HC Deb 04 June 1851 vol 117 cc401-42

Order for Second Reading read.


, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, said, the reasons which induced him to bring this question forward were based upon the conviction that the present means of education in Scotland were very far from being sufficient to supply the wants of the people. As this feeling was so general, and as the subject had attracted so much attention, it was necessary that the Legislature should lay down some principle with respect to a subject of so much importance. He could not see why they should not apply to the conflicting sects of Scotland the same rule they had applied in other instances on former occasions. He considered it most important that Parliament should lay down some great and clear principle upon this subject, which would guide them in their future operations. Education in Scotland had hitherto been invariably conducted under Acts of Parliament, and there was no reason why that practice should be discontinued. He also objected to sec this question handed over to the decisions of conflicting sects in Scotland. Many authorities in that country concurred with him in thinking that some legislation was necessary. The General Assembly, in 1850, reported in favour of increasing the salaries of the masters, and of having an effectual superintendence. He had been accused of bringing forward a revolutionary measure, intended to overturn the established system of things in Scotland; but a more unfounded charge had never been advanced, for this Bill did nothing more than had already been done in Scotland on frequent occasions. His object was to remedy any clearly-ascertained defects and imperfections in the last Act of Parliament, and to promote a more extensive plan of education throughout the country. He did not mean to say that this Bill was the Bill that ought to be adopted, but it contained the principle on which any legislation should be founded. In the report of the Committee of the General Assembly last week, there was an admission that some reform was necessary, and the report stated that at the present moment there were three lunatic teachers in charge of schools in Scotland. The opinion of the working classes had been declared in favour of this Bill in a petition presented from Edinburgh. That portion of the community were painfully convinced of the inadequacy of the existing system, and a petition which he had presented from the Royal burghs stated that they would hail with satisfaction any Bill which would remove the evils under which the present system laboured. With regard to the charges which had been made against him, namely, that he was subverting the system of parish schools, and that he was breaking through and violating the securities provided by the Act of Union, the same charge might be brought to bear against any educational system whatsoever. The parish schools in Scotland did not involve the old constitutional independence of the Church; and as to the latter allegation made against him, the Committee of Education of the Privy Council did that which would have horrified the old Reformers of Scotland; for they not only paid the teachers in the Established Church in Scotland, but even the Episcopalians, who were no great favourites of the early Reformers, hut they also gave grants to the Roman Catholics—all which things, not that they were wrong, but they were clearly in violation of the spirit of the old Acts of Parliament on this subject. The object of this Bill was, firstly, to maintain the principles of local taxation and local government; and, next, to place on the same school benches children of all religious denominations, and to unite them in the same studies, which might be done, he contended, without danger to their religious principles. To say that religious education must be mixed up with secular, was a fallacy; and, in the parish schools, it had been found utterly impossible to conduct them without separating those two branches of education. About one hundred years ago religious education consisted entirely in reading the Bible and learning the Shorter Catechism; but when that was torn up, the germs of the present system developed themselves. The National Association of Scotland, embracing men of all sects, had agreed in the opinion that religious and secular instruction must be separated; and had signed a manifesto, in which, after declaring that God had committed the duty and responsibility of communicating religious instruction to children to their parents, they expressed their concurrence with Dr. Chalmers, "That there is no other method of extrication from the difficulties with which the question of education is encompassed in this country" than the plan suggested by him as the only practicable one, namely, "that, in any public measure for helping on the education of the people, Government should abstain from introducing the element of religion at all into their part of the scheme." But he (Viscount Melgund) had, on a former occasion, alluded to evidence with regard to this subject which was almost unaswerable. Upon an inquiry made into the manner in which the schools were conducted in Scotland, it was found that in almost all the schools children of persons of all sects attended, and no danger of proselytising efforts was incurred. If hon. Members turned to Sir John Sinclair's Statistical Reports of Scotland, they would find he proved the school examinations referred to the secular parts of education, and that it seldom occurred that any notice was taken of religion. Out of 5,000 schools, 1,800 were unconnected with any religious denomination; but no one heard that these schools were "godless" places of education, or that they had done the slightest injury. Many of the schools were beyond the control of the Presbytery. It was not necessary to have a legislative enactment for reading the Bible. The Presbytery of Edinburgh exercised a supervision over schools to which nearly 7,000 children were sent, and they reported that in all the schools the training of the young through the medium of the Bible was a matter of primary importance. The constitution and management of the Milne school, in the county of Elgin, was somewhat similar to the constitution and management to be given to parochial schools by this Bill now before the House. A gentleman of the name of Milne some years ago left by will a considerable sum of money, to be devoted to the establishment of a school in that part representation was secured by persons elected from the town. This bequest was intended for the benefit of all children, and favoured alike all religious denominations in the parish. Nearly two-thirds of the children in the Milne school belonged to the Established or Free Churches, and nearly one-third to the Roman Catholic. There were few schools better conducted, and yet no difficulty had been found in conveying instruction, not only to Presbyterians, but to persons of all denominations. He would next refer to the legislation on this subject with regard to Scotland. It was well known that the principle of this Bill was established at the period of the Reformation; but even prior to that time the attention of the Legislature had been directed to the education of the youth of Scotland. The first Act of Parliament which developed anything like a system, was passed in 1560; and a good many rules were then laid down, which were observed up to as late a period as 1803. There was another Act passed in 1616, and another in 1646. The next was in 1696, which also remained in force up to 1803. The Act of 1803 required that schools should be maintained in every parish, and that schoolmasters should be appointed with certain stipends. It was a great mistake to suppose that the Presbyteries had too much legislative authority over those parochial schools; and he thought he thereby paid them a compliment, because the influence they exercised was undeniable, and, therefore, it must be more a moral influence than any power under the Act. All the Presbyteries did was to examine the schoolmaster as to competency, and to see that he signed a formulary of the Established Church, by which he declared his adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith. That confession of faith was the religion, not only of the Established Church, but of the great majority of the people of Scotland. The wording of the declaration, however, was such as to exclude more Presbyterians than it included. The educational system was intended to comprise the whole population; all parishes and all places were to be provided with the means of education. The parochial system was by no means applicable to the necessities of an increased population. In 1560 the population of Scotland was not more than 1,000,000. In 1803 it was rather more than 1,500,000. At that time, the increase of 600,000 in of the country; and, although some of the the population was taken to make out a directors were men of influence, a popular: case for legislation. During the forty years from 1801 to 1841, the population had increased from 1,600,00 to 2,600,000, and at the present time it was not less than 3,000,000. He thought, therefore, it would be admitted that it was necessary to extend the means of education, unless other schools had been established sufficient to meet the wants of the increasing population. With regard to the deficiency of those means of education, taking the population at 3,000,000, the number of children between the ages of five and fifteen who ought to be receiving instruction might be assumed to be at least 600,000. To educate these children there were 883 parish schools, and the attendance was 74,000 scholars. There were 200 supplemental parish schools, having an attendance of 16,800 scholars; and 125 General Assembly Schools, having an attendance of 15,000 scholars; forming a total of 105,800 scholars in attendance upon schools of the Established Church. The number of schools belonging to the Free Church was 816; in 626 the masters received gratuities, and in 190 the masters received no gratuities. The attendance of scholars on these schools was 65,000. The Free Church and Established Church schools were in number 2,024, having an attendance of 171,000 scholars. Making a large allowance for underrating, they might reckon the Free Church and the Established Church as having about 200,000 scholars: that would leave 400,000 children uneducated by those Churches. Deducting 100,000 scholars attending schools of other denominations, there would still remain 300,000 of which they had no account; and certainly there was a very large deficiency in the number of children educated in Scotland, as compared with the juvenile population. It was hardly necessary to refer to the quality of the schools—many were of the worst description, many were hardly worthy to be called schools at all. Another point in relation to this subject had been alluded to by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox)—that, now they were making such vast improvements in schools of prisons and workhouses, they ought not to give ground for believing that better education was to be obtained for the children of the industrious poor within the workhouse than out of it. A great objection to the present system was to be found in the inequality of the taxation, varying from nine shillings a head for every child educated in thinly-populated districts, to sixpence or even less per head in the more dense parishes. As to the amount of the stipend it was important to devise means to induce men of education and character to become schoolmasters; and he could not refrain from observing that the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland had fixed their salaries precisely at the amount which he proposed last year. The Established Church asserted that the parish school was an integral part of the Establishment. The payment of the schoolmaster was not made out of tithes or any Church fund whatever. If the Church meant seriously to insist that the parish schoolmaster was an ecclesiastical functionary, surely he ought to be paid out of ecclesiastical revenue. Parochial schoolmasters were paid out of the funds raised by the taxation of proprietors, instead of being paid out of the funds of the Church. In former times the parish schoolmasters were better paid than they were now; but it was in evidence that, in the opinion of a clergyman, they were the worst-used and worst-paid persons in the country. In some places the schoolmaster's salary was only 5l. a year, and that was often paid in turf. Before they received any emoluments, they had to sign a document, showing that they were members of the Established Church of Scotland. That was the point upon which, in reality, all hostility was directed against this measure. Many members of the Church were willing to abrogate tests as regarded the universities; surely, then, it was unnecessary to retain them in the case of schoolmasters. These tests were merely a remnant of the old Roman Catholic system. When it was stated that the Bill interfered with the Act of Security, it should be remembered that if it really did repeal that Act, it would he excessively popular with the people of Scotland. In former times all the schools were connected with the Roman Catholic religion, which was then the established religion of the country; and as often as the established religion changed, a commission was appointed "to purge the Church." Three or four years ago this practice was put in effect for the purpose of excluding from the parish schools persons well fitted morally and religiously to discharge the duties of schoolmasters. About seventy or eighty schoolmasters bet longing to the Free Church were mosunjustly deprived of their offices for noncompliance with the test of the Act of 1803. The present Bill, by abolishing that test, would place the parish schoolmasters on the same footing as the borough schoolmasters now were, amongst whom were many dissenting ministers, who performed the duties most satisfactorily. He begged the House to sanction the second reading of the Bill, that they might go into an inquiry on the defects of the law. He believed that they could not fail to understand what those defects were, and that they would easily find a remedy for them.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."


