Lords Sitting of 15 February 1856

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Vice President of Committee of Council on Education; House of Commons Offices; Metropolitan Police.

THE NEW HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT— THE CLOCK TOWER—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF EGLINTONsaid, he wished to call attention to the state of the

807
clock tower of the new Houses. That beautiful edifice was rapidly approaching completion; and he concluded that the clock which was to be placed in it was intended to inform the public generally, as well as their Lordships and the Members of the other House, what hour it was. He knew not whether their Lordships had observed the dial-plate put up on one side of the tower; but it certainly appeared to him that if all the dial-plates were to be furnished with the same hieroglyphics which disfigured the face of the dial-plate now put up, the public at large would not be very much the wiser as regarded the time of day, though it might give some information to those of their Lordships who had obtained some knowledge of mediæval art. He would suggest that the figures should be modernised, and made intelligible. Their Lordships could remember that originally their House was furnished with a clock which none of them could make out; but that it was now happily replaced by one of a more intelligible character. He had also heard a rumour—he knew not how far it was well-founded—to the effect that the tower which was approaching completion, and was now nearly roofed in, had been so constructed as to exclude the possibility of the clock or bells being got in. If that were so, it would certainly be a very curious oversight on the part of the architect. He wished also to call the noble Earl (Earl Granville's) attention to the unfinished state of the base of the clock tower, and he trusted it would soon be remedied.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid that, having received notice of his noble Friend's question, he had communicated with Sir Charles Barry on the subject, and had received from him a letter, which he would read. It was as follows:—
"Old Palace Yard, Feb. 15, 1856.
"My dear Lord Granville,—The best answer I can send to your note is the enclosed diagram of the great clock faces, which, I think, you will agree with me will be sufficiently intelligible. The truth is, that the clearness of the numerals is of little importance if their position is clearly defined within some definite form that will duly correspond with the point of the hour hand. The clearness of the division of the minutes is really of the only great importance, and you will see, therefore, that an unusual prominence is given to the minute-hand for that purpose.—Most faithfully yours, "CHARLES BARRY."
As to the other question of the noble Earl, there was no foundation for the rumour—it would be found that the clock and bells would go in perfectly well.
LORD EGLINTON: Do I understand that the dial-plate now put up is to correspond with the others?
EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to reply in the affirmative.

UNCONSECRATED BURIAL-GROUNDS— PETITION.
LORD BROUGHAM presented a petition from Inhabitants of Carlisle for a measure for regulating Burials in unconsecrated Burial grounds; and complaining of a grievance they were labouring under arising out of the operation of the law regulating burial-grounds. The petitioners stated that their old burial-ground had been closed, and that a field had been assigned to them in the neighbourhood of the town for a burial-ground. They fenced it all round, and then made a road of 20 feet wide through the field for the purpose of separating the consecrated from the unconsecrated ground—the former being for the members of the Church of England, and the latter for Nonconformists. The Bishop of the diocess, however, laboured under the impression that he was not at liberty, owing to the forms of the consecration prayer, to consecrate any portion of the ground unless it was entirely closed in; and he did not consider a road to constitute a sufficient fence or enclosure. Assuming that the graveyard which was to be consecrated was required to be separated altogether from the other parts of the field, no doubt it might be said that the right rev. Prelate was right not to consecrate it, because there was no further separation than the road, 20 feet wide. The consequence of this decision of the Bishop, whether right or wrong, had been most unfortunate, for, as the ground was not consecrated, no clergyman of the Church of England could perform the funeral service, and the result was that the service had been performed by Nonconformist clergymen. The petitioners represented this to be a great evil, and painful to their feelings. They made no charge against the right rev. Prelate; they only complained of the unfortunate result of the scruples he entertained upon the members of the Church, and they prayed that a remedy might be provided either by dispensing with the necessity of consecrating the burial-ground, or declaring that the clergy of the Church of England might lawfully read the service of the Church at any funeral, although the burial ground had not been consecrated, provided it was

