HC Deb 27 April 1855 vol 137 cc1905-31

Order for Second Reading read.

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


, in moving as an Amendment that the Bill be read a second time that day six months, said, he would not occupy the time of the House by dwelling upon the advantages of education, or the importance of bringing it within the reach of the children of the poorer classes, a matter on which all were agreed. While, however, the importance, the advantages, and the necessity of rendering education available to those classes were evident, he thought the fact that three Bills had been introduced on the subject by very distinguished Members of that House, each proposing different systems, showed the difficulty of establishing any plan which might not be open to numer- ous objections. That circumstance, in his opinion, also showed the necessity of caution in dealing with a country which possessed a system of education that had acted well, in the hope of introducing some plan that would work still better. The people of Scotland were fortunate in possessing a system of education which had worked well for three centuries, having been introduced at the time of the Reformation by John Knox, and those who were called "the Fathers of the Church of Scotland." About the year 1600 a very large number of parochial schools had been established in Scotland by the Church, and in 1616 the Privy Council recognised these schools. In the year 1613 an Act was passed by the Parliament of Scotland in their favour, which was subsequently confirmed. In 1646 another Act was passed on the subject, which might be considered to have established the parochial schools as they now existed, and which, although it was repealed at the Restoration, was re-enacted in 1696. The parochial schools of Scotland might be considered to have existed for nearly two centuries, and they were essentially Church schools. There was no law laid down as to what was to be taught in them, but they were given over to the management of the Church, and the education afforded in them was to be a religious education under the charge of the Church of Scotland. He thought an attempt was now being made to overthrow that principle and to substitute a new one in its place. He believed it was universally admitted that the schools established by the Church of Scotland, and which had been adopted by the State, had worked remarkably well, and had done a great deal to raise the character of the Scotch people. In support of his assertion respecting the utility of the system, he would quote the opinions of two persons to whose views he thought hon. Members would be inclined to attach much importance. The right hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) had expressed his opinion that the establishment of parochial schools in Scotland effected such an improvement as the world had never seen in the intellectual and moral character of the people. The Marquess of Lansdowne, the late President of the Committee of Council on Education, also stated in 1850, that though he was far from saying that the schools in Scotland were in a perfect state, or that they were sufficiently developed to meet the wants of the country, still he would much regret seeing any system of education attempted in that country the basis of which was not founded upon the principle of the parochial schools, which had been the means of giving to Scotland the great national pre-eminence in education that she had so long enjoyed. He (Mr. Blackburn) did not mean to say those schools were perfect, but he thought nothing could be more distinct than Lord Lansdowne's testimony to the principle on which they were established—that of a connection with the Church. The right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Lord Advocate, who brought in this Bill, had also stated that at present the parochial schools in Scotland were more efficient than they had ever been before, and that they were decidedly more efficient than they were twenty years ago. Another testimony in favour of the existing system might be deduced from the preamble of the right hon. and learned Lord's Bill, which said:— And whereas instruction in the principles of religious knowledge and the reading of the Holy Scriptures, as heretofore in use in the parochial and other schools in that country, is consonant to the opinions and religious profession of a great body of the people, while at the same time ordinary secular instruction has been, and should be, available to children of all denominations," &c. What higher testimony could be borne to the principle of the schools than the admission that for 200 years past they had given exactly the religious teaching that was desired by the great body of the people, and had communicated secular instruction to the children of those who dissented from the Established Church? The great feature of the present Bill was, that it severed the existing connection between the Church of Scotland and the parochial schools, and thereby destroyed the principle which had produced such excellent results up to the present time. Why had this Bill been proposed when it was admitted that the schools had worked so well and had effected so much good? He thought, the true reason had been assigned by the Duke of Argyll, who in 1850 stated in his place in the House of Lords, that the agitation which had been raised for the overthrow of the parochial system was founded in the main on those feelings which all Dissenters bore to all Established Churches, especially to those which they had lately left, and from which they differed least. Now, with regard to the Free Church seceders, very exaggerated statistics, he thought, had been published; but that was of no great importance at the present moment. It was impossible, however, when the presentation of petitions on this subject took place, not to be struck with the frequent repetition of the words "Free Church," the petitions front Free Church presbyteries and synods being so very numerous. He had great respect for the Free Church, and thought the conduct of those 450 ministers, who left their manses and stipends for what they believed to be a great principle, was worthy of all praise; but it did not follow that he thought them right in leaving the Church, and he believed some of themselves were now of the same opinion. Be that as it might, however, the present Bill was directly opposed to their own principles. The protest which they left behind them when they seceded from the Church, and which he believed was drawn up by the hon. and learned Member for Greenock (Mr. Dunlop), stated that they held by the doctrine of an Established Church and by the principles of the Church of Scotland; but one of the principles of the Church of Scotland was, that there should be connected with it a system of parochial schools. Then, why should they wish the schools to be disconnected from the Church? It was no argument to say it was not the right Church, for those who formed the secession could not be admitted as the judges in such a case. He thought the best thing they could do was to petition Parliament to give the Established Church such relief as would enable the Free Church to join it again. The Bill before the House proposed to transfer the entire management of the schools in Scotland to a Board. Ho thought the Scotch Members would rather abolish some of the Boards that already existed in Edinburgh than aid in the establishment of a new one. He believed that even the hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Cowan) would hardly be in favour of a new Board, though, no doubt, some of his constituents derived considerable advantage from those that already existed. It would be infinitely better that the inspectors should report at once to a Minister in London—say a Minister of Instruction, or, failing a Minister of Instruction, to some one charged with the administration of Scotch business, who would leave the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate time to attend to his important duties, than to have a Board constituted as was proposed by this Bill. The Board was to consist of seventeen persons, of whom eight were to be nominees of the Govern- ment, the President of the Educational Institute, four provosts from four large towns, and four representatives from the four Universities of Scotland. Now, last year the test was abolished in the Universities with regard to all the chairs except that of Divinity, so that the professors were not necessarily religious