§ SIR MASSEY LOPESasked the Vice President of the Council, Whether, as so much delay has taken place in the issue of the new Education Code, and that thus there will be practically no opportunity of considering its important provisions before Easter, the Government will provide a suitable opportunity for discussing the Code before it becomes Law?
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONasked the Vice President of the Privy Council, At what day the new version of the Code, which has appeared at length in a public journal before being circulated, will become Law; and, if he will undertake that a day shall be set apart for its discussion before it becomes Law, or that it shall not become Law till the House has had an opportunity of discussing it?
§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELLasked the Vice President of the Council, How it comes that the New Education Code has been reviewed, and its provisions freely discussed in the daily papers, be- 745 fore it has been placed in the hands of Members?
§ MR. MUNDELLASir, the delay spoken of is only one of four days. I laid the Paper on the Table on Monday night, and I thought it would have been delivered on Wednesday. The New Code will, unless previously rejected by Parliament, become law on the 5th of April; but as it will not come into operation for payment until the 30th of April of next year, its provisions can be modified by any Minute consequent upon a discussion in Parliament, made within a month of the close of the present Session. I regret to find that, owing to the present state of Public Business, the Government is unable to give any time before Easter for the discussion; but if the House will consent to give a Morning or a Saturday Sitting—["Oh, oh!"]—though I do not ask for it, that will be one means of discussing it, if hon. Members are anxious to do so, before the lapse of the 80 days. The Code is not like an Endowed Schools scheme. It can be altered at the expiry of 30 days by any Minute. It is very desirable that teachers and managers shall not be left in uncertainty as to the course of teaching they are to pursue. In answer to the hon. Baronet the Member for Wigtownshire (Sir Herbert Maxwell), I have to say that I wish to take upon myself all the responsibility and blame that can attach to me in that matter. In the first place, the Code was reviewed before it was ever printed, because substantially the leading provisions of the Code were the same this year as last; but when I laid the Code on the Table on Monday night, I anticipated it would be distributed on Wednesday morning. Owing, however, to some delay of the printers, it was not distributed until Friday or Saturday. On Tuesday I received some rough, uncorrected proofs, and being much pressed by the educational and other papers for copies, and assuming that the Code would come into the hands of Members on Wednesday morning, I allowed these to be sent out. I very much regret if I have done anything irregular, and I shall take care that it does not occur again.
§ SIR HERBERT MAXWELLPerhaps the right hon. Gentleman will explain how it came to pass that the Code was reviewed in The Times on Monday, the day on which it received 746 the signatures of the Parliamentary Chiefs of the Department?
§ MR. MUNDELLAsaid, the comments in The Times were based on the revised proposals for the Code, and not upon an actual copy of the Code.
§ LORD GEORGE HAMILTONgave Notice that in consequence of the answer of the right hon. Gentleman, and with the view of raising a discussion on the matter, he should object to any Vote on Account being passed in support of elementary education until there had been some discussion on the Code.