The Sun.
London, England, 1855-04-28 00:00:00

that the charges which had been made through the
honourable member for Aylesbury—if he wishes it to be
put in that way—and which were false and calumnious—
!. should have expected that a due respect to himself would
have led him to acknowledge that' he had been misled, and
to offer an apology to Lord Hardinge. (Cheers.) Sir, the
hon. member has brought charges against men and classes.
He has brought charges against my noble friend at the
head of the army which are unfounded and calumnious.
(Cheers.) He has been made, no doubt, the mouthpiece of
others, who wish to undermine and destroy the character
of that distinguished man. Sir, my Lord Hardinge is not a
man who has risen by favour or accident to the situation
which he holds. Lord Hardinge is essentially a soldier.
He has won his way to the honourable position he holds
through many a long campaign, and many a hard-fought
battle. Be has shed his blood in the field of action,
and there is no man who, by his long experience and
his distinguished services, is more prominently pointed
out than he for the proud and honourable position in
which he has been placed. (Hear, hear, and cheers.) I
can say so, because he was placed there by others, not by
us, but the Government which conferred upon him the
office of Commanding-in-Chief did themselves honour by
their selection. (Hear.) Why, is it likely that a man who
owes his position, as Lord Hardinge does, to merit and
long service—who has passed his life with soldiers —who
has seen them in every climate of the globe, and in every
position, whether of camp, of fatigue, of battle, of march,
or of danger from foe or disease—is it likely that such a
man should have his feelings so perverted by the power he
possesses, as to be induced, for some trumpery motives of
personal affection or political influence, to undermine the
efficiency of that army upon the glory of which his fame
has been resting, and upon the efficiency of which his
honour is to be maintained ? I say, again, that the charges
against Lerd Hardinge are as unfounded as they are de-
void of any reasonable presumption in their favour.
Then the honourable member brings a charge against
classes. He says the army is filled with the sons and
relatives of the aristocracy, and that it is a shame
it should be so. I say to the contrary. I say
it is an honour to the aristocracy of this country that they
flock to the ranks of the army, and enrol themselves in the
navy; that when the danger is to be encountered and
honour won, they are ever to be found foremost in defend-
ing our interests and maintaining our dignity. (Hear.)
Depend upon it when the day comes, if ever it should
come, when the aristocracy of a 'great country shall ab-
stain from entering the ranki of its army and navy—when
they shall seek the pleasures of private life and pass their
days in luxury and idleness, instead of encountering the
danger of battle, and submitting to the fatigues of cam-
paigns—l say, whenever you see a nation come to that state,
then indeed you may predict its fall, then you may raise your
voices in reproach against classes that would be so destitute
of true patriotism; then you may say that abuses exist,and
may raise popular odium against a degenerate aristocracy.
I am proud to say that that reproach cannot be cast upon
the upper classes of England, and instead of those acts to
which the honourable member refers being acts which i inply
any censure upon the aristocracy, I accept them as so many
testimonies in favour of the public spirit and manlyifeeling
which characterise the gentry of England. (Cheers.)
THE INDIAN ARMY.

income tax upon the poorer classes, and as one which bore
with tenfold force upon those who had large families.
Mr. MACGREGOR said thsa, finding that were so few
members present, and such apathy on their part to pre-
vent a press of taxation, he should under the circumstances
withdraw his motion. _ _