men—they were only philosophers. But the next four members of the Board were not philosophers, but provosts. The provosts of Scotland—analogous to mayors in England—were, no doubt, a respectable body, but they were a most extraordinary class from whom to choose those who were to have the control of the whole education of Scotland. The provosts of the four towns who were to be members of the Board were highly respectable gentlemen; but not one of them dreamed, when elected, of being put to superintend the education of the country. The effect would be, that either the provosts would not be fit to direct the education of Scotland, though they might be excellent provosts, or, if they were selected only for their qualities in regard to education, that they would not be good provosts. Taking the Board as a whole, he believed it to be one of the worst ever constructed, while its powers were absolute and perfectly free from control. It would have the control of the religious education that was to be given, and in all cases the schoolmaster would have to obey its orders. If a clergyman took exception to the religious opinions of a schoolmaster, if, for example, Dr. Candlish and Dr. Cunningham—and he should be sorry at present to mention the one and not the other—should object to the religious views of a schoolmaster, they could do nothing in opposition to the Board. Say that the doctrine of original sin, which was a favourite doctrine with the people of Scotland, was in question. The Board would no doubt reflect the Government views upon that subject, and it so happened that we knew what those views were, for the noble Lord at the head of the Government had stated that all people were born good, and that therefore there was no such thing as original sin in the world. The people of Scotland thought there was nothing so bad as Erastianism. The spirit of Erastianism was subjecting religious questions to the authority of a civil tribunal. Viewed in that light, this Bill savoured of the grossest Erastianism, for it would subject the religious education of Scotland to a Civil Board. The School Commissioners were to be entirely under the orders of this Board. He did not think that, with such powers vested in the Board, respectable people would consent to become members of the school committees. Some vague reasons might be put forward for the proposed change, and among others it might be said that it repealed the test for schoolmasters. The schoolmaster had to give religious instruction, and it was necessary to see whether he had what he was going to teach. There must therefore be some examination into the religious opinions of the schoolmaster. The preamble of the Bill was, that there was to be religious teaching, but where the provision for such teaching was to be found in the Bill he did not know. It would be a mistake to suppose that the people of Scotland thought of religion as a thing set apart from the rest of life, and this examination of the schoolmaster was a qualification, and not a test. Another general accusation was, that the Church of Scotland wanted to monopolise the teaching of the young. But the friends of the Church offered that if the Government would leave these schools alone, they would join the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate in enacting a provision for schools for those places which were destitute at present. The members of the Church of Scotland did not want a monopoly of the whole education of Scotland, but only wished to keep their own schools to themselves. It was equally untrue to say that the parochial schools of Scotland were sectarian. The schools of Scotland never had been sectarian, but they had taught the religion of 95 per cent of the Scottish people, as had been admitted by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate himself. The fact was, it was not what was taught in these schools to which people objected, but those by whom it was taught. The late highly respected Mr. Hume bore testimony to the harmonious working of the system in his youth, and to the absence of distinction between religious sects, and the system had gone on in the same manner ever since. The present President of the Council had expressed an opinion on this subject which had led him to doubt whether this could be a Government measure. Perhaps it was an open question, and they might hear the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) object to it when the Bill went to the other House. The noble Duke said that the Dissenters of Scotland found the same religious teaching and the same catechism in these schools which they them- selves approved of, and that these old institutions of the country should be the last object upon which any experiment should be tried. There was one general argument against interfering with these schools, to which he did not wish to attach undue importance, but by the Act of Union the schools of Scotland were secured to the management of the Presbytery. He did not wish to speak of the Act of Union as it resembled the laws of the Medes and Persians, but what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gladstone) said the other night of the Act of Uniformity might be said of the Act of Union, that it must be considered a fundamental law, which, without strong necessity, ought not to be changed. Now, had any strong case of necessity been made out in the present instance? The large towns wanted schools, and it was natural that the borough Members should not like to refuse the right hon. and learned Lord permission to introduce his Bill. They all did so, however, hoping it would he amended. So, to all the petitions presented in favour of the Bill, there was some qualification or other. The petitioners did not like the Bill, but they liked the blow it dealt at the Established Church. Only two public meetings had been held in favour of the Bill, and at one of these—in Edinburgh—they were obliged to cut down the resolutions to nothing at all, and the Lord Provost had to explain that the meeting was one in favour of the Bill, and that those who were opposed to it could not be heard. There had been 117 petitions presented against the Bill, signed by 5,876 persons, while there had only been six petitions and six signatures in favour of the Bill, so that it could hardly be represented that an overwhelming amount of public opinion had been manifested in favour of the Bill. Lord Melgund, in a letter written by him before the Bill was printed, had conjectured that the denominational clause might be excluded from the Bill, although its principle might be continued by a separate system. The denominational clause was apparently excluded from the Bill, and the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had taken credit for leaving it out, but if hon. Members would turn to the 45th Clause they would find what appeared to him to be the denominational clause in another shape. The 45th Clause was as follows— It shall be lawful for the Committee of Council to alter or modify, in so far as they may consider it to be proper with reference to the provisions of this Act, any existing Minutes of Her Majesty's most hon. Privy Council in regard to education; but such Minutes, unless in so far as altered or modified, shall be in no way affected by the passing of this Act. It appeared to him that the Committee of Privy Council, under colour of this clause, might continue the grants to denominational schools, and he should like to know whether those little Maynooths were to be supported or not by the Government. Were the Presbyterians of the Free Church and Roman Catholics to receive grants from the Privy Council, and was the Established Church to be excluded? He hoped that the House would consider whether it was advisable to change a system which had acted well for one totally untried, and whether it would not be right, if the Government wished to try a new experiment, to compel them to resort to a new field for the purpose. It appeared by statistical returns that in Glasgow actually 80 per cent of the children between the ages of five and twelve attended school. Could they, then, oblige the remaining 20 per cent to go to school? That was a difficulty which he feared the right hon. and learned Lord's Bill did not touch. In Edinburgh that 20 per cent would not attend places of instruction, notwithstanding the establishment of ragged schools and the temptation of a dinner given to the scholars, and he believed that nothing but a compulsory measure would make them go to school.

