L I B RARY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 U N IVLRSITY 
 
 Of ILLINOIS
 
 ^r^V'i^V-.^^ ■' -'"■, ■'■ ■<■
 
 (Sctftttjsh ^^ncctiion ^tU. 
 
 REPORT 
 
 OF 
 
 PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE 
 
 ON 
 
 MR. GORDON'S RESOLUTION 
 
 IN nTA-VOUR OE' 
 
 INSTRUCTION IN THE HOLY SCRIPTURES IN THE 
 PUBLIC SCHOOLS," 
 
 Adoj)ted hij House of Commons on Monday Evening^ 6th May, 1872. 
 
 GLASGOW: 
 PRINTED BY AKCH. K. MURRAY & CO., 
 
 243 PARLIAMENTARY ROAD.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page 
 
 Right Hon. E. S. Gordon, (Glasgow and Aberdeen Universities), 5 
 
 Lord Advocate (Wigton), 21 
 
 Right Hon. H. A. Bruce (Renfrew), 10 
 
 Lord Henry Scott (Hants, S.), 24 
 
 D. M'Laren, Esq. (Edinburgh), 25 
 
 Right Hon. Sir John Pakington (Droitwich), - - - - 29 
 
 Arch. Orr Ewing, Esq. (Dumbartonshire), - - - - - 29 
 
 Charles Dalrymple, Esq. (Buteshire), ------ 31 
 
 Sir G. G. Montgomery (Peeblesshire), ----- 33 
 
 Sir J. C. D. Hay, Bart. (Stamford), 33 
 
 Hugh Birley, Esq. (Manchester), 34 
 
 Sir J. D. Elphinstone (Portsmouth), ------ 34 
 
 Hon. Charles Carnegie (Forfiirshire), ------ 37 
 
 Edward B. Eastwick, Esq. (Penryn, etc.), - - - • - - 37 
 
 W. Wheelhouse, Esq. (Leeds), 38 
 
 J. H. Scourfield, Esq. (Pembroke), -----•« 39 
 
 Hon. Wilbraham Egerton (Chester, M.), - - - - - 39 
 
 F. S. Powell, Esq. (Yorkshire, W.R., N.), . - . - 40 
 Lord Garlics (Wigton), -..--.--42 
 
 George Wm. P. Bentinck, Esq. (Norfolk, W.), - - - - 43 
 
 Edward Hermon, Esq. (Preston), ------ 44 
 
 Edward Greene, Esq. (Bury St. Edmunds), ----- 45 
 
 J. G. Talbot, Esq. (West Kent), - 45 
 
 Thomas Collins, Esq. (Boston), -------46 
 
 Right Hon. W. E. Forster (Bradford), 48 
 
 Right Hon. Gathorne Hardy (Oxford University), - - - 51 
 
 Sir Robert Anstruther (Fifeshire), ------ 53 
 
 Charles N. Newdegate, Esq. (Warwick, N.), - - - - 54 
 
 Right Hon. Lord John Manners (Leicester, N.), - - - - 55
 
 The following Resolution, proposed by E, S. Gordon, Esq., 
 M.P., on Monday Evening, 6tli May, 1872, was adopted by the 
 House of Commons, by a majority of 216 to 209 (82 Members, 
 as in Appendix, having paired on the question), making 507 
 Members in all : — 
 
 "That, having regard to the principles and history of the past 
 " educational legislation and practice §£ Scotland, • which 
 *' provided for instruction in the Holy Scriptures in the 
 "public schools as an essential part of education, this 
 " House, while desirous of passing a measure during the 
 "present Session for the improvement of Education in 
 " Scotland, is of opinion that the Law and practice of 
 " Scotland in this respect should be continued by provisions 
 *' in the Bill now before the House." 
 
 On the Resolution being put as the "m«m question" the 
 Government declined to divide upon it, and it was adopted 
 unanimously. 
 
 UIUC
 
 SCOTCH EDUCATION BILL. 
 
 On the order of the day for gomg into Committee on this Bill, 
 
 Mr Gordon said — Mr Speaker — The second reading of this 
 Bill followed so soon after its publication, that there was no time 
 for eliciting public opinion with respect to its provisions ; and on 
 the occasion of the second reading I stated that we reserved to 
 ourselves perfect right and liberty to proceed by way either of re- 
 solution or amendments in Committee for the purpose of getting 
 rid of many of those provisions which I apprehendeil would be 
 thought of an injurious character as regards both the secular and 
 religious instruction of the people of Scotland. Time has now 
 been given for the expression of public opinion, and I venture to 
 say there never has been a Bill which has elicited a stronger opinion 
 against its provisions in many respects, whether as regards the 
 managing body which is to superintend education in Scotland, as 
 regards the interests of the schoolmasters, or, above all, as 
 regards the religious system which has hitherto characterised edu- 
 cation in that country. Last year there were against the Bill then 
 brought forward 903 petitions, which were signed by about 70,000 
 persons. In favour of the Bill there were 51 petitions, signed by 
 4800 persons. Of course, on both sides there were what 
 may be called corporate petitions. This year, I find there 
 are against the Bill, out and out, 174 petitions, signed 
 by 33,000 persons. Then there are petitions of a far greater 
 number, generally in this form: they pray for alterations, 
 with a view to securing the religious system which has hitherto 
 prevailed in Scotland, and that, if that prayer was not granted, 
 the Bill should be rejected. The petitioners did not wish to pre- 
 vent an examination of the provisions of the Bill, and an amend-
 
 G 
 
 ment of those provisions in Committee ; but if tlie amendments 
 suggested, especially with reference to securing religious instruction 
 in Scotland, are not adopted, then the Bill should be rejected. 
 Including some presented to-day by myself, there have been 
 nearly 1,500 petitions, signed by 200,000 persons, praying 
 for alteration in this way, laid on the table of the House. 
 From these are to be deducted the signatures of about 30,000 
 persons who seem of late to have taken a great interest in 
 Scotch education — I mean those connected with the Birmingham 
 League. They have presented petitions against the Bill in respect 
 of its containing in the slightest degree any approach to an 
 allowance of religious instruction. The result is that there are 
 upwards of 200,000 petitioners representing against the provisions 
 of this Bill as not securing religious instruction, and the House 
 must keep this in view when they are considering the number of 
 those who have signed the petitions — viz., that Scotland has only 
 one-sixth of the population of England, and that, therefore, these 
 petitions represent a very large body of petitioners. If the list of 
 petitions for this session be examined, it will be found that no 
 subject of imperial interest has secured a larger number of 
 petitioners. Therefore it is quite clear that there is in Scotland a 
 strong feeling in regard to the provisions of this Bill; and 
 that instead of the people of Scotland being satisfied with 
 its provisions they are very much dissatisfied with them, 
 and they pray the House to make alterations — and material 
 alterations — in the Bill. These petitions have been the 
 result of public meetings, which liave been held for the 
 purpose of discussing the terms of the Bill, and numerous 
 publications have issued from the press with regard to its pro- 
 visions. Men of the highest position and intelligence have taken 
 part against the provisions of the Bill. A meeting has lately been 
 held in Edinburgh, which was presided over by a nobleman whose 
 name is very much respected not only in Scotland but everywhere 
 else where he is known — I mean the Duke of Buccleuch — and 
 that meeting was attended by many other influential persons, who 
 made a strong protest against the Bill, and especially with reference 
 to its destructive tendency as regards religious instruction. Men 
 of all churches have taken part in this discussion — men connected 
 with the Established Church, the Free Church, and other dissent- 
 ing bodies ; and lately, even many belonging to the United Pres-
 
 byterian body. I refer particularly to the laity of the last body, 
 for I admit that most of the clergy of that body are not actuated 
 by the same feelings. All the teachers connected with the parish 
 schools, and most of those in the Free Church schools, and other 
 schools in Scotland, have expressed in the strongest manner their 
 dissatisfaction with the provisions of the Bill, and in particular with 
 respect to its provisions as regards religious instruction. They feel 
 that their power to discharge their duty as teachers would be very 
 much hampered by the provisions of the Bill in this matter, and 
 they think it is essential that there should be a power in the 
 teachers to give religious instruction. Then I may quote the 
 opinion of one who may be regarded as an impartial witness 
 in this matter, for he is not connected with any of our 
 Presbyterian Churches. I refer to Bishop Eden, the Primus of 
 the Episcopal Church in Scotland. With reference to the Bill of 
 1871, which did not go nearly so far in discouraging religious 
 teaching as the present Bill, he said "it was impossible to compare 
 the scheme of education proposed by this Bill with the system 
 which has so long prevailed in the parish schools of Scotland, 
 without feeling that, however unintentional on the* part of the 
 framers, the measure must prove a great blow and heavy dis- 
 couragement to religious education, and as such run counter to 
 the old traditionary feelings of the country. The real distinction 
 between the two schemes is — that the one is a scheme for impart- 
 ing secular education based on religion, the other a scheme for a 
 similar object, but professedly not based on religion." Having 
 regard to these strong, and, as I venture to think, unexampled 
 expressions of opinion with reference to the provisions of the Bill 
 as regards religious instruction and the great importance of the 
 question itself, I have thought it would be right to bring this 
 question now before the House, and not to trust to its being 
 taken up incidentally in the very unfavourable way in which dis- 
 cussions arise in Committee. I have accordingly placed on the 
 paper the follov/ing resolution: — "That, having regard to the 
 principles and history of the past educational legislation and 
 practice of Scotland, which provided for instruction in the Holy 
 Scriptures in the public schools as an essential part of education, 
 this House, while desirous of passing a measure during the 
 present Session for the improvement of education in Scotland, 
 is of opinion that the law and practice of Scotland in this respect
 
 8 
 
 should be continued by provisions in the Bill now before the 
 House." 
 
 This resolution certainly is not moved by me with any party 
 object, but solely in order to secure the important object which I 
 hold to be essential in education. To show that my views are not 
 taken up for this occasion, and are shared by the constituency which 
 I represent, I may mention that I was unsuccessful by a small 
 number in 1868. In 1869 I again sought the suffrages of my 
 constituents, and on that occasion I made the following statement 
 in my address : — 
 
 " A marked feature in the education which has hitherto prevailed 
 in our parochial, and in most of our other schools, and which I am 
 desirous should be continued, has been that the children have had 
 the opportunity of obtaining instruction in religion of a scriptural 
 and unsectarian character. Whilst I hold that no educational 
 measure can be considered satisfactory which does not acknowledge 
 such religious instruction as a part of the national system, I am most 
 anxious to see provision made that, as heretofore, no violence shall 
 be done to conscientious convictions ; the right of the parent to with- 
 draw his child from such religious instruction being clearly recog- 
 nised," 
 
 I had the good fortune to be returned by the constituencj'" by 
 a majority of upwards of 500, so that in bringing forward this resolu- 
 lution I am redeeming the pledge which I then gave to my constitu- 
 ency. (Hear, hear.) I am not desirous to offer any obstruction to the 
 passing of an Education Bill. In the course of Friday last I was 
 told it was rumoured that the object of my resolution was to 
 throw out the Bill. (Hear, hear.) I certainly had not any such 
 intention, and to make this more clear I altered its terms. The 
 resolution is one which, if carried, clearly admits of the Bill being 
 proceeded with; and the only effect of passing the resolution 
 would be this, that the Government would have an opportunity of 
 reconsidering the provisions of the Bill with respect to the opinion 
 of the House, if the resolution is assented to. I understand that 
 it is not likely the Bill will make much progress before the Whit- 
 suntide holidays, so that there will be abundant time to reconstruct 
 its provisions in conformity with the resolution. I am not here 
 advocating the interests of any Church. I am not here maintain- 
 ing the right of the Established Church to continue in the manage- 
 ment of the schools. I think they were deprived of their
 
 D 
 
 management to a great extent in 18G1. But I wish to get 
 this resohition passed in the interests of the religions instruc- 
 tion which has hitherto prevailed in Scotland. "VVe were 
 told on the second reading that this Bill would be recon- 
 sidered with reference to the suggestions that were then made; but, 
 looking to the amendments on the paper, I find that only two, 
 and these the most trifling, have been made l)y the Government. 
 Therefore we have now to deal with the Bill as it has been fully 
 canvassed by the country, and I feel compelled to bring the question 
 of religious instruction before the House by this resolution. The 
 Government certainly cannot be wedded to this Bill, because in 
 18G9 they brought in a Bill which I venture to think was different 
 in its character, and which did not overturn the provisions for 
 religious instruction which had hitherto existed in Scotland. That 
 Bill received the sanction of this House, and I wish that the 
 Government would adopt the system which then passed this 
 House, and which would not interfere with religious instruction as 
 this Bill does. It is not necessary for me, in the view which I 
 take of the position of religious education in Scotland, to raise the 
 abstract question as to the duty of the Government jj^ith regard 
 to religious education in State schools. I myself have a very 
 strong opinion on that question. I think that if the Government 
 take the management of education out of the hands of parents, and 
 even compel parents to send their children to school, that Govern- 
 ment should assume the position of the parents ; and if the parent 
 is bound to educate religiously, so the Government is bound to 
 take care that religious education is given to the children. 
 (Hear, hear.) I do not think there is a single member of this 
 House who will dispute tliat it is tlie duty of the parent to educate 
 religiously, and I think it follows that when the State assumes a 
 duty of this kind it is bound to act in a religious way. At the 
 same time, it will be quite understood that this is consistent with 
 the most perfect toleration towards the children of those parents 
 who may decline to receive such education. It has ahvays been 
 the practice in Scotland to exempt from religious instruction any 
 child whose parents objected to his receiving such instruction: and 
 this is the way in which the conscience clause, as it has been 
 called, is carried out. We have no written conscience clause, 
 but the conscientious scruples of the parent have been respected, 
 and there has never been any complaint whatever. (Hear, hear.)
 