forego the liepe of such a measure, under which ::11 creeds
might meet on common ground, free from every particle of
religions dissension, iu order that the exclusive manage-
ment of the schools might melt with the Established Church
of Scotland, which numbered less than one-third of the
inhabitants ? It was, in fact, proposed by this bill that
nineteen-twentieths of the inhabitants of many of the
counties of Scotland should be placed under the instruc-
tion of persons from whom they differed in religious
opinions, and who represented merely the opinions of
a very small fraction of the people. The proposal was
not only inconsistent with justice, but inimical to the
success of the measure which was now proposed. (Hear,
hear.) They had really some claims on the attention and
consideration of the English members on this subject. He
appealed to their generosity and just feelings, for it was
not owing to any difference of religious opinions among
the people that Scotland was split up into so many sec-
tions ; the secessions which had taken place wore, in
reality, traceable to the conduct of the Parliament of this
country, both at the time of the Union and subsequent to
that event. He trusted that the House of Commons would
not now, by its conduct, tend to perpetuate those divisions
among the youth of Scotland, but would grant to the Scotch
people at least the benefit of common schools. (Hear.)
Mr. BAILLIE opposed the bill, on the ground that its
clauses were not in accordance with the principle con-
tained in the preamble of the bill, which was that the
people of Scotland should be provided with the means of
religious education. The effect of the clauses would be to
place the school under the management of the claairnian
of the board, but there was no guarantee in the bill as to
the religious character or opinions of the chairman, and the
system of education might therefore be an entirely secular
one. The Free Church of Scotland opposed the bill on
the ground that the schoolmasters to be appointed were
required to be of the Established Church of Scotland ;
they also opposed it on the ground that the appointment
of those schoolmasters rested with the heritors and clerks
of sessions ; and a third ground of objection was the pro-
posed supervision of the Presbyters. He thought that a
bill might be introduced which would remove a great many
of the objections which he entertained against the bill,
and would also obtain for it the support of the Free
Church. The Synod of the Free Church of Glasgow had
recently agreed to resolutions disapproving of the pro-
posed bill, and he felt it his duty to oppose the measure
on the grounds stated in those resolutions, and which had
already been referred to by hon. members in the course of
the debate. The Government might, perhaps, be able to
carry the bill through the House of Commons; but if they
succeeded in doing so, he warned them not to ascribe their
success to any change of public'opinion on the subject, and
expressed his strong opinion that, even if passed through
that house it would not pass through the ordeal of the
other house. (Hear.)
Mr. BAXTER said that the hon. member who hu,d just
resumed his seat had said that this was a Free-Church
measure. Now that was not a correct statement, for he
believed that it was much more ardently desired by the
Dissenters than the Free Church--

The house then went into committee on the bill.

On clause 1,
Dr. MICHELL said he thought the budget was as good
a one as could have been produced under the circum-
stances, had it not been for the tax upon chicory. He com-
plained that the tax was proposed and explained, not by
the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but by the Secretary for
the Treasury. He asserted that the tax was one of protec-
tion, but he did not see how it was to be collected. He
thought some explanation ought to have been given before
the tax was imposed. He complained that the tax was not
alluded to by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his finan-
cial statement, but that it had been placed on the resolu-
tions by the Secretary for the Treasury. He was not
aware that this was the custom of the houe, and he hoped
that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would withdraw it.
Mr. WILSON said if the hon. member had paid atten-
tion to the question he would have found there was no
duty upon raw chicory, and the duty placed upon ground
chicory was merely to prevent coffee being imported from
abroad under the guise of chicory.
Dr. MICHELL said that the chicory must be ground
before it could be used, and that there was then a duty
upon it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said there
was no Customs duty upon raw chicory imported from
abroad, still less any Excise duty upon that grown in the
country. An objection to the present state of the law,
which had been forcibly urged upon him by a most influ-
ential deputation, was, that there was not sufficient pro-
tection for those interested in coffee against the competi-
tion of chicory.
Dr. MICHELL would be satisfied if the words "or
ground" were left out.
After a few words from Mr. MACGREGOR, several al-
terations in the clause were agreed to.
On the motion that the clause as amended do stand part
of the bill,

Mr. GkEGSON proposed to add to the clause the fol-
lowing words :—" That the duties Le made payable on
coffee, sugar, &c., until the sth day of April inclusive
which shall first happen after the end of twelve months
from the date of a definite treaty of peace with Russia ;
from which last-mentioned date the same duties shall be
paid as were payable previous to the passing of this act."
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
seemed to him that the words proposed by the hon. mem-
ber would not have the effect which he had intended. If
it were the wish of the committee that the additional
sugar duty should be a war duty, it should be done by
special enactment. It was better not to press the amend-
ment then, but to bring it up on the third rending.
Mr. HANKEY ti acted that his honourable friend, after
the observation of the right honourable gentleman, would
withdraw his amendment. He considered that the
colonial interest should have some hope held out to it that
after the war it would be put on the same footing as before
the war.