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

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


said, that as the hon. Member had mentioned that according to the last Report only six petitions had been presented in favour of the Bill, he wished to state that last night he presented nineteen and on that day twenty-three petitions in its favour; and his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate had presented fifty. Last year there were presented to the House 872 petitions with 85,689 signatures generally favourable to a Bill such as the one before the House, and the petitions in a contrary sense had only 42,381 signatures. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Blackburn) said that the Bill had the support of the borough Members only. The fact was, that thirteen county Members voted for the Bill of last year, and fourteen against it, leaving only a majority of one county Member against the Bill. On the other hand, twenty-three borough Members of Scotland supported it, and not one voted against it, so that of Scotch Members there were thirty-six for and fourteen against the Bill of last year. The Members in favour of the Bill represented 66,531 constituents, and those against it 23,878, or three to one, being much in the same proportion as the Members who voted on either side. There could be no doubt, therefore, that the feeling of the people of Scotland was decidedly in favour of the Bill. As they were now discussing the principle of the Bill, he would not follow the hon. Gentleman into all the details he referred to; but if the hon. Gentleman really believed that it would be so mischievous in its effects, he would scarcely have proposed, as he had done, that the whole town population of Scotland should be subjected to its operation. There were two contending schemes in reference to Scotch education. According to one, the schools would be continued under the control and superintendence of the Church Establishment, and according to the other, which was the scheme of the right hon. and learned Lord's Bill, Scotland would have a national and not a denominational system of education. There were great facilities for establishing a national system in Scotland. Since eight-ninths of the church-going population belonged to Presbyterian bodies, holding the Westminster Confession of Faith, and they with Dissenters agreeing with them absolutely on all questions of religion amounted to nine-tenths of the population. With this general agreement it was desirable to establish a national system of education, instead of maintaining one under the exclusive superintendence of the Established Church. It was a matter of some importance, in discussing the question, whether the Established Church of Scotland should have the exclusive control of the people of that country, to ascertain in what proportion the inhabitants of Scotland adhered to the communion of that Church. Referring to the attendance at Divine worship in Scotland on what was called "Census Sunday," he found that above one-third of that attendance consisted of the members of the Free Church; and less than one-third of the members of the Established Church, while more than one-third was composed of other denominations. Then let them look at the state of particular counties. Members of the establishment were in a majority in only two counties, and in Ross, Cromarty, and Sutherland they numbered not more than one-twentieth of the population. Yet it was proposed that the education of the people should be placed entirely under the control of the establishment, and to be conducted by teachers who should be members of that body. The honour of founding the parochial schools was due to the people of Scotland, who had, at the Reformation, without legal aid, voluntarily assessed themselves in every parish for that purpose, and now that the greater part of Scotland had been driven from the Established Church, they asked that their schools might be restored to them. He would appeal to the generosity and justice of the English Members to support that demand. The votes of English Members in opposition to the wishes of the people of Scotland, re-establishing Church patronage after the Union, and rejecting the claim of right in 1843, had been the sole cause of the existing divisions among Presbyterians in that country, and he called upon them to make some reparation for the evil they had done, and having deprived Scotland of an united Church, not to deny to her a common school.


said, he wished to state the reasons which prevented him from supporting this Bill. It contained no clause which gave the slightest security to the people of Scotland that the education to be afforded to their children would be religious education; but, on the contrary, it removed the securities which at present existed. No religious test was to be required from the schoolmaster, who might be a Roman Catholic, or a member of any other religion, or who might have no religion at all; and it was proposed to remove the supervision of the clergy, and to substitute for it a Board of Education, the majority of which was to consist of nominees of the Government. They all knew that the management of such Board would be in the hands of the chairman and secretary, for whose religious opinions they had no guarantee. The present Bill was an attempt to substitute a secular for a religious system of education, and a question arose whether the English Members would force a system, which they were unwilling to apply in their own case, on the people of Scotland. The right hon. and learned Lord Advocate had been accused of bringing forward this measure in order to carry out the views of the Free Church. This he had denied, and he (Mr. Baillie) believed this denial, and would prove to the House that it was very unlikely this Bill was drawn up with the concurrence of the Free Church, because when they had had time to consider its provisions they were by no means a united body in its favour. The Free Church of Scotland, however, consisted of one-third of the population; they were an earnest and religious body, had made enormous sacrifices in the cause of education, and if they had just cause of complaint it deserved attention. The Free Church complained, in the first place, that a test was required of the schoolmaster, who must be a member of the Established Church; this of course precluded the possibility of the parish schoolmaster being a member of the Free Church. He thought this was a grievance, but did not see the impossibility of removing it. The hon. Member opposite had stated that the creeds of the Free and Established Churches were the same; this was also the case with reference to the United Presbyterians, and, being so, he (Mr. Baillie) saw no reason why a test could not be framed which all could take, or why they should not take the Westminster Confession of Faith. He believed that all parties would be inclined to come to some such a compromise. The second point to which the Free Church objected was to the appointment of the schoolmasters being in the heritors and the kirk session, but he considered no great difficulty would arise on this question. The third point objected to was one of more importance—namely, the supervision of the schools by the presbytery; and considering the benefit conferred on education by the presbytery, and its present efficient state, he thought it would be very hard to take the schools from under its supervision. But on this, as on the other points, he considered that a compromise might be made—as, for instance, the Government might nominate inspectors, who might be members of the Free Church, to act with the presbytery. He had spoken of the Free Church as not being a united body in favour of this Bill, and he did so on the authority of the Free Church itself, for the Synod of the Free Church of Glasgow had come to resolutions objecting to the Bill on several grounds, and among others because, while it abolished the test, it gave no guarantee for the moral qualification of the schoolmaster, or for his belonging to any denomination whatever. The Lord Advocate had reproduced his Bill at a very favourable time. When the Bill was thrown out on former occasions he found he was met by a Parliament which was active and energetic in the discharge of its duties, but now the right hon. and learned Lord found a Parliament which was passive and apathetic, which had resigned itself to the neglect of all domestic legislation, and which supported the measure of a Government it admitted to be weak and inefficient, rather than put it to the inconvenience of active opposition. These were very great advantages, under which the Lord Advocate might pass the Bill through this House, but he was not on this account to imagine that there was any change in favour of the Bill on the part of the House or of the country, for if there was a change it had been shown rather against than in favour of the Bill. But even if the Bill passed this House, it would have to undergo the ordeal of the other House, and the Lord Advocate must have made a shrewd guess as to what the result of that ordeal would be. He hoped, in conclusion, that if the Lord Advocate was defeated on this Bill he would take into consideration whether a compromise could not be arrived at; and he (Mr. Baillie) should esteem it a privilege if, in any future year, he could, under the right hon. and learned Lord's auspices, give support to a measure for the education of the people of Scotland.


said, that the hon. Member who had just resumed his seat had said that this was a Free Church measure. Now that was not a correct statement, for he believed that it was much more ardently desired by the Dissenters than the Free Church.


said, that on the contrary he had said that he did not think the Free Church desired this Bill.


