Lords Sitting of 18 April 1864

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—Second Reading— Union Relief Aid Acts Continuance * (No. 39); Land Drainage (Provisional Orders) * (No. 27).
Third Reading—Vestry Cess Abolition (Ireland)* (No. 19), and passed.

ARTILLERY—MACKAY'S GUN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, on Tuesday last I took the liberty of privately directing the attention of the Secretary of State for War to what appeared to me a very remarkable report contained in a Liverpool paper of that date, of a trial that had taken place on the preceding day of a cannon new in construction. It seems to be founded upon a principle not only new in itself, but very much at variance with, and in opposition to that received and acted upon in such matters Till now it has been a leading principle in gunnery that the windage shall be diminished as much as possible. In this new gun, on the contrary, the principle is to utilize the windage and make it serviceable to the purposes of the gun. The projectile used is a smooth cylindrical bolt fitting accurately the interior of the cannon. The cannon, however, is rifled, or rather spirally grooved; and the principle is that the gas having room to escape passes up the grooves and gives the bolt the rotatory motion essential to such a projectile. It is clear that if this principle can be established it will much reduce the necessity for heavy guns to give sufficient strength to bear the charge of powder, and it will also diminish the amount of recoil. It is stated that the initial velocity obtained at the trial the other day was remarkably high. The gun was manufactured at the well known Mersey Steel and Iron Works. It weighs nine tons, and has a bore of 8.12 inches. At the experimental trial the other day, it was fired with a charge of 30 lbs. of powder and a steel projectile weighing 167 lbs., at a range of 200 yards. The target was constructed to represent the side of the Agincourt, now constructing in Messrs. Laird's yard for the Government. It was 7 feet square, and consisted of an outer plate 5½ inches thick, of rolled iron; next came 9 inches of teak, then an inner plate of iron three-fourths of an inch thick; then angle iron and ribbing, and finally, a backing up of timber balks and supports 18 inches thick. The bolt struck the target near the centre. It drilled a round hole through the plates of iron, shattered the inside of the woodwork into splinters, and not only passed through the whole thickness of the target, but was landed on the beach many yards beyond the target, carrying with it —and this was the remarkable point of

  1177
  the whole—a plug of iron it had drilled out of the plate in its progress. If this statement is correct it does appear to be a very extraordinary performance. What is remarkable is that the plug of iron and bolt were found near together, and the marks in the sand showed that the rotatory motion had been continued to the very last. The bolt itself was perfectly sound and entire, although the force of the impact had diminished its length and added to its breadth. This was the only shot fired—the target having been so completely deranged as to be unfit for further experiments—but it appears to have been a most remarkable success. I do not think anything was done to test the extent of range; but the principle is so new, and if it can be satisfactorily carried out, so important in every respect, and the success of the gun appears to have been so great, that I took the liberty the other day of calling the attention of the Secretary for War to it, and requested him to make some inquiry in to the matter. I believe the noble Earl sent down an officer to examine and report upon the subject, and I would ask him now what report has been given, and whether it boars out to the full the details given in the newspapers? If it does, this gun, which is the invention of a Mr. Mackay, seems to me a very formidable rival to those of Sir William Armstrong and Mr. Whitworth.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he was very much obliged to the noble Earl for calling his attention to the statements concerning this gun, by which he received information a few hours earlier than they would otherwise have come under his notice. He had lost no time in sending an officer down to Liverpool to make inquiries as to the character of the gun and the results which had been obtained. The statements of the noble Earl were confirmed in regard to the main features of the gun by the report which he had received from the officer engaged in the investigation. The size and force of the projectile, the amount of the charge, and the general form of the gun, tallied with the description which had been given by the newspapers. There was some doubt as to the initial velocity, because the exact nature of the instrument used in testing it was not known. The instrument used in our trials is a foreign one of very delicate construction; of the one used in this case we know nothing, and, therefore, I do not know whether the results can be
  1178