809
certified as being fit for the purposes within the Burial Act, without incurring any penalty or ecclesiastical censure thereby. He (Lord Brougham) undoubtedly felt that there might be very great difficulty in regard to the mode of proceeding suggested by the petitioners; but he thought that some other remedy might be afforded without resorting to that course.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERobserved that the petition related to a subject which excited considerable attention, and the question as to these consecrations had assumed an aspect which, to say the least of it, was of a very mischievous character, and had created great difference of opinion. The present petitioners called upon their Lordships to devise a remedy for the grievance complained of, which was contrary to the existing law. The noble and learned Lord who presented the petition had very clearly stated the facts; but he was not disposed to take the noble Lord's authority without some reserve upon an ecclesiastical point as to what a Bishop ought to do, although no doubt if that noble and learned Lord had not been a very great lawyer, he might have made a very good bishop. The noble and learned Lord said that the question was as to what was the mode of relief which should be adopted. Certainly, it was not for him (the Bishop of Exeter) to answer that question; but he had seen a written opinion of an eminent lawyer who had been consulted on the point, who had no hesitation in saying that, supposing a bishop refused to consecrate the ground, as not being, in his judgment, fit for consecration, it was open for any person aggrieved to apply to the Court of Queen's Bench for a mandamus. The noble and learned Lord at the table (Lord Campbell) shook his head; but that did not niter his opinion. [Lord CAMPBELL: We certainly should not grant a mandamus, because we should have no jurisdiction.] If his noble Friend had done him the honour of permitting him to finish the sentence he was speaking, he thought he would not have indicated any dissent from it. He did not mean, it never entered his head, that a mandamus could be granted directed to the Bishop, calling upon him to consecrate the burial-ground, but that a mandamus might lie against the burial board, calling upon them to put the burial-ground in a fit state for consecration. [Lord CAMPBELL was understood to assent.] But his noble and learned Friend
810
had interrupted him by a shake of the head. They all knew how much meaning could be conveyed by a great man's, a Lord Burleigh's, shake of the head. Happily, there had since been another movement of the same head, and he rejoiced to understand this second shake as testifying that the noble and learned Lord at the table recognised the right of the Bishop to have the ground put in a proper condition before he could be called upon to consecrate it. If, therefore, any parties felt aggrieved in this case, they had a remedy in their own hands. Let them first apply for a mandamus against those who were bound to put the ground in a state for consecration, and if they found that they had no remedy under it, they might then be entitled to come to their Lordships and ask for their interference. This being a petition of a public meeting of the inhabitants of Carlisle, he assumed that some of the petitioners were not members of the Church; he had read the petition carefully, and observed that the first grievance complained of was, that the separation by a fence of the ground to be consecrated from the unconsecrated portion was offensive to the feelings of those who were not members of the Church. He must frankly say, that he could not feel sorry that such is the feeling of these persons, for he hoped it might lead them to consider why they should put themselves in such a position as to render anything done by the Church, in obedience to its own laws, offensive to them. To the Church, certainly, it was not offensive to see a space of ground set apart for the burial of those who did not belong to the Church; and he had never heard a churchman in the House or anywhere else express the slightest disapprobation of the law which provided for another place of sepulture for the Dissenters. If this provision were offensive to Dissenters, it must surely be because it was annoying to them that they were not considered members of the Church; or else, why should they complain? When the law for the first time interfered with parochial rights in respect to graveyards, and declared that the portion of the graveyard in which Dissenters were interred should not belong to the Church, the Church never indicated even a silent disapprobation of that part of the Act; and although it did not take offence at the Act declaring that Dissenters might have a separate place of interment, it was justi-

811
fied in insisting upon that separation being a real and effectual one. If, indeed, this separation had been a measure forced upon them by the Legislature, and one in the passing of which they had borne no part, then they might have a right to complain. Unless Parliament had thought fit to set aside all those laws which regulated the right of sepulture in this country, and the rights of the Church in the grounds appointed for sepulture, there must be a place of special enclosure for the burial of persons connected with the Church. The petitioners stated that the canons of the Church said nothing about consecration, and therefore they complained of consecration. Now, that a churchman should join in declaring that this rite was a thing which ought to be put an end to, and one for which there was no authority in the Book of Common Prayer and in the canons, he confessed, thoroughly amazed him. But, setting that aside, why should there be such eagerness to be buried in consecrated ground if there were really nothing in consecration? Everybody knew the decided feeling on this subject which existed in the minds of churchmen, and therefore he was wholly at a loss to understand how the petitioners, if churchmen, could make such a statement as that he had noticed. It was plain that the property in consecrated ground vested in the Church, because he found in the 88th canon, under date 1603, that it was the duty of the churchwardens "to take care that the churchyards shall be well and sufficiently repaired, fenced, and maintained with walls, rails, or pales." That was the law of the case, and it had been acted upon ever since the promulgation of the canon as a matter of course. Lyndewood (De Ecclesiis Ædificandis) on the Constitution of Winchelsea, distinctly declared that the parish was bound to build and repair the "clausuram cœmeterii;" and in Comyn's Digest, 169 (under the heading Cemetery), he found it laid down that the churchyard was "totus fundus qui infra clausuram ipsius continetur." In the statute 31 Edw. I., under the title "Rector ne prosternat arbores in cemeterio," it was laid down—
"Because we do understand that controversies do often grow between parsons and their parishioners touching trees growing in the churchyard, &c., forasmuch as a churchyard that is dedicated is the soil of the Church, it must needs follow that those trees which are growing in the
812
churchyard are to be reckoned among the goods of the Church."
The same law had been recognised by Lord Coke in his Institutes, and although on a recent occasion the authority of that learned Judge had been much canvassed, yet when he was commenting upon a statute, having the words of the statute before him, and giving the plain meaning as a commentary, there could be no hesitation in accepting his decision. Lord Coke, in his Institutes, commenting upon this statute, called it a treatise, and said that the parishioners ought to repair the enclosure of the churchyard, because this was their duty per consuetudinem notoriam et approbatam, and the Church's conusance thereof is allowed by this Act—35 Edw. I. That was the law upon the subject, and it followed, although it might not be very satisfactory to the petitioners, that all the trees, soil, and stone of the churchyard were entirely the property of the incumbent of the parish. The averment of the petitioners was, that they had satisfied the requirements of the Act by constituting a boundary of the whole ground; and if this were intended by them to satisfy the demands of the law, he (the Bishop of Exeter) had no objection to it, if they only carried it out to its legitimate conclusion, namely, that all the thirty-five acres should be, as Lord Coke said, the soil of the Church, and the trees which might grow thereon be the goods of the Church; for less than this did not satisfy the law and statute quoted, which declared that all the ground within the fence belonged to the Church. He did not wish to force the argument to that length, but only to point out to the petitioners how very little ground of complaint they had in this matter, and what must be the inevitable conclusion to be arrived at by pressing it to its fullest extent. With respect to the Church itself, undoubtedly it was opposed to burying in unconsecrated ground, as was the practice of Dissenters. The Bishops were bound by their duty and by the laws of the Church and the requirements of the canons not to consecrate a graveyard until they were satisfied that it was fit for consecration; and his Friend the late Bishop of Carlisle had told him that he was determined to act in accordance with his duty, and not to consecrate the ground until what the canons of the Church required had been complied with. There were persons who said that the less distinction that was made between