said, he was sorry that he should have unintentionally mistaken the purport of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. The hon. Gentleman had dwelt upon the fact that the Free Church synod of Glasgow and Ayr had pronounced against this Bill. But he did not tell the House that on the occasion when these resolutions were passed, not more than twenty-three out of 300 members of the synod attended the meeting. Great stress had been laid during the debate upon the benefit conferred upon Scotland by these schools. He was not about to deny this, but it did not follow that because these schools, under the direction of the Church, had been of great advantage to the country, when that Church embraced the great mass of the people in its fold, they should be attended with equal advantages at a time when the Established Church did not comprise more than one-third of the people. If the Church of England was not to be allowed to monopolise the education of the people of England—and even the Bill of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Droitwich (Sir J. Pakington) did not propose to give her such a monopoly—there certainly was no reason why the Established Church of Scotland, which was in a minority of one-third of the whole population of that country, should have that privilege. The whole question now before the House resolved itself into one of religious liberty. He wanted to know why the children of the people in the county of Sutherland, where the population were, almost to a man, members of the Free Church, should be compelled to attend the schools of the establishment. On the one hand was the Established Church, which had been shaken to her foundations by the events of 1843 and by other events, attempting, with praiseworthy zeal, to retain her hold over the education of the people; and on the other hand there was the vast majority of the people of Scotland appealing to that House in support of this Bill, which was a fair and reasonable compromise between the two parties, and which the House of Commons would do well to pass. Considerable stress had been laid on the number of petitions which had been presented against this Bill, but the greater part of them were from presbyteries and synods in different parts of the country; and, with all respect for the opinion of such bodies on questions of this sort, involving ecclesiastical domination, clergymen could not in all respects be said to represent the opinions of their congregations. He was convinced that a large proportion of the lay adherents of the Established Church were not disposed to follow their clergy on this question, and he warned the House that if they rejected this measure no long time would elapse before a stern and uncompromising demand would be made for one more uncompromising in its details, which the opponents of the present Bill would not venture to resist. The house of Commons would scarcely like to see the Scotch Members become as loquacious and even as pugnacious as the Members from the sister island—taking every possible opportunity, because justice had been denied them again and again, of thrusting their particular grievances before the House. Scotchmen were generally slow to anger and not easily excited; but, once convince them that they were the victims of gross injustice, they would become quite as noisy and a great deal more obstinate than the most eloquent agitators for a Parliament on College Green. No doubt many alterations might be introduced in the details of the Bill, but he heartily approved its general principle, and if the House rejected it, none would be quicker to discover the grievous mistake which they had committed than its opponents.


said, he objected to the Bill, on the ground that, while it took away the securities now existing for religious teaching in the schools of Scotland, it substituted no other religious securities in their place. The authors of the Bill had, as it appeared to him, setting aside long experience, and entertaining a species of monomania against religious tests, by one short clause done away with those great securities. It was proposed to remove both from the schoolmaster and the inspector all those religious tests which had operated so beneficially since the schools had been in operation, but it did not contain a single provision supplying their place with any other arrangement calculated to secure the same end.


said, that the Bill was one, not for the partial but for the general education of the people of Scotland, and yet three gentlemen had successively spoken against it. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) insisted that the Bill was a Free Church Bill, while the objections of the hon. Member for Inverness-shire (Mr. H. Baillie) were grounded upon the same principle which had induced the Free Church to oppose the measure, and the hon. Member for Clackmanan (Mr. Johnstone) opposed it, as it seemed, because it was very nearly identical with the Bill brought in last year, and which had the honour of his support. The objections which had been raised to the Bill were, as these rival objections might show, rather on matters of detail than of principle. He would beg to remind the House of the difficulty of legislating upon the subject of education, and would appeal to its good sense to agree to the second reading of the Bill, and then the objections which had been made to it, and which were, as he had just stated, objections to details, could be conveniently considered in Committee. It was true that Scotland had taken a lead in the education of her people, but he was far from asserting that in that country education was perfect. From the Report of the Sanitary Commissioners it appeared that the condition of persons employed in the collieries was very bad, and in Glasgow, out of a population of 25,000, it appeared that when that Report was made only 2,368 children were at school. Such being the case, he hoped that the House would not hesitate to pass a Bill which would be productive of great benefit. In 1696 an Act was passed for the education of the people of Scotland, and two subsequent Acts had been passed relating to the same subject, but burghs were excluded from the operation of each of these Acts; and would the House be now justified in withholding from those burghs a general system of education to which they were entitled? It was proposed by hon. Gentlemen on the opposite side of the House that the Established Church, which comprised about one-third of the population of Scotland, should enjoy a monopoly of education, but he questioned the right of any one sect to such a monopoly, and was in favour of the adoption of a general and comprehensive system. The hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn) said that it would be better for the Educational Board to sit in London than in Edinburgh, but if such a proceeding were attempted it assuredly would be viewed with the greatest jealousy by the people of Scotland. All parties now strongly desired to see this question settled on a permanent and comprehensive basis, and when its difficulties were fairly grappled with many of them would doubtless disappear. It was to be hoped, therefore, that this measure would receive the support of a large number of the Scotch Members of that House, by whom alone the English Members would do well to leave it to be dealt with in Committee upstairs; and if the measure were only allowed now to be read a second time it would no doubt soon become popular with the people, for whose benefit it had been framed.


said, that this measure had been discussed with so much ability by Members on both sides who possessed the advantage of local knowledge in relation to it, and especially so by the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Blackburn), who had addressed them that night for the first time, that it would be improper in him to detain the House at any length on the subject. Still, having been so frequently appealed to in the course of the debate, he wished to explain the grounds of the vote lie was about to give. The measure for promoting education in England and Wales that he had recently introduced had been referred to by the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate and others as justifying the provisions of this Bill for Scotland. Giving the best attention he could to the measure before the House, he could find nothing in the Bill to justify hon. Members in appealing to him for support on the ground of his own Bill on the subject of education. This Bill was in many of its most important principles in direct opposition to his Bill. Let them compare for a moment the respective contents of the two Bills. One of the most important objects of his Bill was the retention of all existing schools and other educational agencies, whereas the destruction of the present schools was a leading feature of this measure for Scotland. ["No, no!"] This Bill certainly proposed to sweep away the system which had been pursued with so much benefit to Scotland for the last two centuries and upwards. Another of the proposals of his Bill was designed to preserve a distinctive religious character for every school, combined, however, as every national system of education must be, with the completest toleration. Well, but in Scotland there were already schools with a religious character, but the schools which were to supersede them under this Bill were not to possess such an essential characteristic. Again, his measure to maintain the religious character of the schools required the teaching to be of the same denomination as that to which the school belonged. Now, in Scotland they had a test by which they secured the religious qualifications of the teacher; but this Bill sought to repeal that safeguard, and provide no substitute in its place. Here, then, were two broad differences between the measures in question. When, therefore, they were asked to assent to the abolition of the old established system of Scotland, they would naturally inquire whether it had failed or fallen short in the accomplishment of its mission. It was said that the great majority of the people of that country were adverse to the maintenance of the system, but certainly the statistics of the census presented no proof of that assertion. On the contrary, they showed that at present there were no less than 1,039 parochial schools in existence, supported by general or local taxation, and chiefly by taxes on land. In addition to these there were also connected with the Established Church 537 other schools; and the aggregate number of scholars in the two classes of schools above enumerated was 125,895. The Free Church had striven to do its duty in the work of education, but its influence, however it might appear to be in the majority, was certainly very limited as compared with that of the Established Church. It possessed only 712 schools, with 62,660 scholars; while in connection with the third denomination—the United Presbyterians—there were but sixty-one schools, with 5,807 scholars. Why, then, should those who were in favour of the extension of national education be required to aid in the demolition of a machinery that had worked so beneficially? What were the main points which he had advocated in bringing forward his scheme for England and Wales? Why, first, that they should establish there a national system of education; but in Scotland they now had such a system in operation. Secondly, he had laid it down that education should be supported by local taxation; but in Scotland education was already maintained in that manner. Thirdly, he had contended that their national system should be religious; but in Scotland that was a characteristic of the existing schools. Fourthly, he had held that the system for England ought to be tolerant in its principle; and in Scotland the schools connected with the Established Church fully recognised the independence of Dissenters. He believed there was no country in the world where the feeling of the Protestant inhabitants was more decided against Roman Catholicism than in Scotland. He found, however, that a considerable proportion of Roman Catholics attended the schools, and it was the practice not to press on Roman Catholic children any doctrines against their own religion. This was the very system he was advocating for England. How, then, could he give his support to this measure consistently with the position he had taken with respect to education in England? He wished for full toleration in England, and he found the system in existence in Scotland based on complete toleration. How could he lend himself to the destruction of such a praiseworthy system? It was the presence of such a system in Scotland which had inspired them in England with a feeling of humiliation at the want of such a system. He was told that the Free Church of Scotland approved of the Bill. But were the people of England likely to adopt a system because the Free Church of Scotland approved of it? They had been lately told that the Free Church clergy had censured those who allowed their children to attend schools not connected with the Free Church. He greatly feared that this Bill would not lead to harmony, and that while it destroyed an efficient system it would substitute nothing equally advantageous in its place. He was reluctant to oppose the Bill as a whole, as there were some parts of which he approved. He really believed that some reasonable change would be agreeable and beneficial to the people of Scotland; but he could not approve of the way in which the Bill was framed. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman would bring in a measure to supply appropriate education to rural districts, or to improve existing schools, that measure should have his support; but, as he believed the Bill, as framed, would prove injurious to the people of Scotland, he must give a reluctant vote against it.