  accurately compared. But, in the main features, the results as described by the noble Earl are correct. It might naturally he supposed that when windage could be turned to account, an advantage I would be gained as to the weight of the gun, and the amount of the charge used. In these respects, however, there was scarcely any advantage on the part of the new gun over others which had obtained very similar results. The range at which the Mackay gun was tried was very short —only 200 yards; its weight was nine tons; and the charge of powder 30lb. At the same time, the results of the experiment were curious and interesting, and it would be desirable to make further inquiries. Their Lordships would however, perhaps, permit him to compare the results obtained by this gun with those of a few other experiments made by the Government with guns somewhat similar. A 150-ponnder smooth-bore Armstrong gun was fired at 200 yards, with a cast-iron shot of 150 lb., and a charge of 50lb., against a target representing a side of the Minotaur, and consisting of 5½ in. iron plate, backed by 9in. teak. Here the shot was cast-iron (that used with the Mackay gun being of steel) and, like all cast-iron shot, it broke up. The pieces were driven completely through the target, and the front portion of the plate which was struck was found 15 feet in the rear. The same gun, with the same shot and charge, was tried with the same results on another occasion. Then a Whitworth 120-pounder, with a steel shell of 151 lb., and a charge of 27 lb., was fired at 800 yards range. The shell penetrated the plate and burst between the plate and the teak. On a second occasion the result was still more satisfactory. He would now compare this gun with the smooth-bored gun known by the name of the Duke of Somerset's gun, used with a lighter charge. That gun—a smooth-bored wrought-iron 100-pounder of six tons—was fired against the side of the Monarch, having a 5½in. plate, so that the thickness of the iron was precisely the same as in the target referred to by the noble Earl, but the backing was somewhat slighter. The distance at which the gun was fired was the same—namely, 200 yards; the shot weighed 115lb., and the charge was 25lb.
  THE EARL OF DERBYexplained that he had stated that, in the experiment to which he alluded, behind the iron

  1179
  there was a backing of teak, then came another plate of iron, and behind that again thick timber.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, he would read a description, which would explain the construction of the target used by Mr. Mackay. The target was about 7ft. square, formed of two 5½in. plates, each about 3ft. 6in. in breadth, laid horizontally. They were backed by 9 inches of teak, with an inner skin of iron ¾in. thick, the whole secured by angle iron, and supported at the back by upright beams of timber, and struts 16 to 18 in. square at each end. All he wished to show was that they could not draw any decided conclusions from these experiments. The distance was short, but the result obtained by the smooth-bore gun seemed good. The matter was worth inquiring into, but he had not at present sufficient information to enable him to give a decided opinion as to the real merits of the gun.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, that his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), though not an artillerist, had been able to state his case with such clearness and accuracy, that anybody could perfectly understand it. The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Somerset) was the inventor of a cannon, and he would, therefore, comprehend the importance of this discussion. The Channel squadron was now lying ready armed, manned, and equipped, ready for sea—ready to go to Denmark if required. There were on board the ships of this squadron many Armstrong guns, and he would venture to assert that they were useless. If one of these ships were to go into action to-morrow with these guns, and encounter a French ship, for example, in all probability she would be knocked to pieces in the smallest possible space of time, for her Armstrong artillery would be found worthless. He had been very much alarmed at reading the report of the performance of the Armstrong guns in the action at Kagosima. It appeared that the pivot gun on board the Euryalus became disabled after the discharge of thirty-five rounds, and the other guns in the squadron were disabled after firing from ten to thirteen rounds. The 40-pounders of the Euryalus became useless after ten rounds, and if that ship had been opposed by any vessel with the Whitworth gun or with a smooth-bored gun—one of the noble Duke's artillery— she would be knocked to pieces, and the
  1180
  result would be alarming to the country and disastrous to its honour. He asked what would be the feeling if any harm should happen to a British ship going into battle with these cannon, so well known to be worthless that the men disliked making use of them? The consequences to a ship having such an armament in an engagement would be so disastrous that the honour of the country would be at stake. He entreated the noble Duke not to delay twenty-four hours taking those guns out of the ships and replacing them, if he pleased, with his own invention.