 10 
 
 It is no answer to this resolution to say that a different custom 
 has been followed in other countries. You have found it necessary 
 to deal with English education in one Bill. We are dealing with 
 Scotch education by another Bill. You will have to deal with 
 Irish education by another measure. This seems to be the 
 view of the Home Secretary, whose name I have before had 
 occasion to quote in reference to this matter of education, 
 and whose opinion I quote the more readily because he has 
 given such attention to the subject. In addressing his constituents 
 in Renfrewshire, he said — "He could not but think that the large 
 experience gained during the great discussions on the English 
 Bill had been of great service in the preparation of the Scotch 
 Bill. He ventured to assert as much last year, and he was taken 
 to task by some severe critics, who charged him with a desire to 
 import into the Scotch Bill the principles of the English Bill. 
 Nothing could be further from his mind, or the minds of his 
 colleagues. They, as practical men, felt that the case of England 
 and the case of Scotland were entirely different. In England it 
 was necessary to create a system, whereas in Scotland there was a 
 national system already, and all that required to be done was to 
 build on the foundations thus afforded, and to extend the existing 
 system in the spirit in which it was originally created." 
 (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr Bruce — That has reference to the course of instruction 
 given in the schools. 
 
 Mr Gordon — Precisely so— but part of the instruction given 
 in the schools has always been religious instruction. (Hear.) 
 I quite accept the confirmation of what I say which has been 
 given by the right hon. gentleman. Religious instruction has 
 always been part of the education that has been given, and 
 therefore I have the present authority of the right hon. gentleman 
 that I have correctly quoted him. 
 
 I shall now proceed to state to the House how the system was 
 " originally created," to quote the words of the Home Secretary. 
 The first Act which bears upon the subject was passed on the 
 suggestion of John Knox and his colleagues, in 1567, and says: — ■ 
 *' Forsameikle as be all laws and constitutions, it is provided that 
 the youth be brocht up and instructed in the fear of God and 
 gude maneris, and gif it be otherwise it is tinsel baith of their 
 bodies and saules gif God's Word be not ruted in them : Quheirfor
 
 11 
 
 our soveraigne Lorcle, with advise of my Lord Regent, lies statute 
 and ordained that all schulis to burgh and land, and all universities 
 and colleges be reformed; and that nane be permitted or admitted 
 to have chairge and cure their in time coming, nor instruct the 
 j^outh privatelie or openlie, but sik as sail be tryed be the super- 
 intendentes of visitoures of the kirke." Here was a public declara- 
 tion by the Legislature of Scotland that it was necessary the youth 
 should be brought up in the fear of God ; and the manner in which it 
 Avas sought to secure this end was by putting religious education in 
 the schools under the superintendence of the Church. It was then 
 thought, and truly, that if you placed this matter under the super- 
 intendence of the Church you w^ould secure the religious instruction 
 which the preamble of the Act assumes and declares to be neces- 
 sary for the good of the community, and the object of the enact- 
 ment. Statutory provision to the same effect was also made when 
 the Church became Episcopal. Then the schools were placed 
 under the management of the bishops. When Presbyterian ism 
 again became the State religion, the schools were placed under the 
 management of the presbyteries. In 169G amended provisions 
 were made imposing burdens on the proprietors for th^ support of 
 the schools; and it was then declared that all former statutes con- 
 cerning the schools were ratified and confirmed. In 1803 the 
 salaries of the schoolmasters were increased, and provision was 
 made with reference to the mode of admission of the schoolmaster 
 to his office. It was enacted that before admission to his office 
 the presbytery should take trial of his efficiency for the office " in 
 " respect of morality and religion, and of such branches of literature 
 " as by the majority of heritors and ministers shall be deemed most 
 necessary and important for the parish." The presbytery were the 
 absolute judges as regards religion, and it is clearly implied that 
 religious teaching formed one of the duties to be entrusted to the 
 schoolmaster, while the branches of "literature" to be taught by 
 him were alone left to the heritors and ministers. From that 
 time down to 1861, the schoolmaster was recfuired to sign what 
 was called the formula of the Established Church and Confession 
 of Faith. In 1861, in order to relieve the schoolmasters from the 
 necessity of signing the formula of the Established Church, it 
 was declared that any teacher might be admitted as a school- 
 master without signing the formula; but as this was held to 
 be getting rid, to a certain extent, of that which was regarded as a
 
 12 
 
 security for religious teacliing and the religious character of the 
 schoolmaster, it was declared in the Act that the sclioolmaster 
 should sign a declaration to the following effect: — "I, A. B., do 
 solemnly and sincerely, in the presence of God, profess, testify, 
 
 and declare that, as schoolmaster of the parochial school at , 
 
 in the parish of , and in the discharge of the said office, 
 
 I will never endeavour, directly or indirectly, to teach or inculcate 
 any opinions opposed to the Divine authority of the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, or to the doctrines contained in the Shorter Catechism, 
 agreed upon by the Assembly of Divines at Westminster, 
 and approved by the General Assembly of the Church of 
 Scotland, in the year one thousand six hundred and forty-eight, 
 and that I will faithfully conform thereto in my teaching of 
 the said school." Now I have seen it argued in a publication 
 which reached me this morning, that the effect of this provision 
 was not to secure that religious instruction should be given by the 
 schoolmaster. But the House cannot fail to observe that on the 
 second reading of the Bill the Lord Advocate used strong words. 
 The Lord Advocate (Moncreiff) said, " One object of the Bill was 
 " to abolish the exclusive test that the schoolmaster sliould belong 
 "to the Established Church in Scotland. On Hie other hand, it ])ro- 
 "vided that they should teach the Hoi ij Scriptures, and the Shorter 
 " Catechism, as set forth hj the Westminster Confession of Faith.^' 
 This was an arrangement between both sides of the House, in 
 order to bring about what was thought desirable, but without 
 interfering in the least with the security for religious teaching. 
 Mr Mure, then Member for Bute, occupied the position of ex-Lord 
 Advocate, and so understood it; and after his apiDointment to the 
 Bench, as a Member of the Schools Commission, he stated that 
 the declaration was equivalent to a distinct direction for religious 
 teaching by the Holy Scriptures and the Catechism. We have, 
 therefore, those who were concerned in the passing of this Bill 
 putting a construction on that declaration. I venture to say 
 that any one who reads the declaration can construe it, even 
 without such light, in no other terms than as an expression 
 that the schoolmaster was to teach the Scriptures, while he was 
 relieved to a great extent from the superintendence of the 
 Church. The 13th clause of the Act of 1861 accordingly 
 provided that there should be a prosecution for violation of the 
 declaration, but no such violation has ever occurred. Such are
 
 13 
 
 the legal enactments bearing upon the teaching of religion in the 
 parish schools of Scotland. It has been said, however, that the 
 heritors could exclude religion. I venture to say in the most 
 positive terms, and as a lawyer, that that is not correct. It was 
 not correct, I apprehend, before 1861. It cannot be said to be 
 correct since 1861. We have the opinion of Lord Advocate Mon- 
 creiff, who brought in that Bill, that it was his intention to provide 
 directly for the teaching of Scripture. Now, I think that if any 
 schoolmaster had attempted to evade his duty the courts would 
 have interfered and compelled him to discharge it. If not, a pro- 
 secution would have been competent under the 13th clause of the 
 Act of 1861. 
 
 The Lord Advocate — There is no such prosecution possible 
 under that clause. 
 
 Mr Gordon — I think if my right hon. friend looks at the 1 3th 
 clause, which I have not beside me at present, it will be found that 
 that clause does maintain the authority of the presbytery to lay a 
 complaint against any schoolmaster who has failed to comply with 
 the terms of the declaration. 
 
 The Lord Advocate — They must make a complaint to the 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 Mr Gordon — I think a prosecution might be instituted at the 
 instance of the presbytery, with the approval of the Secretary of 
 State. 
 
 The Lord Advocate— No; the Secretary of State must direct it. 
 
 Mr Gordon — I have not the Act before me. But assume that 
 the Secretary of State may direct a prosecution, the 13th clause 
 contemplates a prosecution for violation of the declaration. So 
 much Avith reference to the legislation. 
 
 I have next to ask attention to what has been the practice or 
 custom of religious teaching in Scotland. The Holy Scriptures have 
 been the subject of instruction in all schools, for they have been read 
 and taught; and also the Shorter Catechism. These were used 
 also in the schools of the Presbyterian Nonconformists in Scotland. 
 There were only 45 schools belonging to the United Presbyterian 
 body. They send their children to the parish schools, and 
 they avail themselves of the teaching of Scripture without the 
 slightest objection. The practice is to respect the rights of 
 the parents of the children, and if any parent objected, his 
 child was withdrawn while the religious instruction was given.
 
 14 
 
 In Glasgow, where you might expect to find the greatest number 
 of those who woukl avail tliemselves of their privilege or right 
 of withdrawing their children from religious instruction, there is 
 at present a school under the superintendence of the Established 
 Church. It has 1300 pupils, and only 22 of them have asked to 
 withdraw from religious instruction. You have, therefore, 98 per 
 cent, who are glad to avail themselves of this instruction, and only 
 2 per cent, who decline to do so. The Eoman Catholics have also 
 availed themselves of the parish schools in which this instruction is 
 going on. We have had Roman Catholic priests examined, and they 
 state that they would prefer the present system to that which it is 
 proposed to establish under the present Bill. They are quite satisfied 
 with the present system. In the report of the Commissioners on 
 Scotch Education in 1867 it is stated — "It has been seen already that 
 the parochial school partakes of the character which is common to 
 all Presbyterian schools, of being entirely undenominational as 
 respects the attendance of scholars." In this respect there never 
 has been in Scotland any material difficulty arising from what is 
 called the religious or conscience element. So long ago as 1829 
 the Education Committee of the General Assembly reported that 
 "the teachers had been directed not to press on the Roman Catholic 
 children any instruction to which their parents or their priest 
 might object, as interfering with the principles of their own 
 religion." In 1832 the same committee again recur to the subject, 
 and state that " by this toleration these Protestant schools have 
 been everywhere acceptable and attractive to the Catholic popula- 
 tion." That is the case at the present day. Teachers in Scotland 
 have respected the rights of parents, and they have never given any 
 cause of complaint to either Roman Catholics or Presbyterians. 
 I might quote also the opinion of the Episcopal Church of Scotland 
 as regards the existing system. Last year, the Lord Advocate, 
 when introducing the Education Bill, said — "The religious difficulty 
 has not, and never had, any practical existence in Scotland. There 
 had not been obtained by any provision of law a conscience clause in 
 any public school ; nevertheless they had always been conducted 
 as if a very precise clause had been in operation." Again, this 
 year he said that "there was no religious difficulty, and that the 
 parents of all the children attending the schools were content 
 with the system. There were no heart-burnings or complaints 
 upon the subject. They were quite content with it." Now, if
 
 15 
 
 the parents of the children educated at these schools are satisfied 
 with the system which at present prevails, where is the necessity 
 for making any change in the system of instruction in the schools 1 
 (Hear, hear.) But what is the way in which this matter is dealt 
 withi The Bill recites the Acts of Parliament, including the Act of 
 1861, which contains that provision as regards the declaration, 
 and the last clause professes to amend these statutes ; and that 
 by repealing them altogether — (hear, hear) — not with reference 
 to matters contained in the Bill; but an absolute and complete 
 repeal of the Acts specified, and of all other Acts bearing upon 
 the schools of Scotland. Having thus made a tahtla rasa of 
 the statute book as regards education, and of the system of 
 education which was considered so advantageous, great credit is 
 taken that " while the Bill does not prescribe, it does not proscribe 
 religion." But while the Bill does not directly and absolutely 
 oppose religious instruction, much is done to discourage and 
 discountenance it. (Hear, hear.) It is mentioned chiefly for the 
 purpose of excluding it and setting it aside. Before we go 
 into Committee I think it is necessary that the House should now 
 express their opinion in reference to a Bill which is so ft-amed. It 
 is obviously a question of principle, which it would be of great 
 importance to settle before we go into the details of the Bill. I 
 therefore think it is expedient that we should now consider this 
 question of i3rinciple ; because if we have it settled in accordance 
 with the view for which I contend, we should be much better 
 able to deal with the details of the Bill. I may mention this, that 
 the mode of dealing with this question now is very different from 
 that which was followed in former Bills brought in by Liberal 
 Governments. In 1854 a Bill was brought in for the purpose of 
 making an amendment in the law of education in Scotland. It 
 was brought in by the then Lord Advocate MoncreiflP, by Lord 
 John Russell, and Lord Palmerston. The preamble stated that 
 •• Whereas instruction in the principles of religious knowledge and 
 reading of the Holy Scriptures as heretofore in use in the parochial 
 and other schools in Scotland is consonant to the opinions and reli- 
 gious pi'ofession of the great body of the people, while at the same 
 time ordinary secular instruction has been, and should be, available 
 to children of all denominations." Here is a direct recognition 
 of religious instruction in the Holy Scriptures being conso- 
 nant to the wishes of the great body of the population : and, ac-
 
