The Press. — London, England, 1855-05-12 00:00:00

MAY 12, 1855. Corrtspontturt. THE SCOTCH EDUCATION BILLS. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,—l would be obliged by your allowing me to make a few remarks on the Lord Advocate's Scotch Education Bill. It is evident that the English people and the English members of Parliament are not aware of the real nature of this scheme and of the vast injury which it will effect in the whole tone and character of education in Scotland. It is hardly fair that an educational experiment, rashly and crudely con cocted to satisfy the jealousy and clamour of a religious sect, should be made in Scotland, which has an admirable system, which has stood the test of the experience of three centuries, and is now in excellent working order, and is thoroughly adapted to the wants of every age; while England, which had never had a national system, remains without one. The English members are, no doubt, misled by the majority of Scotch members in favour of the bill into the belief that this is a fair representation of the opinion of Scotland. Such is very far from being the case, of which there is proof in the state of petitions for and against the measure. Had this been known before the second reading the result might have been different. It is as follows up to the 30th of April ; Against the Lord Advocate's Bill (of which 90 were signed officially or under seal), 306 petitions, with 21,418 signatures. Alteration of the Bill (of which 36 were signed officially or under seal), 291 petitions, with 16,119 signatures. For (of which 10 were official), 33 petitions, with 1,411 signatures. Against Mr. Stirling's Bill (of which 26 official), 52 peti• tions, with 3,138 signatures. Alteration (of which 10 official), 29 petitions, with 475 signatures. For (of which 121 official). 332 petitions, with 19,176 signatures. This bill of a Free-Church Lord Advocate is not approved of, except by the Free Church, and only heartily by a small section of that body ; and by many of its most important members it is decidedly opposed. It was, to use the mildest term, uncour teous in the Lord Advocate to refuse to delay the second reading till after the county meeting ; but in this he showed that he judged well for the success of his bill, seeing the expression of opinion by these meetings was almost unanimous in condemnation of it. This is in itself a pretty good testi:if the mode in which this measure is endeavoured to be pressed on the people of Scotland. It is generally set forth in educational proposals that the ratepayers shall be consulted; whereas in this plan of the Lord Advo cate the opinion of these parties has been entirely ignored, two thousand of them, representing the vast majority of the present ratepayers, having last year signed a declaration in favour of the existing system, and deprecating interference. The parochial schools of Scotland are truly national, religious, and unsectarian. They are open to all, and have, since their foundation, been ever attended by the children of all denominations with out complaint; and, while they are so thoroughly national and unsectarian, the religious element is secured by the only means by which it can be attained, by the connection of the schools with the Established Church. In this lies the gist of the controversy, the origo mali, the cause of the desire of the Free Church to overturn the system. We frankly acknowledge the difficulty of the settlement of the religious question in a system of national education. But here is the groat argument in favour of the Scotch parochial system, because it has been settled, and in the only satisfactory way. Between this system and the purely secular there is no middle scheme. Why, then, seek to disturb this valuable institution, through which Scotland has been raised to its high position? Rather aid and supplement it. Aid it by such a measure as that proposed by Mr. Stirling, and supplement it, if not by extending its principle, by such a scheme as the Lord Advocate's, or any other which ca n be devised. In any case, leave alone the existing system.—l am, sir, your very obedient servant, G. P. NECESSITY FOR POLITICAL ENERGY. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,—lt is observed by Lord Bacon that the human mind is invariably more affected by positives than by negatives ; and in nothing is the truth of this axiom more apparent than in politics, for no party ever flourishes unless it adopts a clear and distinct policy, and proposes some definite ends to be attained. Mere negative resistance, however necessary it may be at to I es, is utterly unfit for the watchword of a party, and when attempted with this view almost invariably fails ; for when evils are allowed to exist the attempt to remove them, however futile, is certain to command the sympathy of the unreflecting, and consequently of the majority, of mankind. To this cause is to be at. ttibllted the weakness of Conservatism dtging 429 THE PRESS. last few years; and though this policy may have been necessary hitherto, I cannot but express my opinion that the time