813
Churchmen and Dissenters the better, and to a certain extent he agreed with them. Unnecessary distinctions between Churchmen and Dissenters he would never sanction. He would not say that every one who did not belong to the Church was thereby guilty of the very grievous and deadly sin of schism; but he said that schism was in itself a grievous and deadly sin. It might happen that some persons, from want of due information or from objections which they could not overcome, did not recognise the duty of seeking communion with the church. While churchmen forbore from reproaching those persons with the sin of schism, yet he must be permitted to say that no one who believed in the Church as an article of their creed could doubt that schism was a grievous sin, from which we prayed the Lord to deliver us, for He only could deliver us. The Church must and would, as she was bound to do, discharge the duty that devolved upon her, even although the course she pursued might be offensive to the feelings of some who might call themselves churchmen, although they could hardly in reality be so. But the complainants in this petition stated another objection to a fence—that a considerable expense would be thereby incurred. But the only expense necessary was, that of building a wall, which need not be a high one; and the only alternative proposed by themselves—namely, that of constructing a coachroad, would be still more expensive, as might easily be conceived by any of their Lordships who had any practical acquaintance with the cost of road-making. He trusted that the future Bishop of Carlisle, following the example of the late lamented occupant of that see, would insist on having some real fence, as the line of separation laid down in that case; and he should further say, that he hoped Parliament would not adopt the suggestion of his noble and learned Friend, and would not create a new statute, altering the law of the Church and State in reference to that subject.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that, although he believed his noble and learned Friend opposite (Lord Brougham) would be eminent in any profession which he might embrace, he should not like to commit himself to the doctrine laid down by the right rev. Prelate, that his noble and learned Friend as a bishop would be "the right man in the right place." He was more ready to think that the right rev.
814
Prelate himself, if he was not a distinguished Member of the episcopal bench, would be a very eminent law Lord. With respect to the prayer of the petitioners, he would remind their Lordships that there was no power residing with the Government to interfere. During the passage of the Burial Amendment Act through Parliament last year, the Government were pressed to insert provisions that would in some way meet the case complained of. The Government felt, however, that it would be quite out of the question to give the Secretary of State power to override the ecclesiastical law in a matter of that kind. The best course, therefore, for the petitioners to adopt would be to institute a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court, if they thought the bishop had exceeded his duty. At the same time he (Earl Granville) did not think this was so entirely a question of law as had been represented, but it was one in which some discretion ought to be exercised in the application of the law. So far from agreeing with the right rev. Prelate in hoping that the new Bishop of Carlisle would follow the example which had been set him, no doubt most conscientiously, by the eminent and respected person by whom the see had just been vacated, he trusted that whoever was appointed, instead of following the course pursued by a very small minority of the episcopal bench, would take a wider and more liberal view of the matter.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that if an application were made upon such a subject as that to the Court of Queen's Bench, and if the Bishop submitted that the ground, according to the canons of the Church, could not be consecrated, the Court would refuse to interfere.
Petition to lie on the table.

VICE PRESIDENT OF COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
EARL GRANVILLE, in moving the second reading of the Bill, said that the arrangement proposed in it would carry out the pledge given first by Lord J. Russell, and subsequently by Sir George Grey, in compliance with a suggestion made by Sir John Pakington, a right hon. Gentleman who had done so much for education last year, not only by the knowledge and ability which he has shown in dealing with the question, but also by the example which