 16 
 
 cordiiigly, the 27tli clause of the Bill, which passed this House, 
 contains a direct provision requiring the schoolmaster to give 
 instruction in religion at definite hours, and securing, as the 
 then Lord Advocate stated, that religious instruction should form 
 part of the ordinary teaching of the school — " Every School Com- 
 mittee shall appoint certain stated hours for ordinary religious 
 instruction by the master, at which children shall not be bound to 
 attend if the parents or guardians object." It was not then left 
 to be determined by the local Boards, but was made the subject 
 of direct legislative enactment, in a Bill which recognised religious 
 instruction as being of the essence of education in Scotland. 
 In the present Bill there in no duty whatever laid upon the school- 
 master to provide for religious instruction, differing, in that 
 respect, from the Bill of 1854. There is no removal of a teacher 
 for irreligion. I may explain to the House that the Scotch educa- 
 tionalists, have shown a strong jealousy of the proceedings of the 
 Privy Council, and they have been successful hitherto in not being 
 brought under the operation of the Kevised Code of 1862. The 
 right of the Scottish people to be exempted from the operation of the 
 Code has been acknowledged by successive Governments. I think 
 they were right in giving exemption from the Code, which has 
 been modified to a great extent by the present Government, and the 
 lowering tendency of which has received such strong condemnation 
 in the second report of the Commission on Scientific Education. I 
 mention this because at present the grants which proceed from the 
 Privy Council are under a code which provides that they shall be 
 given to schools in which there is religious teaching, and no person 
 in Scotland has objected to that provision. In this Bill there is 
 an express declaration that none of the Privy Council grants shall 
 be siven for the purpose of religion. The 65th clause is that which 
 I think imposes the greatest restrictions on religion. In England 
 it is provided that " the time or times during which any religious 
 " observance is practised, or instruction in religious subjects is to 
 "be given, shall be either at the beginning or the end, or at the 
 " beginning and the end, of every meeting, and shall be inserted in a 
 "time-table." In the Bill before the House (clause 65), the 
 first part of which is unobjectionable, but the last part is in 
 these terms: — "In every such school the secular instruction on each 
 ordinary school day shall be continued during four hours at least, 
 and no instruction in religious subjects shall be given, and no
 
 17 
 
 religious observance shall take place, except hcfore the commence- 
 ment or after the termination of the secular instruction of the day, and 
 the time for instruction in religious subjects, and for religious 
 observances, if any — (hear, hear) — in a school .shall be specified 
 in a time-table to be approved of by the Scotch Education Dej^art- 
 ment." This is a provision which points at no religious instruction 
 being given, and in any case jjermits it only once a day. In the 
 English Bill, wlien you were establishing a new system, and people 
 were jealous of the working of the Bill, and therefore required a 
 specific direction, four times were permitted each day; whereas in this 
 Bill the time for religious instruction, if any, is to be confined to one 
 part of the day. I venture to think that it would be impossible, and 
 I have the opinion of Scotch schoolmasters of every denomination 
 upon the subject, to give religious instruction in this way. (Hear, 
 hear.) You must recollect that a school is made up generally of 
 five or six classes, who have made different progress in secular and 
 religious knowledge. You must deal with these classes separately; 
 and how can you get through the religious instruction if you are 
 to confine it to one period of the day? It would be impossible 
 for the teacher, who is the principal person to locjc after this 
 matter, to give attention to ifive or six classes at the same 
 time. This is a provision which is very much opposed to the 
 practice tliat has hitherto prevailed in Scotland. This pro\dsion 
 would also entirely prevent your giving any instruction in infant 
 schools or night schools. The matter does not rest here, for it is 
 to be in the power of the managing Board to regulate the hours. 
 The effect of such a system as this — so inconsistent with what has 
 prevailed in Scotland — would be destructive of both secular and 
 religious teaching in Scotland. We have a jealousy of the Privy 
 Council in Scotland, and one which is not groundless, especially 
 after the recent declaration made by one who was closely con- 
 nected with the tribunal, and was concerned with the prepara- 
 tion of the Code of 1862. What did the Chancellor of the 
 Exchequer say this spring at Halifax? — '' It is the duty of Govern- 
 ment to have the children of the State educated, just as it is to 
 establish a police and to see to the safety of society. That being 
 the case, the Government did not in any degree discharge its duty 
 by delegating it, not to persons chosen by themselves, but to any 
 number of persons who came forward to found schools. That 
 system I was nevej: weaiy of denouncing, but I am sorry to say 
 
 V,
 
 18 
 
 that in so denouncing it I met with very little, if any, support in 
 Parliament; and not being able otherwise to reform the system, I, 
 in conjunction with my colleague, Lord Granville, hit on the scheme 
 of payment by results, which had a particular value of its own, 
 because it tended to secure a sufficient cjuantity of work for the 
 money paid for it. But it had another and further advantage. 
 By paying for secular results, and giving no payment at all for 
 religious instruction, we adopted a system which tended very 
 forcibly to the secularisation of education." Here is a declaration 
 from a high authority on these matters, as to the working of the 
 Privy Council; and I think we have reason to dread our coming 
 too closely under the Government of such a body. My right hon. 
 friend on the other side, in the course of the discussion which took 
 place on this Bill, also said he had himself great sympathy with the 
 Secularist party in this sense, I assume that he would not have 
 religious instruction given in the schools by the schoolmasters, 
 but that there should be separate provision made for the instruc- 
 tion of children by other persons. Now, religion is also ex- 
 cluded as part of the subject of examination in schools. The 
 Bill of 18G9 provided that inspectors should not be entitled 
 to examine upon religion, unless they were requested to do 
 so; but the present Bill does not even allow that privilege 
 to the parties in charge of schools. The inspectors are ab- 
 solutely forbidden to make any investigation as to religious teach- 
 ing in schools. There is a further clause of some importance, 
 the 66th. It seems to be framed with a view to escape from the 
 difficulty raised by the 25th section of the English Act, which is 
 that the school boards should aftbrd the means of education to 
 any poor child. The 66th clause provides that it shall be the 
 duty of the school board in every parish and burgh to make 
 provision for the " elementary education in reading, Avriting, and 
 arithmetic" of every cliild; but no j^rovision is made for the 
 religious instruction of the children of the poor. That is not 
 according to our system. We do not want to change the system 
 which has existed so long, and which has been regarded as so 
 efficient in Scotland. It is said that it might be left to the local 
 Board to determine whether religious instruction should be given 
 or not, but we do not wish it left in that way. (Hear, hear.) 
 We are subjects of a Christian country which recognises the Bible 
 as the basis of morality and public order. (Hear, hear.) If the
 
 19 
 
 State assumes to itself the duty of providing for the education 
 of young children who have been neglected by their parents, 
 it is the duty of the State to make offer to these children of 
 such religious instruction as has hitherto been given in Scotland. 
 (Hear, hear.) We do not want this important question to be 
 made the subject of electioneering cries and tactics. It is the duty 
 of the State, as a Christian State, to go as far as possible in the 
 way of recognising Christianity and the Holy Scriptures. What 
 we want is, that there should be, as in the Bill of 1854, direct 
 provision made for the instruction of children in the Holy 
 Scriptures. In whose interest is an objection made to that 
 proposal 1 ISTot in the interest of the children or of their parents ; 
 because, as tlie Lord Advocate has told us, the present system 
 has worked satisfactorily in Scotland, and has caused no heart- 
 burnings. (Hear, hear.) If that be so, why not let it be con- 
 tinued '? (" Hear, hear '' from the Lord Advocate.) I am glad 
 that that meets with the assent of the Lord Advocate. But I 
 think this matter is clear with reference to the special circum- 
 stances of Scotland. There are two classes of persons who may 
 be said to object to it. First, there are those who are^pposed to 
 Christian instruction, as tending to fetter the human intellect. I 
 do not believe that thej^ are a body of any great influence, but 
 still it is right in these times, Avhen the Holy Scriptures are 
 not only openly attacked but attempted to be secretly undermined, 
 that the State, in dealing with the education of the young, 
 should give no uncertain sound in this matter. (Hear, hear.) 
 We ought to avail ourselves of the opportunity of recognizing the 
 Holy Scriptures as a most important element in the education of 
 children. Again, there is a class of persons who say that the 
 teaching of the Bible is contrary to religious equality, because 
 they may be taxed to an infinitesimal extent in order to provide 
 the funds required for giving religious instruction in the schools. 
 I can cjuite understand these voluntaries objecting to religious 
 instruction being imparted by the State to the adult popu- 
 lation ; but I am unable to comprehend how they can deny the 
 propriety of the State providing for the religious instruction 
 of the young. These gentlemen, many of whom, I admit, are 
 excellent Christians, say the religious instruction of the children 
 should be left to the parents and the Churches. But surely it 
 is ludicrous to talk of leaving religious teaching to those parents
 
 20 
 
 who neglected to give tlieir cliildren even secular instruction, and 
 whose neglect has rendered direct compulsion necessary in order 
 to force them to send their children to school. A recent investi- 
 gation has shown that in Glasgow about 130,000 of the inhabi- 
 tants never go to any place of worship at all, and it would not 
 be consistent either with sound sense or justice to trust to 
 such parents giving religious education to their children, and 
 to give the children a secular education only. (Hear, hear.) 
 Again, the Churches cannot reach the children of these people. 
 It is vain to say that with persons belonging to no recognized 
 form of religion there can be any religious education for their 
 children, except in the school and by the schoolmaster. (Hear, 
 hear.) It is sought to get rid of this matter by relegating it 
 to the local Boards. There will be heartburnings, then. The 
 London School Board declared that the Bible should be read 
 as a book of instruction in every school; but the London Board 
 ruled a population as large as that of Scotland. It would be a 
 very different matter to put the question before every small 
 parish. You would have local strife engendered ; and the ques- 
 tion would be brought forward again and again. I venture to 
 think that I have stated grounds for the proposition w^hich is 
 contained in this resolution. I use the words public schools in 
 it with reference to rate-aided schools. 
 
 Nonconformists have not always held the same language on 
 the subject of education which they utter in the present day. 
 (Hear.) In 1847 a document was sent out explanatory of the 
 views of the Nonconformists of that day on the subject of 
 religious education. They were tlien of opinion that "there could 
 be no sound system of education unless religion were combined with 
 it," and that " religion must be married to education." " To thrust 
 religion out of the schools," they .^aid, " and to bid her go hence, 
 is what neither conscience nor religion would permit, and it 
 would deprive us of the last and best hope of seeing effectual edu- 
 cation in the land." I have seen, in a paper to-day, the name of 
 Dr Chalmers mentioned as opposed to the view expressed in 
 the motion which I am now proposing to the House; but the 
 remarks were made by him, not with reference to a national 
 system of education, but with reference to indiscriminate grants 
 of the Privy Council. In reference to a system of education in 
 Scotland, Dr Chalmers used this unmistakable language: — "We 
 will place the AYord of God in the forefront of our system of
 
 21 
 
 education, and we will render it the unequivocal and public 
 homage of making it conspicuous, as is becoming in a Christian 
 and Protestant nation." (Cheers.) The strong and almost unanimous 
 expression of the people of Scotland is in favour of this motion. 
 I put it even to hon. members on the other side of the House 
 whether they have ever known any question which stirred up to 
 a greater extent the feelings of the people of Scotland, or whicli 
 interested them more than this question of education. I would 
 ask hon. members on the other side ■whether they arc prepared to 
 disregard the wishes of the people of Scotland in regard to the 
 duty of the State in giving education to include religious 
 instruction. If the resolution which I have placed upon the 
 paper were adopted, I have no hesitation in saying that it would 
 be most agreeable to the feelings of the people of Scotland. The 
 hon. and learned gentleman concluded by moving, " That, hav- 
 ing regard to the principles and history of the past educational 
 legislation and practice of Scotland, which provided for instruction 
 in the Holy Scriptures in the public schools as an essential part of 
 education, this House, while desirous of passing a measure during 
 the present Session for the improvement of education In Scotland, is 
 of opinion that the law and practice of Scotland in this respect 
 should be continued by provisions in the Bill now before the House." 
 (Loud Applause.) 
 
