One of the most characteristic passages which he ever wrote is that in which he describes his interview in 1865 with Cardinal Antonelli, then Secretary of State at Rome.  “When he asked me what I thought of the Roman schools, I said that, for the first time since I came on the Continent, I was reminded of England.  I meant, in real truth, that there was the same easy-going and absence of system on all sides, the same powerlessness and indifference of the State, the same independence in single institutions, the same free course for abuses, the same confusion, the same lack of all idea of co-ordering things, as the French say—­that is, of making them work fitly together to a fit end; the same waste of power, therefore the same extravagance, and the same poverty of result.”

Enlarging on this congenial theme, and applying it to England and English requirements, he promulged in 1868 a very revolutionary scheme for Public Education.  At the apex of the pyramid there should be a Minister of Education.  “Merely for administrative convenience he is, indeed, indispensable.  But it is even more important to have a centre in which to fix responsibility.”  In 1886 he said to the teachers at Westminster, “I know the Duke of Richmond told the House of Lords that, as Lord President, he was Minister of Education—­(laughter)—­but really the Duke of Richmond’s sense of humour must have been slumbering when he told the House of Lords that.  A man is not Minister of Education by taking the name, but by doing the functions. (Cheers.) To do the functions he must put his mind to the subject of education; and so long as Lord Presidents are what they are, and education is what it is, a Lord President will not be a man who puts his mind to the subject of education.  A Vice-President is not, on the Lord President’s own showing, and cannot be, Minister for Education.  He cannot be made responsible for faults and neglects.  Now what we want in a Minister for Education is this—­a centre where we can fix the responsibility.”  This great and responsible officer, who presumably was to be a Cabinet Minister and change with the changes of administration, was to preside over the whole education of the country.  The Universities, the Public Schools, the Middle-Class Schools, and the Elementary Schools were all to be, in greater or less degree, subject to his sway.  The Minister was to be assisted by a Council of Education, “comprising, without regard to politics, the personages most proper to be heard on questions of public education.”  It was to be, like the Council at the India Office, consultative only, but the Minister was to be bound to take its opinion on all important measures.  It should be the special duty of this Council to advise on the graduation of schools, on the organization of examinations both in the schools and in the Universities, and to adjust them to one another.  The Universities were not to be increased in number, but all such anomalous