The Sun.
London, England, 1870-03-19 00:00:00

ARMY MEDICAL SCHOOL.

Mr. GROVE asked the_Secretaryrof State for War, wile-
therifwas desirable to retain the appointment of Assistant
Professors at the Army School at Netley.
Mr. CARDWELL said the very great advantage had been
evidenced from the arrangement. The officers employed
in the Corps had been appointed by the Director-General
for several years. It was not thought expedient to appoin-
staff-surjons for a short time. The regulations had beta
made for the efficiency of the science.

PUBLIC WORKS (INDIA).
Mr. KIN NAIRD asked the Under Secretary of *State ior
India whether the Viceroy had issued orders to stop fur-
ther expenditure on public works, and if such was the case
whether the orders have been app roved by the Home
Government.
Mr. GRANT DUFF replied that no such order had becu
applied by the Home Office,and none such had been issued
by the viceroy. There would be no objection to lay the
papers on the table.'
THE PEACE PRESERVATION BILL.

Mr. GLADSTONE stated that the second reading of the
Peace Preservation Bill stood for Monday, and he thought
it would be the opinion of the House that it was desirable
to go forward with the bill with promptitude, and in case
the state of the notice paper was such as to give the Go-
vernment the power of taking an order of the day on that
evening, they would propose to take the committee on the
Peace Preservation Bill on that evening, presuming it
would have been read a second time on Monday.
THE EDUCATILN BILL.

The debate on this Bill was resumed by Mr. HARCOU RT
and he in the first place referred to the religious difficulty,
which he said instead of being acknowledged and dealt
with had been ignored. There had been two attempts
from the Treasury Benches to deal with the religious
question. Both the Vice-President of the Council.
and _ the Chancellor of the Exchequer had dealt
with the subject, but in —a
manner which was unsatis-
factory. The Chancellor of the Exchequer understood
the religious difficulty and all other subjects, but he did
not care about it. The hon. member then declared that
the question was to be settled by "those who both ad-
mitted the existence of the religious difficulty and who
cared about its solution. The principle of the bill was
with reference to religious education throughout the
country. The character of the religious education
was to be absolutely and exclusively decided ed
a numerical majority in each locality. The amendment
which negatived that principle, involved a positiVe prin-
ciple, and was the opposite. He denied that it was a
question of. secularism, and the minority desired a religious
education as well as the majority. It was not a question
of majorities or minorities. So long as they used a fund
for which all the community paid, and so long as they
allowed a portion of that community to apply that fund to its
own purposes, they prevented the other p4rt f rom engaging

it,tney violated the principles of religious equality, an 1
acted contrary to the doctrines of political justice.
In his opinion the Conscience Clause, of which they hr. I
heard so much, was altogether a sham and a delusion ; it
was an illogical invention to justify an indefensible systcm. '
which it was proposed to adopt if they set 11-)
a denominational system of education. If they we e
going to tax the population and apply the proceeds eeually
to all, that would be a wise and acceptable provision ; but
if they were going to give the rate to the majolity,
that was most unfair, and the only thing then
open to us was to give secular education. He objected
to that portion of the bill under discussion, because it pro-
posed to tax all, and to allow the money to be disposed of
by the dominant sect. He objected to dominant sects, in
fact he objected to sects of every kind. (Hear, hear.) The bill
proposed to raise money upon the whole class, and then it
left it to be disposed of as he had already said, and he
thought that such a course was altogether unjustifiable.
The proposal in the bill to place power in the hands
of local boards would be to bring into existence
religious and irreligious public houses. On the election days
there would be all sorts of placards exhibited. They
would have " vote for Jones and the thirty-nine articles "
—(laughter) ; " vote for Smith and no creeds "—(laughter)
—and then there would. be religious discussions,
and a good deal of religious beer.—(Loud
laughter). In the afternoon there would be
innumerable conversions, and the following morn-
ing it would be found by some that on the
previous day they had held every phase of religious
opinion, known to the civilized world—(loud laughter.)
He ventured to say that the plan of serding out this
religious difficulty to be dealt with by the Town Councils
was, unworthy of the -English Parliament. The only
principle upon which they could deal with it was that of
religious equality. It had been said that they were
delaying the Bill. It was true, because they thought the
Bill waafalse in principle as far as the religious part 3va,„
concerned, and that it was impossible in practice. If they
had delayed the Bill it was not with the desire of impeding
the cause of education. .

Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY said he should like to know
what was the exact intention of .the resolution brought
forward by the hon. member for Birmingham. It appeared
to him to be one that was not at all clear or defined. Did
it mean that the House was so agreed on all the other
parts of the bill that the section in dispute was the only
one on which there was any difference of opinion? (Hear,
hear.) Or did it mean that it was the only vital-part of
the bill that called for the most profound debate before it
was decided because it was looked upon as the turning
point in the measure, and on which its promoters would
either stand or fall. He for one could not give the hon.
member for Birmingham his vote, because he looked
upon his amendment as one that ought not
to be accepted by Parliament. Then with respect -
to the appeal that had been made on the part of the
author of the bill. The right hon. gentleman looked upon
the appeal as the last that would be made to the voluntary
principle, but he did not seem to have that faith
which some had in the effect of that appeal. He
(Sir C. Adderley) believed that this appeal to the
voluntary principle would be most successful, and, in his
opinion, it would be quite sure to cover any deficiency that
; might arise. The year of grace would, in his opinion, be
most prolific, and all doubt that existed would
be dispelled and the strength and grandeur of
the principle would stand out in the most remarkable
manner. It had been said that if the voluntary principle
failed, what so rational as to cover any deficiency by local
rates. He thought that proposition one that might be ac-
cepted and acted on with safety, but at the same time
it was most :important that strong provision should be
taken for the manner in which those rates were to be
expended, because it was the question of rates that raised
the religious part of the question. There might, he agreed
with the right hon. member for Oxfordshire, be cases
were the minorities might think they were the subject oZ
oppression and hardship, but he thought that
might be got rid of by those minorities' on
appeal to the Privy Council. (Hear, hear.)
He called attention to the absolute necessity of all classes
of schools being brought within education department.
Ho hoped the House would bear in mind that it was
undesirable to have more compulsion in the matter of
education than was necessary. As soon as there was a
natural demand for education, education would go on.
Their object should rather be to stimulate and encourage
this demand, and not crush its growth. He thought
no class should be in any way compelled to attend
school, except in the most neglected and flagrant cases.
Mr. MuNDELLA said it was when -a child had been
neglected in the matter of education that he became pare
of the criminal class, when he received the education e.(
the street instead of the education of the school.
The hon. member said a better acquaintance
had led him to believe that the measure was
a noble one, capable of great expansion. Con-
sidering the difficulties and the apathy and the low
standard of what education ought to be, he was not sur-
prised at the speech of the hon. gentleman who had sat
down. It had been said that the public faith was not
pledged to the existence of the existing schools: but lie
should be one one of the most ungrateful men in the wor7(l
if he did not acknowledge their services. If the public
faith were not pledged to their maintenance public gratitude
was. lie did not complain of the demand of the hon.
member for Stroud for perfect religious equality, and his
opinion was that when the Church was free from her
trammels, she would have more power and comprehension.
With reference to the question of delay, he declared that
public opinion never yet had called upon any government
in the world to establish a system of National education so
loudly as in the present instance. He denied that a
year's delay would enable them to settle the question with
calmer minds, and he believed that such a delay would
leave another-generation in ignorance. He trusted that
the Government would not wait until more pressure was
put upon them. He believed that a delay would result,
not in a religious question, but in an irreligious question.
He was one of those who would never consent to the
exclusion of the Bible from the national schools. He had
received his education in a national school, and he thanked
God for the Biblical instruction he had received. Tho
conscience clause that he thought his right hon. friend
ought to concede was one for separating secular from reli-
gious teaching—(hear, hear). He could not compliment
the hon. member for Birmingham in bring-
iug forward his amendment, and Le should say no to it
whatever might be the consequences.
Sir 11. IthARE supported the amendment, in deference to a
generally expressed objection on the part of his constituents
to religious education in rate-supported schools, except
before or after school hours.
Sir SELWIN-IBBETSON expressed hearty approval of the
bill.

M.r JACOB BRIGHT urged the withdrawal of the amend-
ment, in order that the Liberal party might not be broken
up tefure going into committee.
Mr. J. HOWARD regretted being compelled to oppoke the
policy of the Government on this o2casion.
Colonel BERESFORD considered the bill as an irreligious
measure. He also thought it would paralyse voluntary
effort, and leave destitute children still unprovided for.
Mr. FAWCETT disapproved of the bill, as being an ex-
ample of permissive legislation which, as instanced in the
working of the Hours of Labour Bill and the Workshops
Act, bad usually proved inoperative.
Mr. COWPER-TEMPLE and Sir C. DILKE having spoken,
the former in favour of the bill, the latter of the amend-

went,
Mr. GLADSTONE said that the amendment proposed by
Mr. Dixon had produced au extremely interesting debate.
With regard to compulsory education he expressed his
opinion that it was inevitable, but deeply regretted that
its adoption should ly3 necessary in our present state
of civilisation and wealth. But the question whether it
should be resorted to or not was properly a matter to be
settled in committee ; and upon this and ether considera-
tions he appealed to the House to allow the bill to pass its
second reading unchallenged. The right hon gentleman
intimated that in that case the Government were disposed to
make some concessions regarding the conscience clause—to
which he admitted that a time clause would be preferable—
and the education of local minorities.
Mr. G. HARDY, on behalf of the Opposition, stated that in
supporting the bill hitherto they had not pledged themselves
to join the Government in carrying it through its remaining
stages.
Mr. Dixos withdrew the amendment, which was formally
negatived, and the bill was read a second time.
The remaining business was disposed of, and the House
adjourned.