 The Lord Advocate said it would not be becoming on his part 
 to detain the House with a premature and unprofitable discussion 
 of a question which would regularly and usefully come under their 
 consideration when they got into Committee. (Hear.) His hon. 
 and learned friend said this motion was not brought forward for 
 any party purposes, or with a view of placing any impediment in 
 the way of the progress of the Bill; but he wished he had told the 
 House with what view it was brought forward. His first objection 
 to the motion was that it was altogether unnecessary; whatever 
 the existing law in Scotland might be, and however entitled to 
 approval, no preliminary resolution was necessary to enable the 
 House to bring the provisions and framework of the Bill into con- 
 formity with the existing law if this had been departed from. The 
 resolution for that purpose was not necessary. Besides, it was not 
 competent to instruct a Committee to do what the Committee had 
 in the ordinary course of business power to do without any instruc-
 
 22 
 
 tion whatever. His second objection to the resohition was this — 
 it proceeded on an altogether erroneous assumption of the law on 
 the subject. (Hear, hear.) The mist which it was attempted to 
 raise by a jumble of words as to " the principles and history of the 
 past educational legislation and practice of Scotland " was easily 
 blown away. It was hardly worth raising. But it was altogether 
 an error to say that there was any law in Scotland, legislative or 
 otherwise, which provided that instruction in the Holy Scriptures 
 in the public schools should be an essential part of education. 
 (Hear, hear.) But if his lion, and learned friend was of 
 opinion that the law should be in conformity with his resolution 
 he would have the opportunity of stating his views in Committee, 
 as he had given notice of an amendment to that effect. Witli 
 regard to the practice in i)ublic schools, he had stated that him- 
 self, perhaps too frequently, in the speeches to which his hon. and 
 learned friend referred. The practice was in entire accordance 
 with the statement of his hon. and learned friend. It had been 
 the practice, not only in the public schools of Scotland, which were 
 subject to any law that existed on the subject, but also in the 
 voluntary schools, which outnumbered the public schools by three 
 to one, to give instruction not only in the Holy Scrij^tui'es, but in 
 the Shorter Catechism. He entirely approved that practice 
 especially taken in connection with the fact which his lion, and 
 learned friend had correctly stated, and for which he justly claimed 
 credit to the managers of existing schools, that that instruction in 
 religion was given at such times and in such manner that no child 
 should be called on to receive it whose parents and guardians did 
 not approve it. (Hear, hear.) Instruction in religion, and 
 especially in Bible teaching, was given, not under a conscience 
 clause, because no such thing existed in Scotland, but under an 
 unwritten conscience clause, on which school managers had acted, 
 and of which he entirely approved. He had stated as distinctly 
 as he was able to state that the law of Scotland at this moment 
 left schoolmasters at perfect liberty to act in this direction as they 
 pleased, and the only criticism he would now make on the practice 
 was that their Bible instruction had been too little, too feeble, and 
 too inefficient. (Hear, hear.) So far as he could judge from the 
 reports of the inspectors, there had been a great failure, j^i'obably 
 owing to no want on the part of the teachers, but to the 
 want of that power, which he hoped would be supplied
 
 23 
 
 by this Bill, to teacli religion in that effectual and efficient 
 manner which was desirable. He hoped the results in future 
 would be very different from what they had been, if he could 
 judge from the reports to which he had adverted. He was 
 not at all complaining of the practice in Scotland. On the 
 contrary, he entirely applauded it; he only wished it to be 
 made more efficacious. His honourable and learned friend said — 
 he repeated it over and over again — that if the people of Scotland 
 were entirely satisfied with the existing system, why change it ] 
 He did not propose to change it in the least degree for the future 
 • — there was no legislative provision with respect to the teaching 
 of religion now. The schoolmaster was subject to a certain test, 
 but he was not enjoined to teach religion. He was not even 
 required to profess his belief in the Holy Scriptures. He was ex- 
 pressly relieved from expressing his belief in the Confession of 
 Faith, and from subscribing it. What he undertook was, that he 
 should not directly or indirectly inculcate anything opposed to the 
 Divine authority of Holy Scripture. He was not to teach that 
 the Scriptures are not of Divine authority — he was not to teach 
 anything to the contrary of their Divine authority, but he was 
 not required to teach anything on the subject. He did not say 
 whether that was right or wrong. He was not dealing with the 
 subject at all in this Bill; he left schoolmasters very much as 
 they were at present, only interfering so far with those who elected 
 them that they should not in future, as in the past, be se- 
 lected exclusively from members of the Established Church. 
 Supposing for a single moment that there was any law on this 
 subject such as his hon. and learned friend put forward, without 
 being able to put his finger on a single enactment — nothing could 
 be easier than to say you shall teach the Bible, you shall teach the 
 Shorter Catechism, or anything else, it was almost impossible to 
 use words intended to have that effect which any man reading 
 them could misconstrue. But there was no such provision in any 
 Act whatever ; and, suppose there was such a provision, it would 
 only apply to parish schools, or one-fourth part of the schools in 
 Scotland. But there is no difference in schools in this respect. 
 The practice in the other three-fourths of the schools is in entire 
 accordance with the practice in the parish schools. There was, 
 therefore, no necessity for any legislative enactment on the subject. 
 He was content to leave the subject where it was — with the pious,
 
 24 
 
 religious feeling of the people themselves. But if his hon. and 
 learned friend thought otherwise, he might move his amendment 
 in Committee. He should, therefore, vote against this superfluous 
 resolution. (Hear.) 
 
 Lord H. Scott could not regard this as a superfluous resolution. 
 After looking carefully into the provisions of the Bill, he could 
 not helj) thinking that it was most necessary that expression should 
 be given to the general feeling of the people of Scotland on this 
 subject. (Hear.) The object of the instruction was, not to defeat the 
 Bill, but to give effect to the general feeling in Scotland with regard 
 to this subject. No doubt that point could be discussed in Com- 
 mittee ; but when the clause specifying the time for giving religious 
 instruction established an arrangement differing almost entirely 
 from the former usage in Scotland, there seemed to be good ground 
 for laying down some first principle, in reference to which they might 
 embark on the discussion. (Cheers.) If there was any part of the 
 United Kingdom where no religious difficulty might be said to exist 
 it was Scotland, and therefore he could not understand for what reason 
 they were no*w asked to change the system of education which had 
 hitherto obtained in that country. In this respect, as well as in 
 other characteristics, the present Bill differed from the Bill of 
 1869, and, consequently, it w^as not unreasonable that some dis- 
 cussion on these points should now be raised. It was proposed to 
 take the whole of the parochial schools out of the hands of the 
 present managing bodies, and to enact the establishment of com- 
 pulsory School Boards; although the learned Lord Advocate had 
 himself given credit to the existing school managers for the manner 
 in which they had conducted the schools in Scotland. There was 
 really no complaint on that head. It was true that in 1869 it was 
 proposed to make some alteration with regard to heritors in the 
 different jDarishes, and it would have been better if the same i:>ro- 
 vision had been retained in the present Bill, for he was certain 
 that, under the measure before the House, the bodies to elect the 
 School Boards would not be so good. He believed that to a great 
 extent the parochial schools in the country district afforded a suffi- 
 cient amount of education, and it was in the towns and burghs 
 where the great educational want existed. The formation of School 
 Boards in burghs and towns was the thing needed, but he could 
 not understand why School Boards were to be forcibly established
 
 25 
 
 in the country districts of Scotland. There was in the Bill a 
 further provision which aimed against the establishment of volun- 
 tary schools. The House had determined in respect to England 
 not to discourage voluntary denominational schools, or to exclude 
 them from the benefit of the Parliamentary grant; but the present 
 Bill contained a provision which would make it difficult for any 
 denominational school to receive a grant of money. With respect 
 to the proposal that Scotch education was to be dealt with by a 
 department of the Privy Council in England, he thought it would be 
 a great misfortune that that education should be entirely intrusted 
 to that department. Holding these views, he would cordially 
 support the resolution of his hon. and learned friend. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr M'Laren — Sir, I should deprecate as much as any hon. 
 member entering into a long discussion on tlie principles of this 
 important measure, now that we are on the threshold of consider- 
 ing its details in Committee. I am anxious that we should pro- 
 ceed as earnestly and as rapidly as is consistent with good legisla- 
 tion with the clauses of the Bill as it stands, not wasting time by 
 entering into an interminable discussion of any princi]5al feature. 
 I should give my voice in favour of passing the Bill with all its 
 defects rather than incur the risk of losing it altogether, for the 
 time we have left to get it through is not too long. Still the 
 Government themselves do not appear to be satisfied with the 
 measure in all respects, for they have proposed several amend- 
 ments, and I have myself taken the liberty to propose several, 
 including one Avhich, when the proper time arrives, I shall 
 endeavour to convince the House is worthy of its consideration. 
 That amendment I placed on the notice paper the day after the Bill 
 was printed. It is one that provides that instruction may be given 
 in the public schools on religious subjects from the Bible, but that 
 no Catechism or formulary- whatever shall be taught in any of the 
 Government public schools. According to my reading of the 
 instruction now moved, its principle is identical with the spirit of 
 my amendment, and therefore I shall have no hesitation in support- 
 ing it. I am quite aware that many hon. friends do not take the 
 same view. I only express my own opinion, and I am quite 
 willing that they should retain theirs. In reference to 
 my proposed amendment, I may say that eighteen months 
 ago I addressed a large meeting of my constituents at Edin-
 
 26 
 
 burgh, when the question raised was whether the Bible and 
 the Shorter Catechism should be enacted as part and parcel of the 
 education of the people of Scotland, and I took the liberty of say- 
 ing then that I thought it would be wrong to enact the Catechism, 
 but right to enact that the Bible should be read and taught in 
 preference to all other religious books in the schools. Six months 
 ago, at a second annual meeting of the same kind, I repeated my 
 statement, and from that time down to the present I have received 
 numerous petitions to present to the House on the question of 
 education, and multitudes of letters, both from persons I do and 
 many whom I do not personally know, and not one of the writers 
 found fault with the sentiments I expressed. (Hear, hear.) I hold 
 these sentiments, whether popular or unpopular; and believing as I 
 do that the instruction now before the House is not inconsistent with 
 them, I am the more inclined to give it my support. The resolu- 
 tion or instruction, indeed, seems to me three times as long as it 
 need be. It is enveloped in a multitude of words, but the 
 proposition is simply that the law and practice of Scotland of 
 providing that there should be instruction in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures in the public schools, should be maintained. My hon. and 
 learned friend the Lord Advocate has argued that this is not the 
 law of Scotland, but he has not attempted to argue that it is not 
 the practice in that country. On the contrary, he has affirmed 
 that it is the practice in Scotland, and rejoices that it is. I 
 rejoice with him that it is the practice — (cheers)— and I am 
 anxious to see that good practice confirmed by enactment in the 
 manner provided for by my amendment. If it be asked why 
 I desire to see it enacted in different terms than those which 
 formerly existed, my answer is, that by this Bill the whole 
 management and all the appointments of the schools in Scotland 
 will be entirely changed, and unless the rule is laid down in the 
 Bill, every parish in Scotland will became a battle-field, and the 
 discussions will be endless as to whether the Bible alone shall be 
 taught, or whether the Bible and the Catechism, or whether any 
 religious instruction shall be given, or whether it shall be left 
 altogether to the Churches. There are many influential friends 
 and relatives of my own — earnest and religious men — who are 
 most anxious that religious instruction shall not be taught in 
 the schools, but that an organisation of the Churches shall 
 take place, by which religious education shall be made much
 
 27 
 
 more of a reality than it is now, much more of a truly religious 
 character, and by Avhich teachers of known religious character 
 shall be appoined instructors. If I saw the least prospect of such 
 a result, I should greatly rejoice, and most willingly vote in favour 
 of no religious instruction being given in the schools; but I don't 
 see the shadow of a prospect of the kind. If you think that the 
 children would receive religious instruction at the hands of their 
 parents, I am very much afraid that the children in many cases 
 are as well able to teach their parents on religious questions even 
 now as the parents their children ; and it is my firm opinion that 
 if such instruction is not given at school, in many cases it will not 
 be given at all. (Hear, hear.) It is enacted by the Act of Union 
 between the two countries, and other Acts of Parliament with 
 which Scotch members are familiar, and in particular is well laid 
 down by the Act of Settlement of the Crown, that Scotland was a 
 Protestant country, and that she should be so for all time. 
 (Cheers.) I hold by that principle firmly — (hear, hear) — and I 
 agree with the well-known words of Chillingworth, that the Bible 
 is the religion of Protestants, and I want the religion of Protestants 
 to be taught in the public schools of Scotland by leading the 
 Bible and giving a fair explanation of its meaning in these 
 schools. There was one thing which was said by the Lord 
 Advocate with which I could not agree. He went on in 
 his argument to prove that there was no enactment to compel the 
 teaching of the Scriptures. In all these Acts, which I have read 
 over and over again, I find that the spirit there is the same, assum- 
 ing that the Bible is to be taught. When the learned Lord 
 Advocate read the declaration in the Act of 1861, he omitted a 
 very important portion of that declaration. If he had read the 
 Avhole of that declaration, it would have appeared plainly that 
 although there were no such express words requiring religion to 
 be taught as peremptory as "Thou shalt not steal," or "Thoushalt 
 not kill," yet by implication the Act of 1861 is as plain as any- 
 thing can be that religion was taught, and that it should continue 
 to be taught in the schools. The declaration was — "I do solemnly 
 and sincerely, in the presence of God, declare and testify, that I, 
 being a schoolmaster in a parochial school, in the discharge of 
 my said office, will never endeavour, direct, or undertake, to 
 teach or inculcate anything contrary to the Divine authority of 
 the Holy Scriptures, or the doctrines contained in the Shorter
 
 28 
 
 Catechism." My hon. and learned friend read down to those words ; 
 but what are the words that follow 1 "agreed upon by the Assembly 
 of Divines at Westminster, and approvedof by the General Assembly 
 of the Church of Scotland in 1648; and I will faithfully conform 
 thereto in my teaching of the said school." If you ask the teacher 
 to say that he will not only teach nothing opposed to the Holy 
 Scriptures and the Shorter Catechism in the schools, but faithfully 
 conform thereto, does not that imply that he shall teach the truths 
 of the Holy Scriptures^ But if you, on the other hand, go on the 
 l^rinciple of demanding the exact j^ound of flesh, and ask me to 
 point out an exact enacting clause that tlie Bible must be taught, 
 I admit that it is not forthcoming. But all history concurs in 
 showing that education in Scotland has been imbued with these 
 views, and that an epitome of Bible instruction and history has 
 always been taught. Some hon. members object to the teaching 
 of what they call the Scottish Catechism, but they seem to have 
 forgotten that it was framed under the orders of the English 
 Parliament, by an assembly of 120 divines, 20 members of the 
 House of Commons, and 10 Peers, and that there were among 
 them only G Commissioners from Scotland, including 4 ministers. 
 It was this Assembly that framed the Catechism. It was adopted 
 by the English Parliament in 1648. From the time it was adopted 
 down to the present time it has in practice been held and main- 
 tained as embodying the principles of religious instruction given 
 in the schools of Scotland. (Hear, hear.) Why do I ask that we 
 shall lay down a rule in this Act of Parliament, when I admit it 
 is not now laid down and yet has been so long acted upon*? It is 
 simply because, if we do not introduce some rule of the kind, the 
 school Boards will introduce various rules for themselves, and all 
 sorts of differences will arise. AVhen the 6th clause is before the 
 House, I wish to introduce words, according to my notice, which 
 will exclude all Catechisms from the schools, andpermit that the Holy 
 Scriptures alone shall be taught; and I consider that it would be a 
 great evil if we did not lay down the rule now, because a struggle 
 would commence and be frequently renewed in every parish in 
 which there was a school Board, and the battle would be fought 
 out over and over again. It is therefore plainly a matter of ex- 
 pediency that the question should be dealt with now, and settled 
 once for all. If mj^ object is effected, I do not care whether it is 
 effected by this instruction or by my own amendment following
 
 29 
 
 after words in its proper place; nor do I care under what circum- 
 stances this resolution has been brought forward, for my amendment 
 is honestly intended, and I shall certainly move it on the proper 
 occasion. (Cheers.) 
 
