asked he President of the Board of Trade, What has been done by the London Water Companies, the Board of Trade, and the metropolitan authorities respectively, under Sections 17 to 22 of the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, regarding regulations as to fittings; and, how soon those regulations will be in operation, so that application may be made for a constant supply?

in reply, said, the metropolitan water companies had complied with the requirements of the Metropolitan Water Act of last Session by submitting a set of regulations, which they had all agreed upon, to the Board of Trade and to the different metropolitan authorities. Until confirmed by the Board of Trade, however, these regulations were of no force whatever, and an inquiry must first be held by the Board of Trade, at which the metropolitan authorities and the metropolitan water companies themselves would have a right to be heard. A Circular had been sent to the metropolitan authorities inviting them to take the necessary steps preliminary to this inquiry by sending in any objections which they desired to offer to the proposed regulations. At the request of the Corporation of London and the Metropolitan Board of Works the time for sending in objections to these regulations had been somewhat extended—namely, to the 28th of this month. After that date, when the objections had been received, the inquiry—necessarily a somewhat lengthened one—would be held; and when, as the result of that inquiry, the regulations had been confirmed, the companies, after four months' notice, would be required to give a constant supply of water, unless they could show, within a time limited from the giving of such notice, that more than one-fifth of the premises in the particular district were not supplied with proper fittings.

asked, whether the right hon. Gentleman was able to form any opintion as to how long the inquiry would last?

said, he was quite unable to say.

asked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether the case of Lieutenant March, British Vice Consul at Santander, has been brought before him; and, whether he can state to the House the nature and object of the Regulation issued by him excluding from the benefits of "The Pensions Commutation Act" Officers holding Government appointments without regard to the nature and pay of such appointments?

, in reply, said, the granting of leave to commute a pension was a matter of discretion with the Government, to be exercised with a reasonable regard to the interests of the public service. The Treasury would not, as a general rule, allow persons employed in the public service to commute their half-pay, because they would in such a case be receiving the full benefit of the pension on half-pay, and at the same time be in receipt of full pay. It was in accordance with this rule that Lieutenant March had not been allowed to commute his half-pay.

asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is his intention to proceed with the Committee on the above-named Bill that night?

said, he wished to make an appeal to hon. Members who had placed on the Paper numerous and voluminous Notices of Instructions and Amendments in reference to this Bill, which stood for Committee that evening. Those Instructions and Amendments would entirely alter the scope of the Bill as it came down from the other House. He could not complain of that, because he had himself given Notice of an Instruction and Amendments which would considerably enlarge the scope of the measure. But he would withdraw his Instruction and Amendments if those other hon. Members would do the same, and he would also undertake to bring in another Bill embodying Amendments suggested by the Church Commissioners, and which the Government could accept. Unless some such course were adopted, it would be impossible to carry through the House that Bill, which it was important should be passed without delay. He would endeavour to press forward the second Bill as much as he could, because the Commissioners were anxious that some Amendments which they had suggested should be passed this Session. Hon. Members, by the arrangement which he proposed, and to which he now invited their consideration, would have a more convenient opportunity of placing their views before the House. It would entirely depend on the course which hon. Members might take, whether he should ask the House to proceed with the Committee on the Bill that night or not.

, in rising to move—

"That, having regard to the principles and history of the past educational legislation and practice of Scotland, which provided for instruction in the Holy Scriptures in the public schools as an essential part of education, this House, while desirous of passing a measure during the present Session for the improvement of education in Scotland, is of opinion that the law and practice of Scotland in this respect should he continued by provisions in the Bill now before the House,"

said, that the time that had elapsed since the second reading of the Bill had allowed the opportunity of obtaining an expression of public opinion, and he would venture to say that never had there been a measure which had elicited so strong and so numerous an opposition to its provisions as this. The objections relating to the managing body which was to superintend the education in Scotland, to the provisions relating to the interests of the schoolmasters, and, above all, to the provisions affecting the religious system which had hitherto characterized education in Scotland. In the past year there were 903 Petitions against the Bill, signed by about 70,000 persons, while there were in favour of the Bill only 51 Petitions, signed by 4,800 persons. Of course, on both sides there were what might be called corporate Petitions. In the present year the Petitions against the Bill out and out were 174, representing signatures to the number of 33,000; but the Petitions were generally couched in this form—they prayed for alterations in the Bill, with a view to secure the religious system which had hitherto prevailed in Scotland, and if that prayer was not granted that the Bill should be rejected. The Petitioners did not wish to prevent the examination of its provisions and the amendment of these provisions in Committee. Petitions had been presented to the number of 1,491 this year, representing 190,000 persons, if not altogether upwards of 200,000, praying for alterations in this sense. There was to be deducted from that number, however, Petitions signed by 30,000 persons connected with the Birmingham League, who took great interest in Scotch education, and who objected to this Bill because it contained the very slightest approach to religious instruction. The result, therefore, was this—that there were upwards of 200,000 Petitioners against the provisions of the Bill—and the House must keep this in view in considering the number of persons who signed the Petitions, that the population of Scotland was only one-sixth of the population of England—the signatures therefore represented a very large body of Petitioners. He did not think that any Imperial subject interesting the three Kingdoms had secured proportionately a larger number of Petitions against it. It was, therefore, quite clear that there was a strong feeling in Scotland in reference to the provisions of this Bill, and instead of the people of Scotland appearing satisfied with it, they were very much dissatisfied, and prayed the House to make material alterations in the Bill. These Petitions were the result of many public meetings which had been held for the purpose of discussing the Bill, and of innumerable publications which had been issued by the Press treating of it. Men of the highest position and intelligence had taken part on the same side. A meeting was held lately at Edinburgh, presided over by a nobleman whose name was very much respected, not only in Scotland, but wherever he was known—the Duke of Buccleuch—and it was attended by many very influential persons, who were dissatisfied with the destructive tendency of the Bill, especially as regarded religious instruction. Men of all Churches took part in the discussions; men connected with the Established Church, the Free Church, and the Episcopalian; and even the laity belonging to the United Presbyterian body—there was not the same feeling among the clergy of that Church—had taken part against it. The Established Churches connected with the parish and other schools in Scotland had expressed their dissatisfaction with the provisions of the Bill, and in particular with respect to the provisions relating to religious instruction. They thought it essential that there should be a power in the Established Church to give religious instruction. He might quote the opinion of one who might be regarded as an impartial witness in this matter, as not being connected with any of the Presbyterian Churches—namely, Bishop Eden, the Primus of the Episcopal Church in Scotland. That dignitary said—

"That it was impossible to compare the scheme of education proposed by this Bill with the system which has so long prevailed in the parish schools of Scotland without feeling that, however unintentional on the part of the framers, the measure must prove a great blow and heavy discouragement to religious education, and as such run counter to the old traditionary feelings of the country. The real distinction between the two schemes is, that the one is a scheme for imparting secular education based on religion, the other a scheme for a similar object, but professedly not based on religion."

That being so, he had thought it right to bring before the House the Resolution of which he had given Notice. It was not moved by him with any party object, but solely to secure the important object which he held to be essential to education, and which very numerous Petitioners had prayed the House to secure to them. When in 1868 he sought the suffrages of the constituency he had the honour to represent, he was defeated by a small majority; but when in 1869 he again sought their confidence, he stated—

"A marked feature in the education which has hitherto prevailed in our parochial and in most of our other schools, and which I am desirous should be continued, has been that the children have had the opportunity of obtaining instruction in religion of a scriptural and unsectarian character. Whilst I hold that no educational measure can be considered satisfactory which does not acknowledge such religious instruction as part of the national system, I am most anxious to see provision made that, as heretofore, no violence shall be done to conscientious convictions, the right of the parent to withdraw his child from such religious instruction being clearly recognized."

He then had the good fortune to be returned by the large majority of 500; so that he was now only redeeming his pledge to his constituency in submitting the Resolution which he was laying before the House. He did not desire to throw any obstruction in the way of passing this Bill. There were rumours that the object of the Resolution was to throw out the Bill; but he certainly had not only no such intention, but his Motion was one which clearly admitted of the Bill being proceeded with. The only effect of the passing of the Resolution would be that the Government would have an opportunity of reconsidering the provisions of the Bill, having regard to the opinions of the House if the Resolution was assented to—for the measure could not be passed through Committee before the Whitsuntide holidays. He was not there to advocate the interests of any Church, or to maintain the right of the Established Church to continue in the management of the schools. He was of opinion they had been deprived of the management to a great extent in 1861; and what he wanted was to get the Resolution passed—not in the interests of any Church, but in the interest of the religious instruction which had hitherto prevailed in Scotland. The Government had promised to consider the suggestions he had made, but no Amendments had been introduced. They could not be wedded to this Bill, because in 1869 they had brought in a Bill very different in character, inasmuch as it did not overturn the provisions for religious instruction which had hitherto existed in Scotland. That Bill received the sanction of this House, and he hoped the Government were not so wedded to the present Bill that they would not adopt the system which passed the House in 1869, and which did not interfere with religious instruction. It was not necessary, in the view which he took of the position of education in Scotland, for him to raise the abstract question as to the duty of the Government in regard to religion in State-aided schools. He himself had a very strong view on that question. If Government took the management of education out of the hands of parents, and even compelled parents to send their children to school, then Government assumed the position of parents; and as parents were bound to educate their children religiously, so Government was bound to take care that education was given religiously. It was quite possible, at the same time, to do this with the utmost toleration of the prejudices of those parents who objected to their children receiving such instruction. It had been always the practice in Scotland to exempt children whose parents objected to receive such instruction, and the manner in which the Conscience Clause had been carried out had never been made the subject of complaint in any way whatever. It was no answer to this proposition that a different custom had been followed in other countries; but this seemed to be the view of the Home Secretary, who, in addressing his constituents, said—

"He could not but think that the large experience gained during the great discussions on the English Bill had been of great service in the preparation of the Scotch Bill. He ventured to assert as much last year, and he was taken to task by some severe critics, who charged him with a desire to import into the Scotch Bill the principles of the English Bill. Nothing could be further from his mind or the minds of his Colleagues. They, as practical men, felt that the case of England and the case of Scotland were entirely different. In England it was necessary to create a system, whereas in Scotland there was a national system already, and all that required to be done was to build on the foundations thus afforded, and to extend the existing system in the spirit in which it was originally created."

That was in reference to the course of instruction given in the schools.

said, that religious instruction had always been a part of general education in Scotland, so that he Sad now the authority of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary for saying that that course of instruction was right. He wished the House to see how the system in Scotland had been "originally created," to use the words of the Home Secretary. The first Act which bore on the subject was one passed at the suggestion, he had no doubt, of John Knox and his colleagues, in 1567, and which proceeded in these terms—

"Forsameikle as be all laws and constitutions it is provided that the youth be brocht up and instructed in the fear of God and gude maneris, and gif it be otherwise it is tinsel baith of their bodies and saules gif God's word be not ruted in them. Quheirfor, our Soveraigne Lorde, with advise of my Lorde Regent, hes statute and ordained that all schulis to burgh and land, and all universities and colleges, be reformed; and that nane be permitted or admitted to have chairge and cure their in time cuming, nor instruct the youth privatelie or openlie, but sik as sall be tryed be the superintendentes or visitoures of the kirke."

This was a public declaration by the Legislature of Scotland that it was necessary that the youth should be brought up in the fear of God; and the means by which it was sought to attain this end was by putting religious instruction under the superintendence of the Church. It was thought that if they placed schools under the superintendence of the Church they would secure that religion that the Preamble declared to be for the good of the community. When in 1606 the government of the Church became Episcopal, provision was made that these schools should be under the management of the Bishops; and when in 1662 the Presbyterian again became the State religion, the schools were placed under the management of the Presbytery. In 1696 provision was made for payments by the proprietors for the support of the schools; and it was then declared that all former statutes concerning the schools should be ratified and confirmed. In 1803 the salaries of the schoolmasters were increased, and provisions were made with reference to the admission of the schoolmaster to his office. By section 16 it was provided that before admission to his office the Presbytery should—

"Take trial of his sufficiency for the office in respect of morality and religion, and of such branches of literature as by the majority of heritors and minister shall be deemed most necessary and important for the parish."

The teaching of religion, therefore, formed one of the duties which were intrusted to schoolmasters, whilst the branches of literature that were to be taught were left to the Presbytery to decide. It was clear, therefore, that the tendency of these statutes was that the teaching of religion formed one of the essential duties of schoolmasters. Up to 1861 schoolmasters had been required to sign a formula or profession of faith; but in that year an Act was passed to relieve schoolmasters from the necessity of signing the formula of the Established Church, and it was declared that any person might be admitted as a schoolmaster even although he should not sign such a formula; but as this was getting rid to a certain extent, of the security for religious teaching and the religious character of the schoolmaster, it was declared that he should sign a declaration in the following terms:—

"I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, and declare, that, as schoolmaster of the parochial school at in the parish of, and in the discharge of the said office, I will never endeavour, directly or indirectly, to teach or inculcate any opinions opposed to the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures, or to the doctrines contained in the Shorter Catechism agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, and approved by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in the year One thousand six hundred and forty-eight; and that I will faithfully conform thereto in my teaching of the said school."

This measure was introduced by the then Lord Advocate (Mr. Moncrieff), and on the Motion for the second reading he said that the one object of the Bill was to abolish the exclusive test that the schoolmasters should belong to the Established Church, whilst on the other hand it provided that they should teach the Holy Scriptures and the Shorter Catechism as set forth by the Westminster Confession of Faith. He had heard it disputed that the effect of this provision of 1861 was to secure that there should be religious instruction given by the schoolmaster; but it must be borne in mind how strong were the words of the Lord Advocate upon that point. The 13th clause of the Act of 1861 provided that there might be a prosecution at the instance of the Presbytery for a contravention of the declaration by the schoolmasters; but no such violation ever occurred. Such were the whole of the enactments bearing upon the teaching of religion in the parish schools in Scotland. It had been said that the Presbytery could exclude the teaching of religion in the parish schools of Scotland; but he ventured, as a lawyer, to say that this was not correct before 1861, and it could not be said to be correct after 1861. They had the opinion of the Lord Advocate of that day that it was the intention to provide for the teaching of religion; and then it was provided that if any schoolmaster had attempted to evade his duty he should be compelled to discharge it or lose his place.

