HL Deb 16 July 1872 vol 212 cc1224-39

Amendments reported (according to Order).

Further Amendments made.

Clause 15 (First election of school boards).

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL moved at end of clause to insert a Proviso— That no teacher of a public school in any parish or burgh shall be eligible as a member of a school board under this Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 29 (Public schools).

LORD COLONSAY moved to insert at the end of clause— ("But nothing in this Act contained shall prejudice or affect the right of the schoolmasters in existing parish schools which, under the operations of this Act, may be deemed to be burgh schools, or their successors in office, to participate in the benefits of any bequest for behoof of the schoolmasters of parochial schools, or the powers, rights, and privileges of the trustees or administrators of any such bequests").

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43 (Consents to transference).


said, that the clause proposed that the consent of any number of persons having the administration of the trusts in which any school is held to the transference of such school to a school board under this Act should be given "by a majority sufficient for any ordinary act of trust management." He proposed to strike out these words and substitute— ("By a majority of not less than three-fourths having the administration of such trusts present at a meeting duly summoned for such purpose").


opposed the proposal, on the ground that the provisions contained in the Bill—which would in some instances be more, and in none less stringent than those in operation—would meet all the requirements of the case.


said, that as the Bill proposed to make extraordinary enactments, extraordinary provisions ought to be made in order to prevent a complete reversal of the existing state of things.


thought it was not only the right, but the duty of Parliament to take such steps as would prevent the possibility of breaches of trust being committed.

After some discussion "two-thirds" were substituted for "three-fourths," and the Amendment, thus amended, was agreed to.

Clause 64 (Removal of principal teachers).


said, the proposals of the Bill with regard to charges of unfitness or incompetency against school teachers was not satisfactory, and proposed to insert in the clause— ("And within ten days after receiving the copy of such report the teacher shall be entitled to make application to the Board of Education to allow him to be heard before the said board in defence, and the board shall be thereafter entitled to allow such further inquiry as they may think right: Provided also, that if they shall find that the incompetency, unfitness, or inefficiency of the teacher arises from infirmity or old age, or is not occasioned by his own fault, he shall be entitled, in the case of teachers of parish schools in office at the passing of this Act, to a retiring allowance, the amount whereof shall not be less than two third parts of the amount of the salary pertaining to said office at the date of such judgment, and shall not exceed the gross amount of such salary, which retiring allowance shall be payable in all respects in like manner with the salary of the schoolmaster; and in the case of other teachers, to a retiring allowance of such amount as the school board shall determine").


thought the provision contained at the end of Clause 65 would save the rights of teachers under the existing law.

After short conversation, Amendment negatived.

Clause 66 (Higher class public schools.—Burgh).


said, the noble Duke had admitted on behalf of the Government that it was highly important to maintain the high standard of education which had obtained in Scotland up to the present time. This certainly could not be accomplished if the standard of examination for teachers were lowered, and he therefore would move to omit, page 25, line 9, from ("A") to ("same") in line 16, and insert— ("Board of examiners of higher class public schools, and for fixing and ascertaining the qualifications of candidates for the office of teacher therein shall be constituted as follows: one member to be appointed by the university court of each university in Scotland, two to be appointed by the Scotch Education Department, and one to be appointed by the Educational Institute of Scotland, the first appointments to be made within three months after the passing of this Act, and the examiners appointed to hold office for three years, and to be capable of re-election; such board of examiners shall possess all the powers and discharge all the duties with reference to certificates of competency for higher class public schools, which are by sections 61, 62, and 63, of this Act vested in the Scotch Education Department, and the examiners appointed by the said department with reference to certificates of competency for other public schools, and every candidate for a certificate under this section shall pay such fee as may be determined from time to time by the Scotch Education Department"). The Bill provided that in the case of the higher class schools the school boards should fix the standard of qualification for the teachers, and should appoint Examiners to conduct an inquiry into their competency, but did not give the same powers to the boards of the local schools. He should move another Amendment, calculated, as he thought, to ensure that the qualifications of the masters should be ascertained by a competent Board of Examiners—namely, in page 26, line 16, leave out from ("by") to end of sub-section and insert— ("The said board of examiners, or any of their number appointed by them, and the examiners shall make a report of the examination of such school to the school board having the management thereof; and the expenses of all examinations under this section, including such remuneration to each examiner as shall be fixed by the Scotch Education Department, shall be defrayed out of the fees paid by candidates as aforesaid, together with such further sum from the school fund of the parish or burgh in which each such school is situated, as may be determined by the Scotch Education Department").