815
he has set of treating these great social questions apart from any party feeling. Last year the right hon. Gentleman suggested, in another place, that, considering the large grants of money now made for the purpose of promoting education, it would be desirable that some Minister should be appointed who should be responsible to the House of Commons for the proper distribution of those grants, and who could answer any question that might be put upon the subject. The Vice President would have a seat in the other House, unless the President were a Member of the House of Commons, in which case the Vice President might have a scat in their Lordships' House; and thus the Department of Education would be able to give to Parliament any explanations that might be required of it. The new Department of Education in the Council Office would also take charge of the department of science and art, now administered by the Board of Trade; and in the same way it would have the inspection of the army and navy schools, leaving their superintendence to their respective departments. It was also intended that the Board should give counsel and advice to the Charity Commissioners, and should offer them any assistance in its power with respect to education.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he entirely agreed with the noble Earl that the time had arrived when there should be a separate department established, especially charged with the education of the country, presided over by a Minister immediately responsible to Parliament. Probably the mode proposed by his noble Friend of carrying out the proposition was the best that could be adopted; that was to say, the appointment of a subordinate Minister in the other House, or in their Lordships' House, if the President of the Council happened to be in the House of Commons, to represent the department, on the same principle as the Board of Trade was represented. But if the time had arrived for charging a responsible Minister with the duties of instruction, it appeared to him well worthy of consideration, whether it would not be well to supersede the Privy Council altogether in this matter, and to have a Minister as the head of a Department who should have no other duties to perform, and who should be, in fact, responsible for the education of the people.
816
The President of the Council had various other duties to perform; and he was not sure, although heavy duties no doubt devolved upon the Prime Minister, that that high functionary might not very effectually and very satisfactorily discharge the duties which fell upon the President of the Council, provided that the matter of education were withdrawn from the Council. He had a strong feeling that the institution of a Minister of Instruction at the present moment was desirable; that the subject should be altogether separated from the Privy Council; and that the duties of the President of the Council might be attached to those of the Minister now called the First Lord of the Treasury, who might be relieved from the nominal duties connected with the Treasury. This, however, would open a very large question, into which he was not at present prepared to enter. He had no objection to the Bill, the second reading of which had just been proposed, understanding that its object was to render the Department of Education a substantial office presided over by a responsible Minister: and he said upon this, as upon most other questions, that a single responsible Minister was much more efficient than a Board, however respectable and able the Members constituting that Board might be.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that he rejoiced the Government had at last dealt with this important question; he could not, however, approve of the proposed plan, however favourable he was to the appointment of a Vice President sitting in the House of Commons. A Board, or Committee of Education, as appointed under the old system, was in constitution and principle one of the worst modes of administration. [Earl GRANVILLE: It was founded on the analogy of the Board of Trade.] That was the main ground of his objection. Neither the Board of Trade nor the Board of Control was governed on principles that could be defended in a case like that under consideration. Both consisted of two classes of Members; the one, the parties to whom was attached the real responsibility; the other, the ex officio Members who had but a nominal responsibility, being encumbered with opposing duties and with conflicting functions. He would ask those who had been Members of either of these Boards, which was his case, whether they consider the annexation to any particular office of a separate class of Members belonging to other departments

817
of the Government, and charged with distinct functions, to be other than prejudicial to the office with which they were united ex officio? The Board to be named under this Bill is founded on the principle of appointing Members ex officio in conjunction with the President and Vice President, the Members especially entrusted with the duties of the office. He doubted whether any real good resulted from any such Boards. As far as he could discover, these Boards were liable to be really represented by subordinate persons, all true responsibility being lost; and, however desirous the Board might be of discharging its duty, wrong measures would be adopted and carried into effect, from the nature of which it would be apparent that the Board was not represented by the nominal head of the Department, but by its subordinate officers. The system of Boards of this description was an unfortunate one; the official Members were ill assorted—some could not attend for want of time—others had not the knowledge or the opportunity of understanding the functions that nominally devolved upon them, and the whole system resolved itself into an entire delusion. It was otherwise where the duties of a Board—like the duties of the Treasury, the Admiralty, and the Boards of Revenue—were distributed in different classes. He rejoiced that in this Bill at least some approach was to be made to a better system, by the appointment of a paid and responsible head. It was only twenty years since the first direct step had been taken in support of education by the Government of Lord Grey, when the House of Commons voted for that purpose the small sum of £30,000. The progress of the question had been so rapid, that in his opinion the time had fully arrived when Parliament were called on to take a decided step, to assume the responsibility of the education of the people, and to hold that responsibility in direct connection with Parliament. He had another reason for rejoicing in the introduction of this Bill—on account of the intention expressed by the Lord President to connect with the Department of Education another modern Establishment, of late formation, but of unusually rapid growth—he meant the institution for the Encouragement of Art. These great objects had been at first pursued with discretion, and on the principle of resting on the basis of successful experiment; the experiment he
818
hoped had been successful, but it required careful superintendence; and he rejoiced that these two branches of knowledge, popular literary instruction and the Arts, had been brought into the same system. Their Lordships were not in the habit of meddling with financial questions; but he recollected a noble Friend of his taking up the Estimates a few years ago, and showing the multiplication of offices, and the growth of expenditure, which were extending year by year under the title of schools for the encouragement of science and art. Thousands and tens of thousands were thus expended, while a controversy was raging as to whether the miserable sum of £1,000 per annum, given to the Royal Society for the undeniable encouragement of science, should be continued or not. At the same time, they were creating a new department, which promised to be more costly than all the Cabinet offices in Downing Street taken together. He was glad that the Bill provided for the appointment of a responsible Minister to control this department, because that appointment would insure a closer inspection of the Estimates, for which he knew not who was responsible at present. There was another point to which he would be most anxious to call the attention of the House, if it were included in the Bill, which he sincerely hoped would not be the case. He alluded to the system of Irish National Education. He understood the Bill did not meddle with the question of Irish education at all, and on that suggestion he would not say one word with respect to the general principles of that admirable system; but he would remind the House in reference to the present Bill, that if there was one lesson they might learn from the administration of education in Ireland, it was this—that to charge a large number of persons as Commissioners, or as Members of a Committee, with the administration of education, persons who had other duties to perform, some of them being Bishops and Judges, was not the way to provide for the effective performance of their duties, as directors of public education. As for the two responsible Ministers charged under this Bill with the superintendence of education, they ought to be able men—men with their hearts in their business, men who considered their duties not only as they applied to politics, but for the sake of the duty itself. They ought to be competent with an intelligent staff to