Mr. BAILLIE said, that on the contrary, he had said
that he did not think the Free Church desired this bill.
Mr. BAXTER was sorry that he should have uninten-
tionally mistaken the purport of the hon. gentleman's re-
marks. The hen, gentleman had dwelt upon the fact that
the Free Church Synod of Glasgow and Ayr had pronounced
against this bill. But he did not tell the house that on the
occasion when these resolutions were passed not mdre than
23 out of 300 members of the synod attended the meeting.
Great stress bad been laid during the debate upon the be-
nefit conferred upon Scotland by these schools. He was
not about to deny this, bat it did not follow that because
these schools, under the direction of the Church, bad been
of great advantage to the country, when that Church em-
braced the great mass of the people in its fold, they should
be attended with equal advantages at a tithe when the
Established Church did not comprise more than one-third
of the people. It was admitted that the Church of Eng-
land could not substantiate a claim to the superintendence
of the education of the people, and he could not under-
stand why they should give to the Church of Scotland
powers which they refused to that of England. He be-
lieved that this was regarded by moderate men as a fair
arrangement, and as one which would be likely to place
this question on a satisfactory basis. Nor was this merely
the opinion of the Free Church and the Dissenters, for he
believed that a large body of the lay adherents of the
Church of Scotland were highly favourable to the bill of
his right hon. friend the Lord Advocate. He believed
that if the house rejected this bill hon. gentlemen opposite
would be the first to discover that they had made a serious
mistake in taking that course. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. JOHNSTONE objected to this bill, because, while
it took away the existing securities for religious teaching
in the schools, it substituted nose in their place. It was
proposed to remove both from the schoolmaster and the in-
spector all those religious tests which had operated so bene-
ficially since the schools had been in operation, but it did
not contain a single provision supplying their place with
any other arrangement calculated to secure the same end.

Mr. HILDYARD thought they should not be antici-
pating these questions ; but if they did, they should take
as much care of the interests of the colonists as they did of
foreigners.
Mr. BLACKBURN suggested that the Government
should undertake to introduce a clause on the subject to
which the hon. member had referred.

In reply to a question from Sir E. PERRY,
Lord PATAIERSTON ssid lie would' consult with the
Chancellor of the Exchequer as to when the discussion
could be taken on the motion of the hon. gentleman, with
respect to the constitution of the Indian army.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER undertook,
as it was the wish of the house, to introduce a clause for
the purpose suggested by the hon. member.
Captain LAFFAN called attention to the fact that
while uniform duties were levied upon tea and coffee,
without any distinction of the different prices paid for
those articles per pound, discriminating duties were levied
upon sugars, which had caused great dissatisfaction. The
colonists complained, that the discriminating duty was
kept up for the benefit of the London refiners. It prevented
the manufacture or a superior class of sugars in the West
Indies, because the duty on such sugars under the discri-
minating system would amount to a prohibitive duty.
The clause was then agreed to.
Clause 2, which has reference to the Customs duties on
spirits, was also agreed to.
Clause 3 and 6 were likewise agreed to, the chairman
was ordered to report the bill with amendments, and the
house resumed.