said, he had no objection to the general object of the noble Duke's proposals, but he objected to the way in which he proposed to carry them out. He thought that it indicated great distrust in the constituents of the school boards, upon whom would devolve the duty of carrying out the provisions of the Bill when it had become law. The existing higher class schools were for the most part under the management of the town councils, which had been elected by the ratepayers, and as their mode of management had not been open to objection—the Edinburgh High School, which which had acquired so great a reputation, having been from time immemorial under the management of the Town Council—he did not see why there was any reason to distrust the school boards, which would be under the Bill similarly constituted. It should be remembered that the Privy Council gave no assistance to the high schools. He did not know that the Educational Institute of Scotland—one of the bodies to whom the noble Duke proposed to commit the nomination of one of the Examiners—was a body that commanded any great amount of respect. Not the least of his objections to the proposal of the noble Duke was, that the cost of examinations should be defrayed by the candidates who offered themselves for examination as schoolmasters.


thought the appointment of Examiners by town councils was to be deprecated, because the natural tendency of such bodies was to procure the cheapest rather than the most efficient teachers; but, at the same time, he did not think that the proposals of the noble Duke (the Duke of Richmond) would produce such a Board of Examiners as was required. He hoped the Amendment would not be pressed.


held that these schools being endowed schools, it was both the right and the duty of Parliament to make them as efficient as possible. The principle of the Amendment—namely, that there should be an independent examination both of teachers and of schools—was a good one. It ought not to be in the power of any school board, desiring to "make things pleasant," to appoint an Examiner who would say that everything was going on satisfactorily. That under the existing system, the Scotch schoolmasters were, as a body, competent and able men was rather in spite of than in consequence of the manner in which they were appointed.


reminded the noble Duke opposite that, unless he was misinformed, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer exacted from the candidates attending the competitive examinations for the Civil Service certain fees, which went towards paying the expenses of the examinations. He hoped, therefore, that the noble Duke would not refuse to follow the example set him by that high authority.

On Question, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause?—Their Lordships divided:—Contents 42; Not-Oontents 38: Majority 4.