said, he must congratulate Scotland upon the fact that it had acquired an interest in the mind of the right hon. Gentleman who had just sat down, while he regretted that the right hon. Gentleman had not shown a more intimate acquaintance with the facts of the case and with the intention of the Bill than he had displayed. The Bill which he proposed had three objects in view—to reform the parish schools, to ascertain the educational wants of the people, and to supply those wants as they arose. Of those three objects, the last, unquestionably, was the most important. It was a great subject of congratulation and encouragement that on the last two of those objects, which were by far the most important, the Scotch Members of every caste were agreed. He had heard no proposal from the other side to supply those wants. He had heard expressions of strong conviction that something must be done, and he had been told in plain terms that if he would only allow the parish schools to remain as they were, hon. Members on that side would be willing to accept the measure. Now, Government had devised a measure for the supply of the wants of the great towns and populous districts, in which the Scotch representatives on one side of the House acquiesced, and to which those on the other side agreed. Why, then, were they to be stopped on the threshold, and the Bill to be thrown out on the second reading? The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Midhurst (Mr. Walpole) said that it was his (the Lord Advocate's) own fault, asking him why he did not leave the parish schools as they were, and deal solely with the large towns, as to the remedy for which they were all agreed. But he was asked by another class why he did not apply the same reform to the parish schools as he did to the town schools, and why he did not introduce the popular element there. Were there no parties interested in a parish schoolmaster being a proper person but the landholders, who did not send their children to his school? He was told that he was pulling down the parish schools. These complaints from both sides showed that nothing could be further from his wishes or intentions. On the contrary, it was perfectly clear that the Government had done all that the right hon. Member for Midhurst and others proposed should be done; they had dealt separately with the great towns and the parochial schools. If those impediments were always to arise in the way of education—if they found that no concessions would produce conciliatory results—if the landholders were to be for ever deaf to the voice of public opinion and experience, and blind to the course of events, the time might come when it would be the duty of those who had in their hands measures of educational reform entirely and utterly to remodel the system which seemed to be one only of obstruction. He would now state the three reasons why it seemed to him quite impossible to allow things to remain on their present footing. In the first place, he quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) that no partial or temporary cure need be tried. Reform must be applied upon a comprehensive system, or not at all. The right hon. Gentleman said the voluntary system had failed, and so it had. He also said that the denominational system had placed schools in the rich districts, and left the poor unprovided, and so it had. Unless things were done on a system, they need not be attempted at all. Now, it was utterly impossible to leave the parish schools in their present condition, the whole educational machinery of the country required remodelling, and the Bill was not calculated for a system of patchwork. If they left out the parish schools from its operation they destroyed the whole system, and they would have a machinery far too great for the work to be accomplished. The intention of the Bill was that they should know from year to year where schools were required, and that by a uniform machinery those schools should come into existence. But there was a second practical reason that appeared to him to be conclusive. There were between 700 and 800 Free Church schools in Scotland, all receiving denominational aid from the Committee of Council on Education; and if the parochial schools were to remain on their present footing they must in common fairness all receive such aid. The result was, that where one school would be quite sufficient they were keeping up two, incurring a double expense, and squandering the public money. His object in the present Bill was to supersede the denominational by a more comprehensive system; but it was his belief that if the blouse were not prepared to adopt a national system on that basis, then the denominational was the only system which could be taken instead. They could not have both the systems, and, therefore, to make the present scheme operative for the towns, and not for the parishes, was impossible. But there was a third reason, and a convincing one. Should they settle the question by bringing in a Bill solely for the great towns? Should they settle the question by leaving the parish schools in their present state? Did any Scotch Member really believe that the constitution of the parish schools could remain as it was? A fresh agitation would soon be got up in favour of the opening of the parish schools, for their constitution was utterly dissonant to common sense. Let them look at the northern districts, where the Census showed that of the people nineteen-twentieths were Free Church, and but one-twentieth Churchmen. Was there any reason for saying that the parish schoolmaster must be a member of the Established Church when nineteen-twentieths of the children would not be allowed to go to school? Now, if the present measure were rejected, it was not because they refused to deal separately with a pact of the subject; it was because hon. Gentlemen would not accept a measure which they admitted to be beneficial in two particulars, only because the Bill did not square exactly with the objects they had in view. With reference to the right hon. Gentleman (Sir J. Pakington) and the educational measure he proposed, he (the Lord Advocate) would say this much, that the right hon. Gentleman frankly admitted the main point. If they were legislating for England, he (the Lord Advocate) would admit that there was a great deal in what the right hon. Gentleman had said. But the right hon. Gentleman forgot they were legislating for Scotland—a country which would accept of nothing but a religious education. Accordingly the Government had it in their power to do in Scotland what could not be done elsewhere—they could rely to a very great extent upon the religious feeling of the community. Had he not known that the result of the passing of the Bill he proposed would be that the Bible and Catechism would be taught in the schools just as before, he should not have brought forward the measure. But the opposition of certain Scotch Members rested entirely on the ground that the parochial schools should be left entirely in the hands of teachers belonging to the Established Church. That was not at all in consonance with the opinions of the right hon. Gentleman, who had said that he would respect the