 Sir J. Pakington asked whether the Government would offer 
 no reply to the admirable arguments of his hon. and learned friend 
 (Mr Gordon)*? Was a subject so deeply interesting to the feelings 
 of the Scotch people to be passed over almost in silence 1 For 
 more than 300 years the Scotch had had the benefit of a system 
 of education which Englishmen might well envy. They were con- 
 scious of the blessings they had enjoyed under that system, the lead- 
 ing principle of which was the inculcation of religion and of the Bible. 
 (Hear, hear.) People could not forget the speech of the Chancellor of 
 the Exchequer at Halifax, in which he exi)ressed his preference for 
 a secular system; nor did he stand alone, for the President of the 
 Local Government Board also expressed at Halifax the same j^refer- 
 ence. Now, the great bulk of the people, both of England and Scot- 
 land, were strongly and directly opposed to the secular system, and 
 they wanted to know why religious education was thus slighted. 
 There might be a handful of members in this House, and a mino- 
 rity in some parts of England favourable to secularism, but he 
 asserted, without fear of contradiction, that the great body of the 
 people desired to maintain religious instruction in our schools. (Loud 
 cheers.) Scotland, which more than any other country had proved 
 its attachment to religious teaching, now found its system of educa- 
 tion about to be dealt with by a Bill, the provisions in which for 
 religious instruction did not even equal those provisions in the 
 English Bill, to which, as a matter of compromise, he and his 
 friends had reluctantly assented. The speech of his hon. and 
 learned friend had not been adequately answered, and he hoped 
 that no attempt would be made by hon. gentlemen opposite to 
 smother this discussion, convenient as it might be for the Govern- 
 ment not to enter into it. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr Orr Ewing — I had expected, from the nature of the resolu- 
 tion of my right hon. friend the member for the Universities, and 
 from the assent to the terms of the resolution apparently given by 
 my right hon. friend the Lord Advocate, when the resolution was 
 proposed, that he would have assented to it; and allowed the Bill
 
 ao 
 
 to go into Committee; but tlie right lion, gentleman declines doing 
 so, on the ground that while religious education has been the 
 practice in all schools in Scotland, yet that there was no enact- 
 ment compelling this. He states that the clause in the Bill of 
 1861, which provides that a schoolmaster shall not teach anything 
 contrary to the doctrines of the Holy Scriptures and the Shorter 
 Catechism, but that his teaching shall be in conformity thereto, 
 does not compel religious teaching. If he is sincere in thinking so, 
 will he agree to place that clause of the Bill of 1861 in his Bill of 
 this year? which, in my oj)inion, will be satisfactory to the people 
 of Scotland. The Lord Advocate holds that his Bill neither pre- 
 scribes nor proscribes religious teaching, but that he leaves it to 
 local Boards to act in this matter as they do at present; but he 
 forgets that the present Boards of management are not elective, 
 but hold their right to manage the parish schools from a large 
 property qualification, and that he substitutes for them Boards to 
 be elected by <£4 householders. I have the greatest confidence 
 that any Scotch local Board will insist upon religion being taught 
 in our schools, but this mode of electing Boards will create strife 
 and turmoil in every parish where there is at present peace and 
 contentment ; for you will find in every parish one or two infidels, 
 or extreme Nonconformists, who will agitate the question at every 
 election, until parties, wearied by the contest, may assent to a 
 secular system of education for the sake of peace. I there- 
 fore agree with the hon. member for Edinburgh, that we 
 ought to have a direct enactment as to the teaching of the Holy 
 Scriptures to prevent this unseemly strife. At present the schools 
 in Scotland are not placed under the Eevised Code. They are still 
 under the old Code, which provides for the examination of school- 
 masters in religion, the teaching of religion in our schools, and the 
 examination of religion by the Inspector. But if this Bill passes 
 the schools will be placed under the Revised Code, which prohibits 
 the schoolmaster from being examined in religion, and prohibits 
 the Inspector from examining the scholars in religion, and thus 
 taboos religion. It is a godless Code, and a disgrace to any 
 Christian nation, and repugnant to the feelings of the people of 
 Scotland. I have no sympathy with the cry for Home Rule in 
 Ireland, for I believe they have ulterior views which will end in the 
 dismemberment of the empire ; but if Home Rule means only the 
 opposite of centralization, if it means that legislation should be in
 
 u 
 
 accordance with the wishes of the country, then in that sense I am 
 a Home Euler. What right has the Government or the Lord Ad- 
 vocate, who may be elevated to the high office which he holds but for 
 a few years, to thrust a Bill, out of his own caprice, against the ac- 
 knowledged wishes of his country, upon Parliaments For there can 
 be no doubt that the Scotch people fear this is an indirect way of 
 bringing about what so many members of the Government have ex- 
 pressed their desire for, a secular system of education. They have not 
 the courage to enact that directly, for they know that few members, 
 if any, that supported such a system of education would ever 
 again be returned to the House by a Scotch constituency. I * 
 bitterly regret that the right hon. gentleman's predecessor, the 
 Lord Justice Clerk, who is an honour to Scotland, and was an 
 ornament to the House, was not permitted to remain a little longer 
 with us until he passed a Scotch Education Bill, for he thoroughly 
 understood the question and appreciated the feelings of his 
 countrymen. (Loud cheers from both sides of the House.) 
 
 Mr C. Dalrymple said the speech of the Lord Advocate had 
 been answered by the hon. member for Edinburgh, but the speech 
 of his honourable and learned friend below him (Mr GTordon) was 
 unanswered. The Lord Advocate had said that the resolution 
 was unreasonable because its matter might have been introduced in 
 Committee as well. But what chance would his honourable and 
 learned friend have had of being able to make in Committee such a 
 speech as he had gave this evening"? (Hear.) It would have been 
 said that it Avas a second-reading speech, and prejudice would have 
 been raised against it on that account. (Hear.) The Lord Advocate 
 had said that the resolution was erroneous, that his hon. and learned 
 friend had raised a mist about the subject of the old law of Scot- 
 land. The hon. member for Edinburgh, however, had sufficiently 
 answered that objection. The Lord Advocate had pronounced the 
 resolution ''eccentric." But the language of the resolution was 
 such, that it could not be mistaken in Scotland, and if it was 
 '•'eccentric" to move that the Holy Scriptures should continue to 
 be read in the schools of Scotland as in past times, then commend 
 him to such eccentricity. (Hear, hear.) He would ask a ques- 
 tion which he had before put. Why was this Bill introduced? It 
 was to supply the lamentable deficiency of education in the large 
 towns of Scotland. But in supplying that deficiency, an opportunity
 
 S2 
 
 was taken by this Bill to upset the whole present system of educa- 
 tion in that country, and, he would not say to prevent, but to 
 abridge and restrict religious education in every possible way. 
 And yet, he ventured to say that the class of children whom this 
 Bill was specially intended to reach Avere those who, above all others, 
 required religious training. (Hear, hear.) The demand was for a 
 so-called national system, and he would say, not in any bitterness, 
 but in all seriousness, that the nationality of the measure before 
 the House seemed to consist in the omission of all direct enact- 
 ments on the subject of religious education. During the short 
 Easter Eecess he had an opportunity of being present at two 
 school examinations in the West of Scotland, in which the 
 religious part was conducted in an admirable manner; but he could 
 riot help feeling, at the same time, that if this Bill were carried it 
 was possible that no examination of that class might ever be held 
 again. He was far from saying that this Bill would make it im- 
 possible to give religious instruction, but this he would say, that it 
 threw every possible difficulty in the way. (Hear.) The people of 
 Scotland were a law- obeying people, and if a measure passed this 
 House which did not, indeed, prohibit religious education, but put 
 all sorts of difficulties in the way, the people of Scotland might not 
 find it possible to carry out their intentions. One of the greatest 
 misfortunes of the Bill was that it would relegate the important sub- 
 ject of religious instruction in the schools to be fought out in every 
 locality, and by passing the resolution this advantage would be 
 attained, that at least there would be no dispute about the study 
 of the Holy Scriptures. What was the object of the amendment 1 
 His lion, and learned friend had said, and said truly, that it was 
 no sectarian object; it was not in favour of the Established Church 
 of Scotland, or of any particular religious, denomination. The 
 instruction in the Holy Scriptures was a matter on which all were 
 agreed, and w^hich formed a bond of union between one denomina- 
 tion and another. While in the Bill they recognized the duty of 
 the State to supply secular education, they ought also to recognize 
 the duty of combining with it that religious instruction which 
 was the basis of all true education. (Hear, hear.) If he 
 believed that this resolution must necessarily be fatal to the 
 Bill, he would not give it his support; but he did not believe that 
 it must be attended by that result. Certainly that was not the in- 
 tention of its framers, but the provision was so important, that they
 
 onglit not to neglect to have it confirmed at the outset, before 
 going into Committee on this Bill. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Sir G. Montgomery expressed his astonishment that the hon. 
 members on the other side representing Scotland had decided to 
 take no part in this debate, for the number and importance of the 
 petitions presented in favour of the view embodied in the resolution 
 now before the House showed that the feeling in Scotland upon 
 the subject was very strong. (Hear, hear.) It appeared to him 
 that the present system of religious teaching in Scotland was as 
 nearly perfect as it was possible for it to be, for Eoman Catholics 
 and Episcopalians might be found side by side in the parish schools; 
 and, while the scruples of all were respected, no conscience clause 
 was found necessary. They, however, objected, and objected 
 strongly, to the establishment of School Boards in every parish, 
 though they did not object to them where it could be shown that 
 there was not a sufficiency of school accommodation. (Hear.) 
 
 Sir J. Hay would be sorry to give a silent vote upon this question, 
 because, from the numerous petitions which he had presented, the 
 subject was one in which the people of Scotland took a deep interest. 
 So strong, indeed, was that feeling that a large majority of electors 
 of the jnincipal burghs (470 out of G70) represented by the Lord 
 Advocate had signed petitions either against the Bill or in favour 
 of such alteration as that now suggested. The strongest repug- 
 nance was evinced to the adoption of anything tending to alter 
 what had certainly been the custom, and what he believed had 
 been the law, of Scotland up to the present time — that all edu- 
 cation should be based upon religious teaching. The custom of 
 making religious education a part of the ordinary course of instruc- 
 tion was now about to be overridden. Having in his own district 
 endeavoured to do what he could for the cause of education, he 
 had received expressions of the strongest opposition to the 
 Government measure, and it had even lieen suggested to refund 
 the Privy Council grant in the case of a school of which he 
 was the chief support if this Bill became law. It could not be 
 .'.aid that any feeling of bigotry iniluenced the decision of the 
 parishioners in this matter, for Presbyterians and Roman Catho- 
 lics attended the school with satisfaction. As regards the Scotch 
 Board, he remarked that the people of Scotland had no desire 
 
 c
 
 34 
 
 to be governed in local matters from London, and Avould prefer a 
 Eoard capable of being influenced at home. For these reasons 
 he supported the motion of his hon. friend. (Hear.) 
 