, in rising to move an Amendment forbidding the teaching in any school of any catechism or any religious formulary distinctive of any particular denomination, said:—My Lords, on Friday week, in the course of his speech on the second reading of the Bill, the noble Duke who introduced it expressed himself as strongly opposed to secular education. I shall not follow the noble Duke into argument on that topic. I confess I have always thought that in theory the doctrine of the division of labour holds good with regard to instruction, and that in practice a system which has had so large a share in the education of America and Canada cannot be considered as otherwise than a success. But the noble Duke almost challenged your Lordships to bring forward an Amendment with the view of reconciling the Scotch and English Act as regards catechisms. Under such a challenge I could not conscientiously remain silent; and though I fear I shall not receive the support of many of your Lordships, I will briefly, at this critical hour of the evening, explain the reasons which induce me to bring forward my Amendment. In the first place, my Lords, we are told that there is no religious difficulty in Scotland. That, indeed, would be a grave objection, if it were founded on fact; but, my Lords, I deny that it is founded on fact, and, even admitting the religious difficulty to be comparatively small, I assert that that is owing to conditions which will cease to operate when you have passed this Act. It is true, so far, that the religious difficulty in Scotland is smaller than that in England or in Ireland. But it is not of the entirely microscopic character which some have thought fit to describe it. One-seventh of the population of Scotland have not merely no connection with, but an antagonism to, Presbyterianism. But, again, there are, as the noble Duke knows perfectly well, Presbyterians and Presbyterians. The United Presbyterians form the third largest religious Body in Scotland. What has been the course taken with regard to education by the United Presbyterians? That Body has made an annual declara- tion since 1847—for 25 years—for the complete separation of secular and religious education. They consider, rightly, or wrongly, that the State has nothing whatever to do with religious education, which they regard as the prerogative of the parent and the Church. So it is not perfectly accurate to represent the whole of Scotland as ready to accept the Shorter Catechism, as a part of school education. But let us take the experience of qualified persons. Who is the man of all Scotland whom we should choose, perhaps, as most qualified to speak with authority on this subject? We should all probably say, Dr. Lyon Playfair. What does he say— Practically, we ought to have no difficulties of religion to contend with; but actually there is at present much religious excitement in Scotland about this Bill. I cannot deny that chiefly on account of the ecclesiastical obstacles which have been put in the way of educational progress since 1854, there is a rapidly growing desire among the people for separating secular and religious instruction in the school, with the view of confiding the latter to the Churches. That seems to me to be an opinion, the force and weight and authority of which it is impossible to deny; and I think that the noble Duke will find it difficult to prove that it is mathematically correct to continue to divide the people of Scotland into the two simple classes of Shorter Catechumens and Shorter Catechists. But I believe that even if the religious difficulty be really smaller in Scotland than in England, there is a cause for this which will cease to operate after the passing of this Act. For 25 years the religious difficulty has become more and more active and pressing in the United Kingdom. For 25, years the United Presbyterian Synod has sounded the key-note of secular education; and for 25 years you have been dangling an Education Bill before the people of Scotland. During those years there has been a general consent to await the result of your decisions, and, meanwhile, at any cost, to procure the best possible education for the children; but that has always been considered as a provisional state of things. A Scotch parent will stick at little to obtain the necessary instruction for his children. He may dislike being compelled to have them taught dogmatic religion with the three R's; but he has known that there would be no three R's procurable otherwise. It may be licking honey off thorns; but, then, no honey can be got in any other way. He has always been hoping for the time when Parliament should settle this question, and he no longer be compelled to sue for education at the door of another Church. But when you produce your settlement, and he sees it is no settlement, will there be no religious difficulty then? I know that Roman Catholic children have sat through the Shorter Catechism; but that has been harder for them than total exclusion. For not merely have they been forced, in order to secure secular education, to learn the Shorter Catechism—which is difficult—but to remain good Catholics, they have had to do what is perhaps more difficult—to unlearn the Shorter Catechism. Yet, because people have done all this—in view of the approaching settlement of the question—rather than not learn to read, write, and reckon, it is said that there is no religious difficulty in Scotland. He would be a bold man who would predict that such a settlement as this will last for 20 years; nor do I think you can easily disregard the names that appear on the rolls of that association, from whom I had the honour the other night to present a Petition in favour of this Amendment. It will be, I confess, a very extraordinary thing to me if in face of these facts, and these synodal declarations, and these distinguished and influential persons who are opposed to your system, and the English Education Act itself staring you in the face, this Bill shall be considered a settlement of the question. But I will bring forward another argument. You must remember that hitherto rates for education have been paid by the heritors alone; but they are now to fall on the whole body of ratepayers. Now, I suppose we all know the searching nature of rates? We have all had our little experience of them. Noble Lords who live south of the Tweed need only think of church rates, and noble Lords north of the Tweed of the annuity tax. Do you not suppose that these persons who are thus to acquire the privilege of paying a rate will look out with uncommon sharpness to what they are paying for? Will not this rate, judging from experience, very likely discover diversities of creed and niceties of conscience even where they have not hitherto shown themselves? This Bill will indeed form an epoch in the dismal history of rates if it be not so. You are about deliberately to put into the hands of that large class of persons who will avail themselves of any means of defence against a rate, and of those to whom the rate is a considerable burden—the tremendous weapon of sectarian difference and conscientious difficulty. And you think they will not use it? But then, my Lords, such a clause as this would lead to what is broadly and coarsely termed Godless education. That is an accusation to which I attach very little importance. So far from this being the case I should be content to rest my advocacy of this Amendment on the interests of religious teaching; for how will this Bill teach religion? You are to get some odd moments during the day; you are to get the rinçures—the rinsings—of secular education; for you cannot expect that the schoolmaster will devote more pains to fit himself for the religious half-hour than for the secular four hours. But even if that be not his wish, the school board elected by the ratepayers will probably take good care that it is so. Then what will the teacher teach at these spare moments? It is perfectly clear—the Shorter Catechism. It is the Shorter Catechism to which the people of Scotland, as we are told, cling; it is in the Shorter Catechism that instruction will be given at these odd times to children between 5 and 13. But now as to instruction in this Shorter Catechism—and instruction given, mind, as a recognized part of the school teaching, and not in the hole-and-corner manner proposed by the Bill—the language of the Commissioners of 1867 is clear and precise. As long as they kept to the beaten track of the Catechism questions, the answers were delightfully clear and precise; but the moment they deviated from that path in the least, they were met with blank looks and appalling ignorance. But is this wonderful? Have your Lordships ever read the Shorter Catechism? It is described on its cover as being designed for the use of those of "weaker capacity." I open it at hap-hazard, and find this formidable question— What are the benefits which in this life do accompany or flow from justification, adoption, or sanctification? If that