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he could not lay claim to the honour of being the inventor of the new gun; all he had done was what many other inventors had done, to take advantage of other people's ideas. Finding there was some difficulty about rifled guns he asked Sir William Armstrong whether he could not produce some smooth-bored iron gun, as he thought it might be useful to the navy during the time while scientific men were attempting to produce a rifled gun of the best description. The only condition he made was that it should be a strong gun, capable of standing a charge of 30 lbs. of power. When that gun was made, it turned out, though constructed only for a temporary purpose, a very good gun. The noble Earl was of opinion that the 100-pounder Armstrong guns, placed on board the ships of the Chinese squadron, were perfectly worthless. Against iron-plated ships they might not have sufficient power; but an officer, who had come back from China, gave him a very different account from that which the noble Earl had heard. That officer stated that some of the guns failed, but that in other instances they were admirable. The guns sent to China were made before the last improvements in the vent-pieces. The invention was very much improved now, and the gun was less likely to be damaged. There existed different opinions as to the best system of rifling, as to the number of grooves, and the amount of spiral twist or turn which should be adopted; and it would be most unwise to manufacture u great number of guns while those questions remained undecided. The Whitworth gun had one spiral in 20 diameters, the Armstrong one in 37 diameters; Messrs. Britten's one in 120 diameters, and Mr. Lynall Thomas's one in 25 diameters. Foreign rifled guns ranged from one in 25 to one in 40 diameters. He mentioned these things to show that

  1181
  there was no settled principle in respect to the rifling of cannon, and he should not be doing his duty if he ordered ordnance to be made to a great amount before this question was determined. He hoped in a few weeks they would be able to ascertain which was the best gun, as a regular course of experiments was now in progress.
  THE EARL OF HARDWICKEsaid, he had put a vital question to the noble Earl which he had not answered. The fact was that they had on board their ships a description of gun which was ineffective. Those who were on board the Chinese squadron described the Armstrong gun as worthless. He maintained that the breech-loading gun would not answer. The report made with regard to the Euryalus was, that she had ten or twelve of these guns, not one of which lasted after thirteen discharges—the carriages breaking, or the vent-pieces becoming choked or being blown away, so that the guns were useless. At all events, the guns became wretchedly worthless by discharges in repeated succession, and after that he was bound to say let the navy be supplied with any description of gun rather than the Armstrong rifled breech-loader, which was not fit for naval service. They were spending public money lavishly upon experiments of which nobody knew the end, if they were to turn their attention to the small questions of how many turns were required, or what was to be the direction of a curve. He protested against risking the safety of our ships by putting on board of them worthless armaments.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETobserved, that though they might yet be far from perfection, the results obtained from the practice of the Armstrong guns were wonderful.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he had seen a letter from a civilian in Japan who stated that great disappointment was felt in the fleet about the action of the Armstrong guns. The only guns which might be said to have survived the action seemed to be the old 68-pounders. It was stated that on the first day of the action at Kagosima, when a heavy gale prevailed, and the ships were under fire, the men engaged in firing the Armstrong guns on the Euryalus between decks became alarmed at firing them. Next day, however, when the sea was calm and the weather fine, the sailors were said to have made good long shooting with the Armstrong guns.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHmust say that what he had read in regard to the practice with the Armstrong guns in Japan had filled him with disappointment and alarm. If there were the slightest apprehension that the same misfortune would happen again, every Armstrong gun ought to be taken out of the ships. In war everything depended on time and on having the best instruments of war. Not a moment should be lost in placing these ships in an effective condition.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, that the Admiralty had not lost a moment in sending out the plugs and materials for making these guns effective.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that the noble Duke had got one good gun, and that if he would exert his own common sense in judging of these improvements, he would probably oftener be right than the scientific men.

  COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL ON EDUCATION—RESIGNATION OF MR. LOWE.
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I wish to call your Lordships' attention to a matter of considerable importance to myself, and in order to put myself in order I will finish by a formal Motion for the adjournment of the House. The Votes of the other House of Parliament are communicated to this House, and I will therefore read the Resolution to which that House came last week on the subject of the Reports of the Inspectors of Schools—
  "That in the opinion of this House the mutilation of the Reports of Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools, and the exclusion from them of statements and opinions adverse to the educational views entertained by the Committee of Council, while matter favourable to them is admitted, are violations of the understanding under which the appointment of the Inspectors was originally sanctioned by Parliament, and tend entirely to destroy the value of their Reports."
