transaction of business, and, on the other hand, the probability was, that if no discussion was allowed in Committee of Supply, the Estimates for the great services of the State would be passed early in the Session. Parliament would thereby forfeit the control it ought not to have given up. The prescriptive law and usage of the House were, that when Government required money, it should be in the power of any unofficial member of the House to submit any grievance that might require a remedy. The two last Committees that had sat upon the forms of procedure in the House had both had this particular question referred to them, and had both declined to make any recommendation. The report of the last Committee was drawn up by Sir James Graham, whose thorough knowledge of the business of the House, and the constitutional principles upon which the House should act, was unsurpassed. This report might be said to contain the last words Sir James Graham had addressed to the House, and he heartily concurred in every word. knew, also, from repeated conversations with Sir James Graham, that he entertained objections to the abandonment by the House of any power or authority which, as an independent body, it ought to exercise and keep for itself.

He

Sir George Lewis took a more favourable view of the proposition. He thought it would conduce to the convenience of the House if there was one night in the week on which members might be sure that the business of the Committee of Supply would be proceeded with.

Mr. Disraeli objected to any pedantic and petty attempts to deal with the rules of the House. The higher duties and more important qualities of the House of Commons were, its sensibility in respect to public feeling, its quickness in the appreciation of the public desire, its determination to represent the grievances of the people, and to vindicate their rights and privileges. In his opinion, Parliament did not sit too long; hardly long enough; and the effect of the proposed change would be to shorten the Session by a month at least. Something happened during every recess which gave rise to a wish that Parliament had been sitting at the time. He appealed to the respect entertained by the House for Sir James Graham, and hoped that they would not pay such little respect to his last recommendation as to lend their sanction to so crude a scheme as that proposed by Mr. White. He concluded by entreating the House not to abandon any of their precious privileges.

Lord Palmerston said he was still of the opinion he had expressed in a Select Committee on the subject, that one of the highest functions of the House was to act as an exponent of the feelings of the country, and a medium for the expression of grievances. Although it might be advisable to apply some restriction to the latitude of the discussion on going into Supply, he was not prepared to support any sweeping changes which would entirely do away with those preliminary discussions. He could not, either, support any proposal that did not meet

with the full concurrence of a large majority of the House, as it would not be fitting that a bare majority should impose restrictrictions on the business of the House which a large minority might regard as unconstitutional. He hoped honourable members would consider the subject well, so as to be prepared to adopt some proposal less liable to objection than that before the House.

After some observations from Mr. White, leave was given to introduce the resolution, but no further proceedings in the matter took place this Session.

The first subject which Parliament took up earnestly for discussion was National Education, in connection with the New Minute of the Privy Council, which had been promulgated since the end of the preceding Session. Parts of the new Code thus announced to the public had been regarded with great hostility in some influential quarters, and it was generally felt that whatever might be the merits or demerits of the proposed alterations, they were such as ought not to be adopted without the opportunity of a full and free discussion in Parliament. The Ministers who represented the Education department in the two Houses, Earl Granville and Mr. Lowe, early expressed their intention of affording occasion for such a debate, and of offering explanations on their own behalf; and on the 13th of February the subject came on for discussion, being introduced by speeches from the two Ministers, which were listened to with great interest.

Earl Granville commenced his speech by briefly referring to the

causes which led to the appointment of a Royal Commission on the subject, the principal one being the fact that, whereas 2,200,000 children ought to be brought into the inspected schools, no more than 920,000 actually attended them, and only 230,000 received adequate instruction in the elements of reading, writing, and arithmetic. He denied that

there had been anything like an attempt on the part of the Government to smuggle the New Minute through Parliament. lf there had been, it would certainly not have been promulgated at a time when every one had leisure to discuss, and pick it to pieces during the dead time of the year. He then described the operation of the New Minute, which would do away with all the numerous grants of the old system, and substitute one simple plan of assistance, by which a capitation grant of 1d. per head would be given for each attendance over 100, subject to a favourable report from the inspector. To ensure this favourable report, it would be necessary for the children, grouped according to age, to pass an examination in reading, writing, and arithmetic, and their failure in any one of these three branches would render the school liable to the loss of one-third of the allowance, and if they failed in all, the allowance would be withdrawn altogether. Earl Granville then adverted to the cry of "Religion in Danger!" which had been raised by the opponents of the New Minute, and said that as the New Minute did not make the slightest technical alteration in the previously-existing system of religious education, he did not see how it could be