lamented that the noble Viscount should have expended so much of his speech on the general question of education in Scotland, and so small a part on the preamble or clauses of this Bill. With regard to the first point, the inadequacy of means for education in Scotland, he believed he was speaking the opinion of everybody in acknowledging that, as the population had increased, the means of education had not increased in a commensurate proportion. But he thought it was easy to devise means for obtaining a proper amount of education, without totally subverting the present system of Scottish parochial schools, which had for so long a period been attended with eminent success. The next point the noble Lord alluded to was, that the Legislature should lay down principles; but what principles? That secular education ought to be separated from religious education? That was precisely the principle of the hon. Member for Oldham's (Mr. W. J. Fox's) Motion, which a large majority of that House had refused to admit. Upon that ground he hoped the noble Lord at the head of the Government, and those hon. Members who voted against the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham, would now oppose the propositions of the noble Viscount the Member for Greenock, and record their votes against his Bill. The noble Viscount said some legislation ought to take place upon this subject. But surely that was no argument in favour of the particular legislation the noble Viscount proposed. Having admitted the inadequacy of the means for education, and that some legislation was desirable, he (Mr. F. Mackenzie) thought it would greatly benefit Scotland if Her Majesty's Government, next Session, were to take into their consideration the propriety of appointing a Select Committee to consider the whole question of education in Scotland, and upon the report of that Committee to introduce a Bill which might remedy all the evils mentioned. If the noble Lord at the head of the Government would assent to that course, which would not excite the prejudices or passions of any portion of the people, he should have his (Mr. F. Mackenzie's) cordial support; at the same time he could not consent to this Bill being read a second time, because he thought it contained matter which might prejudice the deliberations of that Committee. The General Assembly of the Church, the Presbyteries, the parishes, the convocation of burghs, and every county in Scotland, had petitioned against this Bill, and therefore it was impossible to say it contained a principle not objected to by the majority of the people of Scotland. He could not agree with the noble Viscount that the Free Church of Scotland was disposed to do away with tests in the case of schoolmasters. The Free Church had done much in a very short time for the education of the people. He was very far from detracting from these efforts. They had founded a great number of schools, they had spent large sums in their endowment, but they had never abandoned the principle of tests. They had a test of their own, and no one was appointed to a Free Church school unless he was a member of the Free Church. The noble Viscount thought it impossible to devise any scheme not open to the objection made to his Bill— that of subverting the established school system of Scotland. He (Mr. F. Mackenzie) totally differed from him in that respect, as he thought it perfectly easy to devise a scheme to be carried out in every part of Scotland which should leave the present system in full and active operation as it at present existed. The noble Viscount said there were two principles which he was anxious to obtain—local taxation and local management, and that children of all denominations should attend the school. That was the system on which the parochial system was now founded— local taxation and local management; and the children of all denominations did attend those schools; because it was within his own knowledge that, whilst sect after sect had left the Church, and people had become most particular as to what place of worship they themselves attended, their children invariably attended the parish schools. He had known Roman Catholic children sitting side by side with the chil- dren of the different Protestant sects; and, therefore, if the noble Viscount wished to maintain these two principles inviolate, he ought not to attempt to subvert the present system. The noble Viscount said, he had no theory of his own; hut if he had no theory, what was the meaning of the clauses in this Bill? The noble Viscount said, there were schools at present beyond the power of the Presbytery, and no one heard them called places of godless education. There were undoubtedly schools beyond the power of the Presbytery in one sense, but within that power in another. There were a vast number of schools founded and endowed by voluntary contributions; but in point of fact and experience the Presbytery did, within those schools, exercise the same power as within the parish schools. He objected to the noble Viscount's Bill on these grounds: First, because it would effect the entire destruction of the present connection between parish schools and the Church of Scotland. The Church properly had the charge of "the godly upbringing of the youth" of Scotland. A certain amount of inadequacy of education was admitted. That inadequacy chiefly existed in large and populous places, where the parochial system had very little existence. Even if they adopted the Bill of the noble Viscount, it would effect no remedy; because, first of all, it would give no security that there would be a school at all. There was to be a meeting of school-ratepayers—or, if there were no school-ratepayers, of poor-ratepayers—and the majority were to settle whether there should he a school or not. He believed all persons who had looked into this question of spiritual and secular education agreed that where the want was the greatest, in that locality it was least felt; for experience had shown that the inhabitants of a district where ignorance prevailed, were not likely to be very earnest in promoting education. The next objection was, that it altered the mode of election of schoolmasters. At present the heritors of land, holding 100l. a year value, along with the minister, elected the schoolmaster. What interest could they have except to select the best schoolmaster? But if the choice were thrown into the hands of the ratepayers, as was proposed by this Bill, they might possibly have friends or relatives to serve; there would he a most active canvass—all sorts of heart-burnings and divisions in all directions— and the result, instead of one effective school, would be the erection of three or four schools, with men of greatly inferior competency as schoolmasters. He objected to the alteration of the superintendence of parish schools. He did not think the superintendence of the local committee and general board would be so effective as that of the minister and heritors, as at present. He objected to the Bill, because no provision whatever was made for religious instruction. The parish committees were to settle what branches of education were to be taught. If the majority thought secular education without spiritual education was enough, no spiritual education would be given; and, as he said before, precisely in those places where spiritual education was of the most importance, it would be resolved by a majority not to have it. These were the objections he entertained to the noble Viscount's Bill. It was not necessary to follow him through the allusions to previous legislation, as that formed a great portion of his speech last year. Upon these grounds, he (Mr. Y. Mackenzie) should move that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.

Amendment proposed, "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months,' instead thereof."


was ready, and he was sure that his countrymen generally would not be less ready, to thank the noble Viscount for his exertions in this matter, and for this Bill. He (Mr. Hume) thought, of all duties, the duty of preparing and training up the young in moral and religious opinions was of the greatest importance, and the most neglected. The result was apparent in the condition of the population of Scotland, in comparison to what it was. If it was the duty of the Church to see that the children were properly educated, the Church had not attended to that duty. The hon. Gentleman who had just sat down had admitted the inadequacy of the means for educating the people, and yet he objected to the noble Viscount's scheme, without offering any other in its stead. The noble Viscount had shown, in round numbers, the number of children who ought to be under moral training and discipline. He had shown that when the population was 1,000,000, the schools established and provided by the Legislature were adequate, but that little or nothing had been done to meet the increase of population. He had shown that at the present time 600,000 children in Scotland required education, and education was only provided for 300,000, leaving one-half without education. Was not that enough to prove that the Church had been negligent of its duty? The Church had positively excluded education from some classes by the tests imposed, and by attempts to bring up children in particular tenets. From his own recollection, he could confidently assert that the character of the working and industrious population of Scotland was greatly changed. The difference between them formerly and the peasantry of England and Ireland was notorious. The superiority of training was conspicuous—not merely in reading and writing, but that moral training which gave to all classes a control over the passions, and was the first and most important element of success in future life. Was it not a well-known fact that within the last fifty or sixty years the moral and religious state of the people of Scotland had greatly deteriorated? The fault rested somewhere. The only difficulty thrown in the way of promoting education, removing ignorance, and making the people moral, sober, religious, and useful citizens, was this matter of religion. That was the only fetter which retained the people in ignorance. Ought they not, therefore, to advocate its removal? The two duties of spiritual and secular education were both important, but they could be separated. The noble Viscount (Viscount Melgund) had ably shown that the difficulty could be removed without the sacrifice of the religious duty, and a plan was now submitted to the House. It was not the noble Viscount's fault that it had not been earlier considered. The Bill was dated the 24th of February, and the noble Viscount had done everything in his power to bring on the discussion at an earlier period of the Session. It was now before the House, and he (Mr. Hume) trusted they would entertain the question of secular education, removed from the difficulty of religious opinions. Would they affirm that they were desirous to promote education in Scotland; and could any man who was anxious to do that refuse his assent to the principle of the Bill? The hon. Member for Peebles-shire had suggested that a Committee should he appointed to consider the subject next Session. What was to prevent them from sending this Bill to a Committee upstairs, of which the lion. Gentlemrn (Mr. F. Mackenzie) might be a Member, and there let him point out his plan, and the defects which lay in the way of the carrying out of this project? No doubt, in a country like Scotland, where every man was anxious to form his own opinions on religious matters, considerable difference of opinion must exist. They ought then to see if there was not one object of common good upon which they could all agree, and whether the different parties would not feel disposed to forego their objections and differences, in order to unite in an effort for the attainment of this great common good. He approved of the noble Viscount's position, that it was not right to throw the whole burden of education upon the heritors; it was right that by local rates the manufacturing classes and the artisans should contribute to the support of those schools which were requisite in order to bring up the people in a proper manner. The hon. Member for Peeblesshire (Mr. F. Mackenzie) appeared to object to local management, but he (Mr. Hume) considered that no other system would work advantageously. On a former occasion he bad voted in favour of a Motion for secular education, and he should now vote with the greatest pleasure for the same principle as applied to Scotland. That was the broad principle of this Bill, and it was a source of great satisfaction to find that many eminent men, many of the most religious men in Scotland, whose example was most worthy of imitation, were anxious to see the objections to such a system as the noble Viscount proposed done away with. The opinions of Dr. Chalmers upon the subject had long been known; in those opinions many individuals of eminence now living concurred; and upon that ground he would support this Bill, as a step towards the great object which they all had at heart. He believed that the mass of the people of Scotland were in favour of the Bill, and in favour of removing those tests which had hitherto caused such great irritation in Scotland. He hoped to live to see the day when tests should be removed, when secular education should be established, and when all classes should cordially concur in one common object—the removal of that ignorance which was at present the bane of the country.