  This Resolution appears somewhat unusual, and to be couched more in the sensational style than in the ordinary grave and guarded phraseology adopted in Parliamentary proceedings. With that, however, we have nothing to do; but what I do feel most strongly and deeply is the censure which has been cast upon the Department with which I am. connected. It is a rule that no allusion shall be made to debates in the other House of Parliament. That is a good and a salutary rule, and one which it is most desirable should be observed. At the same time, it is so necessary to state that which I am

  1183
  about to say, that I will suppose that some similar Motion has been proposed in a distant country enjoying representative institutions, and that a debate took place on a Resolution of this character. I will do this as shortly as possible, and not with the view of answering the Motion, but for the purpose of explaining the position in which I stand in the matter. The Mover of the Resolution appears to have grounded it on certain alleged facts. He stated that the representative of the Education Department claims the right to expunge from the Inspectors Reports all opinions differing from his own, and at the same time to retain all opinions agreeing with his own. He asked the House to believe him without proof, though proof he said he had, if challenged. He mentioned that certain passages were expunged from the Inspectors' Reports, and that if he had access to the Reports he could make out a much stronger case. The pith of the answer made by the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education was, that the alleged facts were not true. In fact, he gave the most complete denial that it was possible to give. But, notwithstanding, the House divided; and by a majority of eight passed the Resolution which I have read. I have been informed—although I do not know it of my own knowledge—that while the Vice President was denying the allegations against him, proofs—not tendered to him for explanation, contradiction, or retractation, were, in the shape of either the original Reports or copies of Inspectors' Reports, privately handed round to Members of the House of Commons, with marks appended to certain paragraphs. That must have been done with the view of influencing their votes on the Resolution, when the question was really one of veracity on one side or the other. In a large office, with much routine business, the head of the office is officially responsible for everything, and that official responsibility ought not to be lessened in the slightest degree. But with regard to the particular matter which gave rise to this vote, I am not only officially but also morally and practically responsible for the proceedings which have taken place. And I will say further, that if I had been in the Vice President's place in the House of Commons on Tuesday last, and if the same accusation had been made against me, I should have made exactly the same
  1184
  statement. Your Lordships may well suppose that as soon as I heard of the circulation of this report, I called upon Mr. Lingen, the Secretary of the Committee of Education, to give some explanation of what had taken place, and to state whether it was possible that such a report should be in existence. It is one of the peculiarities of the Resolution of the other House that it complains of a breach of faith towards Parliament, and with regard to this Minute, on which action has taken place, I will venture to read it to the House. It is as follows:—
  "Their Lordships having considered the instructions issued from time to time to Her Majesty's Inspectors of Schools for the preparation of their annual Reports, find the sum of those instructions to be that the Inspectors must confine themselves to the state of the schools under their inspection, and to practical suggestions for their improvement. If any Report in the judgment of their Lordships does not conform to this standard, it is to be returned to the Inspector for revision; and if, on its being again received from him, it appears to be open to the same objection, it is to be put aside as a document not proper to be printed at the public expense."
  I will now read the explanation given by Mr. Lingen—
  "Education Department, Council Office,
  Downing Street, London, April 18."
  "My Lord—In answer to your Lordship's inquiries with regard to the alleged mutilation of the Reports of the Inspectors, I beg leave to submit the following statement:—From the earliest time of my connection with the Office it has always been the duty of some one officer to carry the Inspectors' Reports through the press, and the Secretary has discharged, permissively, a sort of editor's duty. Previously to 1858 this came to very little. A private note, or a personal communication, might pass, most frequently with a view to condensation. About that time, however, the increasing size of our volumes, and the wide range taken by some of our Reports, had become frequent matter of complaint at the Treasury, and had been noticed in Parliament. Fresh instructions were, therefore, issued in 1868 to reduce the length and confine the subject-matter of the Reports, and in 1859 the Vice President used to read the Reports himself in manuscript, and strike out from them, before they went to press, those passages which he regarded as not conformable to the instructions."