There is no such prosecution possible under that clause.

thought that the 13th clause authorized the Presbytery to lay a complaint against the schoolmaster who failed to comply with the declaration.

They might complain to the Secretary of State.

Anyhow, that statute contemplated a prosecution for the breach of the declaration. So much with regard to legislation. And he now came to what had been the practice or custom as to religious teaching in Scotland. The Holy Scriptures had been taught in all schools in Scotland, and the Westminster Catechism was also used there; and they had also been carried into all the Presbyterian Nonconformist schools. The practice, however, was to respect the rights of parents, because any parent who objected to such instruction could withdraw his child from it. There was at present in Glasgow—where it might be expected there would be found the greatest number of persons who would avail themselves of this right—a school connected with the Established Church which had 1,300 pupils, and of these only 22 were withdrawn when religious instruction was given. There were, therefore, 98 out of every 100 who desired to themselves of religious teaching. The roman Catholics also availed themselves of the parish schools in which religious instruction was given, and said that they preferred that system to the one proposed to be established under the present Bill. The Commissioners on Scotch Education said—

"It has been seen already that the parochial school partakes of the character which is common to all Presbyterian schools, of being entirely un-denominational as respects the attendance of scholars. In this respect there never has been in Scotland any material difficulty arising from what is called the religious or conscience element. So long ago as 1829 the Education Committee of the General Assembly reported that 'the teachers had been directed not to press on the Roman Catholic children any instruction to which their parents or their priest might object, as interfering with the principles of their own religion.' In 1832 the same Committee again recurred to the subject, and state that 'by this toleration, these Protestant schools have been everywhere acceptable and attractive to the Catholic population.'"

This continued to be the case down to the present day; and so carefully had the schoolmasters respected the rights of conscience that they had never given any cause of complaint either to Catholics or to Nonconformists. Last year the Lord Advocate, in introducing his Education Bill, said that—

"The religious difficulty had not, and never had, any practical existence in Scotland. That had never obtained, by any provision of law, a Conscience Clause in any public schools: nevertheless they had always been conducted as if a very precise clause had been in operation."—[3 Hansard, cciv. 208.]

Again, this year he said—

"When it was said that there had been no religious difficulty in Scotland, what was meant was that the parents of all the children attending these public schools were quite content with the present system, and that no heart burnings existed upon this point. "—[3 Hansard, ccix. 261.]

If the parents of the children were in this position, what necessity was there to make any change? The present Bill recited the Acts of Parliament upon the subject, including the Act of 1861, which contained the provision regarding the declaration, and it repealed them all absolutely. Having thus made a tabula rasa, and got rid of that system of Scotch education which had been considered so advantageous, great credit was taken that whilst the Bill did not prescribe religion, it did not proscribe it. It was true that the Bill did not directly and absolutely proscribe religious instruction, though much was done in it to discountenance and discourage such instruction—it was mentioned solely for the purpose of being excluded and set aside. That being so, he thought it was necessary and proper, before they went into Committee upon the Bill, that they should express their opinions in reference to the basis upon which it was formed. It was of great importance, before they went into details, that they should consider the question of principle—because, if they should settle the principle in accordance with the view that he considered right, they would afterwards be much better able to deal with the details. The mode of dealing with this question now was very different from the mode adopted when previous Bills were brought in by Liberal Governments. In 1854 there was a Bill for amending the law relating to education in Scotland, brought in by the then Lord Advocate (Mr. Moncrieff), and this was its Preamble—

"Whereas, instruction in the principles of religious knowledge and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, as heretofore in use in the parochial and other schools in Scotland, is consonant to the opinions and religious profession of the great body of the people, while at the same time ordinary secular instruction has been and should be available to children of all denominations."

This was a distinct recognition of the principle of religious instruction being consonant to the opinions of the great body of the people; and accordingly the 27th clause of the Bill contained a distinct provision that the schoolmaster should give instruction at definite hours in religion. It was not left to be determined by any local authority, but it was the subject of direct legislative enactment. In the present Bill there was no duty whatever laid upon the schoolmaster to provide religious instruction, and there was no provision for the removal of teachers for irreligion. The educationalists of Scotland had hitherto successfully resisted being brought under the Revised Code of 1862, because it was thought that the basis of education in Scotland would be framed like that of England. At present the grants from the Privy Council were made under the Act of 1861, which provided that they should be given to schools in which there was religious teaching; and no one in Scotland objected to the operation of that provision. In the present Bill there was an express declaration that none of the Privy Council grants should be given for the purpose of religious instruction; and the Conscience Clause was one which he ventured to think imposed the greatest restriction in reference to religion. The English Conscience Clause said that the time or times during which religious instruction was given at any meeting of the school should be either at the beginning or at the end, or at the beginning and at the end of such meeting, and should be inserted in a time-table to be approved by the Education Department, and which table should be kept permanently and conspicuously affixed in every school-room, and any scholar might be withdrawn by his parents from such instruction without forfeiting any of the other benefits of the school. In the Bill then before the House it was enacted by the 65th clause that in every school secular instruction should continue during four hours at the least, and no religious instruction should be given and no religious observance should take place except before the commencement or after the termination of the secular instruction, and that the time for religious instruction and for religious observances, if any, in school should be specified on a table provided by the Scotch Education Department. The provision permitted religious instruction only on one occasion, which was a much narrower provision than that in the English Bill. Under the present Bill it would be impossible to give religious instruction in a school in which there were five or six classes composed of pupils of different degrees of progress in secular and in religious knowledge, so that each class would require separate teaching. This was a provision that was very much opposed to the practice that had hitherto prevailed in Scotland. The provision would prevent any religious instruction in infant schools where the duration of attendance was only about four hours a-day, and it would also produce the same result in reference to night schools. The effect of such a system as this would be inconsistent with that which prevailed in Scotland, and would prove destructive both to the existing schools and religious teaching in Scotland. In Scotland they had a feeling of jealousy of the Privy Council, especially after the declaration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in relation to this subject of education. In the speech of the right hon. Gentleman to the people of Halifax, a few months ago, the right hon. Gentleman used the following language:—

"It is the duty of Government to have the children of the State educated just as it is to establish a police, and to see to the safety of society. That being the case the Government did not in any degree discharge its duty by delegating it, not to persons chosen by themselves, but to any number of persons who came forward to found schools. That system I was never weary of denouncing; but I am sorry to say that in so denouncing it I met with very little, if any, support in Parliament, and not being able otherwise to reform the system, I, in conjunction with my Colleague, Earl Granville, hit on the scheme of payment by results, which had a particular value of its own, because it tended to ensure a sufficient quantity of work for the money paid for it. But it had another and further advantage. By paying for secular results, and giving no payment at all for religious instruction, we adopted a system tending very forcibly to the secularisation of education. I look upon this as a great benefit."

But the right hon. Gentleman the other night expressed some sympathy with the secularists in this respect when he said that he would not have religious instruction given by the schoolmasters. Religion, too, was to be excluded as one of the subjects of examination in schools. The Bill of 1869 provided that Inspectors should not be entitled to inspect in regard to religion except when specially requested. But the present Bill did not even allow that privilege. The Inspectors were absolutely forbidden to make any investigation as to the religious teaching of the schools, even though it should be distasteful, neither to the parents of the children nor to the managers of the schools. There was no provision whatever for the religious instruction of the poor. The 66th clause of the Bill seemed to be expressly framed in order to escape from the religious difficulty raised by the 25th clause of the English Act; for it simply proposed to enact that school boards should be bound to provide instruction in reading, writing, and arithmetic. He submitted that there was no desire to change the system which had existed so long and was recognized so long as having conferred great benefits on Scotland. It had been said that the question whether the Bible should or should not be read at these schools might be fairly left to the local boards. Now, the people of Scotland did not wish to make the "Bible" or "No Bible" an electioneering cry. They felt that they were living in a Christian country, where the Bible was recognized as the basis of all morality and public order, and it was the duty of every Christian State to furnish every facility possible for the communication of religious instruction to the young and the ignorant. The Bill of 1854 contained a direct provision for the instruction of children in Holy Scriptures. In whose interest was this measure framed? Certainly not in the interest of either the children or their parents, because it ignored the wishes of both. They had been told that the ex- isting system of religious teaching in Scotland had worked well and given great satisfaction. Well, if that were so, why was it not allowed to continue? [The LORD ADVOCATE: Hear, hear!] He was glad to hear that expression of opinion on the part of his hon. and learned Friend, because he thought he had shown that the people did not desire any change in the existing system, which was clear in point of principle, and perfectly suitable to the existing and special circumstances of the country. There were two classes of persons who might be said to object to religious instructions in these schools. First, those who were opposed to Christian instruction on the ground, as they asserted, that it tended to fetter the human intellect. Was it right, he (Mr. Gordon) asked, in those days, when they saw the Holy Scriptures not only openly attacked, but also secretly undermined, to give way to such an objection? Their resolution in respect to religious instruction should give no uncertain sound. The knowledge of the Holy Scriptures was a most important element in the education of youth. Another class of persons objected to the introduction of religious teaching into these schools, because they thought it tended to produce religious inequality and sectarian strife amongst the pupils. The latter class of objections came generally from the Nonconformist body, although he knew many eminent exceptions to this opinion among them. He could understand why they should object to religious instruction being afforded to the adult portion of the population—though even on that point he could not agree with them—but he altogether failed to understand why they should object to the State providing religious instruction for the young. It appeared to him that they took a distorted view of this matter. It was said that the Christian education of children might very well be left to parents and Churchmen. How ludicrous it was to speak of the parents giving that instruction. Why, it was in consequence of the neglect of the parents to give even secular education to their children that the Government were compelled to have recourse to this Bill to oblige them to do so. How, then, could it be expected that the parents would voluntarily supply their children with religious instruction? Did they not know there was a large mass of the population who habitually neglected their parental duties? Let them take the case of Glasgow, for instance, as far as leaving religious teaching to the Church was concerned. In that city there were about 130,000 persons, or about one-fourth of the whole population, who never went to church at all, and yet it was proposed to compel the young persons among this vast number to take secular education, but to leave their religious instruction to the Church, whose ministrations they never attended. The Nonconformists were said to be in favour of a secular system, but in 1847 a large body of them set forth their view that the State had no right to interfere with education, because there could be no proper and sound system which did not provide religious instruction. In answer to the suggestion that the question of religion should be left to the local boards, he could only express his opinion that so to leave it would have the effect of creating dissension and heartburning to such an extent that the people in many districts would be inclined to allow religious teaching to be elbowed out of the schools in order to restore order and peace to the society in which they lived. Religious teaching had been the rule in Scotland for three centuries. It was the intention of the Bill of 1861 to continue it, and he asked the House not to permit that system to be overturned. By some persons Dr. Chalmers had been quoted in support of the secular system, but at the time Dr. Chalmers made use of the expression which was quoted, the state of things was different from what it was at present, and since then Dr. Chalmers declared in favour of putting the Word of God in the forefront of their system of education. Another ground on which he asked the House to support the Resolution of which he had given Notice was that the overwhelming testimony of the Scottish people was in its favour. Not more than 2,000 people had petitioned in favour of the Bill, but there were no less than 200,000 persons in Scotland requiring religious education. Why, then, should Members of the House disregard the opinion of their constituents, and refuse to maintain a system which had hitherto worked satisfactorily? In conclusion he begged to move the Resolution.