feelings of the majority of the people in a district, and support education in accordance with those feelings. Then, if it could be shown that in the parishes of Scotland the religion of a denomination was one way, and the religion of the masses another, the right hon. Gentleman could not refuse to give his assent to the measure. On no ground could hon. Gentlemen opposite vote against the second reading of the Bill excepting this, that they did not wish to see these parochial schools thrown open to all religious classes of the community. The right hon. Gentleman said, that these parochial schools were part of the ecclesiastical establishment of Scotland, and ought to be exclusively confined to the members of that establishment. It was hardly with patience that he could hear hon. Gentlemen opposite assuming to themselves the right of representing the whole Church of Scotland, and all that it had done in past days. He found hon. Gentlemen saying that they had a great respect for the Church of Scotland, although they did not belong to it; and as these parochial schools formed part of the ecclesiastical system, they were of opinion that that system would be entirely destroyed if they admitted any schoolmaster who was not inclined to take the test. It was an extraordinary state of things that these Episcopalians were for keeping out the very men whom originally this test was devised to keep in, its object being to protect all those who held to the Westminster Confession of Faith. But what was it that this Bill was intended to do? Its object was, among other things, to render the parochial schools in Scotland more extensively useful; but one argument which was common to all discussions of this kind had been used on this occasion. It was said, "Look at what these schools have done for Scotland—will you touch these?" He admitted that they had done much for Scotland, but not because they were administered in the best way, nor because the masters were well chosen; but all the good that had been done by them was in spite of a defective system. But one thing which the parochial schools in Scotland had done was this; they showed how much might be accomplished, not by trusting to the voluntary efforts of individuals, but by the State setting itself to the discharge of the duty of educating the people. in spite of a great deal of mismanagement, of a pittance to the schoolmasters absolutely contemptible, of supervision at many times most superficial, of discipline at many times most lax, these schools had done much for Scotland, and he now asked the House to proceed on that principle, and to extend its bounds, to have a national system for the towns as well as for the country, to reform the parish schools, and to create new ones where they were required. The first thing proposed to be done in regard to the parochial schools was to increase the salaries of the masters. In the next place, an allowance was to be made to a schoolmaster who was unfit by infirmity for the due discharge of his duties, or who by reason of long service should be allowed to retire. In the third place, the parish schoolmaster was not to be inducted until he had been examined by an inspector. Was that reform not to be tolerated? He might here mention an instance, showing the necessity of this preliminary inspection. A bequest was made to some parish schools in Scotland under certain regulations, one of which was, that the schoolmasters should undergo an examination previously to their being appointed. In one of the Reports of the inspectors of these schools, he found that when they first examined the masters of these schools, only twenty-four out of eighty passed the examination. In the following year thirty more passed, but a large proportion were unable to pass the examination. With respect to the management of these schools, would not any one believe, from the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite, that it was proposed to take the management out of the hands of those in whom that management was now vested? But there was nothing of the kind in the Bill. The election of the schoolmaster would remain with the minister and heritors of the parish, and by proposing that it should not be necessary for the schoolmaster to subscribe any test, confession of faith, or formula, it was simply saying that the minister and heritors may elect the best master they could find, whether he belonged to the Established Church or not. He freely admitted that it was proposed to sweep away the test, if they were pleased to call that a qualification. But the best test in his opinion that could be devised, was evidence of the party being a man of intellect, and an honest, able, and competent man for the discharge of the duties confided to him. No doubt, by abolishing the test, it would empower the minister and heritors to appoint a schoolmaster who might or who might not be a member of the Church; and was it not just and right, where the majority of the district held particular religious opinions which prevented them from going to the parish church, that at the parish school their children should have a master who was calculated to give them instruction according to their own opinions? The Established Church in Scotland was still a very influential body, and she might vindicate to herself more influence if she chose; her members, however, did not amount to more than one-third of the population, and nothing was more dangerous to her peace and well-doing than for her to assume the attributes of power without possessing the reality of it. If, however, the members of that Church would listen to advice, though coming from a quarter which they might rather suspect, he did believe that the best thing that could happen for increasing the influence of the Established Church of Scotland was that this Bill should pass. It was impossible to say what heartburnings would arise from the rejection of this measure. He believed that this measure had survived some prejudices, and hoped that it would be attended with more success than that of last year. With regard to the denominational clauses, the effect of passing the Bill would be to do away with denominational grants to Presbyterian congregations. In large towns where there were such large masses of the Catholic population living in igno- rance it would be a fair matter for the consideration of the Privy Council whether in such localities it might not be right to continue these grants for their education, but that was left for the decision of the Privy Council. What would be the result of the division he could not foresee, but he hoped the House would assent to the second reading of the Bill. If it did, it would be a victory, not over any denomination, or in favour of one party and against another—it would be a victory over a common enemy, the worst enemy a State could have—a victory purchased with no blood and watered with no tears, carrying desolation to no happy home, but one which would make the heart of the widow and the fatherless rejoice. They would build up for their country what might be truly called "the cheap defence of nations"—a barrier which would hold back the tide of ignorance and crime for years to come.