has now arrived when the Conservative party should assert its own dignity, and, by laying down definite propositions for the conduct of the war and the management of finance, demand the support and encouragement of the nation at large. The chord has been struck by Sir E. Balwer in his noble definition of Conservatism, and your article on the War Minister in THE PRESS of Saturday last was a step in the right direction ; but we want bolder and clearer plans than have yet been enunciated either in Parliament or the press. The time for action has now arrived. The middle classes are disgusted by the inequality of the income tax, and the whole nation by the mismanagement of the war. Why, then, do not our leaders strike a decisive blow, and appeal to the country in support of measures which will rescue us from our disgrace and remove the injustice under which the middle classes are crushed? Our adver saries know the value of a " good cry ": why should we hesitate to imitate in part the tactics which led to their unhappy success? " Fas est ab hoste doceri." I am, sir, your obedient servant, Liverpool, May Bth, 1855. B. A CONSCRIPTION NECESSARY. TO THE EDITOR OF " THE PRESS." Sir,—The breaking up of the Vienna Congress, consequent on the refusal of Russia to accept the terms of England and France, is the most important circumstance which has occurred since the com mencement of the war. It proves that Russia has made up her mind to risk a war of the same length as European wars have generally been—that is to say, ten, twenty, or thirty years ; and, as her states men are remarkable for astuteness, we may take it for granted that they have pretty solid grounds for considering their country equal to the struggle. It is not likely that they have either over-estimated their own strength, or undervalued that of France and England ; and it is probable they know better than we do what is the course which Austria and Prussia will take. We, on our side, must make up our minds that we are now regularly embarked as principals in a great war, begun under more unfavorable auspices than any war in our history. The public in general admit this to be the true state of the case, and even our pococurante Ministry are beginning to see the momentous importance of the present crisis. But, as yet, nothing has been done at all commen surate to the exigencies involved in a position thus generally admitted. We are still playing at war; still attempting to carry on a great war as if it were a little one France has an army of upwards of half a million, the Russian army probably now exceeds a million; the British army does not number above one hundred thousand effective men. Austria and Prussia, still maintaining a threatening neutrality, have each six or seven hundred thousand men ready to join that side which may appear to promise them most advantage. But, while such is our poverty of troops, our wealth is probably little short of that of France, Russia, Austria, and Prussia together. As principals in the great European war, we do not therefore occupy the position we ought to occupy. Instead of being the most powerful, our army is the weakest. Can we expect our ally to send ungrudg ingly his two or three hundred thousand men, when we send our twenty or thirty thousand? Can we expect Russia to keep back her armed hordes in magnanimous deference to our impotence? Can we expect Austria and Prussia each to launch its army of half a million as our auxiliaries in a war in which we, the principals, can only bring one-tenth of the number into the field? We must alter our system if we are not to lose our position in the world. If we wish to secure our in dependence, our army must be quadrupled. To fight on equal terms with the peat powers, since fight we must, we must have an equal number of disciplined troops. It will not do to rely on our navy—that, meantime, may protect our coasts. But it is not a defensive war we are engaged in. We attack Russia aggres siveiy, and any sane policy must aim at the reduction of her power. Besides, we have our place to maintain even with our allies. We must keep ourselves great and powerful in order to be respected. But we are a commercial nation, whereas the other powers are military nations. We have been pos sessed with this unfortunate idea since Waterloo. It inducsd us to reduce our peace establishment until our troops were hardly numerous enough to perform the duties of sentries over our wide do minions; and hence those disasters which Wellington predicted, but which his contemporaries would not avert, have occurred. But, commercial nation or not, we are now at war, and we must, at least for the nonce, become a military nation. We must read bOeis our history, and arm, as of old, for one of 451 those great European struggles in which England, whether she would or not, has ever played a principal part. But, if we must become a military nation, we must adopt certain leading rules and principles which are involved in such a polity, and without which a nation could not be a military nation. One of these principles—the only one on which we will