Lord DUNCAN said that this bill was intendel to be
one for the general and not the partial education of the
people of Scotland. Now, while one gentleman had opposed
it on the ground that it was a Free-Church bill, another had
opposed it, as he said, on the very grounds on which the
Free Church were hostile to it. The objections which bad
been raised to the bill were, as these rival objections might
show, rather on matters of detail than of principle. Well,
then, looking to the difficulty of legislating on such a sub-
ject, he must appeal to the house to pass the second read-
ing, and. allow the bill to go into committee, where such
objections could be considered much better than in that
stage. It was no doubt true that Scotland had long been
favourably distinguished for the education of its people;
bat the report of the commission for inquiry into the sani-
tary condition of the labouring classes of Scotland, shoved
conclusively that there were serious edacational deficien-
cies' both in the agricultural districts and in the towns.
Were they then justified in withholding from that country
a measure of general education so obviously necessary ? It
was sought by hon. gentlemen on the opposite side of the
house to give the Established Church the entire control of the
education of the people. But with what justice could that
be done when her members did not include more than one-
third of the popul ttion ? The principles of the bill were so
well known that he would not detain the house by en-
larging upon them. All parties were united in the deter-
mination to secure a truly national and comprehensive
system of education ; such a system would be secured by
the present bill, and he hoped therefore the second reading
would be passed by a large intk ority. (Hear.)
Sir J. PAKINGT')N said, that after giving the best at-
tention he could to the measure before the house, he failed
to see in it anything which could justify its supporters in
appealing to him to give it surpert. It varied in many re-
spects from the measure be had proposed for England. One
leading feature of his scheme was to maintain and en-
courage every existing means of education. The bill of
the Lord Advocate, on the other hand, was intended to
destroy a system of schools. He proposed to give every
school in England a religious ..haracter. The Lord Advo-
cate provided no guarantee in his bill for the continuance
of religious teaching in the national schools. Nor did he
give any security for the religious faith of the teacher.
The present system of education in Scotland, as was proved
by the late census, was supported by the great bulk of the
people. There were more schools connected with the
Established Church than with any other religious deno-
mination. Moreover, the paro,.thial schools were conducted
on the broadest principles of toleration. They were open
to Roman Catholics as well as Protestants. In fact, Scot-
land enjoyed a system of education as near that which he
wished to establish in England as could possibly ibe ima-
gined. For what reason, therefore, was he asked to de-
stroy the existing system in Scotland? They were told
that the present bill was supported by the Free Church.
That was not a recommendation in its favour. The bill,
if adopted, would have the effect of widening the breach
between the Established and Free Churches, would in-
crease the religious animosities which prevailed in Scot-
land, and at the same time would not improve in any re-
spect whatever the existing system of education. New, r-
theless, he was indisposed to oppose the bill as a whole.
He admitted that increased means of education were re-
quired in the larger towns and cities of Scotland, and if
the Lord Advocate would introduce a measure for that
purpose he should give it his cordial support. Further,
if the hon. and learned lord could show that even is the
rural districts of the country the means of education were
deficient, he would be glad to support him in any measure
which he might introduce for the supplemental schools,
such as those which he had proposed with reference to
England. (Hear.)

The LORD ADVOCATE said he would ask the house to
consider the questions of what was proposed to be done by
the bill, how that was to be done, and what were the
grounds on which it was proposed to throw out the bill on
the second reading. The bill proposed to reform the parish
schools, to ascertain the educational wants of the people, and
to supply those wants as they arose. It was a great sub-
ject of congratulation and encouragement that on the last
two of those objects, which wereby far the most important,
the Scotch members of every caste were agreed. He had
heard no proposal from the other side to supply those
wants. He had heard expressions of strong conviction
that something must be done, and he had been told in
plain terms that if he would only allow the parish schools
to remain as they were, hon. members on that side would
be willing to accept the measure. (Hear, hear.) Now,
Government had 4tevised a measure for the supply of the
wants of the great towns and populous districts, in which
the Scotch representatives on one side of the house ac-
quiesced, and to which those on the other agreed. Why,
then, was it not to pass ? (Hear, hear.) He knew hon.
members opposite would tell him that that was his own
fault, asking him why he did not leave the parish schools
as they were, and deal solely with the large towns, as to
the remedy for which they were all agreed. He was asked
why he did not apply the same roform tothe parish schools
as he did to the town schools, and why he did not intro-
duce the popular element there. But the popular element
was introduced there. Were there no parties interested
in a parish schoolmaster being a proper person but the
landholders, who did not send their children to his school?
He was told that he was pulling down the parish schools.
Nothing could be further from his wishes or intentions.
(Cheers.) On the contrary, it was perfectly clear that the
Government had done all that the right hon. member for
Midhurst• and others had proposed should be done ; they
had dealt separately with thegreat towns and the parochial
schools. If those impediments were always to arise in the
way of education; if they found that no concession- would
produce conciliatory results ; if the landholders were to be
for ever deaf to the voice of publio opinion and experience
and blind to the course of events, the time might come
when •it might be the duty of those who had in their
hands measures of educational reform entirely and
utterly to remodel the system which seemed now to be
the only obstacle in the way of its own reform.
(Cheers.) He would now state the three reasons why
it seemed to him quite impossible to allow things to
remain on their present footing. In the first place, he quite
agreed with the right hon. gentleman that no partial or
temporary cure need be tried. Reform must be applied
upon a system or not at all. The right hon. gentleman
said the voluntary system had failed, and so it had. He
also said that the denominational system had placed schools
in the rich districts, and left the poor unprovided, and so
it had. Unless things were done on a system, they need
not be attempted at all. Now, it was impossible to leave
the schools on their present footing and do anything on a
practical system. They could not afford the expense, and
they could not adopt the machinery. The intention of the
bill was that they should know from year to year where
schools were required, and that by a uniform machinery
those schools should come into existence. If the parish
schools were to he taken out of that system the whole thing
would be destroyed. But there was a second practical
reason that appeared to hie. to be conclusive. There were
between 700 and 800 Free Church Schools in Scotland, all
receiving denominational aid from the Committee of Coun-
cil on Education ;
and if the schools were to remain on
their present footing they must all receive such aid. The
result wee, that where one school would be quite sufficient
they were keeping up
two, incurring a double expense, and
squandering the public money. His object in the present
bill was to supersede the denominational by a more com-
prehensive system; but it was his belief that if the house
were not prepared to adopts rational system on that basis,
then the denominational was the only system which could
be taken instead. They could not have both the systems, 4