 Mr BiRLEY said it was impossible to read the 65 th clause 
 without coming to the conclusion that there was a covert disposi- 
 tion on the part of the Government to crowd out religious educa- 
 tion from the course in Scotch schools. Four hours was almost 
 all the time at the disposal of the children, yet it was stipulated 
 that four hours at least of secular instruction should be given to 
 the children, and that religious instruction, if any, should be given 
 before or after this four hours' secular instruction. The words "if 
 any" clearly indicated the animus of the framers of the Bill. The 
 Scotch people wished to retain their time-honoured religious obser- 
 vances, but the action of the Government clearly showed that in its 
 opinion religious instruction was a superfluity. On the part of the 
 great body of English members and English people he desired to 
 protest against any endeavour to curtail the opportunities now 
 afforded for religious instruction in Scotch schools, and he 
 trusted the Government would give some definite assurance that 
 clauses would be introduced to satisfy the people upon this 
 point. (Hear.) 
 
 r 
 
 Sir J. Elphinstone regretted extremely that the course adopted 
 by the Government in seeking to ignore the cardinal and essential 
 principles of the ancient system of education pursued in Scotland, 
 and which had brought that country to its present position, had 
 necessitated the proposing of that resolution. He regarded that 
 as a godless and an infidel Bill, because if it did not entirely ex- 
 clude religious teaching from its provisions, it made that teaching 
 depend upon the whim or caprice of an ignorant School Board, 
 wlio might be acted upon by various causes, and in whose hands, 
 therefore, the education of the country could not be safely placed. 
 He Avas himself educated at the parish school of Musselburgh, and 
 could state that religion was the foundation and pervaded every 
 part of the instruction given there. The various bodies of Pres- 
 byterians in Scotland were all agreed in the main points of their 
 creed, and all held that Holy Scripture and the Shorter Cate- 
 chism, the production of the greatest Protestant divines, were 
 the basis of education. This measure, therefore, was most dis-
 
 35 
 
 tasteful to the people of Scotland, who ought to know who were 
 the men who voted with the Government upon it. It was absurd 
 to expect parents, who neglected their children and allowed them 
 to roam about and fall into crime, to give them religious instruction, 
 while a mere secular education would only serve to perfect such 
 little street Arabs in the arts of knavery. Neither could the 
 honest workman who toiled early and late find time to impart 
 religious instruction at home to his children. That Bill, therefore 
 like everything else brought forward by Her Majesty's Govern- 
 ment, was a " mocker}^ a delusion, and a snare." Their policy of 
 pains and penalties — so conspicuous in the case of the Ballot Bill 
 — reappeared here, because they proposed to subject the parent 
 who refused to send his child to their godless schools to a fine of 
 £5, or 30 days' imprisonment, the punishment to be repeated at 
 intervals of not less than six months. The child itself also, if it 
 absented itself from school without sufficient excuse, was to be 
 apprehended without a warrant, and sentenced to imprisonment. 
 That Bill was opposed by the whole body of schoolmasters in 
 Scotland, with a proper esprit de corps and a due respect for 
 religion. In that part of Scotland with which he was the most 
 intimately acquainted, the salaries of the schoolmasters were 
 almost equal to the stipends of the clergymen, in consequence 
 of certain bequests which had been made for the purpose of 
 increasing those salaries, and the result was that the school 
 managers in the district could command the services of men 
 of higher talent than they otherwise could have done, and that the 
 education given was far superior to that given in other parts of the 
 country. (Cheers.) The young men who had been educated in the 
 schools to which he referred, were to be found in positions of trust 
 all over the world, and they had one and all traced that power to 
 resist temptations, and that earnest desire to discharge their duties 
 faithfully that so greatly distinguished them, to the religious in- 
 struction which they had received at these parish schools. (Hear.) 
 The question before the House was, how were those schools to be 
 dealt with 1 The House was told that these establishments were to 
 be handed over to School Boards. But how were these School 
 Boards to be constructed 1 In the greater part of the north of 
 Scotland the farms were exceedingly small, and the farmers of 
 whom the School Board would consist, were not themselves suffi- 
 ciently well educated to fit them for discharging the duties which
 
 3G 
 
 would be imposed upon them. The attainments of a schoolmaster 
 were not likely to have such weight with them as to counteract 
 the family influence that would be brought to bear upon them by 
 their well-to-do friends and neighbours. Most of the Education 
 Bills relating to Scotland introduced into that House appeared to 
 him to be brought forward rather as a compromise between conflicting 
 interests than as the result of an honest desire to settle the question 
 on sound principles. The statistical data upon which this Bill Avas 
 founded showed, he admitted, that in certain parts of Scotland 
 there was a want of school education for the young, and, for 
 his part, he should be happy to follow the Grovernment if they 
 would bring forward any rational proposal for meeting the evil so 
 indicated. He objected, however, to a sweeping operation which 
 took no note of the various requirements, but forced what was termed 
 a national system upon the whole country alike. Let the Govern- 
 ment deal with the great centres of population, and erect schools for 
 the education of the large numbers of children who were without it, 
 but it would be most unjust and most unwise to deal in a similar man- 
 ner with the rural districts, in which there was no want of educa- 
 tional power or of adequate administration, in which the standard 
 of education was of the highest class, and in which a state of things 
 existed with which the people were perfectly satisfied. Were the 
 Government to pass this Bill in its present form they would find 
 that they had only evaded and not settled the question. It was an 
 extraordinary thing that the Scotch Liberal members in that House 
 appeared to have received the command, "Silence in the ranks!'"' 
 (" Hear, hear," and a laugh) and were afraid to speak. He chal- 
 lenged any hon. member t)n the opposite side of the House to answer 
 him. (" Hear," from Mr Carnegie.) He was glad to hear the hon. 
 member accept his challenge, and he trusted he would not be the only 
 Koderick on the hill. (" Hear," and a laugh.) Hon. members 
 on the other side of the House had been educated by the right 
 hon. gentleman the Prime Minister, who had taught them to rob 
 churches, to disregard the laws of property, and now he was en- 
 deavouring to force them to throw away the great talisman of our 
 country — the religious education in our schools. Had he, four or 
 five years ago, asked many hon. members opposite whether they 
 were prepared to reject religious education in the Scotch schools, 
 each would have replied, — " Is thy servant a dog that he should 
 do this tiling^" (Hear.) He trusted that the House would not
 
 37 
 
 hastily throw aside principles which had raised this country to the 
 pinnacle of glory, the principle of the " Cotter's Saturday Night," 
 which had made our statesmen the highest in the world, and which 
 had led our battalions to conquest in every part of the globe. (Hear.) 
 
 Mr Carnegie, in reply to the challenge of the hon. and gallant 
 baronet, wished simply to say that a speech avowedly against time 
 did not require an answer. (Ironical cries of " hear.") 
 
 Mr Eastwick remembered hearing a statement by Mazzini, a 
 man whose views, with respect to religion, were peculiar, but who, 
 nevertheless, held strong religious opinions, that Christianity was 
 fading out of the world. In proof of this he mentioned one 
 country after another till he came to Scotland, where, after a 
 pause, he said, "Well, if religion is left anywhere it is in 
 Scotland." Now it was the noble ambition of the learned 
 Lord Advocate to obliterate this distinctive feature of his 
 country. ("Oh.") He had, indeed, disclaimed such a pur- 
 pose, and had alleged that the Bill made no alteration 
 with regard to religious teaching, but a more sui^prising state- 
 ment had never been made in that House. It was obviously 
 inconsistent with the petitions of 200,000 persons against the 
 Bill. So far from making no change, the difficulty was to find a 
 part of the existing system which was not changed by the Bill. It 
 would place the general management of the schools under a London 
 Board, a most obnoxious arrangement, and it would transfer the local 
 management to School Boards. As to religion, where the greatest 
 change of all was made, the Lord Advocate had maintained that 
 there was no legislation on this point, but he overlooked the fact 
 that use and wont was tantamount to law, and that it prescribed 
 religious teaching in Scotch schools. Clauses 63 and 64 excluded 
 such teaching from inspection and grants, and clause 65 provided 
 that a child might be withdrawn from it, that it should not thereby 
 be placed at a disadvantage, that the secular teaching should be 
 continuous for at least four hours, which probably meant five or 
 six, and that religious teaching should be given prior to or at the 
 end of the secular instruction. Time also was allowed for recrea- 
 tion, and religion was not to be suffered to curtail the time allotted 
 to anything else, even that given to amusement. Now, there was 
 a difficulty in securing sufficient attention for a subject which the
 
 pupil was anxious to learu, but wliat appetite would he have at 
 the end of the day for religious teaching, the dullest of all subjects 
 to a child? The Government had not, like the International 
 Society, avowed their intention to turn their backs on God, but 
 they would avoid His presence by endeavouring to hide themselves 
 in the trees of the garden of secularism. (Cheers.) 
 
 Mr AVheelhouse said this Bill virtually announced to the 
 people of Scotland for the first time that Her Majesty's present 
 Government cared nothing whatever about religion. He wished 
 to call the attention of members who professed Christianity to the 
 placing of the two words "if any" in the clause which spoke of 
 religious instruction and religious observances. The inser- 
 tion of those words, "if any" meant simply that the Govern- 
 ment, so far as they could, intended to ignore all creeds, and that 
 it should not be necessary for the School Boards established 
 throughout Scotland to require that religion under any formula, 
 or by aid of any creed, should be taught in the schools under 
 their jurisdiction. Tliis was not merely a Scotch question; it 
 affected the well-being of the United Kingdom. (Cheers.) He 
 was astonished when he heard of the declaration made at Stranraer ■ 
 by the Lord Advocate that this Bill neither prescribed nor pro- 
 scribed religion, for the measure was framed in a way that showed 
 the Government did not want religion, and did not care about it. 
 In the fashioning of this Bill the Government had treated 
 religion in Scotland as one of the trammels of which they 
 wished to get rid. The insertion of the before-mentioned two 
 words "if any," was, to his (Mr W.'s) mind, an unanswerable 
 proof that this was the spirit which dictated the framing of this 
 Bill. He believed that not fifty of the teachers in Scotland desired 
 that religious instruction should be severed from secular educa- 
 tion. He regretted exceedingly that many of the representatives 
 of Scotch constituencies who ought to have addressed the House, 
 and whose votes might have affected the division on this subject, 
 were absent. Why did they not speak 1 (Hear, hear.) Was 
 their absence attributable to the knowledge they had that their 
 constituents were oj)posed to the BilH He knew that if the 
 representatives of the constituencies in North Britain were by 
 their words to support the Adews of the Lord Advocate, they 
 would be immediately called to account for those words by their
 
 39 
 
 constituents. (Hear, hear.) If a good Education Bill could be 
 passed for Scotland, by all means let it be enacted, but let 
 them not make a permissive denial of faith the basis of a Scotch 
 Education Bill. He contended that tliis Bill not only did not 
 prescribe religious instruction for Scotland, but actually pro- 
 scribed it. What was it that had made the people of Scotland 
 what they were but their determination, from time immemorial, 
 that secular education should never be dissevered from religious 
 instruction'? Was it to be said that the time-honoured history of 
 three centuries was to be forgotten or set at nought'? and that, too, 
 in a country where the memories of such men as Jolm Knox still 
 flourished and held place in the strong affections of his fellow- 
 countrymen? He (Mr Wheelhouse) hoped, from the depths of 
 his heart, that the day was far distant when the teachings of 1560 
 would be so ruthlessly swept away by any one, — least of all by 
 those who professed so energetically that they had the education 
 of the people of North Britain so warmly at heart. (Applause.) 
 
 Mr SCOURFIELD said there were common principles which equally 
 affected England and Scotland, and which could not be violated in 
 Scotland without prejudice to England. Such common principles 
 were embodied in clauses 68 and 69 of this Bill, which provided 
 that if a Board certified that a parent failed to provide elementary 
 education for his child he should be prosecuted, and, on conviction, 
 liable to a penaltynot exceeding £5, or imprisonment not exceeding 
 thirty days, the prosecution to be repeated every six months, and 
 conviction to be without appeal. If the Bill passed with these 
 clauses in it, what between Ballot and Education Bill, a large pro- 
 portion of the population would be sent to gaol. Further, the Bill 
 attempted too rigidly to separate religious from secular instruction, 
 and would, in this respect be productive of great mischief, as, 
 whilst intellectual training, entirely separated from religious, was 
 deficient, so religious training, entirely separated from intellectual, 
 might become suijersiitious. 
 
 Mr W. Egerton referred to the proceedings of the Noncon- 
 formist Conference at Manchester in reference to this Bill, and said 
 he should have expected some hon. member who spoke at that 
 Conference to lay their views before the House. The mover of a 
 resolution about this Bill said that on its principles and provisions
 
 40 
 
 would depend the character of subsequent legislation for England 
 and Ireland, and that this Bill furnished a precious opportunity 
 for preventing in Scotland the evils which had been found so 
 grievous in England, and for securing, as far as education was 
 concerned, the separation of religion from all State super- 
 vision and control. That was the issue Nonconformists had 
 raised, as regarded England, and were attempting to raise now. 
 The Bill was their battle ground, and, if they could succeed in 
 carrying it, they thought they should be able to apply similar provi- 
 sions to Engl;ind. (Hear.) He read the proceedings at Manchester 
 in the light thrown upon them afterwards by the right hon. gen- 
 tleman, the President of the Local Government Board (Mr Stans- 
 field), who told hon. members who had proposed the repeal of 
 clause 25 of the English Act that, if they Avould persevere, they 
 would, in all probability, attain their object. The resolution, 
 carried unanimously at Manchester, was to the effect that the 
 Scotch Education Bill ought to contain no provisions that would 
 permit religious teaching at the public expense, or give support to 
 denominational schools. Therefore, the issue now raised was. Is 
 religious education to be given in the schools of Scotland? If 
 this Bill were carried for Scotland, there would be renewed agita- 
 tion against the scheme in operation in England. (Hear.) This was 
 a question well worth the attention of English members; and after 
 what had occurred at Manchester, he should have expected that 
 hon. members opposite would have stated their views here in order 
 that they might be answered. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr F. S. Powell, while agreeing in the main with the hon. 
 member for Leeds (Mr Wheelhouse), did not concur in the wish 
 that the Bill should not pass; he wished to see passed this 
 Session a Bill dealing vigorously, comprehensively, and finally, 
 for the present, with education in Scotland. There had been 
 too many Bills and debates, and the time had arrived for 
 legislation, with fair discussion ■ of details on both sides of 
 the House. The hon. and learned member ojDposed the universal 
 election of School Boards ; but at present there existed throughout 
 Scotland legally-constructed educational machinery; and the 
 question now was not whether there should be in every parish an 
 organization for the conduct of education, but what was to be its 
 nature, what was to be the electoral body, and how the elections
 