  I may say here that I think such a course to be a perfectly right one. If properly done, it could not be open to a charge of mutilating. I should rather be inclined to look upon it as a pruning of extraneous and irrelevant matter.
  "The Inspector, when he had his manuscript back with his proof, had an opportunity of seeing what had been struck out. The debates which occurred in Parliament about this time, appeared to me to leave the Committee of Council,

  1185
  at least in some degree, responsible for the exclusion of irrelevant matter from the Inspectors' Reports, and I, therefore, directed the officer who read them for the press to examine them with increased care. The mode in which he was to call my attention to anything requiring it was not fixed to any particular routine; he was at liberty either to speak to me with the Report, or to mark it at his discretion. The Report, at this stage of its progress to press, was treated like any other official paper. Such was the state of method throughout 1859, and I do not remember any particular change taking place in 1860, but one of the Reports printed in that year was objected to in Parliament as irrelevant, because it entered into a comparison of Protestant and Roman Cotholic countries in respect of chastity. This led to the Minute of the 31st of January, 1861 (the one now in force), being passed. For some time after this Minute the practice was to mark, or note, any passages in the Inspector's Reports which appeared to be irrelevant, or otherwise at variance with the Minute, and to return them so marked or noted to the Inspector for re-consideration, and this practice did not consider to be inconsistent with the Minute; but as soon as it was brought prominently to Mr. Lowe's notice (which it was in consequence of certain of the Inspectors attempting to raise discussion on the marked or noted passages) Mr. Lowe ordered it to be discontinued, and directed that the Reports should for the future be returned to the Inspectors, when it was necessary to return them, without being marked at all. The date of this order was the 14th of February, 1862. Since that time the practice of marking or noting the Reports has, of course, been discontinued, and, if any later case has occurred, it must have arisen either from inadvertence, or for some special reason, which, if the marked or noted passage were shown to me, I have no doubt I should be able to explain. I conclude that it is some act or acts done in conformity with the practice above explained which is pointed to in the late Resolution of the House of Commons."
  I think your Lordships will feel that Mr. Lowe was perfectly justified in the statements which he made in the House of Commons, and had I been so attacked my answer would have been conveyed in precisely similar terms. I may be allowed to say one word with regard to the policy of the Minute. I think it will be the general opinion that it is necessary for the central office to exercise some such check over the Reports which it receives from so large a body of Inspectors. The noble Marquess who preceded me in my office (the Marquess of Salisbury) and Mr. Adderley, the Vice President of the Committee of Council, exercised such a supervision; Sir George Grey exercises such a supervision over the Home Office Inspectors; and my noble Friend Earl de Grey will answer for himself and his predecessor, that such is the practice of the War Office; and I think that my noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty (the Duke of Somerset) will
  1186
  bear me out in saying that the same supervision is exercised in the Admiralty. I very much doubt if there is any Department of Government where this principle has not only not been found advisable, bat absolutely necessary. This being a well-understood principle, another question arises as to the correctness of the statement conveyed in the Resolution, that the practice of the Committee of Council is to expunge those passages which are unfavourable to its policy, while it retains those which express accordance with its arrangements. That statement I entirely deny. The marks upon the Reports sent back to the Inspectors were not the marks of the chief of the Office, but they were made by a clerk in attendance upon the Secretary, simply for the purpose of calling his attention to the passages so noted. I regret deeply the oversight by which. The marks were allowed to remain on the Reports sent to the Inspectors, but I deny that they were sent back to them so marked because those passages were adverse to the policy of the Department. On the other hand it has been alleged that passages have been retained because they were considered favourable to that policy. Now I cannot help thinking that, considering the animus with which the attack was made, all the Reports which have appeared before Parliament must have been carefully sifted; and yet only one such case has been cited, and that is a passage giving the opinion of one of the Inspectors upon the system of certificated masters for the schools. As a proof that we are not influenced by the motives attributed to us, I may say that I remember four separate cases in which a request was made that opinions favourable to the policy of the Government should be omitted. Those opinions, as coming from some of the ablest of our Inspectors, would have carried great weight with them, and still could hardly have been considered as irrelevant under the Minute, but, as speaking so highly in favour of our policy, we thought it best to adopt the course I have mentioned. I think the statement I have now made will clearly and fairly dispose of the charge that we have garbled the Reports for our own purposes. I do not know whether your Lordships are aware of the number of Inspectors of schools. There are sixty in all, of whom twenty-two are laymen and thirty-eight clergymen. I believe that there is not in the service of Her Majesty, a body of men of

