precedents in English history, to show that the power Sir Robert Peel said he would only reply on one point. The noble lord inquired whether Her Majesty did not say to him that it was her intention to have acted towards him with openness and fairness. Her Majesty certainly did say so, and he had conveyed that impression when he stated that nothing could be more constitutional than the whole of Her Majesty's conduct. On the following evening a similar explanation was given by Lord Melbourne in the Upper House. Having explained why he resigned on a former occasion, the noble lord said, "And now, my lords, I frankly declare that I resume office unequivocally and solely for this reason, that I will not abandon my Sovereign in a situation of difficulty and distress, and especially when a demand is made upon Her Majesty with which I think she ought not to comply-a demand, in my opinion, inconsistent with her personal honour, and which, if acquiesced in, would make her reign liable to all the changes and variations of political parties, and render her domestic life one constant scene of unhappiness and discomfort." The Duke of Wellington spoke in a tone of great moderation and dignity of feeling. He expressed his perfect indifference to reports. He had served his country through evil report and good report, unmoved by either one or the other. He certainly was surprised at being charged with having ill-treated his Sovereign on this occasion. He could have no object in entering into public life again, but to serve her. He said there was all possible difference between the household of the Queen Consort and the household of the Queen regnant; that of the former, who is not a political person, being comparatively immaterial. The public, he said, would not believe that the Queen had no political conversation with the ladies of her household, and that political influence was not exercised by them, particularly considering who the persons were who held those situations. He believed the history of the country afforded a number of instances in which secret and improper influences had been exercised by means of such conversations. He had a somewhat strong opinion on the subject. He had himself filled the office of the noble viscount, and had felt the inconvenience of an anomalous influence, not exercised, perhaps, by ladies, but exerted by persons about the Court, and that simply in conversations; and the country was at that moment suffering from secret influence of the same description. He concluded by expressing his admiration of the personal demeanour of Her Majesty in those proceedings, which he characterised as displaying a readiness and firmness much beyond her age. Lord Melbourne distinctly denied the existence of any such secret influence as that referred to by the noble duke. These explanations in Parliament created an extraordinary sensation throughout the country. It was noticed as a singular fact that in the evening ministerial organ, the Globe, the following paragraph appeared on the 9th, before the negotiations with Sir Robert Peel had been made known to the public, and a day before the Queen's determination had been conveyed to Sir R. Peel:-"The determination which it is well known Her Majesty has taken, nct to allow the change in the Government to interfere with the ladies of her Court, has given great offence to the Tories." The Hon. William Cowper, nephew and private secretary to Lord Melbourne, in an address to the electors of Hertford, said, "Every dictate of feeling, of honour, of loyalty, and justice impels me, at all hazards, to support our Queen in her noble resistance to the cruel attempt so unworthily made to wrest from Her Majesty a prerogative hitherto unquestioned, and to usurp the power of dismissing, at the Ministers' will, those ladies of her Court whom, from their sympathy and devotion, and from long acquaintance, Her Majesty could look upon as friends." Mr. Cowper subsequently explained these remarks by declaring that the statements which had been made in Parliament since his first address had certainly removed all ground for ascribing any but proper and loyal motives to the leaders of the Tory party in their late negotiations. Lord Brougham was extremely indignant at the conduct of the Ministers and their partisans on this occasion. He said that they had made an appeal "to the credulity and passions of the multitude by the most scandalous misrepresentations, by slander the most despicable-so ridiculous, so contemptible, that it had never been surpassed;" and he declared that it had ended "in the most signal failure, the most utter and total failure he had ever known." Addresses were poured in to the Queen from all parts of the country, some congratulating her on the return of Lord Melbourne and Lord John Russell to office, others praying that she would again call to her councils the Duke and Sir Robert Peel. An address to these statesmen from Shrewsbury declared the indignation and contempt of the inhabitants at the calumnious charges made against them for factious ends. The matter was discussed in the House of Lords on the 31st of May, when it was brought forward by Lord Winchilsea. Lord Melbourne, in reply, admitted that the difficulties with which he had to contend in carrying on the government of the country were still undimi A.D. 1839.] ELECTION OF THE SPEAKER. nished, at least by any abandonment of principle on his part, and that the Government would still be conducted on those principles on which it had originally been formed-namely, the principles of progressive reform. Lord Brougham again vehemently