Sir, it is not my intention to occupy the attention of the House above a very few minutes, for I feel that it would not be becoming on my part to detain hon. Members with premature and unprofitable discussion upon questions which will regularly and usefully come under their consideration when we get into Committee. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Glasgow University has said that this Motion of his was not brought forward for any party purpose—and I readily accept that statement. He added that neither was it brought forward with the view of placing any impediment in the way of the progress of the Bill. Well, I wish my hon. and learned Friend had told us with what view it was brought forward. There may be occasions on which it is expedient for the House, even when on the very eve of going into Committee on measures, to address itself to the consideration, and to dispose of by way of Resolution, any particular subject which the measure comprehends; but these occasions must necessarily be very rare and exceptional, for it is obviously the most ordinary course to consider the whole subject and the provisions of the measure in Committee. This Resolution is brought forward as an Amendment on the Motion to go into Committee. My first objection to it is that it is altogether unnecessary to enable the Committee to deal with the provisions of the Bill in such manner as it pleases. The import of the Motion is to express approbation of the existing law and practice of Scotland with respect to Bible teaching in public schools; and, further, to express the opinion that the provisions of the existing law should be continued by similar provisions in the Bill at present before the House. Now, whatever the existing law may be, no preliminary Resolutions are necessary in order to enable the House in Committee to bring the provisions of the Bill, if they are not at present in accordance with the existing law, into such accord as the House may think proper. If the Resolution be not necessary for that purpose, it is certainly unnecessary for any other purpose. It is so unnecessary for that purpose that as an Instruction to the Committee it would be absolutely incompetent, because it is always incompetent to instruct a Committee to do what the Committee has, in its ordinary competency, the power to do without any Instruction whatever. My second objection to the Resolution is that it is altogether erroneous in the assumption which it states with respect to the provisions of the existing law. I do not fail to notice the mist attempted to be raised by the jumble of words—such as "the principles and history," "past legislation and practice" in Scotland with respect to education—such a mist is easily blown aside. It was hardly worth attempting to raise it with respect to the provisions of the law, for it is altogether an error to say there is any law in Scotland, legislative or otherwise, which provides that instruction in the Holy Scriptures in the public schools shall be an essential part of education. My hon. and learned Friend may be able to persuade the House that that ought to be the law, and he has an Amendment in Committee upon the Paper for the purpose of making that the law, and he will have an opportunity of attempting to persuade the Committee to agree to his proposal; but I venture to say this, in the most unqualified manner—that legislation has never hitherto made such provision as that which he asks the House to make—and that the practice is in entire concordance with the statement of my hon. and learned Friend. It has always been the practice, not only in the public schools in Scotland, which are subject to the law existent upon the subject, but also in the voluntary schools, which outnumber the public schools three to one, to give instruction to the children attending them, not only in the Holy Scriptures, but also in the Shorter Catechism. For my part—and I think I may speak for my hon. Friends on this side—I entirely approve, and they entirely approve, of that practice, especially taken in connection, and because we must take it in connection, with what my hon. and learned Friend correctly stated, and for which he justly claimed credit, for the managers of existing schools—namely, the manner in which these schools are conducted. My hon. and learned Friend claimed credit for the managers of the schools, because religious instruction was given at such times and in such manner that no child was called upon to receive it whose parents or guardians objected; and that religious instruction—and especially Bible teaching—was given, not under a written Conscience Clause, because no such clause exists in Scotland, but an unwritten Conscience Clause, which is rigidly and conscientiously observed by the school managers. Of that course of proceeding we must all entirely approve. I wish to state distinctly that the law of Scotland at this moment leaves school managers at perfect liberty in this respect. We know how they have exercised their liberty; and I, for one—and the great majority, I believe, of those who sit on this side of the House—approve of the manner in which they have exercised the liberty which they possess. I say so, subject to the important qualification—and if I was to make any criticism upon it, it would be only this—that the Bible instruction has been too little, too feeble, and not at all as efficient as it ought to be. So far as we can judge from the Commissioners' Reports, there has been a great failure in that respect—probably from no fault of the teachers, but for want of the power. That, I hope, will be supplied by this Bill—to teach religion in that effectual and efficient manner which is desirable, and which I trust in future will bear very different results from the fruits borne in the past. I blame nothing in respect of the practice of the schools in this respect; on the contrary, I entirely applaud it, and only wish to make it more efficient. My hon. and learned Friend says—and he repeated it over and over again—if the people of Scotland are entirely satisfied with the existing system, why change it? I do not propose to change it in the least degree; I do not propose to make for the future any more than has been done for the past—any legislative pro- vision with respect to the teaching of religion. There is none now. The schoolmaster is subject to a certain test, but he is not enjoined to teach religion. He is not even required to profess belief in the Holy Scriptures. He is expressly relieved from doing so. He is not required to express belief in the Confession of Faith, or to subscribe it. He is expressly relieved from doing so. What he undertakes is that he shall not directly or indirectly teach or inculcate any opinions opposed to the Divine authority of Holy Scripture. But he is not required to teach anything on the subject. I do not say whether that is right or wrong—I do not touch on that subject at all in this Bill. I leave the schoolmasters very much as they now are, only interfering so far with those who elect them that they shall not in future, as in the past, be selected exclusively from members of the Established Church. Suppose for a single moment that there were any law on this subject such as my hon. and learned Friend puts forward, without being able to put his finger on a single enactment—nothing could be easier than to say you shall teach the Bible, you shall teach the Shorter Catechism, or anything else—it is almost impossible to use words intended to have that effect which any man reading them can misconstrue. But there is now no provision whatever on the subject of teaching the Holy Scriptures or the Shorter Catechism. If there were, it would apply only to the parish schools, or a quarter of the entire number, leaving the other three-quarters subject to no law on the subject. If the teaching of religion is to be safe in the future; if it is not only not to be hindered, but to be stimulated and promoted so as to be made efficient, it is not by statutory enactment, but by the feeling of the people themselves. That has been found effectual in the past, says my hon. and learned Friend. I rather differ from him. It has not been so efficient as it might be. It might be greatly stimulated and increased, but it has depended for such success as it has attained upon the feelings of the people themselves. And there we propose to leave it. If any Member of the House thinks that the practice of the past has not been satisfactory—that that should be made compulsory now which has so far depended on the goodwill of the teachers and ma- nagers—it is competent for him to make a proposal to that effect in Committee. I therefore hope that this eccentric and superfluous Resolution may not be adopted, and that the Motion I have submitted that you, Sir, do now leave the Chair, may be carried.

said, that his only desire was to support what he considered to be the feeling of the great majority of the people of Scotland; and he felt satisfied that his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow would not have proposed his Amendment if he had not felt satisfied that the Bill did not meet the requirements of Scotland on the subject of education; and therefore it was but right that before the House went into Committee they should lay down some tangible principle for their guidance with regard to religious instruction. The object of the Amendment was not to defeat the Bill or to throw it over for another Session; but it had been framed in accordance with the expression of opinion of the vast majority of the people of Scotland to which he had before referred, and which had found expression in the numerous Petitions that had been presented on the subject of Scotch education, and which had not met with any contradiction. Therefore, to describe the Amendment as superfluous, as had been done by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, appeared to show that the right hon. and learned Lord must have shut his ears to everything that passed in Scotland on the subject during the last four or five months. It was likewise very well to say that they could deal with details in Committee, and, no doubt, they could; but this was a question pre-eminently of principle, and without the establishment of a principle they would find themselves in a difficulty when dealing with the clauses of the Bill. For instance, the clause which provided the time and manner when religious instruction was to be given differed almost entirely from the practice of Scotland in that respect, and, therefore, it was essential that the House should first establish some principle before they embarked on a discussion of the clause. There was no religious difficulty in Scotland the same as in England and Ireland; because, however much the people of Scotland might differ as to Church government and Church patronage, there was no absolute doctrinal differences between them, so as to affect the consciences of the parents and necessitate their removing their children from the religious teaching of the schools. For what reason, then, he asked, were they suddenly to interfere and change the system of religious education adopted in Scotland? The Bill differed essentially in many of its characteristics from the Bill of 1869, which had passed through that House; and he was at a loss to understand why, within the last few years, the Government should have so considerably altered its views upon this subject. The present Bill proposed to transfer the whole of the parochial schools from the present managers, and transfer them to an electoral body to be rated as low as £4 to the poor, notwithstanding that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said—and deservedly so—that great credit was due to the school managers for the manner in which they had conducted the schools in Scotland. The Bill of 1869 likewise proposed to enlarge the electoral body; but although they had not entirely agreed upon the school committees, as they were called in that Bill, and the proportion in which the heritors were to be represented upon them, yet they had to a certain extent acceded to the manner in which it should be done, and it would have been far better if that arrangement had been introduced into this Bill. It was therefore a subject for consideration whether, if they swept away a system which had admittedly worked well, that which they proposed to substitute for it would work better, or even as well? The truth, however, was that in the parish schools very little, if anything, required to be done, and was it therefore worth while in dealing with the great towns only, to alter a system which had the entire confidence of the Scotch people? The formation of school boards in burghs and towns was the thing needed; but he could not understand why school boards were to be forcibly established in the country districts of Scotland. Moreover, he felt satisfied that they would not be able to obtain so good a board of school managers under the £4 qualification proposed in the Bill as they would have had under the proposal contained in the Bill of 1869. He re- gretted to find that the Bill aimed a great blow to anything like the voluntary system, for he thought it had always been understood that from what that House had already done with regard to voluntary schools, it was not at all their intention to exclude those schools from the receipt of grants for educational purposes. A proposition, however, existed in the Bill which would make it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, for any denominational school to receive any grant of public money, the result of which, if passed, would be to discourage all voluntary effort in Scotland. With regard to that proposition, a vast number of Petitions had been presented in favour of the existing schools in Scotland, and both Episcopalians and Presbyterians had stated that they viewed with great regret what they were afraid would prove to be the prohibitory effects of the clause, and which prohibitory effects in no degree existed under the English Bill. There was only one point more on which he wished to express his opinion, and that was on the question as to whether the schools in Scotland should be managed by the Privy Council in England, or by a Board in Scotland, and he must give his voice in favour of a Board in Edinburgh, believing as he did that the Scotch would naturally pay more attention to the Minutes of a Board who were well acquainted with Scotland and the requirements of the district, than they would to an Order in Council, given by the central authority, which had under its regulation and control the schools throughout England, the requirements of which might differ in many respects from those of Scotland. Entertaining those opinions, he should cordially support the Motion of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow.

said, he deprecated long discussion upon the principles included in this important measure upon the very threshold of the Committee, where all its details could be considered; and he would rather take the Bill as it now stood, with all its defects, than incur the risk of losing it altogether—for the time they had left to get it through was none too long. Still, the Government themselves did not appear to be satisfied with the measure in all respects, for they had proposed several Amendments, and he had himself given Notice of one which, when the proper time arrived, he should endeavour to convince the House was worthy of its consideration. That Amendment provided that instruction might be given in the public schools on religious subjects, but that no catechism or formulary whatever should be taught in any of the Government schools. According to his reading of the Instruction now moved by the hon. and learned Member for Glasgow University, its principle was identical with the spirit of his own Amendment, and therefore he should have no hesitation in supporting it. About 18 months ago he addressed a large meeting of his constituents at Edinburgh, when the question raised was whether the Bible and the Shorter Catechism should be enacted as part and parcel of the education of the people of Scotland, and he then stated that he thought it would be wrong to enact the teaching of the Catechism, but right to enact that the Bible should be read in preference to all other books in the schools. Six months ago, at the second annual meeting of the same Association, he repeated his statement, and from that time down to the present he had received numerous Petitions to present to the House on the question of education, and multitudes of letters, and he did not find that any one of them found fault with the opinions he then expressed. The hon. and learned Lord Advocate had argued that instruction in the Holy Scriptures was not the law of Scotland; but he had not attempted to argue that it was not the practice of the country. On the contrary, he had affirmed that it was the practice in Scotland, and rejoiced that it was. He (Mr. M'Laren) rejoiced with him that it was the practice, and he was anxious to see that good practice confirmed by enactment. If it be asked why he desired to see it enacted in different terms than those which formerly existed, his answer was, that by this Bill the whole management and all the appointments of the schools in Scotland would be changed entirely, and unless the rule was laid down in the Bill, every parish in Scotland would become a battle-field, and the discussions would be endless as to whether the Bible alone should be taught; or whether the Bible and the Catechism, or whether any other religious instruction should be given, or whether it should be left altogether to the Churches. It was enacted by the Act of Union between the two countries, and by other Acts of Parliament with which Scotch Members were familiar—and it was well laid down by the Act of Settlement of the Crown—that Scotland should be a Protestant country, and that she should be so for all time. He (Mr. M'Laren) held by that principle firmly, and he agreed with the well-known words of Bishop Stillingfleet, that the Bible was the religion of Protestantism, and he wanted the religion of Protestants to be taught in the schools of Scotland by reading the Bible and giving a fair explanation of its meaning in the public schools. The hon. and learned Lord Advocate had stated there was no enactment to compel the teaching of the Scriptures. In that he (Mr. M'Laren) did not agree. In every Act of Parliament he had read, the spirit was exactly the reverse. When the Lord Advocate read the declaration in the Act of 1861, he omitted a very important portion of that declaration. If he had read the whole of that declaration, it would have appeared plainly that although there were no express words to teach such doctrines as "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt not kill," yet by implication the Act of 1861 was as plain as anything could be that religion was to be taught, and that it should continue to be taught in the schools. The words of the declaration omitted by his hon. and learned Friend, and which followed the passage he did read, were the Shorter Catechism—

"Agreed upon by the Asembly of Divines at Westminster, and approved of by the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland in 1648; and I will faithfully conform thereto in my teaching of the said school."

No doubt, if they required him to point out an exact enacting clause, he must admit that it was not forthcoming; but all history concurred in showing that the principles of education in Scotland had been imbued with these views, and that an excellent epitome of Bible instruction had always been taught. Why, then, did he ask that they should lay down a rule in this Act of Parliament, when it was laid down and had been so long acted upon? Simply because, if they did not introduce some rule of the kind, they would introduce it for themselves, and all sorts of differences would arise. It was to avoid that strife and to get the matter settled once for all that he had given Notice of his Amendment. He did not care, if his object was effected, whether it was effected by this Instruction or by his own Amendment; nor did he care under what circumstances the Amendment was brought forward, for it was an honest Motion, honestly intended, and he should certainly move it on the proper occasion.

said, he was not about to discuss the merits or demerits of the Bill, but he rose to ask whether the Government were really going to offer no reply to the admirable speech and the clear arguments of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gordon) on a question which was so deeply interesting to the feelings of the Scotch people that the Government ought not to pass over these arguments in silence? It seemed, however, that the Government had taken the line of treating the Motion with contempt, as a thing not worth discussing. For more than 200 years the people of Scotland had derived advantages from a system of education which we in England might well envy. In his own efforts to promote education in this country, he (Sir John Pakington) had applauded that system again and again; and what was the leading principle from which the blessings of the system emanated but the inculcation of religion and the teaching of the Bible? He challenged the Lord Advocate to deny that there was a deep attachment on the part of the people of Scotland to the principle of religious teaching in the public schools. Looking at what had lately been said on this subject, hon. Gentlemen on that side of the House had a peculiar interest in it. They could not forget the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, delivered at Halifax, not long ago; nor the speech of the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld), both of whom declared their preference for a secular system of public instruction. Although those right hon. Gentlemen were Members of the present Government, he (Sir John Pakington) believed he expressed the opinion of a vast majority of the people in England and Scotland when he said they were strongly and directly opposed to the secular system, and were desirous of maintaining religious instruction in the schools. He was at a loss to conceive how Members of the Government could consistently prefer secular education, when there was such strong proof of attachment to religious instruction as had been brought forward to-night. A respectful answer to the demonstration of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gordon) on this point was certainly due from the Lord Advocate. To say that the Bill could not now be discussed was anything but a satisfactory method of meeting the arguments of his hon. and learned Friend. He believed the House would resist any attempt on the part of the Government to smother discussion on this important question.

