The Press.
London, England, 1855-03-24 00:00:00

270

set forth in detail; yesterday the measure
came forth in its perfect shape; and so far
as we can judge from the testimonies which
reach us on all sides—from the judicious
silence of o

friends, and
received by 1

tine project
stood a bef

More comp

noniinational
offensive to

secular system—resembling, so far as - the
difference between the two countries allows,

the Irish plan as first established by Lord
DERBY—it bids fair to conciliate the support
of all moderate men, while giving just grounds
of hostility to the partisans of extreme

opinions.
The features of the scheme are by this
time so well known, that we content our

selves with answering a few obvious objec-
tions. The necessity of local Education
Boards we assume as undisputed. A Govern-
ment system of education, carried on without
the aid of these, is simply centralisation in its
most unmitigated form. " But why take the
" union as your area of taxation?" Because
the country is too large. An Education Board
legislating for the schools of Lancashire would
be nothing less than a provincial Parliament,
while the majority of parishes, especially in rural
districts, could not furnish the requisite pro
portion of educated men competent to the
task, and having sufficient disposable leisure.
Moreover, by the needless multiplication of
such boards the labour of the centraloffice would
be increased beyond all reasonable proportion;
and the difficulty of providing for the children of
different denominations also becomes greater,
as the territorial extent included under one
management diminishes. These considers
tions, on which space forbids us to enlarge,
justify Sir JOHN PAXINOTON'S choice of the
poor-law union, instead of the county or parish,
as his basis of operations.
" But why make the bill permissive only,
" and not compulsory ?" We reply, because
the mildest means should be tried first ; be-
cause no solution of the educational difficulty
can be expected to give satisfaction to all
localities ; and, by the option of withdrawing
from a participation in the scheme, many
persons and many districts may be in-
duced to assent to provisions which, if
made binding on them, they would have
opposed to the utmost ; lastly, because an
exact precedent for the course adopted may
be found in the Rural Police Act now in force,
which passed through Parliament, and was
accepted by the people, solely in virtue of its
permissive character. " Here is our plan—
' take it if you please—reject it if you like—try
" it yourselves, or wait till your neighbours
" have tried it, and till you can see how it
" works." Such is Sir JouN's reasonable
address to the various unions of England,
and it is not easy to find fault with an offer
couched in terms so little dictatorial.
" But free schools will supersede all others,
" establishing a virtual monopoly ; while the
" impossibility of deciding what religion shall
" be taught in the new schools forms an in-
" superable obstacle to that part of the plan."
Our answer is—neither the one proviso nor
the other are inseparable from the bill.
Whether the school-pence, now contributed
to the amount of above 400,0001. yearly,
should be dispensed with or no, is a
question on which we do not choose
to offer an opinion, and are perhaps unable to
form one. It is a question of practical expo
rience—of convenience—partly also of local
prejudice or feeling. We suggest, but with
diffidence and doubt, that perhaps the option
might be left to the local hoards, at least for a
time, and so the working of the free and paying
schools mutually be compared. The new
schools, though an important element in Sir
JOHN'S project, are rather an addition to, than
an integral part of, his other reforms. Even
curtailed of the power to set up these, his bill
remains the largest, as well as the most truly
liberal, that has yet been laid, with any hope
of carrying it out, on the table of the House of
Commons.
Our comments on the religious part of the
measure—we mean the compromise, for such it

THE PRESS.

is, between the claims of the Church and those
of the laity of all sects—we reserve for another
occasion.

re.

THE #II4IA. SERVICE.
Tits. Ittlia hivi bee, wofully mismanage.
lifri9t
it was ed o\ik sey% unths too late. A a
yery d4vient kii Ore ;so much so that,
instead 4 its Nom mplement of 130,000]
men, ow numbe,‘;` ttiNuilied is only 44,00.
Last week has broutAk vo light a new blunder.
It turns out that we 'liva no right to keep the
44,000 men to their colours. The vast majority
of them were enlisted under the act of 1852,
and are not liable in the present war to em-
bodied service. After fifty-six days' training,
they are perfectly at liberty to leave their regi-
ments and return home, and neither their
colonel nor the Government have the right to
stop them. This is not a mere opinion, or the
view of a section of politicians. It has been
officially stated in Parliament by the War
Minister himself. . _ _