said, he concurred in a great part of the speech of the hon. Member who had just sat down, where he dwelt upon the necessity of cultivating the religious education of the community. But if the opinion and wishes of the people of Scotland were to influence the decision of the House upon this question, then he was sure that the Bill of his noble Friend (Viscount Melgund) would not receive the sanction of the House. He had taken some pains to ascertain what those opinions and those wishes were; and he must say that there never was a measure introduced to the consideration of Parliament which had been more unanimously and decidedly rejected by those whom it was intended to affect than the Bill now under discussion. In the county which he had the honour to represent, there was but one feeling of reprobation of this attempt to upset, a system which had been sanctioned by the approval of nearly a century and a half, and which was endeared to the people of Scotland by the great benefits which it had conferred upon them. There were, undoubtedly, questions of commercial or industrial policy, upon which that House might be presumed to form a better judgment than the constituencies by whom the House was returned; but with respect to a question like this—a question not merely affecting the education, but touching so nearly the religious feeling and principle of the people of Scotland— the opinion of that people ought to be allowed to have some weight in influencing the opinions of that House; and if there was one opinion upon which, more than any other, the mind of the people of Scotland was made up, it was this—that religion and education should not be separated. But this Bill of his noble Friend—to whom, notwithstanding, he gave great credit for the pains he had taken with the question, and the good which he had done by calling the attention of the country and the House to the necessity for the extension of education—went directly to sever the connexion at present existing between the religion and the education of the people of Scotland; and upon that ground he should give it his most decided opposition. Those, however, were not the only grounds upon which he should oppose the second reading of the Bill, for he thought many of the details were in themselves most objectionable, and would have a most prejudicial effect upon the tranquillity and harmony of the rural parishes of Scotland. But he could not entertain any great apprehension that this measure would receive the sanction of Parliament, when he remembered the decision come to by that House upon the measure submitted the other night by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox), which was rejected, on a question affecting the education of the people of England by so large a majority; and he could not believe that the English Members of that House would be guilty of such an injustice to the people of Scotland as to pass upon them a system which they had repudiated and rejected for England. Nor could he believe that the Government would follow a course directly opposed to that which they felt it to be their duty to take in rejecting the Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham. But if he should be disappointed in those anticipations—if the Government should adopt a course so diametrically opposite, and be guilty of so flagrant an inconsistency—he trusted that House would not be led to stultify itself by giving a vote perfectly in opposition to that which it gave a short time since on a similar question. The Motion of the hon. Member for Oldham was rejected, because the House would not agree to sanction the disseverance of religious instruction from secular education. And how did the matter stand with respect to this Bill? If the noble Viscount had brought forward a Bill to extend the means of education in Scotland, he should have been glad to support it. But why abolish the system which a long, useful, and practical experience had shown to be so beneficial? The hon. Member for Montrose had said that the Church of Scotland had been negligent of its duty, and therefore the parishes were to be punished by abolishing a system which they all approved. The Church of Scotland, he would say, had not neglected its duty. It had no power of establishing more than one school in each parish. It had no funds at its disposal which could apply to the support of schools, hut it had repeatedly directed the attention of Government to the necessity of increasing the means of education. He must suppose the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume) had been so long out of Scotland that he had forgotten what the powers of the General Assembly were,; or he would not have brought forward that charge of neglect, when, in fact, the attention of the Church had been directed to the subject; but they had no power, without I the sanction of Parliament, to carry out a more extended system of education. He was unwilling to detain the House by going hack to the history of those schools; but look at what this question really was. They were called upon to abolish those schools which, in the first instance, had I been established by the Parliament of Scotland, and afterwards sanctioned by the Imperial Legislature: placed in the Act of Security, they were in connection with the Church, and under the superintendence and control of the Church. The Act of Security was embodied in the Act of Union, and as such was believed to be irrevocable. But the Motion of the noble Viscount tended directly to interfere with the Act of Union, and to undermine that religion in Scotland which Her Majesty had sworn to maintain. He should like to know whether it was competent for any Member of Parliament, however high his station, to introduce such a measure? If the sytem required amendment, surely it was more the duty of the Government of the country than of a private Member of that House to bring forward a measure for that purpose. Her Majesty's Government, in leaving that duty to an individual, shrunk from the responsibility which ought to belong to itself. He could not but express some surprise at the time which the noble Viscount had taken for bringing forward this Bill. If ever there was a time when the parochial schools in Scotland were in a more efficient state than another—when the greatest pains were taken in the selection of teachers—when the wishes of the heads of families, and those best qualified to advise, were taken into account in the choice of schoolmasters, it was at present. In the parishes in the county with which he was connected, the schoolmaster was chosen by public competition, and after a strict competition the man who was found best qualified for the duty was chosen. He, therefore, thought the time was very ill chosen, and for that reason, and others which he had stated, he should vote against the second reading of the Bill.