said, that the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate assented to the principle of religious education when the Education (Scotland) Bill was before the House some years ago. He then said that he entirely approved of religious teaching, and his object was to make it more comprehensive than at present; that there was no test, no legal enactment that religion should be taught; and that it was taught in Scotland only arose from the good sense and the religious character of the people of Scotland. If his right hon. and learned Friend had still that object in view, why had he not given it expression in the Bill before the House? His hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had confirmed the statement of his hon. and learned Friend—and he (Mr. Orr-Ewing) entirely agreed with him in that confirmation—that although there was no specific enactment requiring religion to be taught in the schools, yet by implication it ran through all the enactments to which he referred, and, as a fact, there was no school in Scotland but one where not only was the Bible read and explained, but the Shorter Catechism was taught daily. He did not, however, object to the compromise which had been proposed—that the Bible alone should be enjoined to be taught if the Shorter Catechism was not proscribed in the schools; but he objected entirely to their being subjected to the English Code. The English Code was a Godless one; but they in Scotland were under the old Code, which enjoined the teaching and examination in religion. But things were far better managed in Scotland. In England the board was elective; but such a plan in Scotland would only lead to their being elected by poor householders, who would elect the teachers instead of their being chosen, as now, by the heritors and ministers; and strife and turmoil would be introduced into every parish, for no doubt there would be found in almost every parish some few persons in favour of secularism, and the result would be that there would be a great disturbance at every election. The hon. Member for Edinburgh was the true exponent of the feeling of the people of Scotland in this matter, and there could not be the least doubt of their determination to have the Holy Scriptures taught in the schools. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate complained that Scotland was exempt from the operation of the Revised Code now in force in England; but, in fact, it was specially kept out of it, and one of the reasons why they had hitherto kept themselves free from the Revised Code was that in the parochial schools, and many others, they taught the higher branches of education. In England the Government prevented the schoolmaster from teaching, and being taught, religion; and the Inspectors had no power whatever to examine into religious teaching. If that system of secular education, by an indirect method, were forced on Scotland, as was very much dreaded, it would be repugnant to the feelings of the whole of the people. He had no sympathy with the cry in Ireland for Home Rule, for he feared they had ulterior views which would lead to the dismemberment of the Empire. But if Home Ride meant legislation in accordance with the feelings of the country, and that the strongly-expressed wish of the country was to be carried out in opposition to centralization, as displayed in the attempt to rob Scotland of the management of its schools, and place them under a department of the Privy Council which had no knowledge of the feelings of Scotland, he, for his part, should in this sense become a Home Ruler. He regretted that a Gentleman temporarily placed in a high position should avail himself of the opportunity, and go against the feelings of his countrymen by proposing in that House an Education Bill which met with no support in Scotland, and still more so that that Gentleman's predecessor (Mr. Moncrieff), who was at the same time both an honour to that House and to Scotland, had not been allowed to give effect to the legislation on this subject when he had it in charge, as he thoroughly understood the question, and sympathized with the earnest desires of his fellow-countrymen.

said, the hon. Member for Edinburgh had answered the speech of the Lord Advocate, but the speech of his hon. and learned Friend below him (Mr. Gordon) was as yet unanswered. He could not have imagined that the silence of the other side of the House would have been carried so far, unless the fact was, as might be not at all improbable, that its arguments were perfectly unanswerable. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said that the Amendment was unreasonable, because its matter might have been introduced in Committee quite as well as now. But what chance would his hon. and learned Friend have of being able to make in Committee such a speech as he had done then? It would have been said that it was a second reading speech, and prejudice would have been raised against it on that account. The right hon. and learned Lord had said that the Resolution was erroneous—that his hon. and learned Friend had raised a mist about the subject of the old law of Scotland; but the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) had sufficiently answered that objection. The right hon. and learned Lord had further pronounced the Resolution "eccentric;" but the language of the Resolution was such that it could not be mistaken in Scotland, and if it was "eccentric" to move that the Holy Scriptures should continue to be read in the schools of Scotland as in past times, then commend him to such eccentricity. Holding that view he hoped to see some distinct provision made for religious instruction while in Committee, and he considered that end would be promoted by the Resolution under discussion. He would ask a question which he had asked before, for it was important to remember it. Why was the Bill introduced? It was to supply the lamentable deficiency of education in the large towns of Scotland. But in supplying that deficiency, an opportunity was taken to upset the whole present system of education in that country, and he would not say to prevent, but to abridge and restrict religious education in every possible way. And yet he ventured to say that the class of children whom the Bill was specially intended to reach, were those who, above all others, required religious training. The demand was for a national system; but he would say, not in any bitterness, but in all seriousness, that the nationality of the measure before the House appeared to consist in the omission of all direct enactments on the subject of religious education. His hon. and learned Friend had dealt fully with the law on the subject, and he was not fitted, even if he were inclined to do so, to follow him, but he could speak with confidence as to the practice. During the short Easter Recess he had had an opportunity of being present at two school examinations in the West of Scotland, in which the religious part was conducted in an admirable manner; but he could not help feeling at the same time that if the present Bill were carried, it was possible that in the future no examination of that class might ever be held again. He was far from saying that the Bill would make it impossible; but this he would say, that it threw every possible difficulty in the way. It was said that those who agreed with him in desiring some enactment in regard to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures were showing distrust of the people of Scotland. His belief in the people of Scotland carried him a long way, and his belief in their wish to have the Scriptures taught in their schools was profound and confident; but the people of Scotland were a law-obeying people, and if a measure passed that House which did not, indeed, prohibit education, but put all sorts of difficulties in the way, the people of Scotland might not find it possible to carry out their intentions. Then, again, one of the greatest misfortunes of the Bill was, that it would relegate the important subject of religious instruction in the schools to be fought out in every locality, whereas if the Resolution were carried the subject of the Holy Scriptures at all events would be taken out of the region of controversy. With respect to the Time Table Conscience Clause, he would give them the substance of what was said by an excellent pamphlet on the subject. He quoted it with the less hesitation, because he did not know who was the author of it. The writer said—

"Whatever may be said of religious teaching according to use and wont, this at least has never been denied—that teachers have been secured full liberty, and have been expected to use every opportunity of inculcating religious truth. Now, however, for four consecutive hours this liberty is to be taken away. It is the shallowest of all sophisms to say that the proposed time-table will merely legalize what has all along been the practice. But there is a marvellous difference between a time-table which is meant to regulate and one that is meant to exclude."

By the adoption of the Resolution two important principles would be established: one, the making the Holy Scriptures a legal part of the instruction to be given, joined with all proper protection of a Conscience Clause; the other, the taking of that question out of the arena of local controversy, to which he had before referred. If asked, what was their motive in proposing the Resolution, he would reply it was plain that it was no party motive, and he thought it was equally plain they had no sectarian motive in the matter, for it was not a Resolution in favour of the Established Church of Scotland or of any particular religious denomination. The question of the study of the Holy Scriptures was a matter on which all were agreed, and which formed a bond of union between those who differed about everything else. While in the Bill they recognized the duty of the State to supply secular education, they ought also to recognize the duty of combining with it that religious instruction which, after all, was the most important part of education. If he believed that the Resolution must necessarily be fatal to the Bill, he would not give it his support; but would have taken other opportunities of pressing the question. He did not believe that it must be attended by that result, and the provision was so important that they ought not to neglect to have it confirmed at the outset of their proceedings on this Bill.

said, he must express his surprise at the way in which Scotch Members were discussing this question; no doubt they had a reason for their conduct, but it was not on the surface, and they were not giving a question of that importance the consideration which it deserved. For his own part he was obliged to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow for raising this question, and he must say that he was perfectly justified in doing so from the feeling in Scotland, for the Petitions presented on the subject were larger in number than any that had come from Scotland for many years, and it was astonishing to him that, seeing the interest the people of Scotland took in the measure, the Scotch Members opposite declined to discuss it. They had heard a great deal said on the law of the question from the two learned Members on the two front benches, and if he, as a layman, might venture to give an opinion, he considered the schoolmaster in Scotland was bound to teach religion; and, in fact, the practice had always been for the teacher to teach religion, but perfect religious equality was established. The system, indeed, was as near perfection as possible, and so great was the confidence in the schoolmaster, that Roman Catholics and Episcopalians stayed in the parish schools during the time religious instruction was going on; and it was within his own experience that Roman Catholic children were not withdrawn, the parents having confidence in the honesty of the teacher. In short, while the scruples of all were carefully considered and respected, there was not the slightest need of a Conscience Clause. He objected to the Bill on many grounds, the principal one of which was that he objected to the compulsory establishment of school boards in Scotland. He agreed that school boards should be established where there was a deficiency of schools in a district; but he objected to the religious element in education being handed over to the decision of the school boards, for that would only engender a religious strife in many a parish in Scotland; and if he were convinced of one thing more than another, it was that the people were hostile to any secular system. They had seen that system tried in other countries, and they had seen it fail. They knew that clergymen and parents were too much occupied on week days to teach the children religion; besides, they knew that many of the parents were incompetent, and therefore they held that the school was the proper place for teaching the children religious truths. He did hope, therefore, in the face of the strong opinion on this subject in Scotland, the Government would consent to put words in the Preamble of the Bill which would recognize that religious instruction should be given in the schools of Scotland.

said, that during the absence of the noble Lord the Member for Wigtownshire (Lord Garlies) he had had the honour of presenting Petitions from Wigtownshire and the Wigtown Burghs, which the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Lord Advocate represented, against the Bill. Those Petitions, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman knew, were of considerable importance, and signed by more than 8,000 persons. He had been informed by the chairman of the Stranraer meeting that that Petition had been analyzed to ascertain its real character, and the right hon. and learned Gentleman was aware that a very large majority of the majority who returned him to Parliament had petitioned against the Bill. Of 675 voters on the list, 470 had signed the Petition, only 113 refused to sign, and 92 signed in other places; so that four-fifths of one particular town, which was the principal town the right hon. and learned Gentleman represented, were opposed to the Bill which the right hon. and learned Gentleman now proposed to the House. Similar Petitions, moreover, had been presented from other parishes in the county, and from the two other burghs which the right hon. and learned Gentleman represented, and in all the cases a very large majority of the voters had petitioned against the Bill. That showed—if Petitions showed anything—that the strongest repugnance existed in Scotland against the Bill, and against any measure which should not distinctly recognize that which had hitherto been the practice and the law of Scotland—that all education should be based upon religious teaching. Religion, grammar, and the Latin language were the three matters which it was distinctly provided by the first book of discipline should be taught in the parish schools of Scotland. The Act of 1567 distinctly enunciated the godly upbringing of the young; and that was one of the Acts which they were about to repeal. Having taken considerable pains to inquire into the subject, he declared that he sympathized entirely with the feelings of the whole population in the neighbourhood in which he generally resided, who had urged upon him the strongest opposition to the measure which had been introduced by the Government. The necessity for religious instruction being given in the schools was shown by an instance that came within his own knowledge respecting a school which was principally maintained by himself in the parish in which he resided, and regarding which many persons had expressed to him a hope that he would run the risk of losing the advantage of Government inspection, rather than allow the school to be conducted in accordance with the provisions of that Bill, should it become law. He spoke of a school which was of considerable value in a district in which he had property, and as to which the Government Inspector had reported that out of 113 on the roll, there was an average attendance of 60, and that the scholars continued to exhibit the result of highly skilful teaching. There were attending that school Roman Catholics as well as Presbyterians of every denomination, and he had never heard that the slightest difficulty had been experienced in enforcing the Conscience Clause. Religious instruction was not there left, as suggested by one of the Birmingham League, to be merely the trimmings of education. Another point to which the greatest possible objection was taken was the want of a Scotch Board. The people of Scotland had no desire to be governed from London in regard to local affairs. They wished to see a Scotch Board created, which would have a perfect knowledge of the wants of the people, and which should be ready and willing to enter into their wishes. Another matter upon which the strongest feeling existed in Scotland was that the Bill provided no minimum salary for the schoolmasters. The schoolmasters of Scotland were an intelligent body of men, and it was by no means desirable that they should be thrown upon the parish, to be the shuttlecock of every disputant who was dissatisfied with their teaching, and without the means to uphold their position with dignity and effect. For those reasons, he should support the Resolution of his right hon. and learned Friend; and he could only trust that the silence which had been maintained during the debate by hon. and right hon. Members opposite implied consent to it also.

said, it was impossible to read the Bill, and more especially the 65th clause, without coming to the conclusion that there was a covert foregone intention on the part of the Government to crowd out religious education from the course of instruction in Scotch schools; and that in that respect it differed for the worse from the English Education Act of 1870. Now, the people of Scotland desired to retain their time-honoured religious observances, and no Bill would be effectual that did not fully recognize and give effect to that desire. The present Bill did not accomplish that object, but seemed to have been deliberately framed for the contrary purpose, for four hours was almost all the time at the disposal of the children, yet it was stipulated that four hours at least of secular instruction should be given to the children, and that religious instruction, if any, should be given before or after this four hours' secular instruction. The very words "if any" clearly indicated the animus of the framers of the Bill. He regretted the persistent silence maintained by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and could only hope that it was not the result of any previous compact or arrangement, because such private arrangement was not creditable to the House, and much more honoured in the breach than in the observance. On the part of the great body of English Members and English people, he desired most emphatically to protest against any endeavour to curtail the opportunities now afforded for religious instruction in Scotch schools, and whether the Resolution were carried or not, he trusted the result of the discussion would be that the Government would give some definite assurance that clauses would be introduced to satisfy the people upon this point.