  1187
  greater ability and higher character. The offices are extremely sought after, and are filled by men of great ability. I have myself appointed twenty-eight, and in saying this I do not claim for myself the slightest credit for the manner in which I have exercised the power of making these appointments; I have merely endeavoured to follow the example set me by Lord Lansdowne and my predecessors. With the exception of one clergyman, whose treatment of educational subjects I had had an opportunity of observing, I do not think that I knew one of the persons I appointed, even by sight, at the time of their receiving their appointments from me. Even now I have no idea what the political opinions of those gentlemen may be. It has been said that if I had selected men bound to me by personal or political ties, they would have identified themselves more thoroughly with the working of the Office. This I utterly deny. I believe that the Inspectors are actuated, as a body, by a strong desire to discharge their duty, and the sincere wish to co-operate most cordially with the office to which they belong. It is true that during the very warm discussion which took place, not only in Parliament but also throughout the country, with reference to the Revised Code, there appeared some articles in the Reviews, showing certainly such an amount of knowledge regarding the details of the office as tended to imply that the information, was obtained from some of the officials themselves. Not being thin-skinned I did not complain of this at the time, nor do I complain of it now; but I think I have a right to complain if any Inspector belonging to Her Majesty's service, and under the superintendence of the Committee of Council of Education, not only afforded elaborate information to Members of Parliament for the purpose of attacking the Department, but also actually furnished them with copies of papers belonging to the Council Office. I do think that I have a right to complain of that as a departure from that honourable discretion which I believe to be the characteristic of the civil service of this country. Not only do I complain of this conduct, but I believe it to be viewed with indignation by the whole of the other Inspectors. My Lords, I have endeavoured to show that this Minute is right in principle, and in harmony with the practice of other Government offices under different
  1188
  Administrations, and that our mode of carrying it out has been perfectly fair and honest. The condemnation of the Office, however, remains. The censure is one the import of which it is impossible for your Lordships not to see. Her Majesty's Government have considered the subject. They have thought that it is quite impossible that the House of Commons, having come to such a Resolution as this, hastily and upon imperfect knowledge, should refuse to inquire into the facts supposed to exist, and upon which the Resolution was founded. It appears to me that this is a just, right, and necessary course of Her Majesty's Government to take. I have not the slightest doubt, from the usual fairness of the House of Commons in matters of this sort, that the Committee will be granted without any difficulty and without any hesitation, and I am not afraid of the result of such an inquiry. Mr. Lowe has taken another course—he has resigned his office. He has resigned it on the ground that he could not sustain such a deliberate Vote of the House of Commons founded on what must have been a disbelief in his personal veracity, and that he could not remain under the weight of such a blow even until matters were more fully cleared up. My Lords, as a personal friend of Mr. Lowe, I may state that I have now been in political relationship with him for five years. I have remarked —what are generally acknowledged—his commanding intellect and his vast acquirements; and I may add that I have never been associated with any one who appeared to me to be more single-mindedly zealous for the advantage of the public service. As a private friend of Mr. Lowe, I cannot help appreciating the sensitive delicacy with which he has resented that which he considers an attack upon his personal honour; but I may be allowed to say further, that I regret the determination he has come to. I think it is a blow to the Government. I think it is a blow to the Department to which he belonged. The state of that Department as compared with what it was five years ago when Mr. Lowe entered into office is most satisfactory. The number of children in our schools has increased certainly by one-quarter, the schools have increased by between one-third and a quarter; I think that the number of certificated masters has been doubled, the number of Inspectors has necessarily been augmented; but notwithstanding the tendency of the Estimates to

  1189
