The Sun.
London, England, 1853-07-21 00:00:00

pounds of sterling gold, sufficient to purchase many
gorgeous lounges for princely saloons. Its value
consisted in the knowledge of what it would afford
on close investigation ; and such may he the case I
with many establishments now comparatively un-
known to the general community.
It will be seen from our Parliamentary Report
that the gratifying announcement was made dur-
ing the Debate on the Attorneys' and Solicitors'
Certificate Duty Bill—which yesterday stood
among the orders for a second reading. The
Financial Minister was wise in his generation, for
by deferring the statement of his intentions he
succeeded in throwing out the Bill for the Exemp-
tion of legal practitioners from any annual duty
Ifor this session at least. The Right Hon. Gen-
tleman, who at this period of the session could
prevent either measure from being carried, plainly
intimated that he could not afford to give up the
two sources of revenue—to surrender 80,0001. to
legal practitioners in the shape of a total repeal
of the annual tax, and 80,0001. to the general
public in the shape of Advertisement Duties.
An option as to which would be taken was all
that he could offer. Under such circumstances,
there could be •no doubt as to which side the
scale would incline. The repeal of the Certificate
Duty would only benefit a class—a numerous and
influential, and, despite' the calumnies that have
been from time to time uttered, we will add,
meritorious and honourable class. The abolition
of the tax on publicity will benefit the community
at large. Every man who desires to make
known his wants of any description will par-
ticipate in the saving. Not a single bill of
costs would be abated a farthing in consequence of
the repeal of the Certificate Duty. The attendance
would still be 65.• Bd. to 13s. 4d., or 11., accord-
ing to the time occupied ; but ninety advertisers
out of a hundred will receive the full amount, and
in some instances even more than the ls. 6d. now
surrendered. There would be no compensation
worth speaking of for the abolition of the Certi-
ficate Duties; the business would not be stimulated
thereby, nor perhaps would it be very desirable
to increase litigation, even if practicable. All
that would flow into the Treasury would be the
Income Tax, or 80,0001., or some 24,0001., and
possibly a very trifling addition to the consump-
tion of taxable articles. We say a very trifling
addition, because attorneys would be seldom de-
barred from any of the luxuries or comforts
of life in consequence of the payment
of 81. or 61., as the case may be. Whereas
there would be an ample equivalent for the Ad-
vertisement Duties, not merely in increased con-
sumption of duty-paying articles, and in trades-
men's income tax, but more directly in the
increased returns from the paper duties and the
newspaper and supplement stamp duties. There
could not then have been a moment's hesitation as
to which of these taxes was thq greatest evil, and
which should be selected for repeal. We con-
gratulate, then, the community at large, more
especially public journalists, on this auspicious ter-
mination of the vexata questio. We congratulate
Mr. MILNER GIBSON and his able and energetic
associates on the triumphant issue of their incessant
and efficient exertions ; and, above all, we con-
gratulate the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the
removal of a rock ahead, on which, had he reck-
lessly steered, he might have materially damaged
the vessel of which he had undertaken the pilot-
age, and prevented its safe arrival at the desired
port.

We have in former articles explained the origin
and commented on the working of the Irish
National System. We have indicated the dan-
gers to which that system is exposed, between the
bitter hostility of one sect and" the lukewarm sup-
port of its rival. We have pointed out the appa-
rent inclination of the present Government to
tamper with its rules, if not to subvert its fun-
damental principle. It remains only to see how
this inclination has been evinced, and what are
the circumstances which have led to the retire-
ment of Archbishop WUATELEY from the Board.
It is well understood that among the friends
of so-called " secular" education (a term, by
the way, whose use has gone far to create
prejudices against the mode of teach in
which it professes to describe) there exists
a considerable diversity of opinion as to the ex-
tent to which the religious element should be
introduced. One F.) rty—the bond fide secularists—
content themselves with ignoring it altogether.

These, however, are few in number, and their
theory is generally repudiated. Others, again,
are satisfied with the reservation of certain days
and hours for combined moral and literary instruc-
tion, allowing religious teachers of all denomina-
tions to have free access to the schools at fixed
periods, as, for instance, on one day of the week,
and before and after school hours on other
days ; and stipulating only that, in such
teaching, the schoolmaster himself shall not
be required to take part, and that attendance
thereupon shall in no case be made compulsory.
A third section go still farther, and desire to see
introduced into the general teaching of the school
such religious lessons as can be given to all with-
out objection being raised by any sect. Between
these two last plans the National Board has at
various times oscillated. On its first institution,
a variety of works, partly of a religious character,
were prepared and issued with the sanction of the
highest authorities iu both the Protestant and
Roman Catholic Church. These, intended not as
substitutes for, but as supplementary to, other
religious instruction, were generally received into
the schools, and read, with the consent of
the Roman Catholic Archbishop, in school hours.
But, objection being taken iu some quarter:,
to a portion of these works, the Board, anxious
to guard against even the semblance of an en-
croachment on conscientious scruples, laid down
a rule to the effect that " where the parents of
any child objected to that child using a particular
book, its use in the case of that child should not
be insisted upon." Considering that so far as
the practical operation of the rule was concerned,
the word " priest" might have been substituted
for " parent"—and also that the concession here
made, if largely taken advantage of, must have
materially disturbed the discipline and uniformity
of the schools, it may, perhaps, be thought that
the Commissioners went too far in their efforts at
universal conciliation. But the fault, if such it
were, was on the right side. They mig'ht be taxed
with imprudence—at least they could not be taxed
with illiberality. Will it be credited that this
concession is now complained of as inadequate ?
and not only complained of, but actually done
away, a rule being substituted which, de facto,
allows the priest to make an index expurgatorius of
every work which ho may choose to disallow ? Yet
such, unless our authorities misinform us, is the
fact. By the regulation of 1853, if any parent
object, on behalf of his child, to the reading of any
book whatever, moral, literary, or scientific, that
book is thenceforth to be discontinuod in the
school where such complaint is ,madie ! We
presume that an appeal is left open to the Com-
missioners ; but the working of this rule
tends to give the parish priest an. absolute
veto on all such teaching as he may disi ipprove,
and thereby virtually to hand over to Nun the
entire management of the school. Small. wonder
that Archbishop
WHATELEY —no bigot,- nor a
friend to bigot
hould have refused t sanction
this innovation by continuing his attendance at
the Board. There is no disguising it, if this
policy be not speedily reversed- the so-called Na-
tional System will become merely
sectarian,in favour
vand
r
assume the form of an exclusive
grant
of Roman Catholic setrate chools. And mark the inus-
tice thus perpd. A j
public and powerful
society, composed of Irish Protestants Avb.o dislike
the administration of the Board, has for years
past been organising an educational system of its
own on purely Protestant principles. This society
is excluded from the benefit of Government assis-

tanc,e, on the ground that it is essentially so,
tarian, and thus does not fall within the scope of
the Act of 1832. Nothing can be fairer, so long

as this Act remains in force. But where is the
justice of continuing the exclusion, now that the
National Schools are made by recent legislation to
assume an equally one-sided character ? The
arguments of Messrs. HAMILTON, NAPIER, and
wily =wend 09 log DA the priA•