 41 
 
 were to be concliicted. The speech of the Lord Advocate was 
 characterized by a certain asperity of tone; it contained, however, one 
 welcome admission as to the importance of religious instruction in 
 the schools in Scotland. The proposing of the resolution had elicited 
 a late and reluctant declaration of regard for religion in education 
 in Scotland; and, as a lawyer, he wished to have that declaration 
 in writing in the form of a statute. Recently he read with interest 
 and sympathy a sorrowful letter addressed by the Under Secretary 
 of State for the Home Department (Mr Winterbotham) to his con- 
 stituents, in which the writer stated that he was a member of the 
 Education League, and that it was the opinion of himself, of the 
 Prime Minister, and of his constituency, that the difference of 
 opinion between himself and the Government was no reason why 
 he should not hold his present office. Then, the hon. member 
 added, there was a Scotch Bill which evinced a great advance in 
 public opinion, and he had no doubt that that Bill, if it passed, 
 would furnish a precedent for England. AVith that warning from 
 one who was in training for the Cabinet, he was entitled to protest 
 against the application to Scotland of doctrines abhorrent to 
 his sentiments, and the application of which to England he would 
 repudiate. (Cheers.) The Government could not complain of the 
 length of the debate on this Bill. On the second reading debate was 
 stifled or drifted from the main question, on a motion by an hon. 
 member opposite who raised the flag, hateful both in Scotland and 
 England, of secularism pure and simple. Again, they were wit- 
 nessing that magnificent silence which concealed diff'erences, and 
 obscured, though it did not extinguish, animosities. The right 
 hon. gentleman, the member for Bradford, was anxious for a religious 
 education in England; the right hon. member for Halifax — at 
 Halifax, but not in the House of Commons — was an advocate for 
 secular instruction only. There appeared, therefore, to be reasons 
 for the silence which was imposed on the other side. He hoped 
 that mysterious silence would not continue, if they did not want to 
 transfer discussion to Trafalgar Square. (" Hear," and a laugh.) 
 He desired a more emphatic declaration than had yet been given 
 respecting the future educational policy for Scotland. There was a 
 time-table conscience clause in the Bill, but it was far less favour- 
 able to religion than the conscience clause applicable to England. 
 Denominational schools were also very unfavourably treated under 
 this Bill. Parliamentary grants were not to be made to any
 
 42 
 
 denominational school esfcablislied after the passing of this Act, 
 unless the State Department, after inquiry, should be satisfied that 
 the school was specially required in the locality where it was 
 situated, and that the majority of the children in attendance were 
 of the denomination to which the school belonged. Now, he knew 
 that there were episcopal schools in Scotland so popular that the 
 majority of children attending them were Presbyterians, so that the 
 managers of such schools were to be punished for the efficiency of 
 the instruction given by being deprived of the Government grants. 
 (Hear, hear.) He also objected to the three years' tenure of the 
 School Boards, unless accompanied with the cumulative vote. 
 He had not intruded himself into this discussion, as if it were one 
 affecting Scotland alone — this Bill applied to Scotland in proposal 
 only; but the precedent once established it would be extended to 
 England. (Hear.) England had shown its adhesion to the cause of 
 religious education ; and if institutions were to be adapted to the 
 feelings and sympathies of a nation, the public sentiment in Scot- 
 land must be admitted to be as strong in favour of religious 
 instruction as it was in England. He therefore hoped this Bill 
 would be amended so as to bring it into harmony with the feeling 
 which had existed in Scotland for many generations. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Lord Garlies owned he felt considerable surprise when the 
 Lord Advocate stated he could not accept the amendment of his 
 hon. and learned friend. His objections to this Bill were twofold. 
 First of all, it affirmed the principle of permissive secular instruc- 
 tion; and, in the second place, the Bill would supplant a system 
 which had been in practice in Scotland for centuries, which had 
 worked thoroughly well, and had become endeared to the hearts 
 of the people. He denied that this Bill was for the benefit of the 
 people of Scotland, for all the different religious bodies 
 in Scotland had proved by their conduct that they desired 
 to have religious instruction combined with secular. In proof 
 of the accuracy of that assertion, he mentioned that above 
 1,670 petitions had been presented against the present measure. 
 The population of the Wigton group of boroughs, which the Lord 
 Advocate represented in Parliament, had no sympathy with the 
 measure introduced by the learned lord. Two out of the four 
 boroughs were decidedly opposed to it. The third borough was 
 rather insignificant; and with regard to the fourth and large
 
 43 
 
 boroughs, which practically returned the learned lord to that House 
 by two to one, no less than 470 out of the G75 members who 
 formed that part of the learned lord's constituency had petitioned 
 against the Bill. (Hear, hear.) Those hon. members who repre- 
 sented Scotch constituencies must be aware that the Bill was repug- 
 nant to their feelings. (Hear, hear.) Under these circumstances, 
 why liad such a Bill been introduced I There were two possible solu- 
 tions, and the first was that by some unfortunate accident the right 
 hon. and learned lord, instead of consulting his own and other con- 
 stituencies, in order to be informed of the wishes of the people at 
 large, had chosen to refer to a few ministers belonging to the Free 
 Church and the United Presbyterian body, who, from a feeling of 
 jealousy towards the Established Church of Scotland, were anxious 
 that a Bill of this description should be passed. Another solution 
 Avas to be found in the fact that Scotland was to be made a lever 
 by which the Government sought to win back those Noncon- 
 formists who, since 18G8, had withdrawn from them their support. 
 He ho]3ed, however, that in the result the anticipations based upon 
 that hope would not be successful. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr Bentinck commented on the remarkable silence -v^ich had 
 been maintained during the discussion on the Liberal benches, 
 and expressed his inability to account, except by the supposition 
 that as last year in the debates on the Ballot Bill orders had been 
 issued from high authority on their own side. There was, how- 
 ever, another and, perhaps, a still more plausible reason for it, and 
 that was that a schism existed in the opposite ranks; but be that 
 as it might, he and those with whom he acted were opposed to 
 the present measure, because they had a prejudice in favour of 
 mingling Christian teaching with education — a prejudice which 
 might not be shared by the right hon. gentleman at the head of 
 the Government. They were also opposed to the Bill, because its 
 obvious interest was to establish the principle of purely secular edu- 
 cation throughout Scotland. (Hear, hear.) And what, he should 
 like to know, had Scotland done that she should be supposed to feel 
 less interest than England in Christian teaching'? He might 
 remind English members, too, that that which was once established 
 in the former country would soon be drawn into a precedent for 
 the latter, and that we should have a system such as that which it 
 was proposed to carry out by the Bill sooner or later set up on
 
 44 
 
 this side of the Border. He had, he might add, listened to a 
 great many discussions on the subject of education, and always, 
 he must confess, witli the feeling that we were farther from a 
 satisfactory solution of it than ever. The reason was that there 
 was too much sectarian acrimony introduced into the question, 
 both in the House and out of doors. If people would only deal 
 Avith it in a different spirit, it might be solved without much 
 difficulty. Many objected to all education; some of them because 
 they were utterly indifferent on the subject, others because 
 they believed that the advantages of education were abused. 
 The right honourable gentleman at the head of the Government, 
 for instance, had learned to read, but if he had never done so he 
 could not have read the Secularists^ Manual to a public meeting of 
 his countrymen, full as it was of communistic teaching and 
 infidel doctrines. (A laugh.) He had no wish, however, to 
 treat the j)resent as a party question (a laugh), and, therefore, 
 he would point out that in another high quarter also there had 
 been an abuse of the advantages of elementary education. He 
 trusted that the details of this Bill would be carefully considered 
 in Committee. To educate without religious instruction was simply 
 to put a dangerous weapon into the hands of a man who did not 
 know how to use it. If you educate a man without seeking to 
 make a Christian of him, you simj^ly intrusted him with the 
 power of mischief without any controlling influences. He could 
 not understand how any religious man could uphold a system of 
 purely secular education. Were such a system persevered with, 
 he believed it would be a retrogade step in civilisation in this 
 country, a movement towards barbarism ; but lie had faith in the 
 strong sense entertained by the people of this country of the value 
 of religious education, and Avas sure they would scout any proposal 
 like that contained in the Bill. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr Hermon said he had been requested by some Scotch 
 friends of his, if there was a silence on that side of the House, 
 to endeavour to represent the people of Scotland. (Hear, hear.) 
 Not only did the Scotch people wish the Bible to be read, but they 
 wished it to be explained and taught in the schools. If that were 
 not the feelings of the people, he hoped that . Scotch members 
 opposite would stand up and say so. (Hear, hear.) Meanwhile, 
 he heartily supported the motion.
 
 45 
 
 Mr Greene said as no Scotch member opposite would defend 
 tlie system of education which the Scotch people desired, he would 
 endeavour to do so. He was never more surprised than to find 
 that such a motion was necessary when applied to Scotland, a 
 country beyond all others desirous of having the people religiously 
 taught, and of making religion the groundwork of education. 
 He was afraid the question to-night was that of the Prime 
 Minister versus Scotland ("Hear, hear," and laughter), and 
 that Scotch members would sacrifice a great principle to support 
 a Government. If so, they were very good ministerialists, 
 but very bad Scotch Members. (Hear, hear.) Let this be 
 told from one end of the land to the other. An American 
 gentleman of high station who was staying with him lately, 
 told him that in his opinion a purely secular education in 
 the United States was undermining the religious principles of the 
 people, and that infidelity was making rapid progress. As to 
 England, the House had decided to retain clause 25 (hear, hear), 
 yet lion, members on his side of the House were now endeavouring 
 to defend the same principles against the Government. He was 
 sure the Scotch people would thank them for what they were 
 doing to-night; and he was very much mistaken if Scotch members 
 who voted against this motion ever returned to the House. 
 (Hear, hear.) For many reasons he should regret this result, being 
 conservative enough to regret missing the faces he was accustomed 
 to. (Laughter.) The Prime Minister had been followed too 
 long. For once let lion, members opposite to-night give an honest 
 vote, and assert the vital importance of religious education among 
 the people. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr J. G. Talbot said he should have tliought that the motion 
 would have been unanimously adopted. By the votes against the 
 motions of the hon, members for Birmingham and Sunderland, the 
 feeling of the people of England seemed all but unanimous on this 
 question. But there was an attempt to heal the differences of the 
 party opposite on the question of Scotch education, and there had 
 also been an attempt by a snap division to defeat the motion, and 
 thus stultify the opinion of the House pronounced on the two 
 occasions he had mentioned. That was tlie reason why the silence 
 of hon. gentlemen opposite was so ominous, and lion, members on 
 that (the Opposition) side had endeavoured to keep up
 
 4G 
 
 the debate, in order that a full attendance of the House 
 might be able to express its views decidedly on the ques- 
 tion before it. It would be seen at a glance that religion 
 was not honoured in the Bill of the Lord Advocate, though 
 it might be true that it was not excluded, and the hon. and learned 
 member for the University of Glasgow attempted by his resolution 
 to recall the House to the position which religion ought to occupy. 
 But how had the hon. and learned gentleman and those who had 
 supported him been met? They had not been told that the object 
 of the resolution would be carried out in Committee; all that 
 they had had from the other side was determined silence. (Hear, 
 hear.) But this was a subject on which hon. members opposite 
 ought to have a good deal to say. The Vice-President of the Council 
 was a man who had carried through one of the most important 
 Acts on the subject of education that had ever been passed in this 
 country. The Prime Minister, as every one knew, not only took 
 an interest in the question of education, but was closely connected 
 by ancestry with the portion of the kingdom with which this Bill 
 had to deal. But from neither of these right hon. gentlemen had 
 a word fallen on this important question. (Hear, hear.) The hon. 
 member for Perth (Mr Kinnaird) occupied a well-known position 
 in the religious world (laughter and "hear, hear"); the hon. 
 gentleman figured occasionally on the platforms of Exeter Hall, 
 and yet he had not a word to say. (A laugh.) There were other 
 hon. gentlemen opposite representing Scotch constituencies, and 
 from only two of them this evening had the House heard the least 
 expression of opinion. (Hear, hear.) But, putting together 
 the silence of the Government, and of what he would call 
 the distinctly religious portion of the Liberal part}^, and the 
 anxiety of the secular portion of that party for a division, gentle- 
 men on that (the Opposition) side were perfectly justified in giving 
 their support to the resolution of the hon. and learned member, and 
 taking care that no division should be come to except in a full 
 House. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr Collins said there had been rather an unseemly spectacle 
 this evening. (Ministerial cheers.) But hon. gentlemen opposite 
 had fallen into a great mistake, and had not acted with the 
 caution and discretion which usually characterized their proceed- 
 ings. He met the hon. member for Chatham this morning, and
 
 47 
 
 when that hoii. gentleman asked when the division would 
 be, he told him he supposed about half-past 11. Hon. 
 members opposite ought to have known very well that there 
 was no chance of their obtaining a snap division on this important 
 question. It would, therefore, have been more in accordance 
 with the usual proceedings of the House to have endeavoured in 
 some shape to reply to the arguments brought forward on that side. 
 English members had a right, in looking at this Bill, to compare it 
 with the measure of 1870, and to see how far, being a worse Bill, it 
 might be made a precedent for England on a future occasion. (Hear.) 
 They had a right to inquire whether it was in the interest of the 
 friends of religious education — that is, of those who wished that the 
 schoolmaster should combine religious with secular teaching — or in 
 the interest of the Birmingham party, who wished as far as possible 
 to divorce religious from secular teaching, that the Bill was framed. 
 Because the model dogma of this sect was that it was improper 
 that the schoolmaster, wliether paid out of the Consolidated Fund 
 or out of the rates, should be the person to give religious instruc- 
 tion. The English Bill was intended, as far as possible, to supply 
 deficiencies where deficiencies were proved to exist, and it con- 
 tained this principle — that the new schools, and the schools in the 
 hands of voluntary managers, should be placed on precisely the 
 same footing. (Hear.) He did not find that principle in the Scotch 
 Bill. In the English Bill every school was a public elementary 
 school which had these characteristics. The children must pay 
 a certain amount of school pence, the schools must be open to 
 inspection, and the)^ must have a conscience clause. The 
 English system was one which permitted the creation from time to 
 time, and the continuance side by side, of Roman Catholic schools, 
 Jewish schools, and schools of any particular denomination. 
 But in this Bill the definition of a public elementary school 
 -was quite different. In the 64th clause it was said that 
 there should be no fresh denominational schools, except in those 
 cases wliere the majority of the children of the district was of the 
 creed of the schools proposed to be established. This was 
 neither more nor less than establishing a religious census. 
 Suppose a parent in Scotland wished to send his child to 
 a United Presbyterian school, an Established Church school, 
 an Episcopalian, or Roman Catholic school, were they going 
 to prevent him? If they did, it would be narrowing the
 
 48 
 
 rif'lit of the parent. This Bill narrowed .still further the time in 
 which religious instruction might be given, and he objected to 
 the provisions on this subject, because they might be cited at some 
 future time as a precedent for introducing a similar limit in 
 England. It had been shown by the School Board elections, all 
 over the country, and very recently by the signal defeat of Mr 
 George Potter in Westminster, that the great mass of the people 
 were in favour of combined religious and secular education, and 
 that the contrary opinion was held by only a small minority. 
 (Hear, hear.) One great defect of the present measure was the 
 omission of the cumulative vote, which in this country had made^ 
 the School Boards reflect truly the opinions of the inhabitants of 
 each district. (Hear.) Indeed, a true reflex of the opinions of 
 the inhabitants of a district was only obtainable by ward 
 elections or by the cumulative vote, which in England had 
 had the efl'ect of making our educational system really 
 national. It was a very significant fact, that when last year his 
 hon. friend, the member for Birmingham (Mr Dixon), proposed the 
 repeal of the cumulative vote, he found no supporter except the 
 hon. and learned member for the city of Oxford (Mr Vernon Har- 
 court), and dared not press his motion to a division. This fact 
 showed wdiat a preponderance of opinion was in favour of the 
 cumulative vote, and he could not but regard its omission from 
 this Bill as a retrograde step in legislation. The animus of the 
 Bill w^as in the direction of the opinions of the Birmingham 
 League. (" Hear, hear.") With regard to the amendment of 
 his right hon. friend, he should vote in support of it. (Hear.) 
 
