§ MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to take that opportunity of making an appeal to the noble Lord at the head of the Government with regard to a Motion which stood on the paper, for rescinding a Resolution of the House relating to the Education Inspectors' Reports. The House would recollect that the Resolution was passed on the 12th of April last, and that in consequence of that Vote of the House, the Vice President of the Committee on Education retired from his office. A Committee was subsequently appointed to inquire into the matter, and it had now presented its Report, which referred to the evidence taken and to an appendix setting forth certain Inspectors' Reports that had been marked, or returned, or otherwise dealt with by the Department. Well, the evidence and the appendix to which the Report referred were not yet in the hands of Members; and in addition to that reason for not now proceeding with the Motion he begged to remark that it would be a most unusual and most objectionable course, at the very end of the Session, when probably there would not be half the number present which passed the Resolution, for the Government to attempt to rescind it. He did not wish now to say a word about the merits of the Motion, and whenever it came on he should be prepared to give it a fair and candid consideration; but as a matter of principle he must enter his protest against that attempt to smuggle through the rescission of a Resolution which had been passed when the House was tolerably full. It might be said that the Department against which the Resolution was directed ought not to be left under the imputation which that Resolution might be supposed to cast upon it till Parliament met again. But he must observe that the Government had not shown any great hurry to remove the stigma from the Department, because the Resolution was passed on the 12th of April, and the Motion for appointing the Committee was not made till one month afterwards. Therefore the Department sat very comfortably under whatever imputation might have been thought to rest upon it for a month; and they might, therefore, very well allow the Motion of which notice was now given to stand over till next Session, when it could be fairly and properly considered. It was a very unusual thing to more to rescind a Resolution of the House. It 1799 might be quite right to rescind that Resolution, but it ought to be done deliberately and after all the Members of the House had had a full opportunity of reading the evidence on which the Report was founded; then, if the House thought fit to rescind the Resolution, well and good. But he wanted to know whether the noble Lord could point to any case where it had been attempted to rescind a Resolution during the last few days of the Session, when, as they well knew, the whole of the business was entirely under the control of the Government. He did not know whether the Department, the conduct of which was supposed to have been impugned, would be very well satisfied with such a rescission, because what would it amount to? A Resolution had been passed, after due notice, and in a tolerably full House; and if the noble Lord made his Motion on Monday, when probably the House would consist of about half the number of Members who voted in the minority on the previous occasion, what would be the validity and effect of such a decision? He did not think it could be very satisfactory to the Department, and it could hardly satisfy the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lowe) who had felt so sore on the point as to throw up his office. Certainly, if he were the right hon. Gentleman, he should prefer that the Motion be postponed till another Session, when, if carried, it might really afford some consolation to him. He begged, therefore, to suggest that the noble Lord should postpone his Motion.