819
conduct the whole business, and that business would thus be infinitely better done than by the agency of an unpaid Board—more especially when the Members of that Board were entrusted with other and inconsistent duties.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he not only agreed with the noble Lord who had just addressed their Lordships in his condemnation of Boards for the management of public business; but he further thought that if they wished to have a department well conducted, they should rather place it in the hands of one than of two ministers, however able; and he certainly did hope that this Bill was intended to delegate all the duties connected with education substantially to the one officer who was to represent the Board in the House of Commons. It was quite enough work for one man, and that work would never be well done until it was confided to one man only. He thought that the more, because it appeared to him most desirable, if it were possible, and as far as it could be possible, to separate the department of Education from the political changes which affected the Government. That being his impression, he should look with the greatest anxiety at the selection Her Majesty's Ministers might make of the gentleman who was to preside over the educational system of the nation. It was a matter of the greatest importance that that gentleman should not be a person of extreme opinions either in politics, in religion, or even in the cause of education itself. If he were a man of extreme opinions in politics or in religion he would not receive the co-operation of the resident gentry and clergy of the country, and without that co-operation it would be quite impossible for him to carry on successfully the business of his department. And if he should entertain exaggerated and extravagant views with respect to education itself, he might be hurried into doing a great deal of evil instead of a great deal of good. He might be so enthusiastic on the subject of education that for the sake of having a literary peasantry he would sacrifice the useful labour of the country. He (the Earl of Ellenborough) had seen a great deal of practical working of those schools, and he was persuaded that for the welfare, for the respectability, for the very existence of the labouring classes, it was absolutely essential that their sons should be permitted to obtain employment at
820
the earliest moment at which, employment would be profitable to them, and at which they could, by earning wages, relieve the wants of their families. The period of greatest difficulty in the life of a labouring man was that which occurred between the period of his marriage and the period at which his eldest son attained an age at which it was possible for him to earn money for his own support. That was the real period of agony to the labourer. If they prolonged it by saying that two, three, or four years more should be taken from the useful labour of his sons for the purpose of making them persons of more literary knowledge, they would inflict the greatest possible injury upon every labouring man in the country; they would force his family into the workhouse, where his sons would receive their education, and they would destroy that sentiment of independence and self-respect which they ought to uphold. Continuous labour was of infinitely more value to a poor man than literary instruction, which fitted him neither for one thing nor another; and it was earnestly to be hoped that those who were to conduct the education of the country would bear in mind that it was essential to the respectability, the happiness, even the existence of the labouring classes that they should be enabled, at the earliest moment, to avail themselves of the services of all the members of their families.
EARL GREYsaid, he thought the concluding observations of the noble Earl who had just addressed the House were of the highest importance, and he for one concurred very much in the opinions the noble Earl had expressed. He could not help thinking that the great fault of the existing educational department had been, that they had required too high a literary standard in schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, and that they had not at the same time required in them, what was far more essential, a sufficient acquaintance with the useful arts and employments in which the labouring classes could be trained. With respect to the schoolmistresses in particular, he was persuaded that it was of the utmost consequence to the happiness of the poor that those mistresses should be able to make the children under their charge acquainted with those details of good house-wifeship, on which the comfort of their future families must mainly depend; and that was a portion of education which highly accomplished schoolmasters and