'l-4Vlrk SUN, LONDON, SATURI3AY EVENING, APRIL 28 1855

and, therefore, to mate the present scheme operative for
the towns, and not fur the parishes, was impossible. Lut
there was a third reason, and a convincing one. Shook!
they settle the question by bringing in a bill solely for the
great towns ? Should they settle the question by leaving
the parish schools in their present state? Did any Scotch
member believe that the constitution of the parish schools
could remain as it was? A fresh agitation would be got up in
favour of the parish schools, for their constitution was utterly
d;ssonant to common sense. Let them look at the northern
districts, where the census showed that of the people nine-
teen twentieths were Free Church, and but one-twentieth
Churchmen. Was there any reason for saying that the parish
schoolmaster must be a member of the Established Church
when nineteen-twentieths of the children would not go to his
school ? Now, if the present measure were rejected it was
not because they refused to deal separately with a part of the
subject ; it was because hon. gentlemen would not accept a
measure which they admitted to be beneficial, for in two par-
ticulars only was it that the bill did not square exaetly'with
the objects they had in view. With reference to the right
hon. gentleman and the educational measure he proposed, he
(the Lord Advocate) would say this much, that the right lion.
gentleman frankly admitted the main point. If they «-,a13
legislating for England, he (the Lord Advocate) would admit
that there was a great deal in what the right hon. gentleman
said. But the right hon. gentleman forgot they were legis-
lating, for Scotland—a country which would accept of nothing
but a religious education. (Hear.) Accordingly the GoVern-
ment had it in tl:rAr power to do in Scotland what could not
be done elsewhere— they could rely to a very great extent
upon the religious feeling of the community. Had he mot
known that the result of the passing of the bill he proposed
would be that the Bible and Catechism would be taught in