said, that the discussion of this Bill, as far as it had gone, had at all events been productive of one advantage—it had produced an admission on all sides of the House, not only that there was a great necessity for enlarged means of education in Scotland, but that it was the duty of that House to proceed to inquire how that destitution could be met. He could not but congratulate the House upon that result; because, while for years the deficiency of the means of education in Scotland had been admitted, they had been going on from one year to another without anything being done to provide against it. If by voting for the second reading of the Bill of the noble Lord, he was understood to be pledging himself to all the noble Lord said, he might have more difficulty in deciding the course which he ought to follow. He did not mean to say, nor probably would his noble Friend say, that the Bill, as it stood, was a perfect and complete system of education for Scotland. But he would support the second reading—in the first place, because he thought the Bill contained the outline and groundwork of what might become a good national measure; and because it was a most meritorious and important contribution on the part of the noble Lord (for which he deserved the thanks of his countrymen) towards the solution of a question that was every day assuming a position of greater importance; and he did this the more readily that, while the social condition of the lower orders of this country, and of Scotland as well as England, presented features which could not but cause anxiety in every reflecting mind, they were allowing time to slip by while they were settling theoretical differences, and wasting the present moment in useless, unavailing discussion. As to the necessity of additional means of education of some kind, he was glad to find that there was no real difference of opinion. With respect to that necessity, he would not go into statistics—in fact, the amount of that necessity was not appreciable by statistics; and if the curtain could be lifted at once, and disclose the real state of the intellectual and moral condition of the lower orders of this country, it would appal and startle even those who were most familiar with the statistics upon the subject. But the statistics of his noble Friend in themselves presented a picture sufficiently appalling. It appeared from the figures the noble Lord had quoted—and no doubt it was correct—that out of 600,000 children who ought to be receiving education, there were 300,000 for whom there was no educational provision whatever. What did this imply? In ten years after this, these 300,000 children would be active members of the community; and if this state of things went on for twenty-five years, the result would be that half of that generation would have had no education whatever. Was it possible that such a state of things could be allowed to go on, without the most injurious and dangerous consequences to the community? With those feelings he gladly hailed this opportunity of recording his vote for the second reading of this Bill, conceiving it to he a question on which all minor differences should be laid aside, and to which the House should address itself, as far as possible, only with the view to remove differences and clear away obstacles, and come to a resolution at least to do something to meet this great evil. He was quite aware that there were different modes by which the evil might be met; either by leaving the established provision for education as it now stood, and giving Government aid and grants to other denominations who are willing to exert themselves in this direction; or, on the other hand, to establish a general national system of education that shall be really and truly sufficient for the wants of the community. As to the first mode, he did not mean to say that a great deal might not be done, and had been done, by the system of grants to different parties, leaving the established means of education as they were. But that was clearly an exceptional case. It was far more desirable, if possible, to have a general national system, than to have a defective national system supplemented in that manner. In the next place, that very supplementing assumed that the national system was defective, and unless some way could be found to make it effective, it was the duty of the country to find some more effective system. He had the strongest impression that, whatever difficulties existed in other parts of the island, there was no real difficulty in Scotland to the establishment of such a system as that proposed by the Bill of his noble Friend; but, on the contrary, that there were natural and great facilities in that country for uniting all denominations under one head. A great deal of pains had been bestowed, and, indeed, too much could not be bestowed, upon the parochial system of education in Scotland. Unquestionably it was a very great and large system, worthy of those Reformers by whom it was originally planned. But the conclusion drawn from this in many quarters was not the proper one. It seemed to him an instance of that use, or abuse, of history which consisted in drawing on the energies of our ancestors for excuse for our own indolence. If it were true that that system, founded 300 years ago, had still such a salutary effect upon the character of the people of Scotland, this lesson might be drawn from it: it showed how great an agent, reaching even beyond the limits of the generation, must a system of education become which is national, not merely in theory, but in reality, and which is adapted to the wants and founded in the affections of the people. The parties who founded that system would have been the last men who, at this time, would have rested contented with it. They were earnest, practical men, who looked the real difficulty in the face, and set themselves to remove it: and the real lesson to be learned from their example was that, like them, they should throw aside all minor obstacles and set themselves, if they could, to re-establish a national system, which, it might reasonably be hoped, would produce beneficial results in generations to come. Those were the general views which he (the Lord Advocate) entertained upon this question; but there were some difficulties suggested, upon which it was right that he should make a few observations. It was said that this measure was intended to subvert the parochial system of Scotland. Now, he thought the question with regard to parish schools in Scotland was but a corner of the question. If they were to leave the parish schools just as they now stood, they would still have to provide for an enormous mass of educational destitution in the country, which the parochial schools could not reach. But if they were to consider the question as a national one, was there any reason why they should not review the system of the parish schools? Assuming it to be desirable that they should do so, was there any reason why they should not do so? That topic was very judiciously avoided by the hon. Member who moved the Amendment (Mr. F. Mackenzie), but he considered it a point of considerable importance. The Act of George III. put the parish schools of Scotland in a very peculiar, be might say an unfortunate, position. Previous to that it had been doubted whether they formed any part of the ecclesiastical constitution of the Church of Scotland. The Act of George III. took away all power to review with respect to the appointment of schoolmasters. It destroyed the ecclesiastical character of those schools, if it had ever been possessed; because every one must know that you could not have within the proper ecclesiastical schools of the Church of Scotland the right of appeal to the Synod and General Assembly taken away without destroying the whole ecclesiastical character of the schools. Many cases had occurred in which the clergyman appealed against the Presbytery which had deposed him, and it was one of the most difficult things possible to remove a schoolmaster. [The learned Lord referred to two cases of this kind, and said]—if the money applied to the purpose of litigation had been applied to the two schools out of which the litigation arose, they would have been about the best endowed in Scotland. The result was, that since the passing of that Act, 1803, those schools had gradually declined. He believed it was quite impossible to allow the Act of 1803 to remain as it stood at present. Then there was the question of tests, and religious instruction in the schools. He wished to explain himself quite explicitly upon that point. If he were to regard this Bill as asserting and establishing secular education as distinct from religion, and excluding religious education, he would not support it in any stage whatever. He did not at all mean to differ from the general opinion of some hon. Gentlemen who had spoken that day. He had no principle against exclusive secular instruction, provided it could not be combined with religious instruction without detriment to the system they were pursuing, for he would never allow the young to grow up in ignorance because they could not convey to them all the religious instruction which might be desired. He found nothing in this Bill which excluded religion, anymore than he found any thing in the Act of Security or the Act of 1803, which excluded it. They could not throw a greater obstacle in the way of national education for Scotland than by excluding it; and one reason why he thought this Bill would stand well was, that the Presbyterian feeling of the people of Scotland, their religious feeling, was such that he was quite satisfied that in almost every school religion would be as well and faithfully taught as in the schools which at present exist; and under the proposed system, as under the present system, it would be quite possible to give religious instruction to the children at periods different from those chosen for imparting secular instruction. It would be right to say a word upon the question of tests. There could not, he thought, be a more miserable safeguard for the religious instruction of the people than this system. It would be infinitely better to abolish those tests, which were but the wretched remnants of a bygone age. No plan of education could be adopted in Scotland in respect of which the Established Church there would not hold a fair and prominent position; and it would be infinitely better the Establishment should come forward and be the first to say those schools should be open to all who held the same tenets with herself. The effect of the tests at present was simply to exclude many who differed in nothing from the Established Church, except in not belonging to it. He would ask hon. Members whether they could possibly shut their eyes to the present state of things? He did not wish to say anything in disparagement of the Established Church—he had no wish to see her decline, but the reverse—there was at present a great deal of good done both by established and unestablished Churches: but it must be remembered that the Establishment did not number more than one-half of what might be called the orthodox Presbyterians of Scotland. That being so, was it reasonable to say you would exclude from your schools all who did not adhere to the Established Church till they would sign all the rules and formulas? As to the subject of the Act of Union, it did not appear to have been considered by the Legislature that the power of presbyters over the schools was truly embraced in the Act of Security—in the Treaty of Union; for the Presbyterians no longer possessed the power over all schools and seminaries beyond those of the parishes; and the Act of George III. necessarily implied that the power of the Church generally over parochial schools was not of an ecclesiastical character, and therefore not embraced in the Treaty of Union. But where there were provisions in an Act of Parliament of legislation for the future, that could not bind the Imperial Legislature at a subsequent period; it must be exercised, indeed, in good faith; but beyond good faith it was impossible to say that the Parliament of a future generation must necessarily be tied up by the legislation of their predecessors. Up to good faith the Act of Security must be maintained; but when a state of things arose altogether different from that under which the Treaty of Union was passed, and when the objects of those who passed that treaty were plainly not attained by adhering to the letter of the text, he did not think it was right to call upon the Legislature to adhere to the letter of the statute, when it was contrary to the best interests of the country. As to the legal question, he might have desired to go into it at greater length; but it appeared to him that there was nothing in the state of the law to prevent the House from doing that which Parliament had more than once done before, in regulating the condition of the parish schools. They had a great question before them, in which he hoped they were embarking with a full and fair chance of bringing it to a crisis. He hoped they would go into Committee on the Bill; and that in Committee they would endeavour, as far as possible, to meet each other's views, to see whore the obstacles lay, to see what were the difficulties, and how they could be obviated. Anything was better than standing still—ignorance would not stand still—year by year the evil was accumulating, and he could not help feeling great anxiety as to what would be the consequence if the present state of things continued. Should another period arrive, when the minds of men should again be agitated as they had recently been in Europe, and find the lower classes of this country in a state of ignorance, it was impossible to say what might be the consequences. In quiet and peaceful times, then, let that House do its duty by educating the people; and, with these sentiments, he should give his vote in favour of the second reading of the Bill.


* Mr. Speaker, I am as willing to admit the temper and the talent of the learned Lord opposite (the Lord Advocate Moncrieff), who has just addressed you, as any one on his own side of the question can be; but I am utterly opposed to his principle and his conclusion; and I heard, with equal astonishment and regret, his exhortation to us "to lay aside all minor differences," as he called the matters at issue, in order to support the measure before the House. For is it a question of "minor differences" which the proposed Bill involves? and is it from one of the learned Lord's distinguished name, that the actual differences, which are between us, are to be described as "minor?" For what are those differences? Are they not between a system which founds education upon religion, and necessarily, and by law, connects the superintendence of that education with the Established Church of Scotland on the one hand; and a system, on the other hand, which not only severs that connexion, but which provides no religious substitute whatever?

I do not say, that the noble author of the Bill (Lord Melgund) excludes by any positive enactment the teaching of religion in the schools which he desires to form; but I do say, that he takes no means to secure such teaching; that, so far as his Bill is concerned, no such teaching is necessary; that, if no religious instruction be imparted in his schools, no clause and no principle of his Bill will he violated; that, finding in Scotland a system of education based upon religion, such religion being the Established Church of the State, be is prepared to introduce, as the National Education of that same Realm of Scotland, schools in which—under the provisions of his Bill—no religion whatever need be imparted to the children of Scotland. He is specially "anxious," as he tells us, "that nothing should creep into his Bill I which should seem to indicate that the Legislature wanted to specify what should, I and what should not, be taught."

Bad as I should think this to be, if it were to be the foundation of a new system in a new colony, it is far worse, when it is to be the virtual overthrow and supercession of the older and better system established in an ancient kingdom. It is not, indeed, the formal excommunication of religion as a thing unfit for a man to teach, and for a boy to learn; but it is practically to say, that whereas formerly, and up to this day, the secular education has been, and necessarily must have been, based on the teaching of the Church of Scotland, henceforth and for over, such education as the Bill provides, shall be separated from the superintendence of that Church, and may be utterly unconnected with any form of faith, or any the simplest summary of Christian truth. This, as applied to a National Scheme of Education, I call distinctly the withdrawal, though by no formal prohibition, of religious teaching as a part of the national duty. It leaves that to chance which the provident care of the forefathers of Scotland thought they had secured to their children for ever; and if any religious truth be hereafter taught in any school which may be founded under this Bill, it will be a blessing for which the people will not be indebted to the noble Lord. Yet the learned Lord says, that these are "minor differences;" and he calls upon us to surrender them, and to join him in affirming the principle of the present Bill. My noble Friend, however, the Prime Minister, did not, a few days ago, regard it as a minor matter whether a system of secular education distinct from religious training, should or should not be established in England and Wales. I find in the Votes of this House, on Thursday, the 22nd of May, a Motion in these words, proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox)— That it is expedient to promote the education of the people, in England and Wales, by the establishment of free schools for secular instruction, to be supported by local rates, and managed by Committees elected specially for that purpose by the ratepayers. That Motion was rejected by a majority of 139 to 49; and I rejoice to find in that majority the names of my noble Friend (Lord J. Russell), and of all his five Colleagues in the Cabinet, who are Members of this House. Yet the plan of the hon. Member was, like the plan of the noble Lord opposite, education supported by local taxation, superintended by local boards, without any religious teaching-whatever. Apply the terms of the Resolution of the 22nd of May to the Bill of the noble Lord. What is the difference? I may say, with perfect accuracy—and both parties will regard the phrase as a compliment—that the noble Lord is the Fox of Scotland.

I am quite willing to admit, because I believe it to be true, that, personally, the noble Lord would be grieved at the discontinuance of religious teaching in Scotland; but my quarrel is not with the individual, but with his measure—not with what the noble Lord would do in any district where he might reside, hut with what, as a national measure, he proposes to establish for the whole country of Scotland; and I contend that, if his Bill shall unhappily pass into a law, there is not only the probable subversion of the whole parochial system, and of the Christian training of the country; but there is no substitution of any other education which even professes to have any the slightest connexion with religion.