821
schoolmistresses, who could recite the list of Popes from the earliest period to the present, and knew the latitude and longitude of every town in the world, were often extremely ignorant of. He entirely concurred in the opinion expressed by noble Lords who had preceded him, that a public department was best managed when it had one responsible Minister at its head. But the authority of such a Minister was not incompatible with the existence of a Board; and he confessed it appeared to him that for certain descriptions of business a Board formed a very useful system of organisation, provided it was understood that its members were in all eases to defer to the judgment of their superior. There was another point to which he wished to advert, and that was the opinion expressed by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby)—that it would be better to dissociate the Presidency of the Council from the superintendence of the Educational Department. In that opinion he concurred with the noble Earl. Looking upon the extent to which Parliamentary business had within late years increased, and hearing in mind the duties which Her Majesty's Ministers had to perform, and considering how necessary it was that there should be in each House of Parliament one Member of the Government fully acquainted with the general business of the Administration, and competent to answer any questions upon that business which might be proposed, he thought that the leader of the Government in each House ought to be exempted from the labours attendant upon the administration of any department, the duties of which were at once important and heavy. He should also add, that he deemed it expedient that the President of the Council, as being one of the chief Members of the Government, should be in the one House, while the First Lord of the Treasury should have a scat in the other; and if that arrangement were adopted, he considered that the salary of the President of the Council, who stood already nearly highest in point of dignity, should be put upon an equality with that of a Secretary of State. It was perfectly clear that at present he could not devote his whole time to the subject of education. Although, therefore, he agreed with the noble Lord opposite in not objecting to the Bill before their Lordships, he could not help feeling desirous that the revision of the various Parliamentary offices should, as soon as possible, be carried into effect.
822
Within the last few years there had been brought, he did not know how many, persons holding official situations into Parliament, while very many offices of ancient date—such, for instance, as the Chancellorship of the Duchy of Lancaster, to which no particular duties attached, had been left unaltered; and he must certainly say that he could not regard it as wise, under those circumstances, to create new offices for the discharge of new and important duties, or to impose those duties upon men who had already quite a sufficient amount of business to transact. The best way of dealing with the subject would, perhaps, be, to appoint a Committee to consider its details, and he trusted that the Government would seriously turn their attention to the adoption of some such course.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he must at once express to his noble Friend the President of the Council the satisfaction he experienced at hearing the present measure announced, and at the prospect we now had of having a real Education department. It was now, he thought, eight-teen years since he introduced a Bill having for its main object the establishment of such a department. His plan had been a Board, but under a responsible Minister. Though aware of the importance of securing individual, and therefore effectual responsibility, yet he did not entirely agree with his noble Friend behind him (the Earl of Ellenborough) in holding that that could not be obtained where there was a Board. They might place responsibility in the chief of the department, the head of the Board. His noble Friend opposite (Lord Monteagle) referred to the measure which was brought in by Lord Grey's Government in 1832, which was the origin, in fact, of all that had since been done by Government in this matter. His noble Friend was kind enough to say, that he (Lord Brougham) had a hand in that measure, as no doubt he had; but it was fit that he should do justice to those who, fourteen or fifteen years before, laid the foundation for it. He would remind his noble Friend of the labours of the Education Committee of the House of Commons, so much attacked at the time for their most useful inquiries and recommendations. He had the honour of presiding over that Committee, and it was their recommendations, the Resolutions reported from them to the House of Commons, though not adopted by the House of Com-