affected while the inspectors were still clergymen, appointed with the sanction of the Archbishop, and upon whose favourable report the grant depended. As to the blow struck at the training colleges, he admitted it was sudden and severe; but the assistance granted to these establishments averaged no less than 68 per cent. of the whole expense, which showed how little voluntary efforts were excited by such large grants. He denied that any vested rights whatever were possessed by the certificated masters, and adduced the decisive opinion to that effect given in the report of the Royal' Commission. Earl Granville concluded by stating that in deference to the strong representations which had been made, Scotland would be excluded from the operations of the New Minute; the reform of the training college would be postponed; a distinct declaration would be inserted to the effect that no alteration was made in the department of religious instruction; children under six would have to attend 200 times instead of 100, and would be thereby exempted from examination; and, lastly, it had been determined that no school should receive assistance unless the master was certificated and duly paid that was to say, unless he received from the managers three times the amount of his present augmented grant.

The Earl of Derby complimented Earl Granville on the clearness and candour of his statement. He thought it undesirable to enter at present into a consideration of the subject, so many important modifications of the Minute having been just announced. He thought that all

those alterations had been made in the right direction, and he hoped that whenever the subject came to be fully debated, it would be without the infusion of party spirit.

A few remarks made by Lords Ebury and Lyttelton brought the subject to a close.

In the House of Commons, on the same evening, Mr. Lowe made a full and elaborate statement respecting the proposed Minute. The Committee of Council, he said, had paid the most respectful attention to the views and opinions which had been ventilated upon the subject, and had endeavoured to make the revised regulations conform, as far as their sense of duty permitted, to those views and opinions. In order to fix the exact limits of the controversy, he explained the object of the Committee of Council, which was to promote education among the children of the labouring poor by grants of money under certain conditions, and he stated the mode in which the grants were administered. He then explained the reasons which had forced upon the Department the question whether the Code should be adhered to as it stood or be amended, and the considerations which had weighed with the Privy Council Committee to adopt the alterations in the Revised Code, which did not alter the present system in its fundamental principles, but would, in their opinion, carry out the object in view with greater efficiency. Mr. Lowe proceeded to detail and elucidate by figured statements what he regarded as faults of the existing system, in which, he remarked, a Government department had to co-operate with voluntary agency,

and to obtain information from parties interested in placing the fact in one point of view. The system was, he observed, eminently destructive of an important function of that House, which could not exercise a full control over the expenditure of the funds without a considerable alteration of the machinery of the system, and some guarantee for the proper application of the funds and for the results in the quality and quantity of the education afforded in the schools. According to the Report of the Commissioners there was a guarantee only for the qualifications of the master, but not for the efficiency of the instruction given to the children; and with regard to the latter point the Commissioners differed from the inspectors, and he believed the opinion formed by the Commissioners, which was unfavourable to the existing system, was the most correct. With respect to the application of the grants, he referred to cases in which he considered there had been a wasteful expenditure; he thought the Committee of Privy Council should not have to pay the whole salary of the pupil-teachers, and that the amount they contributed as augmentation to masters was extravagant. The present mode of administering the public grant, he observed, had led to expectations and to feelings of disappointment, which were very deplorable, though unreasonable. The Committee of Council had to deal with the managers of schools, who had subscribed their money relying upon a certain amount of Government support, and the pupil-teachers conceived they had their grounds of complaint. Such a system, he thought,

was dangerous, and, in justice to all parties, it was necessary to deal with the matter as soon as possible, and to put an end to a system which would divert the educational grant from its legitimate purpose, and cause an increasing drain upon the public exchequer. Agreeing with the Commissioners that it would not be right to interfere with the foundation of the existing mode of administering the grant, the Committee of Council had come to the conclusion that the system of appropriated grants should be abolished, and replaced by a similar system that of capitation grants. After explaining the details of this change, he proceeded to state the qualifications which the Committee proposed in order to meet objections to the Revised Code. It was not intended that it should at present apply to Scotland. It was proposed that infants under six years of age should be entitled to the capitation without examination. With respect to the training colleges, he thought the whole subject required re-consideration, and it was proposed that, with a few exceptions, they should remain for the present substantially as they were. After explaining the details of the other modifications, Mr. Lowe noticed and replied, at considerable length, to the objections which had been urged against the Revised Code, observing that he could not promise that it would be an economical system, but, if not economical, it would be efficient; the present system was neither efficient nor economical. He entered very fully into the question of the claims of the schoolmasters, which, in their integrity, he maintained had no