said, he thought the learned Lord had founded his speech on one or two transparent fallacies. His argument seemed intended to show that those who resisted measures like this were enemies to reform, and were constantly raising up impediments to education; but was this a fair inference? Nobody knew better than the learned Lord, that since 1696, the Scotch system of education had introduced into that country, according to the language of the Acts of Council, instruction in godliness, in civility, in learning, and in knowledge; that the people of that country had been enabled, by means of that system, to go from the rural districts to the universities, where many of them had been raised to the highest honours, and that all of them had been trained morally and intellectually to a high standard. One out of every seven and a half of the people of Scotland were at present being educated under that system; and, according to Mr. Kay Shuttleworth, one in seven of the population constituted a fair proportion of the people who ought to be receiving education at any one time. The learned Lord Advocate, however, appeared to say that the people of Scotland had got tired of a system under which all this had been hitherto accomplished, and he now desired to alter it completely. How was it, then, that 1,800 heritors entreated the House to extend but not to suppress the present system? How did it happen that out of thirty-two counties in Scotland, nineteen or twenty had expressed their disapprobation of this Bill, while only four had given in their adhesion to it? There was, he believed, a decided feeling throughout the country that the existing system ought not to be subverted, though he agreed that it might be extended and improved. He agreed with those who thought that in the Highlands, the islands, and the larger towns of Scotland, education was not supplied to the extent it ought to be—in the one case because the population was so scattered; in the other, because it was so dense. But where you possessed a system which had succeeded to such an immense extent, why not extend, enlarge, and improve instead of subverting it? It was said that you could not have a system of education applicable to the towns where it was now deficient without having this general scheme, which was to apply to the parishes also. Now, he wanted to know why the ratepayers in the towns might not be required to establish schools there in the same way as the heritors had established their schools in the country? The two might, he thought, be kept distinct, and the parochial system retained in its integrity, while a system of education might be introduced into the towns which would meet the only deficiency that could be alleged to exist at present in Scotland. The learned Lord complained that they wished to retain a useless test, but it should be remembered that the arguments used against tests in England did not in the least apply to Scotland, because, though in that country you had an unfortunate difference of opinion in points of discipline, there existed no difference upon points of doctrine. It was easy, therefore, to apply a test in Scotland which did not militate against the opinion of the people of that country. Indeed, the right hon. and learned Lord himself, only two years ago, when he had to consider this question of tests with reference to professors in the Scotch Universities, had substituted for the then existing test one which required the person who took it to say that he would not directly or indirectly teach or inculcate any opinions opposed to the Divine authority of the Holy Scripture, or to the Westminster Confession of Faith. That test was not complained of, and if adopted in this case also, it would give a guarantee for religious teaching. He thought the measure of the Lord Advocate amounted to a proposition to reform not only what was bad but what was good in the educational system of Scotland. Institutions which had succeeded, as well as those which had failed, were all to be brought under the operation of this reforming project, and they were called upon to imitate those unnatural kindred of old who, under the command of the sorceress, cut up their aged parents in order that they might restore them to health and vigour. He (Mr. Walpole), and those who acted with him, did not oppose this Bill because they disapproved the extension of education in Scotland, or because they objected to improvements of the existing system. He considered it a wise provision to increase the salaries of the schoolmasters, so as to render them more independent and respectable, and to secure to them retiring allowances after they had devoted their best energies to the instruction of youth. He also thought they ought to endeavour to extend the educational system to those places where a deficiency of educational means existed, and, above all, that they ought, if possible, to establish reformatory schools in Scotland and elsewhere. In his opinion, however, the cost of maintaining such reformatory schools ought not to be thrown upon the local rates, but ought to be provided for out of the general funds of the State, the object being, undoubtedly, to effect a national good. Acquiescing in many of the objects of this Bill, he (Mr. Walpole) must yet entreat the Lord Advocate to divide it into two parts, in order that those provisions upon which all were agreed might at once be adopted. The differences and animosities which existed in Scotland would not be healed by taking away what of right belonged to one, and giving it to another; but such a course would rather tend to aggravate those differences and increase those animosities. If the Bill had been confined to the object of supplying the deficiency of educational means in Scotland, instead of endeavouring to subvert a system which had been unquestionably successful, he would not have offered any opposition to it; but he could not accept the total subversion of a system which he believed, from all he had heard, from all he had seen, and from all he had read, had done more for the moral and religious instruction of the people of Scotland than any other system ever established in any nation of the world.