The noble Lord assumes that all men admit, that, in the matter of education in Scotland, "some legislation is necessary." I do not dispute the proposition: but I entirely deny the object and the extent of the legislation which is necessary. I repudiate the noble Lord's object, as he himself expressed it, in words which I took down at the time—"to remove its sectarian character as a pendicle of the Established Church." Of course, therefore, I deprecate the extent of the legislation which, with that object, he is prepared to introduce. Yet, I repeat my admission, that some legislation is desirable, and important, and, I will add, essential. The noble Lord, in the early part of his speech, referred to the fact, that, at one and the same time, there were three lunatics, teachers in the parochial schools of Scotland; a grievous fact, which he cannot de- plore more than the other Members whom lie addressed; but an evil, the remedy for which does not require the uprooting of the whole social and religious system of the national education in the land. I agree with him, that, in order to prevent the recurrence of such an evil, and for many other reasons, it is most desirable to provide the means of granting retiring pensions to masters who are from any cause incapable of duty. I agree with him, that in very many cases, it is most important to raise the incomes of those who continue masters; and I agree with him, in the third place, that it is essential to multiply the numbers of masters already employed in the school system of the country. But the attainment of any one of these objects—the attainment of these all combined— does not, I contend, require the disruption of the existing parochial training of Scotland, or the exclusion of religion as an integral element in the education of the people.

It has been at all times the duty and the privilege of the Church of Scotland to supply religious education to the people of Scotland: I say, emphatically, the Church of Scotland established in Scotland. I make no reference to any other denomination: still less do I depreciate the extraordinary salcrifices of the Free Church—the self-denia-which it has exercised—and the untiring energies which it has exerted to attain its present position by the side of the Established Church. I acknowledge and I respect the talents, the zeal, and the piety, which the Free Church has displayed; but the obligation, and the honour of teaching the people is, by the most solemn law of tire land, entrusted to the Established Church, and that Church has not forfeited its charter.

How was this prerogative committed to the Church of Scotland? The Lord Advocate went back, I think, to 1560. I will go no farther than to 1616, when the King, James VI., recommended to his Parliament to treat with the heritors for the establishment and the maintenance of schools, supported by a rate levied by themselves upon their own possessions, and governed and guided by the ministers of the Church. In 1633, the heritors were empowered to tax each plough and husband land for this purpose. By an Act of the Legislature of Scotland, passed in 1646, the landholders, in default of the heritors, might elect a teacher. In 1660, that Act, with all the others of the late Parliament, was repealed. With the exception of the interval between that year and 1696, the history of Scotland shows that from the year 1616 (for I need not go farther back) to the present day, the education of the people of the land has been, by law, solemnly entrusted to the Church of the land, whether that Church were Episcopal or Presbyterian. The nation felt, that the Church, which it established as National, should begin with its youth, and continue its authoritative ministrations to all ages and to all classes.

What was the state of Scotland during the existence of that exception, to which I have just alluded; when, so far as law was concerned, the whole fabric of Scottish education was levelled to the ground?

I am quite willing to admit that the impetus given to the Christian education of the people continued long after the day when the immediate force was withdrawn. I know that many wise and eminent men were produced in the parish schools in that period when those schools were no longer supported by law, but were carried forward by the energy which had originally impelled them. Still when I read the testimony of a great contemporary, I cannot but feel, that, making every allowance for the fervour of the writer, the education, whatever it was, which had survived the formal repeal of the statute, had not formed a national character at all like that of the subsequent 150 yea s. The author whom I quote, states that there wore, in 1698, 200,000 beggars in Scotland. Again, I am willing to admit, that there was no statistical accuracy in the assertion. But who was the eminent man who made it? It was no other than Fletcher of Saltoun! And who was Fletcher of Saltoun? He was that man, of whom it was said, "that he would die to serve his country, and would not do an unjust thing to save it." The statements of such a man, when he proceeds to describe in detail the character and habits of his own people with indignant eloquence, are not to be thrown aside as without foundation and truth; and we may safely admit that the national character of Scotland was almost such as might be expected from the uprooting of a national and general system of religious education. I speak to utilitarians now: the education overthrown in 1660, was an education connected with the teaching of the Church: the education again established in 1696 was an education connected with the teaching of the Church. Can any one doubt that the national character has improved with the religious instruction conveyed in the school I Can any one deny that the education of Scotland has formed its people—its moral, industrious, intelligent people? Follow up the last figures which I have quoted from Fletcher of Saltoun:—a return was obtained in 1803 of the beggars in London; and while 1,006 were English, and 679 were Irish, only 65 were Scotch.

Again, how and where has the intellect of Scotland been fostered and nurtured, except in her parish schools? There, and there almost exclusively, have her eminent men been educated. It is curious to trace, how, with very rare exceptions, the most distinguished in every department of literature and of science have been pupils in parish schools; and in all human probability would have had little education indeed, if those schools had not been provided for them by their country. Take the mathematicians: Play fair was educated in the parish school of Bervie; Leslie, in that of Leven; Simson, in that of East Kilbride, a place and a school which I cannot mention without adding, that there, and in that school also, were educated the two famous brothers, William and John Hunter; the last, one of the immortal men of the eighteenth century; and who, too probably, would not have had his early talents encouraged and developed, if the parish school of his native village had not been open to receive him. I go on with the mathematicians. James Gregory owed his first instruction to the parish school of Drumoak; Maclaurin, to those of Dumbarton and Kilfiuane.

Who were the poets of Scotland in the last century? Thomson, who was first taught in the parish school of Southdean; Beattie, in that of Laurencekirk; Leyden, in that of Kirktown and Cavers; and all men know that the school of Ayr was the school of Robert Burns. Of the historians of Scotland, Hume was, I believe, privately educated; hut Robertson owed his first education to the parish schools of Borthwick and Dalkeith; Henry, to the parish school of St. Ninian's, in Stirlingshire; Adam Ferguson, to that of Logierait; Gillies, to that of Brechin; Malcolm Laing, to that of Kirkwall. Of the Scottish philosophers, Reid was indebted for his first teaching to the school of Kincardine O'Neil. Even a distinguished theologian on the Episcopal Bench of England, Douglas, was originally a parish schoolboy in Pittenweem; and Campbell and Mack- night, more immediately known as Scottish divines, were brought up in parish schools; the last, in that of Irvine. I might largely continue this list, and might include some living men who would do honour to any place and any system of education, and who were first taught in their own native parishes by the provident care of their mother country.

I will close this enumeration, however; and will only add one most remarkable instance of what the national education of Scotland has done for her children, and what the larger realm of England can hardly exceed. In one secluded parish in the south-west of Scotland, Westerkirk, dwelt an industrious farmer, whose own acknowledged wisdom and worth had been nurtured in the parish school of Ewes. He was the father of four sons, who rose to great eminence in political, military, naval, and scientific life: three wore educated in their village school; the fourth near his brothers. When I name the Malcolms, I say, that any system which gave the early means of religious and intellectual training to such men as the late Sir John Malcolm, Sir Pulteney, Sir James, and Sir Charles, deserves the encouragement of every friend of their country. I ask, whether the tree which produced such fruits can be bad? I ask, whether such a tree ought to be cut down? Without the parish schools of Scotland, what is the probability— where were the means—that the great men of Scotland (whose names have adorned its history for the last 150 years since the revival of the national system) would have had any means of education at all? Spartam nactus es; hanc orna. You have inherited this system—improve it, enlarge it; but maintain its principle, and preserve it as the best foundation of the national character and virtue of the country.

But it is said that the intellect of the age requires more development, and that the wants of the existing generation demand a different provision from that which might perhaps have satisfied our forefathers. Be it so; but the human soul is the same now as a thousand years ago, the temptations of the flesh and of the world are the same; and the same strength is needed now, and will ever be needed, to control and guide and instruct us—the strength which religion only can supply, which a nationa system of education is bound to provide, and without which no education deserves the name.

The noble Lord has talked of the large masses which the parish schools of Scot- land still left uninstructed: "there were 100,000 children without education." On every ordinary principle of statistics, the number must be overstated; but, at all events, and for the moment admitting its accuracy, the noble Lord ought to have described to the House, speaking generally, the localities in which the education of the poor is thus deficient, since I presume that it will be found chiefly in the town parishes of Scotland, for which the parochial system is not responsible, and that the greater part of the remaining deficiency will he found in the extreme parishes of the Highlands, where no other system maintained by local assessment is likely to overtake all the wants of the people. If, then, the deficiencies, shall be found to occur either in the wastes of the Highlands, which, partly from physical circumstances, no national organisation can be expected to pervade and saturate, or in the great masses of the crowded manufacturing cities and boroughs of the Lowlands, for which a distinct machinery is provided, and which I would urge you to strengthen and enlarge—the fact that your people in the two extremes of the country—a crowd and a solitude— are still imperfectly taught, is a good argument for applying other means for their aid, but no argument at all for destroying that system which—in reference to the people between those extremes, that is, in reference to the rural population of the land—has, in its own circle, done more for its objects than any other system of education in any other country in the world, a

On this subject I cannot but quote "passage from the Protest, Declaration, and Testimony" of the General Assembly two years ago. Those eminent persons state that they recollect "with deep and heartfelt gratitude, the mercy and goodness hitherto vouchsafed to the Church of Scotland by her Great Head and Governor"— that they look "back with thankfulness the most profound to the blessings which she has been made the honoured instrument of conferring upon this country"— and they look "forward to the hope that she will be enabled, through the same all-protecting Providence, to persevere in the good work specially allotted to her by the laws and constitution of Scotland, with the zeal, prudence, and energy, which she has hitherto displayed."