denounced the conduct of the ministers with reference to the ladies of the bed-chamber. "The name of the Sovereign," he said, "had been put forward and tendered to the country in lieu of all explanations, and the private personal feelings of that illustrious Princess had been made the topic of every riotous meeting-of all the demagogues who have set to work to support a sinking administration. For themselves, the Ministers had nothing to say-no measure to propose, no defence to make of their policy, but the cry of 'The Queen! the Queen! the Queen!' and to sum up all in the words of a kinsman of his noble friend and his private secretary 'Sir Robert Peel's attempt to form a Government was defeated by two ladies of the bed-chamber."" The record would be incomplete of this singularly interesting episode in the history of England without a passage from a speech of Lord Macaulay, delivered on the first night of the session of 1840: "A change has come over the spirit of a part, I hope not the larger part, of the Tory body. It was once the glory of the Tories that, through all changes of fortune, they were animated by a steady and fervent loyalty, which made even error respectable, and gave to what might otherwise have been called servility something of the manliness and nobleness of freedom. A great Tory poet, whose eminent services to the cause of monarchy had been ill-requited by an ungrateful Court, boasted that 'Loyalty is still the same, Toryism has now changed its character. We have lived to see a monster of a faction made up of the worst parts of the Cavalier and the worst parts of the Round head. 437 tion against the Order in Council-The Lords' Remonstrance to the Queen-Her Majesty's Reply-The System of Penny Postage-Mr. Rowland Hill's Pamphlet on Post Office Reform-Postal Statistics Opposition of the Post Office Authorities to Mr. Hill's Plan-A Report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1838-The New Postal Law-Impediments to its Working-Results of the First Two Years-Review of the Session by Lord Lyndhurst-Lord Melbourne's Defence of the Government-Re-construction of the Cabinet-The Prorogation-The Queen's Speech-Banquet to the Duke of Wellington-Lord Brougham's Eulogium-Tory Disloyalty-Party Spirit in the Army-Loyal Demonstrations in Ireland-Announcement of the Queen's Marriage-The Case of Lady Flora Hastings. As soon as the Ministry had been restored, the House re-assembled for the election of a new Speaker in the room of Mr. Abercromby, who had declared his intention of resigning, having no longer sufficient strength to perform the arduous duties imposed on him by his office. When his intention was announced, he received, through Sir Robert Peel and Lord John Russell, the highest testimony of the esteem in which he was held by the two great parties, not only for his conduct in the chair, but also for his strenuous exertions to improve the mode of conducting the private business of the House. Abercromby was called to the bar in 1800, and was appointed Judge Advocate General in 1827, Chief Baron of Scotland in 1830, Master of the Mint and a member of the Cabinet in 1834. He was chosen Speaker in 1835. On his resignation of that office, he was raised to the peerage as Lord Dunfermline. Mr. Mr. Handley rose to propose Mr. Shaw Lefevre, member for North Hants, as a person eminently qualified to succeed to the vacant chair. In the Speaker there should be spirit and courage to defend and assert the privileges of the House, and these qualities none could deny to Mr. Lefevre. He was also a man of unwearied diligence in the dispatch of business, while he possessed that urbanity of manner, and that frank and open bearing, so indispensable in a Speaker. The motion was seconded by Sir Stephen Lushington, who declared that he supported him, because his opinions were popular, because he had been an advocate of reform, because he believed that his election would satisfy the people, and that the House intended to proceed in the path of improvement till they had realised the just expectations of the country. Mr. Williams Wynn, a member of great experience and reputation in the House, proposed Mr. Goulburn, member for the University of Cambridge. In him, he said, would be found great self-possession, vigour, and resolution, and a great degree of courtesy to temper these qualities. The late Speaker had been elected from being a member of the Cabinet, Serjeant Mitford had been elected as Speaker from the office of Attorney-General, Mr. Abbot from the office of Chief Secretary for Ireland, Mr. Manners Sutton from the office of Judge Advocate; and yet they were compelled to acknowledge the fairness, impartiality, and affability with which all those gentlemen had occupied the chair. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wilson Patten. It was a party contest, and tested the strength of the Ministry and the Opposition. The House divided on the motion that Mr. Shaw Lefevre do take the chair, which was carried by a majority of eighteen, the numbers being of the Church as a National Educator-Mr. O'Connell on United Education-The Education Question in the House of Lords-Resolu- 317 and 299. The new Speaker was then led to the chair We have lived to see a race of disloyal Tories. We have lived to see Tories giving themselves the airs of those insolent pikemen who puffed out their tobacco smoke in the face of Charles I. We have lived to see Tories who, because they were not allowed to grind the people after the fashion of Strafford, turn round and revile the Sovereign in the style of Hugh Peters. I say, therefore, that