said, that no provision having been made in the Bill for the Roman Catholics, who were one-fifth of the population of Scotland, they were virtually excluded, and that exclusion he contended was fatal to the measure. He would advise the House to allow the people of Scotland to educate themselves, and they would do it cheaper and better than it would be done under this Bill, which he thought was altogether unnecessary, and which he believed would injure the cause of education in Scotland. He should therefore give it his decided opposition.

Question put; the House divided:—Ayes 210; Noes 171: Majority 39,

List of the AYES.
Acton, J. Dunlop, A. M.
Adair, R. A. S. Ebrington, Visct.
Alcock, T. Elcho, Lord
Anderson, Sir J. Ellice, E.
Antrobus, E. Elliot, hon. J. E.
Atherton, W. Euston, Earl of
Baines, rt. hon. M. T. Ewart, W.
Baird, J. Ewart, J. C.
Ball, J. Fagan, W.
Bass, M. T. Feilden, M. J.
Baxter, W. E. Fenwick, H.
Beamish, F. B. Fergus, J.
Beaumont, W. B. Ferguson, Sir R.
Berkeley, C. L. G. Ferguson, J.
Biggs, W. Fitzgerald, J. D.
Bonham-Carter, J. Fitzwilliam, hn. C.W.W.
Bouverie, hon. E. P. Fitzwilliam, hon. G. W.
Brand, hon. H. Foley, J. H. H.
Bright, J. Forster, C.
Brocklehurst, J. Forster, J.
Brockman, E. D. Fortescue, C. S.
Brotherton, J. Fox, W. J.
Brown, W. Freestun, Col.
Bruce, Lord E. Gardner, R.
Buckley, Gen. Gaskell, J. M.
Bulkeley, Sir R. B. W. Gibson, rt. hon. T. M.
Byng, hon. G. H. C. Gladstone, rt. hon. W.
Cardwell, rt. hon. E. Goderich, Vict.
Castlerosse, Visct. Goodman, Sir G.
Caulfield, Col. J. M. Gordon, hon. A.
Cavendish, hon. C. C. Grace, O. D. J.
Cheetham, J. Greene, J.
Clifford, H. M. Gregson, S.
Cobden, R. Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.
Cockburn, Sir A. J. E. Grey, R. W.
Cogan, W. H. F. Gurney, J. H.
Collier, R. P. Hall, Sir B.
Colvile, C. R. Hankey, T.
Cowan, C. Hanmer, Sir J.
Cowper, hon. W. F. Harcourt, G. G.
Craufurd, E. H. J. Hastie, Alex.
Dalrymple, Visct. Hastie, Arch.
Dashwood, Sir G. H. Headlam, T. E.
Davie, Sir H. R. F. Heard, J. I.
Denison, J. E. Herbert, rt. hon. S.
Dent, J. D. Hervey, Lord A.
De Vere, S. E. Heywood, J.
Dillwyn, L. L. Higgins, G. G. O.
Drumlanrig, Visct. Hindley, C.
Duff, G. S. Howard, hon. C. W. G.
Duff, J. Howard, Lord E.
Duncan, Visct. Hughes, W. B.
Duncan, G. Hutchins, E. J.
Dundas, F. Hutt, W.
Dungarvan, Visct. Ingham, R.
Jackson, W. Pollard-Urquhart, W.
Jermyn, Earl Portman, hon. W. H. B.
Keating, H. S. Price, W. P.
Keogh, W. Ramsden, Sir J. W.
Kershaw, J. Reed, J. H.
King, hon. P. J. L. Ricardo, O.
Kinnaird, hon. A. F. Rice, E. R.
Kirk, W. Richardson, J. J.
Labouchere, rt. hon. H. Roebuck, J. A.
Laing, S. Rushout, G.
Langton, H. G. Russell, F. C. H.
Layard, A. H. Sawle, C. B. G.
Lee, W. Scholefield, W.
Lewis, rt. hon. Sir G. C. Scobell, Capt.
Lindsay, W. S. Scrope, G. P.
Locke, J. Scully, F.
Lowe, R. Seymour, Lord
Lushington, C. M. Seymour, H. D.
Macaulay, rt. hon. T. B. Seymour, W. D.
M'Cann, J. Shafto, R. D.
M'Gregor, John Shee, W.
M'Taggart, Sir J. Shelley, Sir J. V.
Mangles, R. D. Smith, J. A.
Marjoribanks, D. C. Smith, J. B.
Martin, J. Smith, M. T.
Matheson, A. Smith, rt. hon. R. V.
Matheson, Sir. J. Somerville, rt.hn.SirW.
Milnes, R. M. Steel, J.
Milton, Visct. Strutt, rt. hon. E.
Michell, W. Talbot, C. R. M.
Moffatt, O. Thompson, G.
Molesworth,rt.hn.SirW. Thornely, T.
Monck, Visct. Thornhill, W. P.
Moncrieff, J. Traill, G.
Monsell, W. Villiers, rt. hon. C. P.
Morris, D. Vivian, H. H.
Mostyn, hon. T. E. M. L. Walmsley, Sir J.
Murrough, J. P. Walter, J.
Norreys, Sir D. J. Warner, E.
North, F. Wells, W.
Osborne, R. Whatman, J.
Otway, A. J. Whitbread, S.
Paget, Lord A. Wilkinson, W. A.
Palmerston, Visct. Wilson, J.
Patten, J. W. Winnington, Sir T. E.
Paxton, Sir J. Wood, rt. hon. Sir C.
Pechell, Sir G. B. Wortley, rt. hon. J. S.
Peel, Sir R. Wyvill, M.
Peel, F.
Perry, Sir T. E. TELLERS.
Phillimore, J. G. Hayter, rt. hon. W. G.
Phinn, T. Mulgrave, Earl of
List of the NOES.
Annesley, Earl of Campbell, Sir A. I.
Archdall, Capt. M. Carnac, Sir J. R.
Ball, E. Cayley, E. S.
Baldock, E. H. Cecil, Lord R.
Barnes, T. Child, S.
Barrow, W. H. Cholmondeley, Lord H.
Bateson, T. Christopher, rt. hn. R. A.
Bentinck, Lord H. Christy, S.
Bentinck, G. W. P. Clinton, Lord C. P.
Bernard, Visct. Clive, R.
Boldero, Col. Cobbold, J. C.
Bowyer, G. Cocks, T. S.
Bramley-Moore, J. Codrington, Sir W.
Bramston, T. W. Cole, hon. H. A.
Bruce, C. L. C. Corry, rt. hon. H. L.
Burroughes, H. N. Crossley, F.
Burrowes, R. Cubitt, Mr. Ald.
Butt, G. M. Dalkeith, Earl of
Davies, J. L. Macartney, G.
Deedes, W. Mackie, J.
Disraeli, rt. hon. B. MacGregor, Jas.
Dod, J. W. Mandeville, Visct.
Duckworth, Sir J. T. B. March, Earl of
Duncombe, H. A. Masterman, J.
Duncombe, hon. O. Maxwell, hon. J. P.
Dunne, Col. Meux, Sir H.
East, Sir J. B. Miles, W.
Egerton, Sir P. Montgomery, Sir G.
Egerton, W. T. Mowbray, J. R.
Egerton, E. C. Mullings, J. R.
Elmley, Visct. Naas, Lord
Emlyn, Visct. Newark, Visct.
Evelyn, W. J. Newport, Visct.
Farnham, E. B. North, Col.
Farrer, J. Northcote, Sir S. H.
Fellowes, E. Oakes, J. H. P.
Fitzgerald, W. R. S. Ossulston, Lord
Floyer, J. Pakenham, T. H.
Follett, B. S. Pakington, rt. hn. Sir J.
Forster, Sir G. Palk, L.
Fuller, A. E. Parker, R. T.
Galway, Visct. Pellatt, A.
George, J. Pennant, hon. Col.
Gilpin, Col. Percy, hon. J. W.
Goddard, A. L. Pilkington, J.
Graham, Lord M. W. Portal, M.
Greenall, G. Repton, G. W. J.
Greene, T. Robertson, P. F.
Grogan, E. Rolt, P.
Gwyn, H. Scott, hon. F.
Hadfield, G. Seymer, H. K.
Hale, R. B. Sibthorp, Col.
Hamilton, Lord C. Smijth, Sir W.
Hamilton, G. A. Smith, W. M.
Hamilton, J. H. Smollett, A.
Hanbury, hon. C. S. B. Sotheron, T. H. S.
Hayes, Sir E. Spooner, R.
Heathcote, Sir W. Stafford, A.
Henley, rt. hon. J. W. Stanhope, J. B.
Hildyard, R. C. Stirling, W.
Hill, Lord A. E. Stuart, W.
Hotham, Lord Taylor, Col.
Hudson, G. Thesiger, Sir F.
Hume, W. F. Tollemache, J.
Irton, S. Tomline, G.
Johnstone, J. Tyler, Sir G.
Jolliffe, Sir W. G. H. Vance, J.
Jones, Capt. Vansittart, G. H.
Jones, D. Verner, Sir W.
Kelly, Sir F. Vernon, G. H.
Kendall, N. Vernon, L. V.
Kerrison, Sir E. C. Vivian, J. E.
King, J. K. Vyse, Col.
Knatchbull, W. F. Waddington, H. S.
Knight, F. W. Walcott, Adm.
Knightley, R. Walpole, rt. hon. S. H.
Knox, Col. Walsh, Sir J. B.
Knox, hon. W. S. Whiteside, J.
Lacon, Sir E. Whitmore, H.
Langton, W. G. Wigram, L. T.
Laslett, W. Wyndham, H.
Liddell, H. G. Wynne, Lt. Col.
Lindsay, hon. Col. Yorke, hon. E. T.
Lisburne, Earl of
Lockhart, A. E. TELLERS.
Lockhart, W. Baillie, H.
Lovaine, Lord Blackburn, P.

Bill read 2°, and committed for Thursday, 10th May.