On Thursday night, in the absence of Lord Palmerston, who
has been for weeks laid up with the gout, Sir George Grey moved for a select committee to examine into the charge levelled against the Privy Council of Education by that resolution of the House of Commons with respect to the mutilation of Inspectors' reports which ejected Mr. Lowe. The committee was granted after a discussion which was only relieved of dullness by the very violent language of Mr. Bernal Osborne. who appears to have identified himself in this matter with Mr. Lowe. He said that on the 13th April last some "discontented and disloyal servants of the department took the opportunity of dropping accusations into the lion's mouth, then represented by the noble lord the member for Stamford, who appeared to be neither an unwilling nor an unconscious recipient of these false and calumnious charges " Lord Robert Cecil moved that those words be taken down, but did not appear much discomposed. They were very silly words. No doubt Enspe,ctors whose reports had been returned to them for correction—or mutilation—finding marks which Mr. Lowe had ordered to be discontinued, put by a clerk against certain passages, supposed (and probably not wrongly) that those passages were de trop. They showed these marked reports to Lord Robert Cecil, their advocate and exponent in the House of Commons, and we do not see much disloyalty in that. If "the department" expects "loyalty,"—could not it induce Mr. Lingen to treat thanspectors a little more as if they were gentle- men and his equals? Who could expect men treated as Mr. J. R. Morell has been treated by Mr. T.ingen to feel "loyalty to the department ?"
Previous page