while the leader is still what he was eleven years ago, when his moderation alienated his intemperate followers, his followers are more intemperate than ever." CHAPTER XLV. Resignation of the Speaker-Election of Mr. Shaw Lefevre as his Successor -National Education-Proposed Normal Schools-Committee of the Privy Council-Difficulties on account of Religion-The Right of Inspection-Objections to Government Control over Popular Education-Speech of Lord Stanley-Lord Morpeth's Reply-Speech of Mr. Wyse on the Evils of Popular Ignorance Mr. C. Buller on the Claims by Mr. Handley and Sir Stephen Lushington, when Lord John Russell immediately rose to present to him the congratulations of the House. Since the year 1833, the sum of £20,000 was all that had been granted by Parliament for the popular education of this kingdom. Up to this time the National Society and the British and Foreign School Society had, without distinction of party, enjoyed an equitable proportion of the benefit of this grant. The Government were now about to propose an increase, but they determined at the same time to change the mode of its distribution, and their plan gave rise to a great deal of discussion on the subject during the session. The intentions of the Government were first made known by Lord John Russell on the 12th of February, when he presented certain papers, and gave an outline of his views. He proposed that the president of the council and other privy councillors, not exceeding five, should form a board, to consider in what manner the grants made by the children and teachers instructed in this school should be duly trained in the principles of the Christian religion, while the rights of conscience should be respectedthat it was not in their power to mature a plan for the accomplishment of their design without further consideration. In the meantime the committee recom mended that no grant should thenceforth be made for the establishment or support of normal schools, or any other schools, unless the right of inspection be retained, in order to secure a conformity to the regulations and discipline established in the several schools, with such improvements as may from time to time be suggested by the committee. The day after the committee had adopted these resolutions, Lord Ashley moved a call of the House for the 14th of June, when Lord John Russell, in seconding the motion, stated that Government did not intend to insist upon their proposal to found a normal school. In the meantime he proposed that the intended vote of £30,000 Parliament should be distributed, and he thought that the first object of such a board should be the establishment of good normal and infant schools. Lord John said that he brought forward the plan not as a faultless scheme of education, but as that which, on consideration, he thought to be the most practical in the present state of the country. Sir Robert Inglis, representing the Church party, felt relieved that the noble lord proposed to do so little harm; Mr. Wyse, Chairman of the Central Society of Education, complained that he proposed to do so little good. The new committee on the 3rd of June passed several resolutions, one of which was that in their opinion the most useful applications of any sums voted by Parliament would consist in the employment of those moneys in the establishment of a normal school, under the direction of the State, and not under the management of a voluntary society. They admitted, however, that they experienced so much difficulty in reconciling the conflicting views respecting the provisions they were desirous of making-in order that should be divided as formerly between the two societies. Lord Stanley objected to the proposition for giving a direct control over the moral and religious education of the people to a board or committee exclusively political in its character, having no fixed principle of action, and which, from the nature of its constitution, excluded those individuals who were the best entitled to superintend the education of the people. He thought it highly objectionable to place funds in the hands of a Government without any restrictions regarding their distribution, and independent of the control of Parliament-liable to be applied to the support of its own political friends; but it was doubly dangerous to entrust them to a Government powerless in itself, so weak and feeble as to be absolutely struggling for existence. He could not, he said, understand the views of those gentlemen who limited the term "education" to mere temporal instruction, apart from spiritual knowledge, and he thought that with such a system the clergy had nothing to do. But that was not the view in which education was regarded by the people of this country. They viewed it in the light in which history had always regarded it, as part and parcel of the constitution and laws of the land-not as a thing apart from religion or the Church, but rather as the peculiar province of the clergy, and as a spiritual matter to be entrusted to their superintendence. Lord Stanley concluded an elaborate speech, in which he reviewed the history of former educational grants, by moving the following amendment:-"That an address be presented to Her Majesty to rescind the order in council, for constituting the proposed Board of Privy Council." were 3,000,000 children in England to be supplied with instruction, half of whom were in a state of complete ignorance. Mr. Charles Buller, with his accustomed vigour and practical sound sense, disposed of the argument that would invest the Church with the functions of national educator. He