  increase year by year they were last year brought down below the point at which they stood when he came into office, and that notwithstanding so much had been done for the improvement of the schools. I cannot help referring to the Revised Code. Whether that is a good or a bad measure is of course a matter of opinion. In my judgment it is an excellent one. I believe it has greatly increased the efficiency of the grants given by Parliament, and has established an economy which will do much to encourage Parliament to continue its grants for the promotion of the education of the lower classes of this country. By that Code we have reduced the expenditure and have entirely set free all vested interests. If any improvements are needed, Parliament will be at perfect liberty to adopt them. The merit of the elaboration of that Code must be ascribed to the Secretary of the Committee of Council, Mr. Lingen. I believe that there are very few persons with ability, industry, and courage enough to grapple with what was a most difficult work. I believe that none could have attempted it but one who had had that daily experience of the administration of these Parliamentary grants which Mr. Lingen had had for several years. But the passing of the Code through the House of Commons —naturally representing as it did the considerable panic which existed, naturally reflecting the feelings of many intelligent and excellent persons who did not see the advantage which would be gained in the aggregate, but only the pressure and inconvenience which it inflicted in different directions—the passing of that work through the House of Commons was entirely owing to the patience and perseverance, to the singularly clear statements, and the great argumentative powers of Mr. Lowe. For these reasons, I deeply regret the course which he has taken in at once resigning. I have not the least doubt that the Committee will be granted by the House of Commons, and that the result of its inquiries will be favourable. I believe that it will be favourable to the principle which we have endeavoured to establish; but with reference to the personal character and personal veracity of Mr. Lowe I have not the slightest doubt in the world that the verdict of that Committee must be in his favour. I beg to apologize to the House for having trespassed on their attention for be long upon a personal and
  1190
  somewhat egotistical matter; but I felt it necessary to make this explanation not only as a Member of the Government and of your Lordships' House, but because I have for some years been allowed to hold, however unworthily, a very prominent position in this House. I could not have held it, I could not continue to hold it, without the great support which I have received from my friends, and I must be allowed to say the considerable forbearance which I have met with from noble Lords on the, opposite side of the House.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, no one can be surprised that under the circumstances the noble Earl should have taken the opportunity of making the statement which he has just concluded, and of entering into the details upon which he has given us. If I had had any idea that the noble Earl was about to enter upon the discussion of the debate which took place in the other House of Parliament, I would have endeavoured to make myself better acquainted than I am with the nature of that debate, of the allegations which were made against the Vice President of the Council, and of the answer which he gave to these allegations. With a great deal of what the noble Earl has said I entirely concur. It is in every Department absolutely necessary that a certain discretion should be left to its heads to strike out from the Reports made to them anything which appears to be irrelevant to the subject and which may lead to long disquisitions, and if not checked to the practice of each individual who makes a Report to the Government writing a pamphlet in support of his particular views. Therefore, my Lords, so far as any alteration or omission that may have been made in their Reports by the various Inspectors, I do not think that the Government is open to any censure if they insisted upon the Inspectors restricting their Reports to that which really bears upon the state of education and the condition of the schools, and refraining from matters of opinion. The charge, however, I understand to have been this—I hope the noble Earl will understand that I am not saying or suggesting that it was substantiated. I do not know upon what evidence or opinion it rests—the charge, as I understand, was that in a matter which has been made the subject of a great deal of controversy, and which appears to bear directly upon

  1191
  the efficiency of the system—I mean the question as to the comparative merits of certificated and uncertificated masters —expressions of opinion have been allowed to remain in these Reports strongly favourable to the superior claims of certificated masters; while, on the other hand, statements of an opposite character, statements tending to show that uncertificated masters were in many respects equal to certificated ones have been struck out. That I understand to have been the character of the charge made. Whether it is capable of being substantiated or not I do not know. Of this I am quite certain, that the noble Earl opposite— and I am sure that there is not one of your Lordships who will not concur in that description—I am certain that the noble Earl opposite would not, in anything which came under his personal superintendence, allow a Report to be placed either before the House of Commons or your Lordships, altered in such a manner as to convey a different impression from that which, the reporter intended to convey, or to give undue bias