insist at present—is the Conscription. That forms part and parcel of every military State on the Continent, and is regarded by their statesmen as the palladium of national independence. We shall not be able to do without it. Already our recruiting is nearly at a stand-still. With our large bounties we have already exhausted the first draft of the " living valour" of the nation. The one hundred thousand behind them cannot be enlisted without double bounties ; the Exchequer will break down ere it can bribe five hundred thousand men to join the army, to say nothing of an equal number of militia. But, not only is a conscription recommended by universal European example, and by the nature of the present case, our own history points to the same method as indispensable. In the late war we had a modified conscription. The militia were chosen by ballot; and a militiaman is merely a soldier of the line in a state of transition. The " Army of Reserve " was levied solely by conscription. Our navy was manned by the press-gang. We cannot believe the statesmen of the time—who were fully as great men as our present Ministry—would have resorted to these methods if they could have done otherwise. But, unfortunately, we have not the same advan tages for recruiting as existed during the last war. In Ireland, pestilence and emigration have antici pated the recruiting-sergeant, and swept away a surplus population endowed with admirable instincts for fighting ; while our Highland glens, which used to swarm with a hardy population whose grand. fathers or fathers had been reivers, are now sheep walks and deer forests. The recruiting area is narrowed to the towns. The sergeant must appeal to classes naturally peaceful and accustomed to steady industry, and, generally, in the receipt of wages which it would break the heart of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to pay to the common soldier. We may, indeed, secure the loose fish of the town population ; but these are not numerous, and by no means warlike. But, in answer to these arguments, it will be said —the conscription is contrary to the English Consti tution. We answer, nothing is contrary to any Con stitution which is necessary to the preservation of the State. Nor is there any reason derived front any theory of society why a conscription should not be one of our institutions. It is the duty of the citizens to protect the State. That duty is only limited by the measure of the necessity. if the State calls for the personal service of her citizens, she has as much right to that as to their wealth. It is an cld, trite, copy-book maxim, " Dulce et decorum es: pro patrii mori." It is our duty to fight, nay, to die, for our country, as well as to pay for it. But the question is not one of principle, or even of duty; it is one of logical necessity. We wish to carry through the present war successfully, honour ably, safely. We cannot do so without a standing army of at least four hundred thousand men ; but cannot get this number by voluntary enlistment. We must do so, therefore, by compulsory enrolment, and the conscription is a perfectly equitable method of c crying this into effect.—Your most obedient servant, J. A. O. FROM THE LONDON GAZETTE. Tuesday, May 8. BANKRUPTS.—HasaY JOSEPH PRATT, New Bond•atreet, trunk maker—Tuommi PURDY, Great Yarmouth, Norfolk, wino and spirit merchant—EßASMUS SYMONDS, Great Bell-alley, City, merchant JOSEPH WHITELEY BIOADHSAU, Green °whirs, Yorkshire, woollen manufacturer—Lavin Foorsa, Goole, York shire, ironmonger—Jou?' BitAusußY, Sheffield, joinery —HEN ay FRED. NEWELL., Bradford, Yorkshire, lineudraper THOMAS SPURRIER, Walsall, Dwdurdahiro, maltater—JOHN HOER/CM Salford, Lancashire, grocer—Ttimus SOUTHWARD, Bolton-le- T.kneashire. corn meroliant--T0011• 1 1 THOMPSON, Sun. derhuTd. bookseller. SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION. Rowitrr Lsciuz,nolo shawl), Itenfrowshkre, wright. Friday, May 11. - - _ BAN BRIJ PTS.—PoraicH FINN, Camden-town, linendraper -010101 BELL, Holland-street, Brixton, tailor—JOHN OEOIOI CLANS, Liverpool, merchant and shipowner—JAMES DALTON. Newton-heoth, near Manchester, emery grinder—CHAN-LSO CONDRON, Macclesfield, silk manufacturer --,JOHN LOrls,htrand, printer and publisher—Thou/A Gator, Salisbury, clothier and woollen draper—Moaostt EVANS, Aberdare, Glamorganshire, grocer—Dxvln DAVIES, Jun., Neatb, Olantorganshlre, Hallway contractor—Vitt-Lux Powsu., York, linendraper—Jout Au SADT IiAOZITADT, Kinpten.upon-Hull, licensed victualler — noncom THOMAS and J• 1118 DINZS, Manchester, dt7selters— CHARLES Gasses, Charzington-street, St.. Potterer statiWILLI oner— AM E D WIN STANLEY Baoosss , Loughborough, hosier— JACIESON, late of Dewsbury, Yorkshire, woollen cloth manufac. turer—JoHN BITCHING, Clayton , Br adford, grocer—ALsxstmen JOHN HEATH, Gloucester, boot and shoe maker—JOHN Baoows„ Weston-super-Mare, Somersetabire, wine and sprit merchant — WILLIAM JEFFERSON and THOMAS DIXON, Jorrow , Durham a lk a li manufacturers —Wu-Ws* Cocitsw., Battersea, licenete4 vict SCOTCH SEQUESTRATION.—DoSALD MISS, justior 4 Inverness, iroasonger.