said, he regretted extremely that the course taken by the Government in this matter, in ignoring the cardinal and essential principles of the ancient system of education pursued in Scotland, should have obliged those who differed with them to come forward and deliberately, in the face of the country, move a Resolution pledging the Government to maintain that system of education which had been the means of raising their country to the high position that she at present occupied. Since he had had the honour of a seat in that House, now nearly 15 years, he had seen various Education Bills for Scotland introduced, but in none of them were the great fundamental principles of their education neglected or overlooked, It was because in the present Bill those principles had been laid aside and ignored, that he and his Friends now came forward with the Resolution which his hon. and learned Friend had moved. He could not help characterizing the present measure as a Godless and infidel Bill, which, if it did not exclude altogether religious teaching from the schools in Scotland, treated that important subject in such a manner that it might be abandoned or wholly neglected at the whim or caprice of an ignorant school board, liable to be acted upon by various causes, and in whose hands, therefore, the education of the country could not, he thought, be safely placed. What was religious education? He himself had first of all been brought up in a parish school, where he had the pleasure to sit beside the fathers of some who were now hon. Members of this House, and who there received their education according to the principles acted upon in the parish schools of Scotland. He could, therefore, certainly state that religion was made the foundation, and pervaded every portion of the instruction there given. He would ask how it was possible to give a sound and healthy education without permeating it with religion, just as water permeated their food and drink? He said they could not do it. The various sects who composed the Presbyterian Body in Scotland were all agreed in the main points of their creed, and all alike held that the teaching of the Scriptures and the Shorter Catechism—the production of the greatest Protestant divines—should form the basis of the education given in the schools in Scotland. That being so, on what present pretext could Her Majesty's Government come forward and lay a Bill on the Table of that House which was certain to be most distasteful to the feelings of the people throughout the length and breadth of Scotland? This Bill was brought forward because Her Majesty's Government had got themselves into such a position with regard to education that they were obliged to bring forward a secular measure of education in order to save themselves from the consequences of their previous legislation on the subject. The question was, whether they were to go into Committee on a Godless Bill, and they should divide the House on that question, so that the people of Scotland might know who were the men who voted with the Government in carrying forward a measure of that description. They might rest assured that if the religious instruction of the children of the lower classes were left to the parents it would be totally neglected. It was absurd to expect parents who neglected their children, and allowed them to roam about and fall into crime, to give them religious instruction; while a mere secular education would only serve to perfect such little street Arabs in the arts of knavery. Neither could the honest workman who toiled early and late find time to impart religious instruction at home to his children. This Bill, therefore, like everything else brought forward by Her Majesty's Government, was "a mockery, a delusion, and a snare." Their policy of pains and penalties—so conspicuous in the case of the Ballot Bill—reappeared here, because they proposed to subject the parent who refused to send his child to their Godless schools to a fine of £5, or 30 days' imprisonment—the punishment to be repeated at intervals of not less than six months. The child itself also, if it absented itself from school without sufficient excuse, was to be apprehended without a warrant, and sentenced to imprisonment. The Bill was opposed by the whole body of schoolmasters in Scotland, with a proper esprit de corps and a due respect for religion. In that part of Scotland with which he was the most intimately acquainted the funds available for educational purposes had been supplemented by special bequests, by which the salaries of the schoolmasters were brought up almost equal to the stipends of the clergymen, and the result was, that the school managers in the district could command the services of men of higher talent than they otherwise could have done, and that the education given was far superior to that given in other parts of the country. The young men who had been educated in the schools to which he referred were to be found in positions of trust all over the world, and they had one and all traced that power to resist temptation, and that earnest desire to discharge their duties faithfully that so greatly distinguished them, to the religious instruction which they had received at those parish schools. The question before the House was, how were those schools to be dealt with? By the Government Bill those establishments were to be handed over to school boards. But how were these school boards to be constructed? In the greater part of the North of Scotland the farms were exceedingly small, and the farmers—of whom the school board would consist—were not themselves sufficiently well-educated to fit them for discharging the duties which would be imposed upon them. The attainments of a schoolmaster were not likely to have such weight with them as to counteract the family influence that would be brought to bear upon them by their well-to-do friends and neighbours. He, for one, therefore, should object most strongly to entrusting the education of the country to such tribunals. Most of the Education Bills relating to Scotland introduced into that House appeared to him to be brought forward rather as a compromise between conflicting interests than as the result of an honest desire to settle the question on sound principles. The statistical data upon which this Bill was founded showed, he admitted, that in certain parts of Scotland there was a largely increasing want of school education for the young; and, for his part, he should be happy to follow the Government, if they would bring forward any rational proposal for meeting the evil so indicated. He objected, however, to a sweeping operation which took no note of the exceptional and special requirements of different localities, but forced what was termed a national system upon the whole country alike. Let the Government deal with the great centres of population, and erect schools for the education of the large numbers of children who were without it; but it would be most unjust and most unwise to deal in a similar manner with the rural districts, in which there was no want of educational power or of adequate administration, in which the standard of education was of the highest class, and in which a state of things existed with which the people were perfectly satisfied. Were the Government to pass this Bill in its present form they would find that they had only evaded, not settled the question. They were now in the extraordinary position of seeing the whole of the Liberal Members who represented Scotch constituencies—or rather of not seeing them, for they appeared to have all gone to dinner—but it was at any rate a very remarkable thing that the Scotch Liberal Members in that House appeared to have received the command—"Silence in the ranks!" and were afraid to speak. He challenged any hon. Member on the opposite side of the House to answer him. [Mr. CARNEGIE: Hear!] He was glad to hear the hon. Member accept his challenge, and he trusted that he would not be the only Roderick on the hill. Hon. Members on the other side of the House had been educated by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister. He had taught them to rob Churches, to disregard the laws of property, and now he was endeavouring to force them to throw away the great talisman of our country—the religious education in our schools. Had he, four or five years ago, asked many hon. Members opposite whether they were prepared to reject religious education in the Scotch schools, each would have replied—"Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing?" He trusted that the House would not hastily throw aside principles which had raised Scotland to the pinnacle of glory—the principles so beautifully expressed in the Cotter's Saturday Night, which had made our statesmen to hold the highest rank in the councils of nations, and in the walks of science, and which had led our battalions to conquest in every part of the globe.

said, considering the challenge which had been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth, he might at any rate have remained in the House to hear what he (Mr. Carnegie) had to say. The sole remark he intended to make was this—that a speech made avowedly against time did not require an answer.

said, he remembered hearing a statement by Mazzini—a man of strong but peculiar religious opinions—that Christianity was fading out of the world; and in proof of this he mentioned one country after another till he came to Scotland, where, after a pause, he said, "Well, if religion is left anywhere, it is in Scotland." Now, it was the noble ambition of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate to obliterate this distinctive feature of his country. ["Oh!"] He had, indeed, disclaimed such a purpose, and had alleged that the Bill made no alteration with regard to religious teaching—a statement more astonishing than any he had ever before heard made in that House. If no alteration was made, what was the meaning of the Petitions of 200,000 persons against the Bill, and of the Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren) who intended to support this Resolution? The difficulty was to find a part of the existing system which was not changed by the Bill. It would place the general management of the schools under a London Board—a most obnoxious arrangement—and it would transfer the local management to school boards, while inspection was to be universal. As to religion—where the greatest change of all was made—the Lord Advocate had maintained that there was no legislation on this point; but he had overlooked the fact that use and wont was tantamount to law, and that it prescribed religious teaching in Scotch schools. Clauses 63 and 64 excluded such teaching from inspection and grants, and Clause 65 provided that a child might be withdrawn from it; that it should not thereby be placed at a disadvantage; that the secular teaching should be continuous for at least four hours, which probably meant five or six; and that religious teaching should be given prior to, or at the end of the secular instruction. Time also was allowed for recreation; and religion was not to be suffered to curtail the time allotted to anything else, even that given to amusement. Now, there was a difficulty in teaching even a subject which the pupil was anxious to learn; but what appetite would he have at the end of the day for religious teaching, the dullest of all subjects to a child? A few days since the subject of the International Society had been brought under the notice of the House. The Society had issued a manifesto in which they declared that they had turned their backs on God. The Government, no doubt, had put forth no such manifesto in words; but though they had not avowed their intention to turn their backs on God, they would avoid His presence by endeavouring to hide among the trees of the Garden of Secularism.

, as an Englishman, asked the House to consider this measure seriously, because in its essence it was not more Scotch than it was English, or perhaps than it was universal. Bearing in mind the moderate language in which the right hon. and learned Member for Glasgow University—himself an ex-Lord Advocate—had couched his Resolution, he could not see how anyone in that House could entertain a doubt as to the propriety of carrying it. The Government measure appeared to him to be the first attempt to make the people of Scotland declare that henceforth they would care nothing for religion throughout the length and breadth of the land. He wished to call the attention of Members who professed Christianity to the placing of the two words "if any" in the clause—the 95th—which spoke of religious instruction and religious observances. The insertion of those words, "if any" meant simply that the Government, so far as they could, intended to ignore all creeds, and that it should not be necessary for the school boards established throughout Scotland to require that religion should be taught in the schools under their jurisdiction. This was not merely a Scotch question; it affected the well-being of the United Kingdom. He was astonished when he heard of the declaration of the Lord Advocate at Stanraer, that this Bill neither prescribed nor proscribed religion, for the Bill was framed in a way that showed the Government did not want religion, and did not care about it. In the framing of this measure the Government had treated religion in Scotland as one of the trammels of which they wished to get rid. The insertion of the before-mentioned two words "if any" was an unanswerable proof that such was the spirit which dictated the framing of this Bill. Then, what was to be said about the 200,000 Scotchmen who had petitioned against the Bill in its present form? For his own part he believed that of all the teachers in Scotland, not 50 could be found who desired to eliminate the religious element from their schools. In fact, their religion was so bound up with their character, that they could not forego the teaching of the Catechism and the faith in which they had themselves been instructed in their childhood, even if they would. He regretted exceedingly that many of the representatives of Scotch constituencies who ought to have addressed the House, and whose votes might have affected the division on the question were absent. The electors in Scottish constituencies ought to look at the reports of this dis- cussion, in order to see how many of the Members who ought to have spoken on this subject had addressed the House, and how many Members who ought to have been present had absented themselves. Had it gone forth that silence was to be the order of the evening? If not, what was the reason why hon. Members who ordinarily took considerable interest in matters affecting North Britain had spoken scarcely one single word? Perhaps they were conscious that if they gave utterance to opinions in favour of the Bill, they would be called upon to render an account to their constituents. If a good Education Bill could be passed for Scotland, by all means let it be passed; but let them not make an actual denial of faith the basis of a Scotch, or indeed, of any Education Bill. But this Bill of the Government not only did not prescribe religious instruction for Scotland, but practically, by ignoring, proscribed it. The common sense and the thrift for which the people of Scotland had been distinguished from time immemorial, was owing in great measure to their determination to have secular combined with religious instruction. Wherever Scotchmen had been educated, the first principles inculcated in their minds was that whatever else they might remember, they must never forget the faith in which they had been brought up, or in the God in whom they believed. He ventured to think that it had been owing to the firm and decided determination of the people of Scotland, for ages past, that secular education should never be separated from religious instruction, which had made them what they were. Was it to be said, to-day, that the time-honoured history of three centuries was to be forgotten or despised—and that, too, in a country where the memories of such men as John Knox still flourished and held place in the strong affections of their fellow-countrymen? He hoped from the depths of his heart, that the day was far distant when the teachings of 1560 would be so ruthlessly swept away by anyone—least of all, by those who professed so energetically that they had the education of the people of North Britain so warmly at heart.

said, that one or two clauses, and more especially the 68th and 69th, affected the liberty of the subject so seriously that he could not refrain from pointing them out. If a parent failed to provide elementary education for his child, the Bill provided that, on the statement of the officer prosecuting, he might be fined £5, or be imprisoned for 30 days; and, in the event of the offence being repeated and continued, he was to be sent to gaol for six months; while in another clause it was provided that there should be no appeal. ["Question!"] That was a very serious question; for what with these penalties under the Scotch Education Bill, and those under the Ballot Bill, they might, if such measures were passed, expect to see a considerable part of the population in gaol; and, moreover, no Government had the right to impose penalties without giving the power of appeal. Then, with regard to the separation of secular from religious instruction, any attempt to do that would be productive of great mischief; for religion could not be separated by rules and regulations from the common affairs of life, into which it so largely entered. Those were principles which, if violated in Scotland, would affect England also; and for that reason he rose in his place to oppose their adoption of the Bill.

said, it would be in the mind of the House that the Gentlemen who took part in the Nonconformist Conference at Manchester discussed the very question at issue with reference to its bearing upon the greater English one; and he should have expected some hon. Members who spoke at that Conference to lay their views before the House. In fact, the mover of a resolution which was passed at that meeting about this Bill, said that on its principles and provisions would depend the character of subsequent legislation for England and Ireland; and that the Bill would furnish a precious opportunity for preventing in Scotland the evils which had been found so grievous in England; and for securing, as far as education was concerned, the separation of religion from all State supervision and control. That was the issue Nonconformists had raised as regarded England, and were attempting to raise now. This Bill was their battle-ground, and, if they could succeed in carrying it, they thought they should be able to apply similar provisions to England. He read the proceedings at Manchester in the light thrown upon them afterwards by the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Local Government Board (Mr. Stansfeld), who told hon. Members who had proposed the repeal of Clause 25 of the English Act, that if they would persevere, they would in all probability attain their object. The resolution carried unanimously at Manchester was to the effect that the Scotch Education Bill ought to contain no provisions that would permit religious teaching at the public expense, or give support to denominational schools. Therefore, the issue now raised was—Is religious education to be given in the schools of Scotland? The answer to that issue would be, that if this Bill were carried for Scotland, there would be renewed agitation against the scheme in operation in England. That was a question well worth the attention of English Members; and after what had occurred at Manchester, he should have expected that hon. Members opposite would have stated their views here, in order that they might be answered.

