Sir John Gorst on the same evening endeavoured tc , explain
away part of his recent speech on education. He had not condemned voluntary schools generally, but only voluntary schools in the great towns. In the country districts they were, he quite admitted, better than the Board-schools. He wanted to tell the truth, and objectld to hushing up the facts. That was a fair reply to Lord Hugh Cecil, who had complained on behalf of the voluntary schools, but it does not meet our objection to Sir John Gorst's ways. He is made Vice-President in Council in order that he may explain and defend the policy of the Education Department. Instead of that he, under cover of unusual candour, constantly attacks it. The consequence is that the Department is left without an official defender, and is constantly liable to attacks and misrepre- sentations to which there is no reply. That seems to us on the part of any Minister either a misconception of duty, or such an idea of it as ought to compel him to resign. He re- fuses, in fact, to do work which is essential to the wellbeing and success of his Department. He may be honest, or courageous, or truthful, or anything else that is virtuous in his refusal, but he breaks discipline, and should therefore be told to go. Suppose Sir John Gorst as a barrister flung over his client's case, would he defend himself on the ground of his unusual candour ?
Previous page