It is that powerful and time honoured phrase "The Godly upbringing" of the people, which the General Assembly regards as the solemn duty of the Church of Scotland. That phrase is the watch- word of their system. It describes the obligation which the State has imposed upon the Church: and though it is true that the noble Lord's Bill does not, totictem verbis, repeal the Act of 1696, though it professes to amend it only, there is no one who will say that the present measure will not (for good, as some contend, for irremediable evil, as I contend), change the character of that education which the nation is henceforth to encourage for the people of Scotland. The General Assembly believes, and I trust that this House will long permit that venerable body to be satisfied, that instruction in the truths of religion ought to find the first place in the schools erected and maintained under the authority of the State. The General Assembly deems the daily use of the Bible, interpreted according to the teaching of the Church, to be essential to that religious education which the forefathers of Scotland meant to provide for the people: that the Christian instruction of the adult through the instrumentality of the Church established in the land, and "the Godly upbringing of youth," through the instrumentality of the parish schools under the control and superintendence of their respective Presbyteries, are the twofold objects which the State is solemnly bound to secure for ever to the whole realm of Scotland.

In this I concur: and, concurring, I dedrecate most earnestly the further progress of the measure now before the House. That measure violates the compact which the State has made with the Church; and, without proof or even allegation that the Church has betrayed or neglected its duty, deprives it of its high privilege of being the authorised instructress of the country. I believe that the interests of the people are as much involved in this question as the obligations and prerogatives of the Church; and, therefore, with all these considerations full in my mind, I shall give my vote against the Bill, heartily.


thought that the House should do nothing contrary to the religious sentiments of the people of Scotland. He believed, however, that the noble Lord's Bill was fully appreciated by the great body of the people of Scotland, and if there were one thing more than another that would render the government of Scotland difficult, it would be by denying them a system of education such as that now proposed by the noble Lord (Viscount Melgund). He hoped the House would consent to the second reading of the Bill, so that it might go into Committee, where he doubted not it would be considerably improved. He was grateful for what the parochial schools had done for Scotland; but, it must be recollected, at the time of the Union, when the system was sanctioned, Scotland was a barbarous country, a country wholly without industry. The form of education, then, was adapted to the situation of the people. But since the Union the condition of Scotland had greatly changed. Scotland had become wealthy and industrious, and, therefore, a new system of education suited to the altered times was called for, which ought to be granted by the Legislature, and which, without doubt, the people of Scotland would have. He agreed with every word that had fallen from the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and he should, therefore, support the Bill.


was in favour of the measure, but with the reservation, that if he could think for a moment that it involved any danger of introducing irreligious education into the schools of Scotland, he would be the last man in that House to vote for it. But was there at present any security for religious teaching? What was the test? The declaration of a schoolmaster that he held certain religious tenets. He appealed to hon. Gentlemen on the other side of the House, if any of them would engage a person in a confidential position merely on such a footing, and with such an understanding as that. He was satisfied that the tests tended to introduce and encourage unfit persons in the situations of schoolmasters; and he rejoiced to find that the Government was in favour of a measure that proposed to give more instruction to the youth of Scotland than hitherto they had obtained. It had been said that they must not now rely altogether upon the parochial system for education in Scotland, and reference had been made to an endeavour for raising the status of the schoolmasters, which was, that whenever any scholars were found in either the parochial schools or in those of a superior character, who were qualified for the office of teacher, they were sent to the Normal Educational Institution, which conferred diplomas upon all who proved worthy of them. In Edinburgh there had been ten schools established about fifteen years ago upon the endowment of the late George Heriot. These schools were managed by the Town Council, which was composed of gentlemen of different denominations of religion, and yet there was no difference amongst them as to the training of the children. Among the non-endowed sects in Scotland there existed one and the same attachment to the doctrines of the ancient Presbyterian Church of the country. The only difference of opinion amongst them was on the subject of church government; and this had been caused by the treatment they had received from the civil power. He would cordially support the second reading of the Bill, which, although it did not accomplish all that was desired, would certainly raise the status and increase the emoluments of the parish teachers, who did not at present, in many cases, earn more than a common day labourer.


said, whatever might be the result of the debate, he hoped the House would not come to a hasty decision on a question of such vital importance to the people of Scotland, for the issue which it involved was neither more nor less than the total overthrow of a system which had been established in that country for a century and a half, and the substitution of an untried, and, he believed, a most objectionable as well as an unworkable scheme. The hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House (Mr. Cowan) had expressed a hope that the Bill would be allowed to go into Committee, although he admitted that some of the clauses did not meet his view of the question, and that it must be remodelled in Committee. On such a question it was not sufficient to be in favour of an improved system of education, but they ought to be satisfied that the Bill was an improvement, and would carry out the objects it had in view. The noble Viscount (Viscount Melgund) was alarmed at the deficiency of education in Scotland, and dreaded the perpetuation of the spirit of sectarian rivalry which had arisen; and, in order to extend the one and extinguish the other, the present Bill had been introduced. The question for the consideration of the House was the nature of the system which the noble Viscount wished to overthrow, and the character of the one which he proposed as a substitute. The present system had been the means of affording a sound education to the rural population in Scotland, who, in point of intelligence and acquirements, would bear comparison with any other rural population in the world. He admitted that the means of education were deficient, but that was not the case in the rural districts; the great towns were the only places where the deficiency was felt, and the question how to deal with that mass of ignorance was not grappled with by the present system, still less by the proposed Bill. He would just call the attention of the House to one fact bearing on the ignorance and crime which prevailed in the great cities and towns of Scotland, for the purpose of showing the fearful tide of crime and destitution which of late years had set in on its western shores. He wished to advert more particularly to the proportion of Irish prisoners in the gaols of Scotland. In Glasgow the Irish prisoners were 50 per cent of the whole number; in Ayr they were 59 per cent, while on the east coast the proportion of Irish prisoners was only 10¾ per cent; at Perth it was 13½ per cent, and in Aberdeen only 8 per cent. It was clear, therefore, that much of the crime, destitution, and ignorance in Scotland, especially on the west coast, was the result of the Irish immigration. The Bill of the noble Viscount proposed to extend the means of education, and to do away with sectarian rivalry: now, how far was it likely to extend the means of education, and do away with that rivalry? The Bill was permissive. It could only come into operation when a majority of the electors, who were in no very elevated position in society, agreed to assess themselves for the purposes of education; and let it be remembered that under the present system these persons were liable to no assessment whatever. He therefore could not believe that the Bill would be the means of extending education. When they were about to destroy an ancient system, which undoubtedly had operated with great success in the rural districts, they ought to legislate on something more than probability, and with some reasonable prospect that the measure would produce the effect anticipated. So much with regard to the extension of the means of education. Now let the Mouse consider how far the Bill would be likely to allay the spirit of sectarian rivalry to which the Privy Council Education grant had given rise. Instead of allaying that irritation, his impression was that the Bill would only exasperate it, and further embitter the feelings of hostility which at present existed. How was education to be carried on under this Bill? There must be a majority of the electors in its favour, and the character of the education must depend on the constitution of the elected board, which would be composed of persons of different sects, each of which would endeavour to obtain a predominant voice. He therefore maintained that sectarian rivalry would not be abolished, hut on the contrary, he feared, greatly increased. Under these circum-stances he trusted the House would not hastily adopt the measure of the noble Lord, and overthrow a system which was capable of improvement, and which, whatever may be its defects, bad been the means of making the Scots an intelligent, moral, industrious, and God-fearing people.