said, he could not give his entire adherence to the opinions expressed by some of those with whom in the main he agreed; for instance, he could not assent to the wish of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leeds (Mr. Wheelhouse), that the Bill should not become law. On the contrary, he had a strong desire that during the present Session Parliament should deal in a vigorous, comprehensive, and final manner with education in Scotland, for there had been far too many Bills and too many debates, and the season had now arrived when not by means of the silence of one side of the House, but by means of a full discussion on both sides of the House, the question should be solved. The hon. and learned Member opposed the universal election of school boards; but at present there existed throughout Scotland legally-constructed educational machinery; and the question now was, not whether there should be in every parish an organization for the conduct of education, but what was to be its nature, what was to be the electoral body, and how the elections were to be conducted? The speech of the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate was characterized by a certain asperity of tone; but it contained one welcome admission as to the importance of religious instruction in the schools in Scotland; the proposing of the Resolution had elicited a late and reluctant declaration of regard for religion in education in Scotland; and, as a lawyer, he wished to have that declaration in writing in the form of a statute. Recently he read with interest and sympathy a sorrowful letter addressed by the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Winterbotham) to his constituents, in which the writer stated that he was a member of the Education League, and that it was the opinion of himself, of the Prime Minister, and of his constituency that the difference of opinion between himself and the Government was no reason why he should not hold his present office. Then, the hon. Member added, there was a Scotch Bill which evinced a great advance in public opinion, and he had no doubt that that Bill, if it passed, would furnish a precedent for England. With that warning from one who was in training for the Cabinet, he was entitled to protest against the application to Scotland of doctrines abhorrent to his sentiments, and the application of which to England he would repudiate. The Government, moreover, could not complain of the length of the debate on this Bill; for on the second reading debate was stifled or drifted from the main question, on a Motion by an hon. Member opposite (Mr. Auberon Herbert), who raised the flag, hateful both in Scotland and England, of secularism pure and simple. Again they were witnessing that magnificent silence which concealed differences, and obscured, though it did not extinguish, animosities—for while the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford (Mr. W. E. Forster) was anxious for a religious education in England, the right hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld)—at Halifax, but not in the House of Commons—was an advocate for secular instruction only. There appeared, therefore, to be reasons for the silence which was imposed on the other side. He hoped, however, that mysterious silence would not continue; and though it was often said during times of tumult, that agitators were silenced by being sent to Parliament and having an opportunity of there expressing their views, yet Her Majesty's Government were now, by that mysterious voice which commanded silence, exciting debate out of the House of Commons, assembling meetings at Trafalgar Square, and inviting Birming- ham and Manchester to summon tumultuous and riotous crowds. He desired a more emphatic declaration than had yet been given respecting the future educational policy for Scotland; for instance, there was a Conscience Clause in the Bill, far less favourable to religion than the Conscience Clause applicable to England. He also dissented from the policy of the Bill in reference to denominational schools, and trusted that it would not become a precedent for England as to the unfavourable treatment to which those schools were exposed. There was a clause in the Bill which dealt with the future position of denominational schools, and that clause provided that Parliamentary Grants should not be made with respect to denominational schools established after the passing of the Act, unless the Education Department should, after due inquiry, be satisfied that a grant was specially required, and that a majority of children in attendance were of the denomination to which the school belonged. Now, some Episcopal schools were resorted to in such numbers in Scotland that the majority of the children were Presbyterians; and as that clause affected them, it was a hardship that the schools should be punished for their efficiency, and the popularity of the instruction given therein, by being deprived of any share in the Government Grant. He also objected to the three years' tenure of a seat on the school board, unless, as in England, it was acceded to for the sake of the cumulative vote which accompanied it, the term being too long to allow any man to hold unquestioned the very important powers vested in such a body. In treating on the subject he had not entered into any questions peculiarly Scotch; but the great change which was now proposed for Scotland might before long become a precedent for England, and the people of England had abundantly shown their adhesion to the cause of religious education. They believed that it was the desire of the children, the wish of the teachers, and the true policy of Parliament; and looking to the people of Scotland, he was not able to see any less love of religion on their part. An Education Bill for Scotland, if it were to be in accord with Scottish sentiment, must be at least as favourable to instruction in religion as an English Education Bill. He hoped the Bill before the House would be considerably amended in Committee; and that it might through many generations prove a real settlement of the question, and give to the people full and complete education in religious matters, combined with the fullest regard in each case for the dominant rights which every parent ought to possess over the education of his child in a free and Christian nation.

said, he had heard with great astonishment his right hon. and learned Friend opposite (the Lord Advocate) say that he could not accept this Resolution, and more especially when he considered the words that were made use of by the right hon. and learned Lord in reply to that Resolution. Why he should have said he could not accept that Resolution, when he said that he approved in reality of religion being taught in Scotch schools, was more than he (Lord Garlies) could understand, for nothing, he thought, was so objectionable as providing secular instruction for the young without providing religious instruction also. His objections to the Bill were two-fold—first, he would consider it from the principle of secular instruction; secondly, he held that the object of the Bill was to supplant a system which had been in vogue in Scotland for centuries—a system which had been proved to work thoroughly well, and a system which, in consequence, was thoroughly endeared to the hearts of the people of Scotland. And by what was that system to be supplanted? By one which he might characterize as at least novel and experimental. He should like to ask, for the benefit of whom was the Bill introduced? Was it introduced for the benefit of the great majority of the people of Scotland? No; for he denied that, taking the different religious bodies one by one, any one of them ever proved by their conduct that they wished their religion to be placed on the footing proposed by the Bill. First, there was the great Presbyterian Body, embracing several sects; then there were Episcopalians, some Anglican and some Scottish; then again there were a great number of Roman Catholics. He would not allude to Secularists, for he was happy to say that in Scotland Secularists were non est—he meant to say Secularism was non est. No one would say that the Roman Catholics had any desire in that direction; while in regard to Episcopalians, the Bill could not have been brought in at their instigation, for certainly, from his knowledge of Episcopalian schools, he could testify that there were many Episcopalian schools which were the most popular in Scotland, which were attended entirely by Presbyterians, and in which subjects from the Bible were always made the basis of instruction. As regarded the Presbyterians, it was his firm conviction that the majority of the United Presbyterians would not approve of the leading principle of this Bill—namely, the secular principle; and as regarded the Free Church, he was convinced that a decided majority did not approve of the permissive secular principle; in short, not a man, he would venture to say, of the Established Church of Scotland throughout the length and breadth of the country, would at all tolerate the leading principle contained in this measure. In proof of those statements, he might instance the Petitions which had been sent up to that House on this subject, for 1,670 Petitions had been sent up complaining of the measure brought forward by Her Majesty's Government, a fact without parallel in the history of Scotland. He would not trouble the House with figures respecting his own constituency, as it might be presumed from the fact of his being there, that they agreed with his views; but there was a group of constituencies—the Wigton Burghs, for which sat his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate—and he would prove by what was going on there that in that part of Scotland this measure met with no sympathy whatever. That group of burghs consisted of four. Two of them were not in favour of the Lord Advocate; the third one was insignificant; but he would take a larger burgh, which practically did return him to this House. He would take the burgh of Stranraer, which returned the right hon. and learned Gentleman by a majority of 2 to 1, and he would show the feeling of that burgh on this subject. He could only assure the House that, instead of his having a majority on this subject, out of 675 voters who formed that part of the constituency, no less than 670 had petitioned against the Bill. Hon. Gentlemen who represented Scotch constituencies must be aware that the Bill was repugnant to their principles. ["No, no!"] Then he came to what was the key and solution of a measure of this sort, and which he must say he had sought for some time, for it was a puzzle, and he thought it would perplex any one in endeavouring to discover it. There might be two solutions; certainly there could not be more. One solution he had arrived at was, that by some unfortunate accident his right hon. and learned Friend, instead of consulting the constituencies, and other parties who might have been able to inform him of the wishes of the people at large, had got the ideas of a few gentlemen who, from feelings of jealousy, were anxious that a Bill of this principle should pass through Parliament; and he made no secret of it that there were two gentlemen, ministers of the Free Church and the United Presbyterian Church, whom his right hon. and learned Friend might have consulted. There were also a few ministers of those Churches who, from feelings of jealousy towards ministers of the Established Church of Scotland, were anxious that this or some such Bill should pass through Parliament. That was one solution. There was another solution. It would be remembered that in the autumn of 1868, the country generally was informed that there were various branches of the Upas tree which required pruning. Well, they knew there was still one branch of the Upas tree which remained unpruned. It would be remembered also that the Government had found some other Nonconformist Friends below the gangway remarkably troublesome, and it seemed to him to be a possible solution that the Bill was brought forward to solve the difficulty connected with that other branch of the Upas tree; and that Scotland was to be made a lever to bring back these Nonconformist supporters of Her Majesty's Government. The right hon. Gentleman would sacrifice the Ultramontane vote in Ireland in hope thereby to secure the support of the whole Nonconformist element in England and Scotland. He (Lord Garlies) hoped, however, that in the result the anticipations based upon that hope would not be successful.

said, he thought no one who was in the House could fail to observe—and he spoke more especially with regard to Scotch Members—the remarkable silence which had been maintained during the discussion on the Liberal benches, a silence for which he was unable to account, except by the supposition that, as last year in the debates on the Ballot Bill, orders had been issued from high authority on their own side. There was, however, another and, perhaps, a still more plausible reason for it, and that was that a schism existed in the opposite ranks, a schism which in fact could only he cured by silence; but be that as it might, he and those with whom he acted were opposed to the present measure, because they had a prejudice in favour of mingling Christian teaching with education—a prejudice which might not be shared by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government. They were also opposed to the Bill, because its obvious object was to establish the principle of purely secular education throughout Scotland—a principle which the Government dared not attempt to carry with respect to England; but what he should like to know had Scotland done that she should be supposed to feel less interest than England in Christian teaching? He might remind English Members, too, that that which was once established in the former country would soon be drawn into a precedent for the latter, and that they would have a system such as that which it was proposed to carry out by the Bill sooner or later set up on this side of the Border. He had, he might add, listened to a great many discussions on the subject of education, and always, he must confess, with the feeling that they were farther from a satisfactory solution of it than ever. The reason was, that there was too much sectarian acrimony introduced into the question both in the House and out-of-doors. If people would only deal with it in a different spirit, it might be solved without much difficulty. Many objected to all education; some of them because they were utterly indifferent on the subject, others because they believed that the advantages of education were abused. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, for instance, had learnt to read; but if had never done so he could not have read The Secularists' Manual to a public meeting of his countrymen, full as it was of Communistic teaching and infidel doctrines. He had no wish, however, to treat the present as a party question, and therefore he would point out that in another high quarter also there had been an abuse of the advantages of elementary education. Nobody could doubt that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) had learnt to write, for there were abundant proofs of his powers in that respect. But if he had never learnt to write he could not have written The Revolutionary Epic, which abounded in such unfortunate, he might say such dangerous, doctrines, that it might perhaps be more appropriately called The Regicide Manual. Speaking more particularly to the question, he trusted that the details of the Bill would be very carefully considered in Committee; and he quite agreed with what had been said about the importance of selecting teachers, as he thought that to educate without religious instruction was simply to put a dangerous weapon into the hands of a man who did not know how to use it. If they educated a man without making a Christian of him, they simply entrusted him with the power of mischief without any controlling influence. He, therefore, could not understand how any religious man could uphold a system of purely secular education. Were such a system persevered with, he believed it would be a retrogade step in civilization in this country, a movement towards barbarism; but he had faith in the strong sense entertained by the people of this country of the value of religious education, and was sure they would scout any proposal like that contained in the Bill.

said, he had been requested by some Scotch friends of his, if there was a silence on that side of the House, to endeavour to represent the people of Scotland. The people of Scotland took notice of what passed in that House, and through him they desired to say that not only did they wish the Bible to be read, but they wished it to be explained and taught in the schools. If that were not the feelings of the people, he hoped that Scotch Members opposite would stand up and say so. Meanwhile, he should heartily support the Motion.

said, that as no Scotch Member opposite would defend the system of education which the Scotch people desired, he would endeavour to do so. In doing so, he must say that he was never more surprised than to find that such a Motion was necessary when applied to Scotland, a country beyond all others desirous of having the people reli- giously taught, and of making religion the groundwork of education; and he was afraid the question to-night was that of the Prime Minister versus the Bible, and that Scotch Members would sacrifice a great principle to support a Government. Let that be told from one end of the land to the other. An American gentleman of high station who was staying with him lately, told him that in his opinion a purely secular education in the United States was undermining the religious principles of the people, and that infidelity was making rapid progress; and he (Mr. Greene) maintained that the downfall of England would commence from the day a similar course of education was adopted in this country. As to England the House had decided to retain Clause 25, yet hon. Members on his side of the House were now endeavouring to defend the same principles against the Government. He was sure the Scotch people would thank them for what they were doing to-night, and was very much mistaken if Scotch Members who voted against the Motion ever returned to the House, a result he should regret for many reasons, being Conservative enough to regret missing the faces he was accustomed to. The Prime Minister had been followed too long. For once let hon. Members opposite to-night give an honest vote, and assert the vital importance of religious education among the people.

said, the Motion was one which he should have thought would have obtained the unanimous verdict of that House and of the Government in its favour, and it was because it had not done so that it assumed features of the gravest importance. By the votes against the Motions of the hon. Members for Birmingham and Sunderland the feeling of the people of England seemed all but unanimous on this question; but there was an attempt to heal the differences of the party opposite on the question of Scotch education, and there had also been an attempt by a snap division to defeat the Motion, and thus stultify the opinion of the House pronounced on the two occasions he had mentioned. That was the reason why the silence of hon. Gentlemen opposite was so ominous, and hon. Members on that (the Opposition) side had endeavoured to keep up the debate in order that the House might be able to express its views decidedly on the question before it. It would be seen at a glance that religion was not honoured in the Bill of the Lord Advocate, though it might be true that it was not excluded, and the right hon. and learned Member for the University of Glasgow attempted by his Resolution—which was perfectly harmless—to recall the House to the position which religion ought to occupy. But how had the right hon. and learned Gentleman and those who had supported him been met? They had not been told that the object of the Resolution would be carried out in Committee; all that they had had from the other side was determined silence. But that was a subject on which hon. Members opposite ought to have a good deal to say, for the Vice President of the Council was a man who had carried through one of the most important Acts on the subject of education that had ever been passed in this country. The Prime Minister, too, as everyone knew, not only took an interest in the question of education, but was closely connected by ancestry with the portion of the kingdom with which this Bill had to deal. But from neither of these right hon. Gentlemen had a word fallen on this important question. Then, again, the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Kinnaird) occupied a well known position in the religious world; the hon. Gentleman figured occasionally on the platforms of Exeter Hall, and yet he had not a word to say. There were, likewise, other hon. Gentlemen opposite representing Scotch constituencies, and from only two of them that evening had the House heard the least expression of opinion. If a division had been taken at the time when an attempt was made to snatch a majority from that House, he was convinced that while some hon. Gentlemen would have been conspicuous for their absence, others would have been equally conspicuous for their presence. The hon. Member for Sunderland (Mr. Candlish) would have been in his place, so would the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon), and the hon. Member for the Border Burghs (Mr. Trevelyan). Those hon. Gentlemen had shown that they were extremely anxious for a division. Well, putting together the silence of the Government and the silence of what he might call the religious section of the party opposite; yes, for there were gentlemen who out-of-doors were quite willing to range themselves under the secular banner, though in the House of Commons it had not yet become popular to express any contempt for religion. But, putting together the silence of the Government, and of what he might call the distinctly religious portion of the Liberal party, and the anxiety of the secular portion of that party for a division, hon. Gentlemen on that (the Opposition) side were perfectly justified in giving their support to the Resolution of the right hon. and learned Member, and taking care that no division should be come to except in a full House.