the schools just as before, he should not have brougiii for-
ward the measure. (Hear.) But the opposition of c stain
Scotch members rested entirely on the ground that the aro-
chial schools should be left entirely in the hands of tea hers
belonging to the Established Church. That was not at till in
consonance with the opinions of the right hon. gentleman,
who had said that he would respect the feelings of the majo-
rity of the people in a district, and support education in ac-
cordance with those feelings. Then, if it could be shown that
in the parishes of Scotland the religion of a denomination was
one way and the religion of the masses another, the right hon.
gentleman could not refuse to give his assent to the me sure
On no ground could honourable gentlemen opposite! vote
against the second reading of this bill except becausb the
parochial schools were to be thrown open to persons of all
denominations. They saw that these schools were part of an
ecclesiastical establishment. What right had hon. gentlemen
opposite to claim to represent the whole of the Church of
Scotland, as though the two dissenting branches did not hold
the doctrines of Knox and the other reformers ? The Presby-
terian citadel was strangely garrisoned with foreign troops,
when Episcopalians were using their best to keep out the
very men for whose protection it was designed. WhUt did
this bill intend to do? The parish schools had done much for
Scotland, not because they were administered in the best
way, or the discipline was the purest, or the provision for the
masters most lucrative, or the qualifications of the masters
the highest. They had done what they had in spite of defi-
ciencies in these respects. What was proved was how'much
might be done by not trustine, schools to optional volUntary
efforts, but by the State discharging its duty and establishing
schools where they were required. (Hear.) In spite of a great
deal of mismanagement, of a pittance to the schoolmasters
absolutely, contemptible, of supervision at many times most
superficial, of discipline at many times most lax, these sbhools
had done much for Scotland, and he now asked the hoUse to
proceed on that principle, and to extend its bounds, t 6 have
a national system for the towns as well as for the country, to
reform the parish schools, and to create new ones where they
were required. (Cheers). The first things proposed to bh done
in regard to the parochial schools were Co increase the salaries
of the masters and to provide a ready mode of removing an
improper master. To these honourable gentlemen opposite
assented. Next it was proposed that they should be under in-
spection. That was a reform which had been recommended
by the General Assembly, and the 'value of which was evi-
denced by the flourishing state of the schools in Banff and"
Murray, to which the hon. member so frequently alluded. In
one of the reports of the inspectors of these schools he found
that when they first examined the masters of these schools
only twenty-four out of eighty passed the examination. In
the following year thirty more passed, but the large propor-
tion were unable to pass the examination. From the course of
the debate it might be supposed that it was proposed to alter
the mode of electing the schoolmasters, and to take the ma.
nagement of the schools out of the hands in which it was now
vested. All that was proposed, however, was that the
minister and the heritors, who had been described as the
props of the Established Church, should be allowed to elect
the best man whom they could find, whether or not he be-
longed to the Church. They would be allowed to elect a
schoolmaster from the Free Church, and was it not desirable
that, where the majority of the inhabitants of a district held
opinions which prevented their sending their children to an
Established Church school, they should have a master whose
opinions were consonant with their own. The Established
Church, though still influential, did not include more than
one-third of the population, and nothing could be more dan-
gerous to it than to endeavour to assume the attributes of a
power without reality, and to maintain a supremacy 'which
had long been destroyed. He believed that tile best thing
for the interest of the Established Church of Scotland would
be that this bill should pass, because it was impossible to say
what heart-burnings would arise if it was longer delayed.
With regard to the denominational clauses, the effect of
passing the bill would be to de away with denominational
grants to Presbyterian congregations. In large towns where
there were such large masses of the Catholic population, liviug
in ignorance, it would be a fair matter for the consideration
of the Privy Council whether in such localities it might 'not
be right to continue these grants for their education, hilt that
was left for the decision of the Privy Council. What:would
be the result of the division he could-not foresee, but he hoped
the house would assent to the second reading of the bill. If
it did, it would be a victory, not over any denomination, or
in favour of one party and against another—it would be a
victory over a common enemy, the worst enemy a Statecould
have—a victory purchased with no blood and watered with no
tears, carrying desolation to no happy home, but one 'which
would make tho heart of the widow and the fatherless re-
joice. They would build up for their country what might
be truly called " the cheap defence of nations"—a barrier
which would hold back the tide of ignorance and crime for
years to come. (Cheers.)
Mr. WAVOLE rose to oppose this measure, not because
he was opposed to all reform, but because in this case the re-
form went too far. The system of education in Scotland had,
according to the acts of Council, advanced the country " in
godliness, and civility, learning, and knowledge ;" by it the
people had been enabled to go from the rural districts to the
colleges, and many of them had afterwards risen to the highest
eminence and renown ; and by it the people generally had
been trained morally, intellectually, and religiously to the dis-
charge of the great duties of life, The Lord-Advocate said
that the people were tired of, or at least desired to change,
this system. The returns of education showed that one in
74 of the population obtained education by means of ;this
system ; 1,800 heritors had signed a petition praying that
this system might be extended, but not subverted ; and of the
33 counties into which Scotland was divided 19 or 20 had, at
their annual meetings, declared their opposition to this bill,
and only four had given in their adhesion to it. These facts wire
reasons why the existing system ought not to be subverted,
although he was of opinion that it might be improved. What
ought to be done, was not to subvert the existing system, but
to extend and enlarge, to amend and improve it. The board
was to consist of secular, official, and political people, and this
was the sort of persons who were to be introduced to the people
of Scotland, contrary to their wishes, and to the desires of
the heritors, The Lord-Advocate had said that the real
secret of the opposition was, Vie endeavour to maintain a u'e-
less test, and to secure the superintendence of the presbytery.
It was asked why should not they do away with tests ? Be-
cause they gave the only guarantee that could be had in Scot-
land that the masters would maintain the religious creed and
doctrine consonant with those held by the people of that
country. The arguments with respect to tests did not apply
to Scotland in the same way as they applied to England.
The Lord-Advocate knew that he only two years ago had to
consider the question of tests in reference to the professors
in the Scotch universities, and in that case the Lord-Advo-
cate's test was applied in a similar manner to that which
applies to the schoolmasters. Then came the other argument,
of doing away with the superintendence• of the presbytery;
and on that he might remind the Lard-Advocate that last year
he told the house that of late years, owing to the 'conflict that
had been going on, increased vigilance had taken place in the
management of schools, and he said that the people might
get back to their old lethargy, and that they should he
roused. (Hear.) But the Lord-Advocate would have the
house reform not only what was bad, but what was good-
reform not only institutions which had failed, but institutions
which had worked well, This was what the Lord-Advocate
, was attempting to do by this bill. (Hear, bear.) He (Me.
Walpole) agreed with the Lord-Advocate that it was wise to
increase the salaries of schoolmasters. He also agreed with him
that it was just to provide for their retired allowances. He
agreed likewise that it was well to extend the system to those
places where a deficiency existed. He especially agreed with
him on the necessity of establishing reformatory schools in
Scotland and elsewhere, though he thought that in doing this
the charge should be made national and not local. (Hear.)
Agreeing thus in many of tile objects of the bill, he entreated
the Lord-Advocate to divide the bill into parts, the one con-
taining the provisions to which so many agreed, and the other
the provisions upon which so many diffe:ed. He could tell
the Lord-Advocate that he would never succeed in reconciling
he house to the objectionable parts of the measure, and that
he would only aggravate dissensions by persisting in it. If
he felt confident that the object of the bill was simply to sup-
ply the deficiency of education, and not to subvert the system
now in existence, he *ould give it his support ; but he be-
lieved that it was intended to effect the total subversion of a
system that had done more for the religious and moral instruc-
tion
of the people of that country than any other system ever
established in any other country ever effected, and therefore
he was compelled to vote against it. (Cheers.)
Mr. HADFIELD said that no provision having been made
in the bill for the Catholics, who were one-fifth of the popu-
lation of Scotland, they were virtually excluded, and that
exclusion, he contended, was fatal to the measure. It was an
unnecessary bill on every side, and by adopting it they would
be doing injury to the cause of education in Scotland. He
advised the house to allow the people of Scotland to educate
themselves, and they would do it cheaper and better than it
would be done under this bill.