Sir, my lion. Friend who has just sat down has spoken chiefly of the details of this Bill, and has pointed out defects which may much better be considered in Committee, after the Bill has been read a second time. I am, therefore, not disposed to discuss any of these details. I wish rather, before the House goes to a division, to make a few remarks on the general character of the Bill, I should hardly have asked the House to listen to me on that part of the subject, after the able speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, in whoso sentiments I express my complete concurrence, had it not been for what has fallen from the hon. Baronet the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H Inglis). The hon. Gentleman states that this is a Bill for purely secular education; that religious instruction is to be omitted from the schools in Scotland; and that it entirely resembles a Resolution which was proposed to the House on the 22nd of May by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox). Whatever may be the merits of the proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham, or whatever may he the merits of the Bill of my noble Friend (Viscount Melgund), no two propositions can be more distinct. The proposition of the hon. Member for Oldham was, that secular schools should be established for secular instruction, the words "secular instruction" being introduced for the express purpose of excluding religious instruction, and implying that secular instruction only should be taught in those schools which were to be supported by parochial assessments. The Bill of my noble Friend, so far from going that length, proposes that a board should take care to provide means of education; and certainly, although it does not exclude a school from secular instruction, I should understand generally the word "education" to imply religious instruction, and that religious instruction would be given in the schools established under this Bill. The only difficulty in the way of religious instruction being given in those schools would he the fact of all the parochial committees being of one opinion, namely, that religious instruction ought not to be given in the schools, and that secular instruction only should he imparted. But, knowing the opinion of the people of Scotland— knowing the feeling of the different religious bodies in that country—having heard how unanimous is their opinion on the subject— and knowing what the history of Scotland is in this respect—I cannot for a moment doubt that if these committees were established, there would hardly be an instance in which secular instruction only would be given in these schools. Upon that point I need go no further, because the observations of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate were, I think, perfectly conclusive. The hon. Member for Peebles-shire (Mr. F. Mackenzie) states one singular ground for objecting to the Bill. The hon. Gentleman says that parochial assessments, and the admission of all to the schools in Scotland, are the principles on which education in Scotland has been conducted; and he says these are the principles in force at present, and therefore he objects to this Bill. Now, on the contrary, he ought to say, as these are the principles of the present mode of education in Scotland, and as these are the principles of which he approves, finding these principles in the Bill, be would therefore support the second reading. This Bill contains a clause for local and parochial assessment, and the principle generally adopted in parochial schools in Scotland, that religious instruction is to be given in such a way that where parents object to religious instruction the child is not obliged to attend. But there is another question. At present the instruction given in the schools, according to the parochial system, is not sufficient to afford education to the people of Scotland. It is stated by Mr. Gordon that of 790 localities in Scotland 329 were without the benefit of schools of any description whatever; and he goes on to say where it is desirable the schools should be established. There can be no doubt that there is a want of schools, and I think it is the almost unanimous opinion of the House that it is desirable that further means of education should be given. So far I apprehend the House is agreed; but then the question is, how far can we propose to give that instruction by an enlargement and extension of the present parochial system, without any change whatever. I find immediatly an objection will arise to any extension of that kind, because, however desirable it may be—and I should say it would have been desirable, in other circumstances, that the Church of Scotland should have sustained the part it has hitherto taken in the parochial system of Scotland—I find that it is not now in a position to undertake the superintendence of the general education of the people of Scotland. At one time the Established Church of Scotland comprehended the great majority of the people. At present there are the Free Church and the United Presbyterian, both dissenting from the Eslablished Church of Scotland, and, together, having as many congregations as the Established Church of Scotland itself. Well, then, the principle of the Established Church of Scotland is, first, that the schoolmaster should be appointed with a test by the heritors and minister; and, secondly, that the heritors and minister should have the superintendence and regulation of the school. But if the Church of Scotland came to ask for a further extension of these schools, and claimed to lay additional burdens on the people by local assessment, it is evident that those who differ from that Church, having an equality in numbers, and with congregations amounting to 1,400 in number, would object to an extension of a system, the benefits of which were confined to only one-half of the Presbyterians of Scotland. But there is another circumstance well deserving the attention of this House. Although the Free Church and the United Presbyterians differ from the Established Church of Scotland, they do not differ in any matter which is necessary to the teaching of the children of the poor in these schools. The United Presbyterians differ from the Established Church as to church government. They do not differ in doctrine. They do not differ in the faith to be taught in the schools. The Free Church of Scotland does not differ even on the subject of church government. They have, like it, a general assembly, their synods, and their presbyteries; these forms of the Established Church of Scotland are also forms of the Free Church. They differ only as to the question of patronage. Now, neither the question of church government, nor the question of patronage, can or ought to enter into the discussion relative to the schools Therefore, there is no reason whatever why these three bodies—the ministers and laymen of the Established Church, the ministers and laymen of the Free Church, and the ministers and laymen of the United Presbyterian body, should not unite together in establishing schools, in appointing schoolmasters, and in regulating and controlling the schools. Then I say, if it is desirable to extend the system of schools in Scotland—if we have found that the wants of the population, that the increase of trade and wealth, that the increase in the number of town parishes, have made the parochial system inadequate to the wants of the people of Scotland—and if it is necessary to have another and more extensive system—let us found it not on a system which has become too narrow, hut upon the wants and agreements of the three bodies who form the great mass of the people. That appears to be the ground on which the Bill rests. I certainly do not say that the machinery of the Bill is in a state of perfection. I do not know whether it could be well amended in a Committee of the whole House, but I think that in a Select Committee all points of difference might he well considered, and eventually adjusted. It might be considered, likewise, whether some obligation should not be imposed upon the ratepayers in large towns to establish schools where there are not a sufficient number for the wants of the population; and whether they could not be rendered more expansive than the Bill proposes to render them. Seeing how exceedingly reasonably Scotch Members listen to each other's arguments when objections arise, and how readily they finally agree in some useful measure, I think there is no reason why the Bill should not be referred to a Select Committee, to agree upon principles with which the House might afterwards decide. The hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) has pronounced a high panegyric upon the ancient parochial schools of Scotland. I quite agree with him in that panegyric, for I think that they have been extremely useful and beneficial. I should also, however, have agreed with the hon. Member if he had pronounced a panegyric on the turnpike roads of England, or the ancient oil lamps which formerly illuminated our streets. They were both great improvements over the former state of barbarism and darkness in which we lived; but I do not see why we may not improve these and other things in our day as our ancestors improved in theirs.


said, he had felt some degree of curiosity, along with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford (Sir R. H. Inglis) to know the grounds on which Her Majesty's Government would be prepared to support the principle of the Bill, after the vote given by them on a former evening, on the Resolution proposed by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox). The noble Lord at the head of the Government, the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate, and every other hon. Member on that side of the House who meant to vote for the second reading of this Bill, have taken care to guard themselves against being pledged to any of the details of the measure. One admitted that it was very complicated; another thought that great amendments ought to be made. He (Sir G. Clerk) would ask the House, then, on a question of this vital importance, whether they ought to be called on to sanction the great and important principle involved in this Bill. He was sure the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) did not approve of the principle of the Bill as laid down by its mover. Now what was the principle of the Bill as stated by the noble Lord (Viscount Melgund) by whom it had been introduced? The separation of secular from religious instruction. ["No, no!"] That was the sense in which it was understood by the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Hume); and his observations on that point were cheered by the hon. Members around him, when he said there was one barrier to the extension of education in Scotland as well as elsewhere, and that barrier was the attempt to combine religious and secular instruction together; and therefore the hon. Member supported the Bill because its main and leading principle was secular education apart from religious instruction. If, with regard to England, this principle was considered so dangerous that the Government would not listen to its introduction to supply the admitted deficiency of this country, why was the experiment to be tried upon unfortunate Scotland, where, for a century and a half, a system of education had been in existence which every hon. Member had taken the opportunity of eulogising. Nothing could be better calculated for the wants and situation of Scotland at the time the system was introduced; and it was only owing to recent events and the increased population that it had been found inadequate to the wants of the people. Was it pretended that the present parochial school system was inadequate in those districts for which it was especially intended; namely, the rural and agricultural districts? In the lowlands of Scotland, at least, there was no need of schools. There was, he admitted, so great an amount of ignorance and destitution in some parts of Scotland, that any number of schools would be found insufficient; and if, on the one hand, they were to demand from the parents fees, however small, they would not be able to avail themselves of the education that was offered on such terms; whilst, on the other hand, if the schools were free, he believed that his countrymen were so impressed with the idea that what they got for nothing could not be worth much more, that they would not accept it. On former occasions he had admitted the great want of education in Scotland; but that consisted chiefly in the large towns and communities which had grown up in the last forty or fifty years. He thought, however, there was a great mistake as to the amount of that deficiency. From the returns of the last census, it appeared that the number of children in Scotland, between the ages of five and fifteen was 600,000; whilst from the report of the inspectors of schools, the number attending the schools at any time, and of the same age, was only 300,000; but it could not be correctly contended that the rest of the number remained without education. He believed the fact to be, that most of the children did receive education for five years, that was to say, from the age of five to ten; but that after that age, and more especially after the age of twelve, the number attending the schools was small, because children in the manufacturing districts, were then able to earn wages, and their parents sent them to the manufactories, and did not allow them to remain at school. Let them multiply schools, therefore, as they would, they would not increase the number of children attending them after the age of twelve years. He agreed with the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate as to the benefits of education, and in the importance of combining religious instruction with it; but it was upon that very ground that he claimed the support of the right hon. and learned Lord in opposing this measure. The inspectors of schools admitted that the parochial schools were the best; and if the wants of Scotland in re- spect of education could not he overtaken by those schools, in addition to the schools established by the General Assembly of the Free Church, he saw no objection to the extension of schools by a grant under the Committee of Education of the Privy Council, though he admitted that the scheme was not peculiarly adapted to Scotland. The opinion of Dr. Chalmers had been referred to as favourable to the separation of religious and secular education; but he was sure that that idea never entered his mind. What he said was, that if grants were to be made to Roman Catholic schools on the condition that Government should be certified that those attending such schools did receive some religious instruction, he thought that was a countenancing of error as well as truth on the part of Government; and, rather than have this indifference to religious truth, he preferred that the Government should take no cognisance whatever of the religious doctrines taught in the schools. The connexion between the Established Church and the parochial schools had not hitherto been a barrier in the way of education; nor was any part of the population now prevented by the constitution of those schools from sending their children to them. But if this Bill were passed, and the majority of the ratepayers should insist upon having the school taught by a master not of the Established Church, and not bound to give religious instruction, the children of parents belonging to the Established Church would be excluded from the schools. He believed that a feeling of sectarian bitterness would be much more deeply impressed upon the minds of the children if they were to receive religious and secular instruction at separate times. The noble Viscount (Viscount Melgund) had said, that in some parts of Scotland religious instruction was given apart from secular instruction; but that was only in some places in the Highlands, where Roman Catholic parents had requested that their children should be allowed to withdraw while the others were receiving religious instruction. Religious instruction was not confined merely to reading the Bible as a school-book, but it was intimately interwoven with all the instruction which a well-disposed master gave to his scholars, from the time of their entering to that of their leaving school. He contended, therefore, that, if the House assented to a Bill so crudely prepared that not one of those who had stated that they should sup- port the second reading, approved its provisions, they would take a most dangerous step, and one which would materially interfere with any well-considered and well-digested plan for the extension of education in Scotland; and, by raising a prejudice against any alteration in the minds of the serious and well-disposed people of Scotland, they must prevent a calm and dispassionate inquiry hereafter into the admitted evils of the present system, which, he acknowledged, required the immediate attention of the House with a view to their correction. Petitions had been presented against this Bill from every county in Scotland, emanating from meetings which represented that body ill Scotland who alone were taxed for the support of the parochial schools; and as they were still willing to continue to bear the burden, he thought they had a right to insist that the parochial schools should still be allowed to exist upon the footing on which they had been established by their ancestors, and that they should still maintain that connexion with the Established Church of Scotland, upon which he believed had mainly depended the benefits which the country had derived from them.


