respectable young woman gets into a scrape that is called an exceptional case. It is a flagrant case. It is the distinct suppression, not of an opinion, but of a fact which had a direct bearing on a question on which the House had voted only a few months before, and in which I myself take a strong personal interest—I mean the question of the value of schoolmasters' certificates. It is said the Report was suppressed because it contained throughout an animus hostile to the Department. I must own I am at a loss, in looking over the Report, to discover the hostile spirit. I do not say it is a good Report—that is not the question, but I will leave the House to judge of its tone. The passages which are marked, and in which alone the hostility can be supposed to lurk, are these. The first passage relates to the excuses alleged to have been made by teachers and managers of schools for the bad reading, writing, and arithmetic complained of in their schools. The second passage contains a simple objection to the practice of granting money for school buildings. The third passage merely mentions that the writer had met with opinions and declarations from all quarters among teachers, but that it would be of no use stating what these opinions and declarations were. To the fourth passage I beg the attention of the House. It is as follows:— There are several notable examples, however, of admirable infant schools in Wales; and I beg leave to name that of Conway, as realizing, in my opinion, more than any other similar institution I ever saw, all the highest and best requisites and results connected with infant teaching. The schoolmistress is the best infant teacher in my district, admirably fitted for her duties in every respect, and deserving of the greater credit because she is not certificated, though she is aided by pupil-teachers. Now if that is not a statement of fact I should like to know what is. I am bound to do my right hon. Friend the late Vice President the justice to say that he treated the passage as rather foolish, because he said it had no bearing on the subject, but as quite harmless, and such as would never have led him to think of condemning the Report. Mr. Lingen, however, saw a great deal of mischief in it. Mr. Lingen was asked— You thought the statement made was intended to harass the Department? to which he replied, Yes. Taken with the rest it appeared to me to be a certain case picked out at a rather critical time of the discussion to show this—here is the best teacher of a particular class in my district who is not certificated. No one can doubt that the passage was marked out because it stated the very kind of fact which I wanted to ascertain — namely, the case of a good school kept by an uncertificated master or mistress. I have contended all along that there are plenty of good schools conducted by uncertificated teachers. The object of the Department was to prove the contrary; and they had Reports stuffed full of cases to show how worthless uncertificated teachers were. Here, however, when an instance occurred of a school, held up to commendation, which was kept by an uncertificated schoolmistress, they would not allow the statement of that fact to appear, because it told against their side of the question and in favour of mine. It was a flagrant and foolish suppression of a fact, which would have done little harm to the Department if published, but which has done them great harm by its suppression. I have myself been exposed to some taunts in this matter. Mr. Longueville Jones was severely censured for "his disloyalty and baseness" in furnishing me with the Report. I protest, not only on coustitu- tional, but on personal grounds, against any such imputation. I will not surrender my right as a Member of Parliament to receive any statement either of private grievance or of any matter affecting the public welfare from any official of the Government whatever. We are privileged men. I do not say that officials have a right to send letters to the newspapers, or to confide the secrets of their Departments to any persons; but in this House we are entitled to know what is going on, what abuses exist in Departments, what the opinions of the officials arc. I have not used any of the information I received except in this House; and I will not allow charges of "disloyalty and baseness" to be made against my informant, or of improper violation of confidence against myself for what I did. Besides, I have another reason. Hon. Members will, perhaps, recollect that in 1862 a correspondence with Mr. Norris, one of the Government Inspectors, was forced on me—it was not courted, but, at the same time, it was not declined by me. Mr. Norris, the Inspector, endeavoured to dissuade me from proceeding with my Resolution, and entered into a correspondence with me, which he conducted in a fair and able manner. I did what I could to reply to his views; but the Committee of Council, thinking, I suppose, that Mr. Norris had the best of the argument, deemed the correspondence of sufficient importance to be laid before the House. Well, I ask, is one Inspector to be allowed to write to me, with the sanction of the Department who lay the correspondence on the table, because they think it supports their position, and is another Inspector to be prohibited from communicating to me materials which strengthen my case? That is a position which any Member of this House will see at once is most unreasonable. I shall not at this hour (one o'clock) trouble the House with any further statement on this case. I would only say, in conclusion, that I think this whole inquiry will have been of very great service to the country. I hope it will make the Privy Council Office somewhat more cautious, and lead them to understand that the country is not disposed to submit to be ridden too hard by the Gentlemen at the head of that Department. You may be quite sure that if the Privy Council system is to work at all, it must be made to work harmoniously with the great body of school managers in this country. I assure the Department that, so far from caring for its assistance, I should have no objection myself to see its whole system swept away; for I think the education of the country could go on perfectly well without it. But I say that, if the system is to continue, it must be made more applicable than it is now to the wants of the community, and it cannot be made more simple and more applicable to those wants as long as it is clogged by the existing conditions and restrictions, With these remarks I do not oppose the rescinding of the Resolution. I do not wish to cast any censure upon the Department, and still less upon my right hon. Friend who then had charge of it; and if it be necessary I shall support this Motion.