The house then divided. Tho numbers were—
For the second reading
Against it
Majority for the second reading......... 39
The bill was then ordered to be committed.
FRIENDLY SOCIETIES BILL.

210
...4 171

This bill was recommitted, and several verbal amendments
were agreed to.

On. clause 39,
Mr, SCHOLEFIELD proposed to leave out the proviso at
the end of the clause.

Mr. WILSON objected to the proposition, on the ground
that building and other societies had so extended their ope-
rations that they were no longer legitimate exceptions, and
that under their operations the revenue suffered consider-
ably.

The committee Bien divided, when the numbers were—
For the proviso
Against
Majority

... 2G
... -11

• The clause was then agreed to.
Lord EBRINGTON moved the addition of a clause to
exempt militiamen, in certain cases, from forfeiture of their
interest in a benefit society.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to the
clause.

After some discussion, in which Mr. Atherton, Mr. Spooner,
Mr. Sotheron, and Sir G. Grey took part.
Lord PALMERSTON observed that the object of the clause
was to protect friendly societies at the expense of the militia-
men. It was a mistake to suppose that when a man entered
the militia he bound himself to go and serve in such cam-
paigns as the Crimean. All that a militiaman could be called
upon to do was to serve, at his own option, at Such places as
Gibraltar, Corfu, and garrisons in the Mediterranean, where
the prospects of health were just as good as at home.
Mr. HENLEY doubted whether the chances of health
were as good in the Places named by the noblo lord as at
home, and he therefore hoped some time would be given for
considering the proposal contained in this clause.
Mr. MOWBRAY cited the case of an assurance office, which
would not insure the life of a militiaman, who was liable to
be called upon to serve in the tropics or at the seat of war,