By the act of 1852 the Militia was raised for
twenty-one days' training, which might be
extended to fifty-six days in the year by an
Order of the Queen in Council. It could only
be embodied in case of invasion. A change
was introduced by the act of last May, by
which the liability to embodiment was ex-
Wiped to every time of war. The men en-
listed under the first act are only liable to the
first kind of service; those raised after the
14th of May are under the obligation of the
latter. It became necessary to embody a
number of regiments, raised almost entirely
under the first act. The obvious course was
to induce the meu to volunteer from the one
service into the other. How was it to be ac-
complished ? Would a letter from the colonel
be sufficient evidence of the wishes of the
regiment ? Would a general huzzaiug and
tossing up caps be enough? Clearly the
volunteering must be more precise. Every
man must signify his wish, must be re-enlisted
for the new service, and re-attested.
Government had their attention called to
the point, and their professions were very
fair. They would only take those who volun-
teered. Only a part of each regiment should
be embodied, and every individual should be
allowed to make his choice. These promises
were soon forgotten. They called out regi-
ments which never volunteered ; they com-
pelled the men to serve against their will ;
they never thought of re-enlistment and re-
attestment; and they refused leave of absence
to all who had not two children. Great dis-
satisfaction was caused. Men deserted. They
were brought back, tried by court-martial, and
punished. In some instances the railway
stations had to be watched, so frequent were
the attempts of the men to return home.
Lord PANMURE asserts that faith was kept
with the militiamen, because men with two
children were allowed to be discharged ; and
because at a later period a certain discretion
was vested in the colonels. But, granted that
faith was kept with the men who had two
children, does that warrant a breach of faith
with the men who had not two children ?
Granted that a small minority were sent home
at their own request, does that give the right
to detain the large majority against their will?
Does good faith with the married excuse bad
faith towards the unmarried? Lord PANMURZ
asserts that militiamen were perfectly aware
that service was optional. This is not the fact.
Up to the present time it has been always
imagined that service was compulsory. A
proof may be found in the punishments for
desertion. Desertion is a crime which cannot
exist where the service is optional. If a man
has a right to go away he cannot be sentenced
for deserting. But many instances have oc-
curred in which men who had served more
than fifty-six days have been tried and sen-
tenced to one or even two months' imprison
meat, with hard labour and part solitary
confinement. Is there a doubt of the correct-
ness of this statement? It can speedily be
set at rest by a return of the courts-martial in
embodied militia regiments since the 14th of
May for the crime of desertion, with the
punishments awarded, and a statement in

SATURDAY,

each case whether the deserter had volunteered
for embodied service or had not served fifty.
six days. What shall we say as to the
justice 4 sue 4 INAltom? Militia officers
would cerWnlY never have indicted them if
they 4 d sown 'tlieN there was no right to
comAel . service.
The eon equenil con e.im moment's cond.
deration. ut of tb I, ~ embodied militia-
men,mt
40, were etakilt, ,,before the 14th of
May. these oiAiii iti i ' home at their
pleasert. egiments of 00 men are in danger
of being left viith only 200. The efficiency of
the force may be destroyed, and its numbers
reduced to ridiculous weakness. The effect
on discipline will be even worse. What man
will remain when he is punished or imagines
himself aggrieved ? What hold will the
officers have over their men ? It is scarcely
possible to conceive a state of things more
calculated to weaken the militia service and to
render it inefficient and useless to the country.
It happens at a crisis when perfect effiniency
and numerical strength is of the utmost
importance. Now, if ever, the Militia is needed
to put forth all its strength, and at this
very moment, by a series of blunders, it is in
peril of utterly breaking down.
Who is the cause of the blunders ? Is no
one to be called to account? Is not some-
one's reputation as a Minister seriously
damaged by their discovery ? They proceed
from Lord Palmerston. He had the sole care
of the Militia. He brought in the bill of last
May, and directed and superintended the em•
bodiment of the regiments. This is the state
into which his wisdom, and energy, and busi•
uess habits, have brought a force which is our
only army of reserve ; and he must have the
whole discredit of the result.

Dppunente, Vie loud mancgyrio of
d the to At in wlctA it wa
- the HouS -gsnerally, Talli legi -
t. of a sink r liaract,v, e
Iter chat‘ 4 ultingite success.
>rehensivg - an the cabled de-
al eMem— ow proetW iiiAd les%
1
o men's fee ingd than' the pure'