823
mons, which were acted upon by Lord Grey's Government, and which became the foundation of all the educational measures that had since been adopted. The only point on which he thought there was any difficulty was that alluded to by his noble Friend (the Earl of Ellenborough), and a very difficult question it was; he meant, whether the department should be under an individual removable with the Government, making it what was commonly called a political office, or whether it ought to be, as his noble Friend was inclined to think, a non political office, the holder of which should not be removable with the Ministry. There were many reasons to be adduced on both sides of this question—for himself, he was not prepared to adopt the suggestion that the office should be unconnected with Government. That plan bad, no doubt, great advantages, and some inconveniences might arise from the office being subject to change; but he thought that the inconveniences of his being irremovable would be greater than those which would result from his going out with the Government. He could not allow the opportunity to pass without expressing his thanks to the Government for bringing in this measure for the immediate formation of a Board of Education, and which he trusted would be the foundation for much future improvement.
THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, that although it was impossible to contend with truth that some disadvantages would not be likely to result from the fact that the existence of the Minister of Education of the day depended upon that of the Government with which he was connected, yet in his opinion great inconveniences must result from a contrary state of things. Questions upon the subject of education must constantly arise, in which a permanent Minister of that department must take up views different from those of the Government for the time being, and such difference of opinion must, he maintained, greatly interfere with the efficiency of that Minister, and retard the progress of the very cause he was appointed to promote. He, therefore, thought that the Department of Education should be presided over by some individual in close connection with the Administration. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Ellenborough) had adverted to the measure before the House as connected with the labouring classes, and had observed that in
824
the case of those classes it was absolutely necessary that their children should be employed at an early age in working for the support of their families, thus rendering it impossible and unadvisable that they should devote any considerable portion of their time to attendance at school for the purpose of acquiring a good education. Now, that was a part of the subject with respect to which he (the Marquess of Lansdowne) had always felt that it was extremely difficult to lay down any general rule, inasmuch as in some portions of the country children might, without detriment to their parents, devote less time to their labour, and more to attendance at school, than in other districts would be found to be the case. The question, indeed, must be one to be settled between the Minister of Education and the labouring classes themselves, whose position must always be considered, and who ought to be the best judges of the course which circumstances would permit them to take. With reference to the question of the standard of education which should be required in the case of schoolmasters and schoolmistresses, he must observe that he believed that standard had been very considerably improved, inasmuch as a system of inculcating useful practical knowledge had, particularly in the case of schoolmistresses, been carefully carried cut. Now, if their Lordships would call to mind the position of our soldiers in the Crimea, they could not fail to appreciate the advantages which in their case must have resulted from some acquaintance with the art of cookery; and it was with reference to useful knowledge of that character he spoke, in alluding to the circumstance that the standard of practical education had undergone considerable improvement. He thought the responsibility of those officers to whom it was proposed to commit the superintendence of the educational system would be in no measure diminished by their being enabled, when they deemed it necessary, to obtain the assistance of the Committee of Council. He could assure their Lordships that occasions arose when it was a great advantage to the President of the Council, in administering such a department, that he should be enabled, when information, with regard to particular localities or circumstances was required, to call upon the Committee for their advice and assistance, without devolving any portion of his responsibility upon them.
LORD COLCHESTERasked, whether it was intended to place under the control of the Minister of Education the whole department of science and art, which was now under the superintendence of the Board of Trade? He thought it was advisable that the department of Nautical Science, which was particularly connected with the Board of Trade, should still remain in connection with that Board.
EARL GRANVILLE: In answer to the question of the noble Lord, I beg to say that I quite agree with him in the opinion that the best course would be to leave the department of Nautical Science under the control of the Board of Trade. I can assure the noble Lord (Lord Monteagle) who has asked whether this Bill will interfere with the system of education in Ireland, that it will in no respect affect that system, and that we do not intend to assume any power whatever with regard to national education in that country. The noble Marquess (the Marquess of Lansdowne) has answered most of the objections which have been raised in the course of the debate; but one point has been mentioned upon which I feel that I did not give your Lordships, in the short statement I made, a sufficiently clear explanation. Several noble Lords have urged the importance of unity of direction with regard to this department. I did not mean to convey any other impression. It is intended that the President of the Council shall himself be responsible for the conduct of the department, and that the Vice President shall be appointed to act under the orders of the President, and for him in his absence, and that he shall be subordinate to the head of the department. With regard to those persons who hold seats at the Board ex officio, they will not share the responsibility more than other Members of the Government; but we thought that, retaining the entire responsibility in the head of the Board, it would be advisable to constitute such Ministers as the President of the Poor Law Board, and other heads of departments, ex officio Members, in order to facilitate any reference to them that might be necessary. An objection has been raised to the President of the Council being the person selected to act as Minister of Education. I feel some difficulty in defending this provision, owing to the fact that I am myself the President of the Council, and I feel very strongly how unequal I am to undertake the important
826
duties attached to that office in connection with education; but I must confess I cannot see that any practical inconvenience can arise from the arrangement. I do not think the President of the Council is so fully employed by the duties of his office, that there can be any objection to his taking the Department of Education, supposing him to be a fitting person, under his own direction. It has been suggested that the Minister of Education should be a permanent Minister; but I rather agree with my noble Friends who I think it expedient that the head of that department should change with the Government. I have been in several departments of the public service, and I have found among my subordinates men who were infinitely more able than I am, and who possessed far more information with respect to the several departments than I could pretend to—and yet I think advantages are to be found in the system of change. The noble Earl (the Earl of Ellenborough) has said, there is danger that men of extreme opinions may have the control of education; but that is just as likely to happen if you have a permanent head of the department as if you make the Minister removable with the Government. If I did anything objectionable in the Committee of Council, my conduct would probably be canvassed by noble Lords in this House, and I might be succeeded by a colleague of the noble Earl opposite, who might come into office with different ideas, and who might pursue a very different course. If the department were not represented in Parliament, I think similar inconveniences would be felt to those which were experienced in the case of the old Poor Law Board; and, if the Board is to be represented in Parliament, it is almost impossible that you should have a permanent head of the department. Some other questions of importance have been introduced into this discussion. One of my noble Friends has referred to the department of Science and Art, and has raised some objections to the mode in which it has been conducted. I think it would not be convenient that I should go into that question now, but in two or three weeks hence I shall be prepared to enter fully into the subject, and to show what has been done by that department. With regard to the general subject of education. I cannot quite agree with the noble Earl opposite. There is, I think, a tendency on the part of highly-