is a question suitable for the weaker capacities of Scotland, I feel moved to take the greatest pride in the stronger intellects of my native country. But seriously, I ask you, my Lords, which is the true friend to religious education, the man who would instruct a child in such matters as these at odd moments, or he who would relegate such awful and intricate subjects to separate and careful instruction? I contend that religious instruction to be efficient should be at least as full, as definite, and as careful as any other department of education. Teaching religion by making the child commit to memory the Shorter Catechism is like teaching Greek without a grammar—or the man who read Euclid through like a novel, in order to improve his reasoning powers. But, my Lords, while we are talking of the Shorter Catechism, I may fairly avow that what I have read in the Report submitted by the noble Duke's (the Duke of Argyll's) Commission in 1867 would make me doubtful on other grounds as to the wisdom of teaching the Shorter Catechism to these young children. Take the following extract from the Report:— All the ministers acknowledged that the children were not expected to understand the answers; but they held that the answers being taught in childhood clung to the people's memories as they grew up, and were valuable, not only as intellectual, but as moral discipline. That is the sole apology. It may, indeed, be moral discipline to learn that by rote which you cannot understand, but it is assuredly not intellectual discipline— One minister considered the Catechism well fitted for improving the memories of the young. This is an advantage shared by Gray's Memoria Technica, and other works which do not pretend to be instruments of religious education. Another minister assured us that in his communion classes he always knew by the intelligence of the young people whether they had learned their Catechism or not. Naturally, a child who can commit a pamphlet to memory of which he does not understand a word would be, to say the least, intelligent. And a third minister maintained that the traditional stability of the Scotch character arose out of their instruction in the Shorter Catechism. This reason requires no comment, but it is certainly a startling illustration of cause and effect. Teachers and Inspectors differ in their views as to whether it should be given up. The majority, however, think it should be retained; but some would be glad to see it both simplified and modified—simplified to suit the capacities of the children"—in which case it would cease to be the Shorter Catechism—"and modified to meet with the approval of every Protestant. In which case I need hardly say it would be, if not unique, at any rate one of the most remarkable creeds extant. Thus, then, I contend that the Shorter Catechism will not be a benefit as proposed to be taught, and that even as taught hitherto, it has not been an efficient means of education. Indeed, it might almost be said after reading the Report that from the mouths of its apologists has proceeded its condemnation as a mere ordinary subject of education. But, my Lords, see again how this Act will work without such a clause as the English Education Act contains. Suppose you have a school board in which you have a bare majority of Established Churchmen. The Established Church do not form 50 per cent of the population of Scotland; they are, however, more numerous than any other denomination. They will probably, as a rule, have majorities in the school board, and probably also, as a rule, bare majorities. Will not those bare majorities be apt to choose their schoolmaster not for his efficiency or his general ability, but because he will be a fair teacher of secular subjects and an excellent exponent of denominational religion? So that by this proviso you will be meting out short measure to the Roman Catholic or United Presbyterian child, in order to furnish excellent denominational education to the bantling of the Establishment. But, again, take the case of the teachers. Take a candidate for a school mastership. Will he not have cause to complain if, being the best secular candidate—that is, the best public teacher for the whole parish, another is preferred before him on account of superior knowledge of the Shorter Catechism? Consider, again. The schoolmaster is appointed by the school board. At the end of three years, the school board, with the bare majority of the Establishment, goes out, having made itself unpopular as having imposed a rate. It is succeeded by an opposition board, whose first care will be to get rid of its predecessor's nominee. That will secure a pleasing variety in your educational system; but I submit that such variety is hardly desirable. Nay, the reaction caused may do the very thing you wish to avoid, and drive religion altogether from the schools. But, then, let us never forget that we are fortunate enough to have a Preamble—a Preamble, historical and precise in its language, which was passed the other night with considerable pomp and circumstance. That Preamble we know is the efficient instrument which secures to us adequate religious instruction. I happen to know this, because I have been told so by persons for whose authority I have great respect. But, to tell the truth, I did not understand that Preamble at the time, and as after subsequent reflection, I understand it still less, I will take the liberty of asking a question or two. I will ask the most rev. Prelate who inaugurated the debate on Friday night by speaking with a double authority—firstly, as Prelate, and secondly as a Scotchman of whom all Scotchmen are proud, what security there is in this Bill—with its religious Preamble—for the religious teaching of that branch of the English communion which exists in Scotland? It is not, indeed, very numerous, but it is not soulless, and it will pay the rate. I will take the liberty of asking the noble Lord the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, or the noble Duke the Earl Marshal, what security they see for the religious teaching of the members of their Church in this Bill—with its religious Preamble? Yet they form one-tenth of the population of Scotland. How long will this Bill, which provides that these sections of the community shall pay for teaching to which they are completely opposed, be a settlement of the question? Will they not have besides to provide religious instruction by their own voluntary exertions? And yet if you compel them to do so, what hardship is there in compelling others to do so? There will, indeed, be no hardship in making others do so, but there will be a hardship in compelling these to pay for religious instruction of which they entirely disapprove. But, my Lords, having said so much on the question of fact, and of justice, and of effect, let me say a final word as regards expediency. The noble Duke who introduced this Bill acknowledged at the commencement of his eloquent speech the strides which public opinion had made as regards education in the last three years. He illustrated that by stating the impossibility of the Act of 1870 now finding acceptance with that public opinion. He acknowledged towards the end of his speech the strides that public opinion has made towards the separation of secular and religious instruction, and he therefore begged your Lordships to accept the present Bill. But did he not see the logical result of his arguments? If public opinion has made these strides, why does he make this Bill less liberal and more ecclesiastical than the Bill of 1870? But, on the other hand, if public opinion is making this progress in the direction of separating secular and religious instruction, do you suppose that you can dam the progress of public opinion by a clause or a time table? A mole hill has more chance of resisting a garden roller. And this is what is called a settlement of the question! And, my Lords, remember that the proposition I am making is no new one. It is simply and solely the second section of the 14th clause of the English law of education passed the year before last. The burden of proof does not, I contend, lie with me as to its adoption, but with the noble Duke as to its rejection. These then are the reasons for which I ask your acceptance of this Amendment. Ipropose it in no fanatical spirit. If I believed that its adoption would retard for a single day the benefits which I believe this Bill will confer upon Scotland, I would certainly not ask you to pass it. I advocate it on different grounds. It is because I desire that this Bill may not cause injury throughout Scotland by sowing in every parish the dragon's teeth of religious difficulty and religious difference, but rather that it may be the permanent and peaceful solution of a vital question. I honestly and firmly believe that this Bill is no such settlement; I honestly and firmly believe that as regards the question of religious instruction it contains the elements of neither permanence nor peace.