said, that although there had been rather an unseemly spectacle that evening, he was not one of those who complained of party tactics if they could be justified by success; but hon. Gentlemen opposite had fallen into a great mistake, and had not acted with the caution and discretion which usually characterized their proceedings. He met the hon. Member for Shaftesbury (Mr. Glyn) this morning, and when that hon. Gentleman asked when the division would be, he told him about half-past 11. Hon. Members opposite ought to have known very well that there was no chance of their obtaining a snap division on this important question, and it would, therefore, have been more in accordance with the proceedings of the House to have endeavoured in some shape to reply to the arguments brought forward on that side of the House. English Members had a right in looking at the Bill to compare it with the measure of 1870, and to see how far, being a worse Bill, it might be made a precedent for England on a future occasion. They had a right to inquire also whether it was in the interest of the friends of religious education—that was of those who wished that the schoolmaster should combine religious with secular education—or in the interest of the Birmingham party, who wished as far as possible to divorce religious from secular teaching, that the Bill was framed, because the model dogma of that sect was, that it was improper that the schoolmaster, whether paid out of the Consolidated Fund or out of the rates, should be the person to give religious instruction. Now, the English Bill was intended, as far as possible, to supply deficiencies where deficiencies were proved to exist, and it contained this principle—that the new schools and the schools in the hands of voluntary managers should be placed on precisely the same footing; but he did not find that principle in the Scotch Bill. Then, again, in the English Bill, every school was a public elementary school which had these characteristics—the children must pay a certain amount of school-pence, the schools must be open to inspection, and they must have a Time-table Conscience Clause; in fact, the English system was one which permitted the creation from time to time, and the continuance side by side of Roman Catholic schools, Jewish schools, and schools of any particular denomination. But in this Bill, as presented to the House the definition of a public elementary school was quite different, and, moreover, in the 64th clause it was said that there should be no fresh denominational schools, except in those cases where the majority of the children of the district was of the creed of the schools proposed to be established. He protested against such a principle, upon grounds which ought to commend themselves even to members of the Birmingham League; for he maintained it was neither more nor less than establishing a religious census. Suppose a parent in Scotland wished to send his child to a United Presbyterian school, an Established Church school, an Episcopalian or Roman Catholic school, were they going to prevent him? If they did, it would be narrowing the right of the parent. This Bill also narrowed still further the time in which religious instruction might be given, and he objected to the provisions on that subject, because they might be cited at some future time as a precedent for introducing a similar limit in England; and with regard to which it had been shown by the school board elections all over the country, and very recently by the signal defeat of Mr. George Potter in Westminster, that the great mass of the people were in favour of combined religious and secular education, and that the contrary opinion was held by only a small minority. One great defect of the present measure was the omission of the cumulative vote, which in this country had made the school boards reflect truly the opinions of the inhabitants of each district. Indeed, a true reflex of the opinions of the inhabitants of a district was only obtainable by ward elections or by the cumulative vote, which in England had had the effect of making their educational system really national. It was a very significant fact that when last year his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham (Mr. Dixon) proposed the repeal of the cumulative vote, he found no supporter except the hon. and learned Member for the City of Oxford (Mr. Harcourt), and dared not press his Motion to a division. That fact showed what a preponderance of opinion was in favour of the cumulative vote, and he could not but regard its omission from this Bill as a retrograde step in legislation, as the result would be that the Roman Catholics, Protestant Dissenters, and the Episcopalians would be gagged. In fact, it was most strikingly shown that the animus of the Bill was in the direction of the opinions of the Birmingham League. With regard to the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow, he should vote in support of it, because he believed that the majority of the schools in Scotland would be under the control of school boards, and that, in other cases by the establishment of denominational schools, the liberty of the Roman Catholics and Episcopalians would not be infringed.

said, he wished to say a few words before they went to a division. [Cheers.] He thought at one time that there would be no division; but as hon. Members opposite seemed determined to provoke one, he hoped that they would be allowed to go to a division without further delay. Much had been said about the silence on that side of the House, and it might, therefore, be desirable that he should say a few words respecting the cause of that silence, which was, that a large majority of Scotch Members and of other hon. Gentlemen who took an interest in the subject of education were anxious at the commencement of the discussion, and were still anxious, that the evening should not be altogether lost and wasted. It must also be remembered that Scotland for the last three years had been anxiously looking for an Education Bill—that it had been delayed, into the reasons for which delay he would not now enter—and the Government thought the time had come when the question could be no longer delayed. Undoubt- edly there had been silence on his side of the House; but the reason was, that there would otherwise have been either a renewal of a sufficiently full debate on the second reading, or an advocacy of Amendments which would properly be uttered when they were proposed in Committee. The right hon. and learned Gentleman himself (Mr. Gordon) had put an Amendment on the Paper, and hon. Members had repeatedly diverged from the Resolution to proposed Amendments in the Bill which had nothing to do with it; indeed, some remarks which had been made, made it almost impossible to believe that hon. Members opposite could have read the Bill. The education of the hon. Member for Norfolk (Mr. G. Bentinck) clearly had not reached that point, or he would not have described it as a purely secular Bill. Criticisms of that kind had almost made him doubt whether he was the same man and was sitting in the same place that he occupied a year or so ago; and more especially so, when he considered the fact that the Bill was based on exactly the same principles as the English Bill. ["No, no!"] There might be differences of detail as to the Conscience Clause, which could be discussed at the proper time; but because religious instruction was to begin or close the day, it did not follow that that was a secular Bill. For his own part, if he supposed it did anything more than the English measure to discourage religious instruction, he would have nothing to do with it; first, because it would be contrary to Scotch even more than to English feeling, and secondly, because it would be wrong. The principle of the Bill was this—that they should not interfere in any way to prevent religious instruction in schools; but that they should not compel such instruction to be given. He trusted he might get credit for having the matter of religious instruction at heart, and he believed it would be a wrong and a sad thing if Parliament discouraged religious teaching; but by no more certain way could they discourage it, than by compelling it to be taught. In fact, it would be as much discouraged thereby, as by the proposal to prohibit it which he had contended against in England. Now, the Resolution ostensibly proposed only to continue what now existed, but what was meant by it was, that instruction in the Holy Scriptures should be binding in every school in Scotland. Was not that what was meant? The Resolution conveyed the impression—the existing law required this; but he met to day a deputation of earnest Scotch clergymen, who, in answer to his questions, informed him that the present law did not compel religious teaching, and that they believed it would not prevent heritors from making schools entirely secular. The Resolution, in order to be candid, therefore, ought either to prove that the existing law required religious teaching, or admit that the object was to make a fresh law. He was glad to know that it had been the practice to give such teaching, and he feared that if the custom was converted into a law, there would be a danger of losing the practice; for there was a small but active minority, who conscientiously thought that religious instruction should be separated from secular teaching, many of them setting an example to those around them in their endeavours to emplant religion in those with whom they came in contact, and to pass a law compelling those persons to do what there was no doubt they had already done would be the surest way to put an end to the system altogether. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) in his Amendment to Clause 50 virtually admitted that the present law did not require that construction, for it contained a Proviso that in all schools instruction in the Scriptures should be given, and the Bill, like the English Act, proposed to give perfect freedom to teach religion, and perfect freedom to parents to withdraw their children from it. It might be regretted that religious differences prevented the imposition of religious teaching by law; but the state both of England and Scotland must be considered, and he was surprised that many hon. Members opposite who supported the principle of the English Act should advocate this Resolution, for did they put themselves into the position of Scotchmen, they would see that what was useful in England would be useful in Scotland, and what was dangerous here would be dangerous there. His hon. Friend (Mr. M'Laren) who had somewhat advocated the Resolution, had stated that the Act of 1861 contained a clause which, while not compelling religious instruction, apparently assumed that it would be given, the schoolmaster having to sign a declaration that he would not interfere with religious instruction. The experience of subscriptions, however, in other quarters, had shown that an obligation not to interfere with religious instruction was not an obligation to support it. It was true that the master engaged to teach nothing contrary—as he hoped he never would—to the Divine authority of the Scriptures, but he also engaged to inculcate nothing opposed to the Shorter Catechism. If, therefore, the law was in the state contended for, it required not only the Bible but the Catechism to be taught, and to continue the existing law would involve the teaching of both. That fact of itself showed the difficulty of forcing religious instruction. Interested as he was in the cause of education, and also in religious education, he had felt himself bound to explain that the Bill was based on the principles laid down in England, and he hoped some little progress would still be made tonight in Committee.

said, he was glad that his right hon. and learned Friend the Mover of the Resolution, and Scotland, which by its Petitions had displayed its interest in the question, had at last had the honour of some remarks from the right hon. Gentleman opposite the Vice President of the Council. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said early in the evening, that it was not necessary for him to detain the House at any length, because the Resolution being of the nature of an Amendment, the discussion was one that could be taken again when in Committee. If, however, that line of argument was always to be adopted, it would often be easy to avoid discussions on important principles of a measure, in such a full House as was desirable on such occasions. Every hon. Member knew that there was a wide difference between a debate on the principle of a Bill and the discussion of a clause, however important it might be; and although he agreed in the opinion that the Resolution was not intended to stop the progress of the measure, yet it pledged the House, before going into Committee on it, to the adoption of that principle of religious education which was suitable to, and according to the wishes of, Scotland. They had been told often enough on recent occasions by the Prime Minister, that in legislating for a country they should have regard to her special position, failings, and requirements; that it was wrong to act upon English views when dealing with Ireland, or upon Irish feelings when legislating for England. Why, then, should not that rule be observed in the present case? Why should they be told by the right Mm. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council—whose exertions in the cause of education he would be the last to deprecate—that because certain principles were to be found in the English Education Act, therefore they ought to be introduced into the Scotch one? They should look at the country and the position of the country before coming to a conclusion of that description. The right hon. Gentleman had said much time had been lost that evening. Well, time was lost last year, when the same course of contemptuous silence was taken by the Government and hon. Gentlemen opposite. He (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) thought, however, that that House was a place meant for discussion; and granting that discussions might now and then be raised there which were unpalatable to hon. Members opposite, just as other discussions might be raised by them which were unpalatable to hon. Members on his side of the House, yet it was derogatory to the dignity of the House, when an hon. Member in the position of his right hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gordon), representing a Scotch University, and representing also the feelings of large portions of the community, moved a Resolution which was treated almost with contempt. If his (Mr. Gathorne Hardy's) Friends were to act in the same manner, it would bring the House to a condition which would be neither creditable to itself nor advantageous to the country; and, at all events, the studied silence with which the Motion had been received made it the duty of hon. Members on this side to take care that the House, which had been invited to this discussion, should be full before any decision was come to upon it. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council had alluded to the declaration in the Act of 1861, by which the schoolmaster bound himself not to teach anything opposed to the Holy Scriptures or the doctrines contained in the Shorter Catechism. Now, the Lord Advocate of that day distinctly stated that the schoolmaster was to teach these doctrines and the Holy Scriptures. That, therefore, was the meaning of the Bill of 1861; and not only that, but it had been the basis of Scotch education since the days of John Knox, in 1567. The declaration went on to say—

"I will faithfully conform thereto in my teaching in the said school, and I will not exercise the functions of my office to the prejudice of the Church of Scotland."