or favour to the particular view which might be entertained by the Government on any subject. I have not the slightest means of knowing how these Reports have been dealt with, how the information was obtained, from whom the information came, or what, in point of fact, was the information upon which that Motion was made in the House of Commons, and carried by a small majority. It is not, it is true, very regular to refer to what takes place in the House of Commons; but, under the circumstances of the case, I am sure that the noble Earl's slight irregularity may be fairly justified and excused; and perhaps the noble Earl having originated the irregularity, I may be allowed to be guilty of an equal irregularity by stating what I am told has taken place this afternoon, and which may considerably modify the view that may be taken of the circumstances of the case. I am told that this evening the Vice President of the Council, having thought it necessary, in vindication of his own position, to resign the office which he held, has, after taking that step, made a very elaborate vindication of the course which he pursued and defence of his own conduct in office; and I am given to understand, that after hearing that explanation, the noble Lord who brought forward the charge (Lord Robert
  1192
  Cecil), and upon whose Motion the division took place, stated publicly that if what the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Committee on Education had said to-night had been said in answer to the charge on a former occasion, he should have felt it his duty at once to abandon any attempt to press his Motion on the House. I understand that that has taken place to-night. I believe, also, that a Committee of the House of Commons is likely to be appointed for the purpose of investigating the facts of the case, and I think that is a very proper course to be pursued. I understand that although that proposition was made to Mr. Lowe it was one to which he did not think fit to accede, and insisted, perhaps from an over-scrupulous sense of duty, on resigning his office. I do not know that I can say anything further upon this subject, because I was not prepared, nor am I disposed, to enter into the merits of the Revised Code, or to renew discussions which occupied a good deal of our time on former occasions. I sincerely trust—and, from what the noble Earl says, I am inclined to hope and believe—that if an investigation is made into the circumstances it will prove that there has been no substantial mutilation of the Reports, and that the passages have been omitted, not out of favour or prejudice to one side or the other, but simply from a desire to bring these Reports within fair and reasonable limits, and to exclude from them everything which is not strictly within the limits of the duty of the Inspectors. What has been done I cannot pretend to say; but for the sake of the public service and of public men of all parties and all political views, I earnestly hope that the result of the inquiries of the Committee will be to clear the Council Office from any imputation of having improperly departed from their duty, or having tampered with these Reports.
  EARL GREYsaid, there was one point in the statement of the noble Earl the President of the Council to which he wished briefly to refer. If he correctly understood his noble Friend, he said that there was reason to believe that the Motion which had been submitted to the House of Commons on the subject under discussion had been suggested or prompted by some person or persons in the employment of the Government. Now, that was a matter which, in his opinion, required carefully to be investigated by the Committee

  1193
  which it was proposed should be appointed; because he could conceive no more fatal blow to the interests of this country than that there should be any interference with that honourable understanding which, on the one hand, went the extent of implying that the Government should not use the power which it legally possessed of removing any public servant at the mere pleasure of the Crown, and without assigning any reason for so doing; and, on the other hand, that the civil servants were bound by the strictest principles of honour not to be guilty of the offence of entering upon anything like a secret or passive opposition to the course which the Government might deem it expedient to pursue. The Government of the country would not work a day if the political servants of the Crown did not receive the faithful and honourable support of those who acted under them, and we might eventually be reduced to that unfortunate state of things which existed in America, where when a change of Administration took place, all the civil servants were dismissed from the highest to the lowest. This was an unbounded source of corruption fatal to proper government. So far as our experience hitherto went, we had the advantage of maintaining a body of public servants who had been remarkable for their general order, knowledge, and zeal; and he, for one, felt surprised that any one in the service of the Crown could so far have forgotten his duty as to give any underhand support to the opponents of the Ministry of the day. He trusted that the investigation before the Committee would prove that no offence of that kind had been committed, and that, if it had, the guilty party might be at once removed from his situation.
  House adjourned at a quarter past Six o'clock, till to-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.