Amendment moved in line 12, after ("Department") insert— ("And no religious catechism or religious formulary which is distinctive of any particular denomination shall be taught in any such school.")—(The Earl of Rosebery.)


hoped the House would not assent to this proposition. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cowper-Temple), who caused the adoption of this rule in the English Act, did so with the best intentions, and was a true friend to education. But he believed it had done more than anything else to alienate from that Act the mind of the great body of the English clergy, and of very many of the laity. And a main reason was, that while appearing to be impartial, it in truth, put some religious Bodies under a special disadvantage, inasmuch as some such Bodies, as the Roman Catholic, the Anglican, the Presbyterian, and, he believed, the Wesleyan valued their formularies, while others had none, or did not care about them. In the English Church, not from any fancy, but from the actual injunction of its authority, these formularies were required to be taught to children. Now, what was the exact meaning of the clause? It could not mean such a mere sham as that certain words were forbidden, but the same sense might be taught. The spirit of the clause, no doubt, was to a great extent observed now in schools, and it was quite proper to teach children in a simple and un-controversial way; but it would probably be found that such teaching was within the limits of what used to be called "orthodox Dissent;" and it answered precisely, because it was not defined by law, but was left to the good sense and discretion of teachers and managers. It would be quite different in the construction, subject to legal appeal, of the express words of a statute—and what religion would that be, which was to contain only what was common to Roman Catholics, Quakers, Unitarians, nay, even Jews? We knew that, writers such as the French expressly said, that the essence of true religion might be equally held by Jews as by Christians. That was true subjectively, but could not apply to external teaching, which must involve some definite statements. He believed it could only issue in what he thought the most stupendous nonsense ever propounded—the reading of the Bible to children without a word of explanation. He regretted that such an Amendment had been proposed by a man of the high promise of the noble Earl, not that his speech had much to do with it, for it was a speech simply in favour of secular schools. But the Amendment was well known. He believed it either to be based on a mischievous fallacy, or to be an utter sham.