827
educated men in this country rather to discountenance the education of the poorer classes, and to express doubts as to the expediency of giving them any very general instruction. In that feeling I do not concur. I quite admit that it would be extremely difficult, by any compulsory enactment, to deprive parents of the benefit of their children's labour, in order that they might receive instruction; but if a child is taught an industrial art by a person exercising a particular branch of industry, and whose interest it is to make him work as hard as he can, the probability is, that any education the child has received up to the age of ten or eleven will be entirely thrown away. I think, however, that by the half-time system you may be enabled to afford education in a manner most convenient to the employers of labour, to the parents of children, and to the children themselves. I know that the noble I Earl entertains very strong feelings on the subject of over-educating children, and thereby incapacitating them for those employments which are suited to their station in life. I remember hearing that, on visiting the Greenwich schools, he expressed very natural surprise at finding the boys there so highly educated, and he might think that boys so educated would be unlikely to enter either the Royal navy or the mercantile marine. I have seen—and I regret that I have not it with me—a very interesting report made by Mr. Canon Mosely, in 1850, with reference to those schools, and which contains some curious statistical details. It appears that, before the education in those schools was as good as it now is, very few of the boys educated there went into either the navy or the mercantile marine, and those who did so turned out very badly on board ship; but now, out of a very large number of scholars, all, with the exception of about forty, have entered the navy or the mercantile marine, and the reports which have been received of their conduct show that they have almost universally proved the best sailors in the respective services. I think this fact shows that the apprehensions entertained of the effects of too high an education are unfounded. When it is considered that the young people, to whom the system of education of which we have been speaking applies, are seldom at school for more than four or five years, I do not think there is any great probability that they can be overeducated. I know it has been said that
828
the certificated schoolmasters and mistresses are too highly trained. I think if you took a certain number of the most highly trained schoolmistresses you would find them, as regards a knowledge of common things, such as sewing and the elements of cookery, infinitely better teachers than the inferior class of dames who formerly taught those things. It is undoubtedly a great object to introduce a general knowledge of those common things which are so useful in after life, and the inspectors have been instructed to urge and stimulate the teaching of those things. That is now generally done, and I think there will be some utility in the proposed junction of the department of science with the department of Education in the Privy Council, as it will tend to introduce better teaching of the elementary parts of science in the common schools. I do not know that there is any other point to which it is necessary I should now refer, and have only to thank the House for the favourable manner in which it has received this measure.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, the House ought to distinguish between the case of boys and that of girls. Boys were wanted at a very early period to work, both for their own benefit and that of their parents, whilst girls were not required to do so for three or four years after the period at which boys usually commenced to work; so that it was difficult for them to give that high education to boys which they could to girls, without they interfered with the right and authority of the parents. It was, therefore, of much greater importance that they should have good schoolmistresses than good schoolmasters, because they could continue the education of girls to a much longer period than they could boys; and he was convinced, from all that he had seen and heard, that the best way of promoting the moral improvement of the great body of the poorer classes of society was by improving the education of those who were to be the wives of our labourers and the mothers of their families. It was through them, if they were made what they should be, persons of good moral character, with that necessary knowledge in addition requisite for managing a family dependent on small means, that the best education would always be given, and which would be of infinite benefit, not only to their husbands and families, but to society also.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.

METROPOLITAN POLICE BILL.
EARL GRANVILLE EARL GRANVILLE moved that the Bill be now read a second time.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, he did not intend to oppose the second reading of this Bill; but he wished to point out something of great importance to the country closely connected with it, and which, he thought, might have been advantageously introduced into it. This Bill dealt with the metropolitan police force, which depended greatly upon the metropolitan police magistrates, who were gentlemen bred to the law, and who, in a highly creditable manner, discharged all the duties belonging to the office. It often occurred that important and difficult cases came before them, which they adjudicated on in a most satisfactory manner. What was wanted to perfect the system was, that these magistrates should not continue to be removable, as now, on the pleasure of the Crown; or, in other words, be liable to be removed at any time on the fiat of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He did not pretend to say that any practical inconvenience had arisen from it, and he was quite certain that the police magistrates were quite safe in the hands of such men as Sir George Grey and the hon. Mr. Walpole, who held office under the Earl of Derby; but the danger which he (Lord Campbell) wished to guard against was that which might arise at a future period, and to prevent the police magistrates and the public from suffering, because the magistrate had firmly discharged his duty. He would suggest to the Government that police magistrates should hold office subject to any complaint, to be investigated by a domestic tribunal, consisting of a selection of Judges, who should have power to remove him on the complaint being satisfactorily substantiated. Such a tribunal would remove a man from his office with less apparent harshness or indignity to the officer than the present system, and the public be in no way injured by it. He did not expect the Government would introduce a clause to that effect in the present stage of the Bill, but he had been induced to make those observations, hoping the Government would give the subject their consideration.
LORD PANMUREsaid, that having on a former occasion held the office of Home Secretary for six years, he could not abstain from expressing his opinion on the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord. During that time one or two instances came under his knowledge with reference to police magistrates, that confirmed him in the opinion that the power at present retained by the Home Office with reference to the dismissal of police magistrates should be continued. In the case to which he had alluded, that power was exercised for the benefit of the public. No Secretary of State would venture to exercise that power from any personal or malicious motives, and which the Parliament and the public would be sure to condemn. If they made police magistrates irremovable, he (Lord Panmure) thought they would find very many of them running into extremes in the administration of justice, which would be very likely to bring it into disrepute more than anything else. He hoped the police magistrates would continue to be held responsible to the Home Secretary for their conduct in the discharge of their official duties.
LORD CAMPBELLsaid, that he was quite sure, when his noble Friend was in the Home Office, that he would do nothing but what he believed to be right, and that he would not be likely to err in so doing; but his noble Friend had urged nothing to show that any inconvenience would arise from adopting the proposal which he (Lord Campbell) had made. The noble Lord had said that, in two instances, magistrates were properly removed. Of that he (Lord Campbell) had not the slightest doubt, and he believed that if those cases had been referred to such an independent tribunal as that which he had recommended, there would not have been the slightest danger of their being allowed to continue in office for one hour beyond the time when they ought to be removed. But that arbitrary power, by which the Secretary of State was able, without assigning any reason, and without giving the accused party any opportunity of defending himself, to remove a magistrate from office, ought not to be allowed to exist in this or any other free country.
Bill read 2a; and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Monday next.
House adjourned to Monday next.