The Sun.
London, England, 1845-07-09 00:00:00

SALM() FI;4IEBIES BILL.

Mr. PAKINGTON said that the Committee on the Salmon
Fi heries Bill had been unable to bring their labours to a con-
clusion this session, and therefore begged that the second read-
ing of the Bill should be postponed to next session.
UNIVERSITIES (SCOTLAND) BILL.
On the motion that the Universities (Scotland) Bill be read
a second time,
Mr. MACAULEY said that on the occasion of the first in-
troduction of the measure her Majesty's Ministers hail con-
sulted together and had consented that the promoters of the
Bill should have means to bring in the Bill. It was
expected that the opposition was over. It was ex
pected that this important and salutary measure would
have been allowed to pass. It had, however, been intimated
that it was the intention of her Majesty's Governmeat to resist
the further progress of the Bill. Were the present an ordinary
case he should not have been so much surprised at that unex-
pected intimation ; at the same time, however, his confidence
in the strength of his case was so great that he could
not think that the oppositio ► of the Government would
avail in defeating the proposed measure. He had
been sent to that House by the inhabitants of a great
city, which was in former times the greatest city of a noble
and independent country, and it still continued to be the intel-
lectual metropolis of a free and intellectual people. The
University had been so constituted that its renown during
several centuries had progressed gradually to the furthest
ends of the world as a great school of moral and
intellectual science. That noble institution was now threatened
with ignominious ruin by the narrow-minded and short-
sighted policy of the Government, which was resolved
on its destruction without even the miserable excuse of fana-
ticism. He pleaded for all the great academical institutions
of Scotland, and, while pleading for those institutions, he felt.
satisfied he should be heard with patience by every
man who loved learning, and who valued religious liberty.
He said, firstly, that this Bill was founded upon sound prin-
ciples ; and he said, secondly, that even if the principle of this
Bill was not one which could I.e defendt d as generally sound,
still there were special circumstances in the case of Scotland
which would make it their duty to pass the Bill. In the first
place then he said the principle was sound, and whoever might
controvert this proposition, of this he was sure, that it was not
for her Alajesty to do so, for it was only the other day
that they had come down to that House, and proposed
a system of secular education altogether divested of religion or
religious instruction, and tests of every description. Yes,
they brought in and defended that measure against zealous
members of the Church of England, and they defended it, too,
against the prelates of the Church of Rome, and it was only
the day before yesterday that they refused to accept
one of the most moderate tests he had ever seen.
Was it seriously meant—was it desirable that they sl:ould
sink below the aborigines of New South Wales? if educa-
tion was an evil, he was sure no man in his senses would give
it his support. He supported the Irish College Bill,
the principle of which and that of the Bill be-
fore the House was one and the same.—( Hear, hear.)
Scotland had a tight to know from those who brought in the
Irish College Bill why they called sipon them to throw out this
Bill. In Scotland there was no clamour against the Universi-
' tie, of England, or against the test taken by English professors ;
and Hun. Gentlemen opposite well knew that whether they sent
missions of peace to Scotland or not, Scotland wouA in every
extremity be found faithful to the common cause of the empire—
( Cheers )—and he was confident on that account, that any.hing
bestowed on other parts of the empire, ought not
to be withheld from that country.—( Hear and cheers.)
In Scotland, as well as in Ireland, the Established
o
iebpp,e:re:ortut
hetChurchoaahtrptaeitskoi
oenn
proportion
taot
tslifhtnitntsli
membersteet
the
esc3f
greatt. hcotuuah rtteachoh; hsnoplroi
proportion
Presbyterianohlot
rrahtetei
ii.arnnepm inns;
to professors
pi
thel talpyes
rls
oflo,
f.wettde'
hosei tpdserholyeeer s
trusted
rihofounett.
yiut
Ireland,
eeadi
stcasi
had
in
he
d
n-
cjoe that the youth of Scotland were less safe?
Tne Bill bad been founded on the same principle as that al-
lowed by Ministers. But if they did hold the principle
of the Bill to be generally inapplicable, he could show
a peculiar teas. n for adopting it in this case. He
could not cone: ive how any person at all valuing
consistency, and who voted for the motion of the
Hon. Alember for Devonport, could refuse to vote for this
Bill, nor could he understand how any Hon. Member voting
for the Irish Colleges Bill could refuse to vote for
Academical education in Scotland had some peculiar character.
istics. It differed entirely from that of England and Ireland. The