said, the opponents of the Bill were willing to concede to its supporters that in various localities the education given was insufficient for the wants of the people; but they denied that education of the character afforded by this Bill was calculated to supply the wants of the people, or to improve their morality. The principle of this Bill was identical with that brought in by the hon. Member for Oldham (Mr. W. J. Fox), namely, the entire separation of religious and secular instruction. Now, what had been understood in Scotland by education was, religious and secular instruction combined. The various Acts of the scotch Parliament, and the Act of the United Parliament in 1803, upon which the Scotch school system was founded, all contemplated that combination; but this Bill not only proposed to separate religious from secular instruction, but it took away the control which the clergy now possessed over the government of the school, and abandoned all religious tests, or even tests of Christianity, as applied to the masters and instructors of the youth of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had said that we should not now stand still, but that we should be advancing, on account of the mischief that there was in the present state of ignorance; and the right hon. and learned Lord referred to the convulsions which had taken place in Europe as a reason why we should give the people more instruction. But he (Mr. Scott) contended that this was the very reason why they should refuse to give the children that peculiar kind of instruction which they would receive under this Bill. [The hon. Member then quoted from the report of Mr. Brown, one of the inspectors of schools under the Privy Council, some remarks with respect to the disastrous consequences of separating religious from secular instruction in France.] He maintained that those to whom the noble Lord at the head of the Government had committed the charge of the education of the people in this country were opposed to the separation of religious from secular instruction, for he believed that it was not sanctioned by a single passage in the reports of any of the inspectors under the Privy Council. It was his intention to vote against the second reading of the Bill.


, in reply, said that it was not proposed by this Bill to compel the separation of religious from secular instruction in Scotland, or to prescribe to the Scotch the adoption of any given system of education, but merely to give them certain machinery, and trust to them to work it out; and he believed that was a better mode than laying down a system of education by Act of Parliament. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Dovor (Sir G. Clerk) had said that the Privy Council should be empowered to give grants on a more extended scale. But those grants were as complete an attack on the Act of Union and the Act of Security as anything that was contained in the Bill before the House. The only difference was, that the right hon. Baronet would do without Act of Parliament precisely that for which he (Viscount Melgund) desired the sanction of the Legislature. He must congratulate hon. Members on the other side of the House with having succeeded in mixing up the elements of religious discord with this matter. On looking to the statutes on this subject he found that neither in the Act of 1803, nor in that in 1691, was there any provision on the subject of religious instruction, and he did not see, therefore, why he should be taunted with excluding religion. It had been stated by hon. Members opposite that the Bill would not be effective for the purpose contemplated, as it was merely permissive. He had not made its provi- sions compulsory, because he believed that the people of Scotland would not bear such provisions; but if hon. Members opposite would introduce, in Committee or elsewhere, amendments for the purpose of rendering it compulsory on localities to provide the means of educating the people, where such were wanting, he should be happy to support them.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 124; Noes 137: Majority 13.

List of the AYES.
Adair, H. E. Grey, R. W.
Alcock, T. Guest, Sir J.
Anderson, A. Harris, R.
Anstey, T. C. Hastie, A.
Armstrong, Sir A. Hastie, A.
Armstrong, R. B. Hatchell, rt. hon. J.
Bagshaw, J. Hawes, B.
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Baring, rt. hon. Sir F.T. Headlam, T. E.
Bass, M. T. Henry, A.
Bell, J. Heywood, J.
Bellew, R. M. Hill, Lord M.
Berkeley, Adm. Hindley, C.
Berkeley, hon. H. F. Hobhouse, T. B.
Bernal, R. Hodges, T. L.
Birch, Sir T. B. Hume, J.
Bonverie, hon. E. P. Humphery, Ald.
Bright, J. Hutchins, E. J.
Brotherton, J. Keating, R.
Brown, W. Kershaw, J.
Campbell, hon. W. F. Labouchere, rt. hon. H.
Chaplin, W. J. Lemon, Sir C.
Clay, J. Lewis, G. C.
Clements, hon. C. S. Littleton, hon. E. R.
Cobden, R. Loch, J.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E. Locke, J.
Coke, hon. E. K. Lushington, C.
Colebrooke, Sir T. E. M'Gregor, J.
Corbally, M. E. M'Taggart, Sir J.
Cowan, C. Milnes, R. M.
Craig, Sir W. G. Moffatt, G.
Crawford, W. S. Moncreiff, J.
Crowder, R. B. Mostyn, hon. E. M. L.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Mowatt, F.
Dawes, E. Murphy, F. S.
D'Eyncourt, rt. hn. C.T Norreys, Lord
Douglas, Sir C. E. O'Connor, F.
Duff, G. S. Parker, J.
Duff, J. Power, Dr.
Dundas, rt. hon. Sir D Rawdon, Col.
Ellice, rt. hon. E. Robartes, T. J. A.
Ellice, E. Romilly, Col.
Elliot, hon. J. E. Romilly, Sir J.
Fergus, J. Russell, Lord J.
Fordyce, A. D. Russell, F. C. H.
Forster, M. Scholefield, W.
Fortescue, hon. J. W. Seymour, H. D.
Fox, W. J. Smith, J. B.
Freestun, Col. Somerville rt. hon. Sir W.
Geach, C. Stansfield, W. R. C.
Gibson, rt. hon. T. M. Stanton, W. H.
Greene, J. Strickland, Sir G.
Grenfell, C. W. Stuart, Lord J.
Grey, rt. hon. Sir G. Tenison, E. K.
Tennent, R. J. Willcox, B. M.
Thicknesse, R. A. Williams, W.
Thompson, Col. Willyams, H.
Townshend, Capt. Wilson, J.
Traill, G. Wilson, M.
Trelawny, J. S. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Tynte, Col. C. J. K.
Wall, C. B. TELLERS.
Walmsley, Sir J. Melgund, Visct.
Westhead, J. P. B. Ewart, W.
List of the NOES.
Adderley, C. B. Greene, T.
Arbuthnott, hon. H. Gwyn, H.
Arkwright, G. Halford, Sir H.
Bailey, J. Halsey, T. P.
Baillie, H. J. Hamilton, G. A.
Baird, J. Hamilton, J. H.
Bankes, G. Harris, hon. Capt.
Barrow, W. H. Hayes, Sir E.
Benbow, J. Hope, Sir J.
Bennet, P. Hotham, Lord
Bentinck, Lord H. Hudson, G.
Beresford, W. Inglis, Sir R. H.
Best, J. Johnstone, Sir J.
Blackstone, W. S. Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H.
Booth, Sir R. G. Jones, Capt.
Bowles, Adm. Knox, hon. W. S.
Bramston, T. W. Langton, W. H. P. G.
Bremridge, R. Lennox, Lord H. G.
Brooke, Lord Lockhart, A. E.
Bruce, C. L. C. Lockhart, W.
Buck, L. W. Lowther, hon. Col.
Buller, Sir J. Y. Lygon, hon. Gen.
Carew, W. H. P. Mackie, J.
Charteris, hon. F. Macnaghten, Sir E.
Child, S. Maher, N. V.
Clerk, rt. hon. Sir G. Mahon, Visct.
Clive, H. B. Masterman, J.
Cochrane, A.D.R.W.B. Matheson, A.
Cocks, T. S. Matheson, Sir J.
Coles, H. B. Matheson, Col.
Colvile, C. R. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Damer, hon. Col. Meux, Sir H.
Davies, D. A. S. Miles, W.
Deedes, W. Mullings, J. R.
Denison, E. Naas, Lord
Dod, J. W. Newdegate, C. N.
Drummond, H. H. Nicholl, rt. hon. J.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. Noel, hon. G. J.
Duncuft, J. O'Brien, Sir L.
Dundas, G. Oswald, A.
Du Pre, C. G. Packe, C. W.
Egerton, Sir P. Perfect, R.
Egerton, W. T. Pilkington, J.
Farnham, E. B. Plumptre, J. P.
Farrer, J. Portal, M.
Fellowes, E. Powell, Col.
Fitzroy, hon. H. Prime, R.
Forbes, W. Reynolds, J.
Fox, S. W. L. Rufford, F.
Freshfield, J. W. Sandars, G.
Gallwey, Sir W. P. Scott, hon. F.
Galway, Visct, Scully, F.
Gilpin, Col. Seymer, H. K.
Gooch, E. S. Sibthorp, Col.
Goold, W. Smollett, A.
Gordon, Adm. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Gore, W. O. Spooner, R.
Gore, W. R. O. Stafford, A.
Graham, rt. hon. Sir J. Stanley, hon. E. H.
Granby, Marq. of Stuart, H.
Greenall, G. Stuart, J.
Townley, R. G. Whiteside, J.
Trevor, hon. G. R. Wigram, L. T.
Verner, Sir W. Willoughby, Sir H.
Vesey, hon. T. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Waddington, H. S. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Walsh, Sir J. B. Young, Sir J.
Wegg-Prosser, F. R. TELLERS.
Welby, G. E. Mackenzie, W. F.
West, F. R. Drumlanrig, Visct.

Words added:—Main Question as amended, put and agreed to:—Second Reading put of for six months.

The House adjourned at half after Five o'clock.