The right hon. and learned Lord, however, had said there was no legislation calling upon the schoolmaster to teach religion in the school; but did not that clause mean that the schoolmaster was bound to teach it in conformity with the system established in 1567? Again, the right hon. and learned Lord gave the House to understand that there was no means of enforcing such teaching. But Section 13 in the Act of 1861 provided that if any schoolmaster acted in contravention of his declaration, the heritors might present a complaint to the Secretary of State, who might thereupon appoint a Commission to inquire into the said charge; and censure, suspend, or deprive such schoolmaster, their finding being subject to approval by the Secretary of State. There was, therefore, existing legislation which provided for religious teaching in the schools. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council said—"If such legislation exists, why re-enact it now?" The answer was, because by a clause in the Bill all the existing Acts were repealed, so that the present continuity of religious teaching would be interrupted. Then, again, the circumstances of England differed from those of Scotland, for when the English Education Bill was proposed, there was not a single public school to deal with, but only voluntary schools; whereas, in Scotland, on the contrary, there were schools which were the inheritance of the nation, which had been the foundation of the greatness of Scotland, and which for 300 years had been conducted on one uniform principle, seeing that since 1567 it had been the practice to teach the Holy Scriptures in the parochial schools of Scotland, and to teach the Scriptures in such a way that, though without a Conscience Clause that religious teaching was conducted without injury to the religion of other people. Therefore, that Bill was introduced under circumstances differing entirely from those under which the English Bill had been brought forward; and it would interfere in Scotland with public schools which were working well, and were also working in conformity with the wishes and feelings of the Scotch people. With all that in view, then, should the system in those schools be given up to the school boards which were to be established, thus furnishing matter for perpetual strife and contention? It should also be remembered that a League had been formed in Scotland in conformity with some abstract theory, and which sought to put an end to a system which had done so much in practice for the education of the Scotch people. Now, persons who acted on abstract theories were the most disagreeable of all people to deal with, and no matter how well a system worked, if it did not coincide with their theories they condemned it utterly. Some had even hoped to make martyrs of themselves upon this question, in the hope of awakening sympathetic enthusiasm at public meetings; and they purchased that cheap martyrdom at the expense of introducing dissension into peaceful parishes; but he (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) would warn them against introducing trouble and disturbance, where without them none would have existed. All the Government was asked to do was to leave the existing system alone, and not to force a Bill upon the Scotch people which, while it professed to be harmless, was evidently designed to make secular instruction the rule. The present rule was that no school should receive a Parliamentary grant unless it was in connection with some religious body, or unless the Scriptures were read in it; so that this Bill would not only interfere with the parochial school, but with every other school participating in the grant. He was told that the teachers were to be forbidden to teach religion; how, then, was it to be taught? Even the Nonconformist Bodies in England had training colleges for the purpose of instructing their teachers in religious knowledge, with a view to their imparting that knowledge to their pupils. In conclusion, he thought the Resolution expressed the opinion entertained by the people of Scotland. He judged so from the Petitions which had been laid on the Table of the House; for even if he looked at the Petitions in favour of the Bill, he found they were against the Bill in many important points. Not only that, but he found at public meetings held in different parts of Scotland, men differing strongly on points of ecclesiastical government had united in one thing, and that was opposition to a particular portion of the Bill, in fact, the very part of the Bill against which he had spoken. Inasmuch, then, as it was desirable that the House should lay down the principle which was most satisfactory, and, in his opinion, equally suitable to the people of Scotland, he should support most cordially the Motion of his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow.

said, that hon. Members on his side of the House had been taunted with keeping silence, and therefore before going to a division he wished to say a word or two on the subject. He wished to warn hon. Members that the obvious effect of the Motion from the opposite side of the House would be to prevent the Bill being proceeded with. ["No, no!"] Why, it was impossible to say this was not a party proceeding, for the Motion came as an Amendment to the Motion "that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair," and if it were carried, Mr. Speaker would not leave the Chair, and there would be an end of the Bill. It was obvious that result was desired, and he must congratulate the hon. Member for Rutland (Mr. Noel), who had been all the evening employing those winning ways which made him deservedly popular on both sides of the House, to induce hon. Members to continue the debate until the Opposition was fortified to its full strength and in readiness for a division on the success which had attended his endeavours. What else could have been the reason for English Members continuing the debate when Scotch Members were anxious to go into Committee and proceed to business? Why, it was plain that every device was to be used to delay the Bill, and he must say that anyone approving of the Resolution did their best to hinder it, and were thereby incurring a heavy responsibility; neither could they be true friends of Scotland who pursued that course. It was said that the Bill would prevent the teaching of religion in schools; but all that the 13th clause did was to prevent a teacher teaching anything but doctrine accepted by the Scotch people. In fact, there was no statutory obligations upon anyone in the Scotch schools to teach religion; it was the custom to do so in every school because the people desired it; as long as they desired it they would have it, and, if they ever ceased to desire it, no Acts of Parliament would make them continue a system of religious teaching they objected to. The hon. and learned Member for Boston (Mr. Collins) made a shrewd remark when he said the Bill allowed school boards to teach creeds and as much religion, in fact, as they liked; whereas other hon. Gentlemen opposite denounced the measure as being purely secular. Although thinking of the old adage—"Who should decide, when doctors disagree?" yet he agreed with that observation of the hon. and learned Member and hoped to see Amendments introduced into the Bill to confine within certain limits that power of the school boards. The course of action, however, taken by the Government was to put confidence in the people of Scotland, and to say that the people of Scotland knew what they wanted, and should have it.

said, there was a passage in the Interpretation Clause of the Bill which threw light upon a good deal that had taken place in the course of that debate. He found it there stated that—

"The Scotch Education Department shall mean the Lords or any Committee of Privy Council who shall have been appointed by Her Majesty."

And in another section—

"Her Majesty's Inspectors shall mean the Inspectors of Schools appointed by Her Majesty on the recommendation of the Scotch Education Department, &c. &c."

He had not long since been in Scotland and was kindly received there, and he found that a principal feature of the Bill—the introduction of the authority of the Privy Council to be that which in the minds of the people of Scotland constituted a principal objection to the scheme. The right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council spoke of the compulsion to be exercised under the Bill—exercised by the Privy Council for the purpose of enforcing secular education; and his whole argument went upon the danger of enforcing religious educa- tion by the same authority. It was to that compulsion, then, that the people of Scotland objected. Their schools had hitherto been regulated by law, not by the arbitrary authority of a Governmental Department. They objected to that arbitrary authority, and that constituted one main ground of their objection to the Bill—for it did not exclude, it involved the question of of religious education. Under the present state of things the people of Scotland were content to have religious education enforced by law, but they objected to religious education being enforced by the authority of a Department. That was one real objection of the people of Scotland. And had they not good reason to fear for their Scriptural education? The right hon. Gentleman adverted to what happened during the passage through that House of the English Elementary Education Act in 1870. He (Mr. Newdegate) was present on that occasion, and he well remembered two of the divisions, which then took place, and he would read to the House that which would at once explain the suspicions of the people of Scotland, and which would show that those suspicions were well founded. On the 30th of June, 1870, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droitwich (Sir John Pakington) moved—"That the Holy Scriptures shall form part of the daily reading and teaching in those schools"—the elementary schools of England; but the right hon. Gentleman the Vice President of the Council opposed that Amendment. There was a division—Ayes 81; Noes 250; Majority 169. The people of Scotland were not so stupid as not to know that on that occasion that House, in passing the Elementary Education Bill for that country, emphatically rejected Scriptural education as a portion of that measure. Again, on the 19th of July, 1870, it was moved by the noble Lord the Member for West Suffolk (Lord Augustus Hervey)—"That no schools in which the Holy Scriptures are not daily used shall be entitled to receive any Parliamentary Grant." When the House divided there appeared—for the Resolution, Ayes, 89; Noes, 205; Majority against it, 116. Twice, then, in passing the Elementary Education Act for England, that House was misled into rejecting Scriptural education; and then the right hon. Gentleman got up, and, by way of consoling the people of Scotland, assured them that the Bill now before the House was framed upon the same principle as the Elementary Education Act for England. Why, the people of Scotland were not so ignorant as not to understand that that assurance of the right hon. Gentlemant meant that they might be well assured that Scriptural education would he rejected as an essential portion of the Bill which was in their hands. Let anybody read the Bill, and he would see that it was framed on the principle of treating religion as an accident in education; as leaving such scope for it as the Department of the Privy Council for Scotch Education might assign; but it broke up the great principle established by John Knox, that Scriptural education should be the pervading principle of education in Scotland—the great principle for which the Scotch people had ever contended, and for which they were contending now. He feared the Scotch Members who sat opposite, were so much better Ministerialists than Members for Scotland, that they would vote against the Resolution now before the House, because the Resolution distinctly affirmed the preservation of Scriptural education, the leading principle of Scotch education as it had existed for hundreds of years. It was because the Scotch people saw in the Bill the introduction of a departmental coercion, which Was to be exercised for the breaking up of the all-pervading principle of their educational system—that Scriptural education which had existed for so long a period and so greatly for the advantage of Scotland—that they agreed with the right hon. and learned Gentleman who had proposed the Resolution. He feared that they were likely to be misrepresented by too many of the hon. Members whom they had returned to that House.

said, that the hon. Baronet the Member for Fife-shire (Sir Robert Anstruther), breaking the long silence which had prevailed on the other side of the House, came forward at the last moment to inform them as to what would be the result of carrying the Amendment of his right hon and learned Friend (Mr. Gordon). He ventured, however, to state that the information which the hon. Baronet had given them was entirely erroneous, and if acted upon would lead the House into a very grave misconception. The hon. Baronet told them that if the Amendment were adopted it would be fatal to the further progress of that measure. Now, he would assert—and he appealed to Mr. Speaker whether he was not correct in asserting—that if the House acceded, as he trusted it would do, to the Amendment of his right hon. and learned Friend, it would be perfectly competent for the Government to proceed with the Bill on the very first day they chose to bring it forward; and that the Amendment would be found to be in strict accordance not only with the main principles of the measure as sustained by the Government, but with the recognized forms and practice of the House.

said, he would repeat the proposal he made earlier in the evening, that the measure should be limited to its original purpose, the constitution of a Court of Appeal and the abolition of the third Commissioner, on the understanding that the proposals made by him at the instance of the Commissioners and by other hon. Members for the amendment of the general provisions of the Act should be dealt with by a second Bill. He promised to introduce the second Bill as early as possible, and to do all in his power to pass it this Session, but he could not undertake that the Government would be able to effect it.

said, he wished to direct attention to the great importance of the Amendments relating to legislation for a reduction of the tithe rent-charge, which amounted to £360,000 a-year. The amount of a 22½ years' purchase was an unjust price. By the Irish Church Act, a distinction was drawn between lay tithe rent-charge and ecclesiastical tithe rent-charge, and by the declaration of the Legislature, that it would not interfere with the former tithe rent-charge, that was made an immeasurably better property than it had been before. Yet, at the present time, lay tithe rent-charge in the market only brought 20 years' purchase. Why did not this tithe rent-charge bring a higher price? It was not an intelligible property at all, because it was liable to great subdivision; and if there were no purchasers it would become much reduced in value. He wanted the Government to consider whether the whole question of tithe rent-charge would not become abortive, if a change were not made? He asked the Government to consider the subject, with the view of applying a remedy. With regard to the other minor Amendments, which were only intended to meet eases of hardships to individuals, he believed there would be no difference of opinion between the Government and any hon. Gentleman on that side of the House, and he would leave them to the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland and the Government.

said, that under the Irish Church Act three Commissioners were appointed, and the Act expressly provided that if a vacancy occurred another should be selected. The understanding also was that the proportion between the friendly and hostile Commissioners should be kept up. Mr. Hamilton was dead, and he was the only one in whom Irish Churchmen could place confidence, for Lord Monck took an active share in disestablishing and disendowing the Irish Church, and Judge Lawson advised the Government on the subject. As the Bill stood, it involved a breach of faith, for it proposed to abolish the office of third Commissioner. The Bill also, did not provide that the person appointed to hear appeals under it, should, like the third Commissioner under the Irish Church Act, be a member of the Irish Church or of the Church of England. The Government might appoint a Roman Catholic under this Bill and a pledge ought to be given that a gentleman would be appointed who was an Irish Churchman or a member of the Church of England.

said, he did not question for a moment the right of hon. Gentlemen to call attention to any matter relating to the tithe rent-charge in Ireland, but he did object to it being discussed upon a Bill which had no reference to it. It had been already stated by his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland that a Bill was about to be introduced in which the whole question relating to tithe rent-charge could be discussed, and upon which the Government could state what course it considered it its duty to pursue. The point they had, however, at the present time to consider with respect to the Bill then before them was that which was immediately connected with the Commission, and that would, he hoped, answer the objection of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley). By the Irish Church Act three Commissioners were to be appointed; but as business proceeded, and as the more difficult matters were disposed of, it happened that the Government were deprived of the services of one who was deeply lamented—namely, Mr. Hamilton. That being so, it was their duty to consult the Commissioners on the business of the Commission, and they reported that there was not sufficient business to employ a third standing Commissioner. Therefore, the Government had felt it was not their duty to appoint a third standing Commissioner at an expense of £3,000 a-year, to be charged on the fund. They had been charged with a breach of faith by the hon. and learned Member; but he (Mr. Gladstone) thought that the manner in which the Government had acted was not a breach of faith. There was a necessity, however, to have a third Com- missioner, for the purpose of sitting on appeals; and the present Bill proposed that there should be a third one, not permanent, but what he might call an occasional third Commissioner. In consequence of the business of the Commission having reached such an advanced stage, it was not thought desirable to impose a religious limitation on the holding of that office; but that was a question which could be considered when the Bill was in Committee.

said, he was of opinion there ought to be a third Commissioner, and would like to know when the Government intended to redeem their pledge to place the Irish Church in a position of equality with the Roman Catholic Church with respect to the holding of land in mortmain?

wished to be informed if Government meant to accept the Instructions on the Paper?

thought the question of the appointment of a third Commissioner was a matter which might be safely left in the hands of the Government, who, he hoped, would soon introduce a Bill to dispose of tithe rent-charges.

said, he could not see the necessity for withdrawing the discussion of the question at the present time. If the Amendments were withdrawn, he should like to know from his noble Friend, whether those hon. Members who had given Notice of "Instructions" would be in as good a position as they now occupied.

said, there were eight of those "Instructions," reckoning that of the Government, and they were so varied that it would take a long time to discuss them all. The only Notice that met the Bill was that of the hon. and learned Member for Salford (Mr. Charley), who proposed to go into Committee that day six months; but the hon. and learned Member was present at the second reading, and did not challenge the Bill at that stage. It had been shown that there was no necessity for a permanent third Commissioner; and, financial matters having been disposed of to a large extent, there remained only questions of law such as might be disposed of with the aid of an occasional third Commissioner. The proper course would be to have this Bill stripped of all the Instructions and Amendments of which Notice had been given, and to pass the Bill as rapidly as possible. The tithe rent-charge would be dealt with by the Government in a separate Bill, embracing as many of the Amendments given Notice of as the Government, on consideration, could adopt. With respect to the law of mortmain, the present state of the law did not press upon the Irish Church in any invidious way, for a charter was settled last year giving that Church power to acquire and hold land, notwithstanding the mortmain statutes, within certain proper limits.

hoped that a distinct assurance would be given by the Government that the third Commissioner should be a member of the Irish Church.

thought the course proposed by the noble Lord the Chief Secretary for Ireland a very reasonable one.

hoped the Government would give some more distinct pledge on the subjects embraced in the Instructions and Amendments on the Paper before they were withdrawn.

said, he fully coincided with the remark of his hon. Friend (Mr. Ormsby Gore).

said, that by the course proposed by the Government, those hon. Members who had given Notice of Amendments would not be placed in a worse position. He would renew the assurance that Government would consider all the questions raised by the Amendments, and as soon as possible introduce a measure to give effect to such of the proposals as they could adopt, doing their utmost to press it through Parliament that Session.