maintained that consigning the business of education to the Established Church was only an uncandid way of throwing it aside altogether. "What part of the funds of the Church, he would ask, were allocated to education? What portion of the hierarchy particularly devoted themselves to that object, and what portion of Church patronage was given to those who did so? Even those funds and dignities which at the time of the Reformation were set apart for the education of the people had been perverted from their original purpose, and turned into mere sinecures. The system of leaving education in the hands of the Established Church had had a long trial, and its effects were visible in the perverted system carried on in Sunday and charity schools, and in those wide and populous districts left totally destitute of education. What were the merits of that instruction in religion and morality which had afflicted our country with more thieves and prostitutes than any other education of the people to the clergy of the Established Church when they showed some earnest of their zeal in the cause, by restoring to their original destination the funds which had formerly been devoted to the purposes of education, and when some portion of its honours were conferred upon those who humbly devoted themselves to the task of instructing the people." Education, he added, besides being the highest and most valuable of a freeman's blessings, was also the first precaution of a wise Government. It was a precaution above all others to be taken by the possessors of property with respect to the mass of the people, in a country where the singularly artificial state of society, and the great inequality of social conditions, expose us to such constant perils from the discontent and ignorance of the uninstructed poor. Lord Morpeth replied to the speech of Lord Stanley, which he conceived went to the extent of separating, by a specific vote of the House, the executive Government of the country from all superintendence and control over the general education of the people. On the contrary, he would be glad to see the control of the State over education carried much farther than the plan proposed. With his feelings on the subject of national education, he should be glad to see the establishment of a permanent board that would command the respect and confidence of the country. Lord Morpeth added, "that he had no high opinion of many of the doctrines of the Roman Catholics; he had his own notions concerning Unitarian tenets, and he thought that the state of opinion prevail-in the world? It would be time enough to entrust the ing in this country being Protestant and Trinitarian, those who held such opinions were entitled to have the greatest proportion of public grants applied to their benefit; but nevertheless, as long as the State thought proper to employ Roman Catholic sinews and to finger Roman Catholic gold, it could not refuse to extend to those by whom it so profited the blessing of education." After speeches from Lord Ashley, Mr. Hawes, Lord Francis Egerton, and Mr. Slaney, the House adjourned to the 19th of June, when the debate was resumed by Mr. Wyse, member for Waterford, who had devoted his attention specially to the subject of popular and academic education. He said he was astonished to see how little was done for the diffusion of general education in this country, which boasted that it was the first in Europe in point of civilisation. The defective state of England in this respect had been productive of the greatest evils, felt not only in our moral and social relations, but also in our physical condition, in matters of every-day life, and in all the pursuits of industry. He gave some examples in agriculture: the injudicious use of lime had reduced thousands of acres in many districts to almost total infertility, while the making of manure in general was ignorantly and wastefully mismanaged, and thousands of acres of woods and forests were utterly ruined from want of knowledge of the process of vegetation. The ignorance of our population was not less striking as regarded the social condition of the lower classes. Twenty per cent. of the population of Liverpool lived in cellars—or in round numbers, 31,000 out of a population of 230,000. He referred to the ignorance revealed in the county of Kent, by the delusion of the Thomites, and stated that there was a similar deficiency of education throughout the country. In proof of this he furnished statistics. The result was, he said, that there Mr. Disraeli, on the other hand, deprecated the Government plan as a system of centralisation, by which all minds would be thrown into the same mint, and all would come out with the same impress and superscription. This was not the same sort of education, he said, which had been so nobly advocated and supported by our forefathers-by the men who had built schools, endowed colleges, and founded universities. Mr. Gibson, though a Conservative, contended that the schoolmaster should, in all matters relating to secular education, be independent of all Church influence. The doctrine which Lord Stanley supported sounded very like Papal infallibility. If it was once set up for the guidance of the people of England, they might prefer the infallibility of Rome to the infallibility of Oxford. He did not approve of the plan of mixing up secular with religious instruction. Religion should be taught by those who devoted themselves exclusively to that purpose. He had seen the effects of the contrary system, and was satisfied it would never answer the expectations entertained on the sub |