said, that he was utterly at a loss to know what good purpose was expected to be served by moving this Amendment, and that the noble Earl (the Earl of Rosebery) seemed to have paid no attention to what the noble Duke (the Duke of Argyll) had said in moving the second reading of the Bill, of the preposterous absurdity of a Christian State, or of a State professing to be Christian, prohibiting the education of its children in the Christian religion.


supported the Amendment. He thought his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) had done great service by raising this question. He considered that the Shorter Catechism, which was proposed to be allowed in schools, was a most unfortunate proposition. The Shorter Catechism seemed to him to be quite unfit and out of place in the hands of the children—not because it would have anything in the shape of an ill effect upon them, but that they could not understand it.


said, that the speech his noble Friend (the Earl of Rosebery) had addressed to their Lordships in support of his proposition was, not so much a speech directed to his Amendment as an argument in favor of secular education. No doubt, much was to be said for and against secular education; but in his (the Duke of Argyll's) opinion much more against it. If the advocates of secular education could secure that children educated in entirely secular schools would have a religious education elsewhere in accordance with the belief of their parents, he should not object to purely secular education in the schools—if they could not secure that, he should refuse to sanction purely secular teaching. But if there was a compulsory separation of religious and secular education, we might be perfectly certain that a great proportion of the children would get no religious education whatever. Moreover, if a system of secular education were thoroughly carried out, and if the children received religious instruction in separate schools from their own clergy, the chances were that this religious instruction would be conceived in a more sectarian spirit than it was now. On the other hand, for the State to resolve upon religious education and dictate to the parents of children the particular form of instruction their chil- dren should receive, was a thing no Government could sanction, and which the people of Scotland would never submit to. Indeed, he took it that that House was not the place where these religious points should be decided. As to the objection that the Shorter Catechism was unfit for younger children, his contention was that their Lordships were not in a position to enter into that subject. He attached infinitely more value to the opinion of the Westminster Assembly which sat in the Jerusalem Chamber than he did to the opinion on that subject either of his noble Friend or of the majority of the House. As to the use of the word "Liberal" in this matter, he had longed for an opportunity to protest against it. There was a large number of persons in this country who said "you are not a Liberal" if you did not accept some of their crotchets. These persons prescribed all theology and all dogmatic teaching. He did not say that was the wish of his noble Friend, but he absolutely disclaimed the right of any party to dictate what was consistent or what was inconsistent with Liberal opinions. At all events, if the State undertook to provide religious education, it was the duty of the State to secure that the consciences of the minority should be respected; it had a right to say that it would give no money for religious instruction—and it had a right to secure that money granted by the State for educational purposes should be shared in by all; but it had no right to say either to individuals, associations, or Churches—"You may teach religion in the rate-supported schools, but not teach it according to the formulary you have drawn up." With regard to the Amendment of his noble Friend, he must remark that if ever we should come to such a condition of things, that it was impossible to give any religious instruction to children of different religious communions together, then he would be prepared to consider the alternative of purely secular education under such conditions and restrictions as Parliament might devise. But so long as we allowed religious instruction in our schools, he was absolutely averse from either the prescription or proscription of any religious instruction whatever.


said, that the noble Duke had taken him to task for expressing an opinion on the teaching of the Catechism; but he had simply quoted from the Report of the Commission of the noble Duke which sat in 1867; and, to put the case as strongly as possible in favor of the noble Duke, he had quoted the opinion of the ministers in defense of the Shorter Catechism. He had listened vainly throughout the discussion for any apology for the practice of compelling people to pay for the teaching of religious opinions with which they did not agree.

On Question, whether to insert? Resolved in the Negative.

Amendments made.

Bill to be read 3a on Thursday next; and to be printed as amended. (No. 222.)