MR. F. S. POWELL

said, he was unable to concur with the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Howes) in thinking that although at the earliest stages of the present system of education it was desirable that the Inspectors should act with entire independence and afford the fullest information, yet that we had now arrived at another era in the history of the movement when the Inspectors should not be free agents, and report according to their own discretion, but should only be the mere instruments and servants of the Department, expressing the opinions of the Committee of Privy Council only, and not their own. The Report of the Committee had been so lately circulated, that he did not think the House was acquainted with a letter dated August, 1863. It was stated in the Report that the House was aware of the system that had been pursued, the real fact being that neither the House nor the country was aware of that system until that Report was published. It had been generally supposed that a certain censorship was exercised over the Inspectors Reports, but that something of freedom was nevertheless allowed them, and that they were permitted to express opinions contrary to the judgment and practice of the Department. But in the letter of August, 1863, the Inspectors were informed that their practical suggestions for the improvement of the schools in their respective districts must he consistent with the existing Minutes, and the principle sanctioned by Parliament. Nothing had been allowed to appear in the Reports for that year which was contrary to the Minutes of Council. Take the case of the Factory Inspectors. One of those Inspectors recommended, the year before last, certain alterations in the factory system of Scotland, requiring a change in the law to carry them out; and the Government introduced a Bill to give effect to his suggestion. Now, if a Factory Inspector was permitted to do that, why should not a School Inspector be permitted to make a suggestion, even although it might militate against some particular Minute of Council having indeed, in a certain degree, the sanction of Parliament, but certainly not having the force of law? He could not admit that entire impartiality had been shown in the exercise of that censorship. In a former year Mr. Watkin's Report complained of a change made in regard to having Inspectors and assistant Inspectors, and his Report was suppressed. Then there was Mr. Norris's case, which had been referred to by the hon. Member for Berkshire (Mr. Walter). He would not weary the House by quoting the evidence taken before the Committee at that hour of the night, but if any hon. Member would carefully consider it, he would find that there had been an excision of facts and opinions unfavourable to the views of the Department, while facts and opinions favourable to those views had been inserted.

LORD ROBERT CECIL

Sir, I am sorry that the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Hotham) is not here, because I think he would have informed us that it was not the unanimous opinion of the Committee that, as the hon. Chairman has stated, any time however late, any day however late in the Session, is a fitting one for bringing this Motion forward. [Mr. HOWES: No!] I understood the hon. Member to express a hope that there would be no protest from any part of the House as to time; because, whatever might be the time, this matter ought to be disposed of this Session. I think the noble Lord the Member for the East Riding would have shown that there are members of the Committee who would not agree in that opinion. This Question, Sir, consists of two parts—the one a personal part, and the other a matter of policy. I thought that the noble Lord at the head of the Government carefully confined himself to the personal part of the Question, and if I am right in that impression, and am to understand him as merely wishing to clear the right hon. Gentleman the late Vice President of the Education Department from the shadow of anything reflecting upon his veracity, then I have no objection to join the noble Lord in his Resolution; but, if he wishes, at this late period of the Session, and at this late hour of the night, to ask the House to commit itself to a reversal of the decision on a question of policy to which it came deliberately in the middle of the Session, then I can only enter my protest against a proceeding which seems to me highly unconstitutional and improper. But I gathered from the expressions of the noble Lord that he desired to confine himself strictly to the personal aspect of the question. [Viscount PALMERSTON signified assent.] I have from the first done all in my power to remove what seemed to me the extreme misapprehension of the late Vice President of the Education Office, that there was any intention on the part of any person in this House to cast any personal reflection upon him. With regard to the Committee of Council, I cannot extend to them the same complete exculpation as to the wisdom and entire fairness of their proceedings, but still I am perfectly willing to admit that they were actuated by right intentions, and I certainly do not mean to oppose this Motion. But as respects the matter of policy, I beg that my conduct on this occasion may not be misunderstood. I do not admit that the Committee of Privy Council have a right to mutilate or cut to pieces—call it what you like—these Inspectors' Reports. I do not agree that they have the right so to alter or cause to be altered the Reports intended for the use of this House as to change their meaning. I contend that the Committee of Council have no right to alter any document—that no Department has a right to alter any document that is placed before us, without saying at the same time, on the face of such document, that it is not the true original production of the person whose name it bears, but has been dealt with by the Department through which it has passed. That seems to me not only to be a principle essential to the proper conduct of any public office, but an elementary principle of morality. I trust that on a future occasion the House will go further and deeper into this matter— that the whole question of the Inspectors' Reports may be inquired into by a Committee familiar with educational subjects, and that we may come to some decision as to the extent and nature of the censorship which may be exercised in these cases. That irrelevant matter should be excluded I freely admit; but I cannot admit that argumentative matter — that is, matter which differs from the opinions of their superiors on questions of policy—I cannot admit that that is rightly excluded from these Reports. At all events, where ever it has been excluded, hon. Members of this House who read the Reports ought to be warned that that species of censorship has been exercised. There is much in the Report of the Committee which I should have wished to criticize if the hour had not been so late; but I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) at the earliest period in the next Session intends to ask for n Committee of Inquiry into the whole constitution of the Committee of Council. That may be a fitting opportunity of reviewing these proceedings and of inquiring into the nature of the practices which that Committee have really adopted—that may be a fitting opportunity of also answering the observations which have been made by the hon. Member for East Norfolk (Mr. Howes), which I could not answer now without detaining the House at an inconvenient length. I will only add that I hope I may not be held by my silence on this occasion to have assented to principles which I cannot admit.

Motion agreed to.

Resolved, That this House, having considered the Report of the Select Committee appointed to inquire into the practice of the Committee of Council on Education with respect to the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, is of opinion that the Resolution of the 12th day of April last, with reference to such Reports, ought to be rescinded, and the said Resolution is hereby rescinded.