 Mr W. E. FORSTER, who on rising was received with loud cheers 
 from the Opposition, said the hon. members opposite cheered as if 
 a division were impossible, and he confessed that, judging from 
 the manner in which this debate had been conducted, he should 
 have been inclined to think at one time that it was scarcely in- 
 tended to take a division. Much had been said about the silence 
 on that side of the House, and it might, therefore, be desirable 
 that he should say a few words respecting the cause of that silence. 
 (Hear, hear.) A large majority of Scotch members, and of other 
 hon. gentlemen who took an interest in the subject of education, 
 were anxious at the commencement of the discussion, and were still 
 anxious, that the evening should not be altogether lost and wasted.
 
 40 
 
 (Hear, hear.) It must 1)6 remembered that Scotland was anxiously 
 looking for an Education Bill, and the Government thought the time 
 liad comewhen the question could be no longer delayed. Undoubtedly 
 there had been silence on his side of the House, but the reason 
 "vvas that there would otherwise have been either a renewal of a 
 sufficiently full debate on the second reading, or an advocacy of 
 amendments which would properly be uttered when they were 
 proposed in Committee, The right hon. gentleman himself (Mr 
 Gordon) had put an amendment on the paper, and hon, members had 
 repeatedly diverged from the resolution to proposed amendments in 
 the Bill which had nothing to do with it. (" No, no.") Some 
 remarks which had been made made it almost impossible that hon, 
 members opposite could have read the Bill, The education of the 
 hon. member for Norfolk (Mr Bentinck) clearly had not reached that 
 point, or he would not have described it as a purely secular Bill. 
 Criticisms of this kind had almost made him doubt whether ho 
 was the same man and was sitting in the same place that he had 
 occupied a year or so ago. (A laugh.) The Bill was based on 
 exactly the same principles as the English Bill. ("No, no.'') There 
 might be differences of details as to the conscience clause, which 
 could be discussed at the proper time, but because religious instruc- 
 tion was to begin or close the day it did not follow that this was 
 a secular Bill. For his own part, if he supposed it did anything 
 to discourage religious instruction, he would have nothing 
 to do with it (hear, hear), — first, because it would be contrary 
 to Scotch even more than to English feeling, and secondly, 
 because it would be wrong. The principle of the Bill was 
 that nothing should be done either to prevent or to comjiel 
 religious instruction. It would be a sad thing for Parliament to 
 discourage such instruction, and there was no surer way of dis- 
 couraging it than to compel it. (Hear, hear.) It would be as 
 much discouraged thereby as by the proposal to prohibit it, which 
 he had contended against in England. Now, the resolution 
 ostensibly proposed only to continue what now existed, but what 
 was meant by it was that instruction in the Holy Scriptures 
 should be binding in every school in Scotland. "Was not that 
 what was meant] The resolution conveyed the impression — the 
 existing law recpiired this, but he met to-day a deputation of 
 earnest Scotch clergymen, who, in answer to his questions, in- 
 formed him that the present law did not compel religious teaching, 
 
 D
 
 and that they believed it would not prevent heritors from making 
 schools entirely secular. ("No, no.") The resolution, in order to be 
 candid, ought either to pi'ove that the existing law required religious 
 teaching or admit that the object was to make a fresh law. He was 
 glad to know that it had been the practice to give such teaching, 
 and he feared that if the custom was converted into a law there 
 would be a danger of losing the practice. There was a small but 
 active minority who conscientiously thought that religious instruc- 
 tion should be separated from secular teaching, many of them set- 
 ting an example to those around them in their endeavours to 
 implant religion in those with whom they came in contact. To pass 
 a law compelling them to have religious instruction would be the 
 surest way in this religious country of discouraging such instruction. 
 The ridit lion, c'entleman in his amendment to clause 50 vir- 
 tually admitted tliat the present law did not require that con- 
 struction, for it contained a proviso that in all schools instruction 
 in the Scriptures should be given. The Bill, like the English Act, 
 proposed to give perfect freedom to teach religion, and perfect 
 freedom to parents to withdraw their children from it. It might 
 be regretted that religious differences prevented the imposition of 
 religious teaching by law, but the state both of England and Scot- 
 land must be considered. He was surprised that many members 
 opposite who supported the principle of the English Act should 
 advocate this resolution, for did they put themselves into the 
 position of Scotchmen they would see that what was useful in 
 England would be useful in Scotland, and what was dangerous 
 here would be dangerous there. (Hear, hear.) His hon. friend, 
 Mr M'Laren, who had somewhat advocated the resolution, had 
 stated that the Act of 18G1 contained a clause which, while not 
 compelling religious instruction, apparently assumed that it would 
 be given, the schoolmaster having to sign a declaration that he 
 would not interfere with religious instruction. The experience of 
 subscriptions, however, in other quarters, had shown that an obliga- 
 tion not to interfere with religious instruction was not an obligation 
 to support it. It Avas true that the master engaged to teach 
 nothing contrary, as he hoped he never woukb to the Divine autho- 
 rity of the Scriptures, but he also engaged to inculcate nothing 
 opposed to the Shorter Catechism. If, therefore, the law was in 
 tlie state contended for, it recpiired not only the Bible but the Cate- 
 chism to be taught, and to continue the existing law would involve 
 the teaching of both. This fact of itself showed the difficulty of fore-
 
 51 
 
 ing religious instruction. Interested as lie was in tlic cause of edu- 
 cation, and also in religious education, lie had felt himself hound to 
 explain that the Bill was hased on the principles laid down in 
 England, and he hoped some little progress would still be made 
 to-night in Committee. 
 
 Mr Hardy was glad that his right hon. friend, the mover of the 
 resolution, and Scotland, which by its petitions had displayed its 
 interest in the question, had at last had the honour of some remarks 
 from the right hon. gentleman opposite. The Lord Advocate said 
 this was practically only an amendment, and might be discussed 
 afterwards. If that line were always taken, it would be easy to avoid 
 discussion in the full state of the House which was so desirable upon 
 questions of importance. Discussion of a clause was a very different 
 thing from discussion of a principle. (Hear, hear.) However impor- 
 tant a clause might be, the same discussion and the same interest 
 were never displayed upon it as when the discussion was upon a 
 question of principle. (Hear, hear.) It was not intended by the 
 resolution to stop the progress of the Bill, but to carry out a prin- 
 ciple which appeared suitable to Scotland and accordhi^to the de- 
 sires of Scotland. The House had been told on many occasions they 
 were to look to the particular wants of each country. The right hon. 
 gentleman at the head of the Government said it was wrong to adopt 
 English opinions in looking at Ireland, or Irish opinions in looking 
 at England. Why, then, did the Vice-President of the Council 
 maintain that because certahi principles were enacted in the 
 English Bill they should be necessarily enacted also in the Scotch 
 Bill? We should look at the country and the position of the country 
 before coming to a conclusion of that description. The right hon. 
 gentleman said much time had been lost this, evening. Well, time 
 was lost last year when the same course was taken by the Govern- 
 ment and hon. gentlemen opposite. (Hear, hear.) This House was 
 a place meant for discussion. (Cheers.) Discussions might now and 
 then be raised there which were unpalatable to hon. members opposite, 
 just as other discussions might be raised by them which were un- 
 palatable to hon. members on his side of the House. But it was 
 derogatory to the dignity of the House when a member in the position 
 of his hon. and learned friend (Mr Gordon), representing a Scotch 
 University, and representing also the feelings of large portions of 
 the community, moved a resolution which was treated almost 
 AVith contempt by gentlemen on the other side of the House.
 
 52 
 
 (Cheers.) If Lis friends were to act in the same manner, it 
 would bring the House to a condition which would be neither credit- 
 able to itself nor advantageous to the country. At all events, the 
 studied silence with which the motion had been received made it the 
 duty of members on his side to take care that the House, which had 
 been invited to this discussion, should be full before any decision was 
 come to. (Hear, hear.) The Vice-President of the Council had 
 alluded to the declaration in the Act of 1861, by which the school- 
 master bound himself not to teach anything opposed to the Holy 
 Scriptures or the doctrines contained in the Shorter Catechism. 
 Now, the Lord Advocate of that day distinctly stated that 
 the schoolmaster was to teach these doctrines and the Holy 
 Scriptures. This, therefore, was the meaning of the Bill of 
 1861. The declaration went on to say: — "I will faithfully 
 conform thereto in my teaching in the said school, and I will 
 not exercise the functions of my office to the prejudice of the Church 
 of Scotland." The learned lord said there was no legislation calling 
 upon the schoolmaster to teach religion in the school; but did not 
 this clause mean that the schoolmaster was bound to teach it, in con- 
 formity with the system established in 1567? Again, the learned 
 lord save the House to understand that there were no means of en- 
 forcing such teaching. But section 13 in the Act of 1861 provided 
 that if any schoolmaster acted in contravention of his declaration the 
 heritors might present a complaint to the Secretary of State, who 
 might thereupon appoint a Commission to inquire into the said 
 charge, and censure, suspend, or deprive such schoolmaster, their 
 finding being subject to approval by the Secretary of State. There 
 was, therefore, existing legislation which provided for religious teach- 
 ing in the schools. The Vice-President of the Council said, "If such 
 legislation exists, why re-enact it now?" The answer was because by 
 a clause in the Bill all the existing Acts were repealed, so that the 
 present continuity of religious teaching would be interrupted. (Hear, 
 hear.) The circumstances of England differed from those of Scotland. 
 When the English Education Bill was proposed there was not a single 
 public school to deal with, but only voluntary schools. In Scotland, 
 on the contrary, there were schools which were the inheritance of the 
 nation, which had been the foundation of the greatness of Scotland, 
 and for three hundred years had been conducted on one uniform 
 principle. Since 1567 it had been the practice to teach the Holy 
 Scriptures in the parochial schools of Scotland, and to teach the 
 Scriptures in such a way that^ though without a conscience clause,
 
 53 
 
 this religious teaching was conducted without injury to the religion 
 of other people. Therefore, this Bill was introduced under circum- 
 stances differing entirely from those under which the English Bill 
 had been brought forward, and it would interfere in Scotland with 
 public schools which were working well, and were also working in 
 conformity with the wishes and feelings of the Scotch people. 
 Should the system in these schools be given up to the Local Boards 
 which were to be established, thus furnishing matter for perjjetual 
 strife and contention 1 A league had been formed in Scotland in 
 conformity with some abstract theory, and sought to put an end to 
 a system which had done so much in practice for the education of 
 the Scotch people. Persons who acted on abstract theories were the 
 most disagreeable of all people to deal with. No matter how well a 
 system worked, if it did not coincide with their theories they con- 
 demned it utterly. Some had even hoped to make martyrs of 
 themselves upon this question, in the hope of awakening sympathetic 
 enthusiasm at public meetings, and they purchased this cheap mar- 
 tyrdom at the expense of introducing dissension into peaceful 
 parishes. All the Government was asked to do was to leave 
 the existing system alone, and not to force a Bill upon the Scotch 
 people which, while it professed to be harmless, wa^ evidently 
 designed to make secular instruction the rule. (Hear, hear.) 
 The present rule was that no school should receive a Parliamentary 
 grant unless it was in connection with some religious body, or unless 
 the Scriptures were read in it; so that this Bill would not only 
 interfere with the parochial school, but with every other school par- 
 ticipating in the grant. He was told that the teachers were to be 
 forbidden to teach religion ; how, then, was it to be taught ? Even 
 the Nonconformist bodies in England had training colleges for the 
 purpose of instructing their teachers in religious knowledge, with a 
 view to their imparting that knowledge to their pupils. By petitions 
 and public meetings the people of Scotland had declared against that 
 part of the Bill to which he had objected, and, inasmuch as it was 
 most desirable that the House should lay down the principle that an 
 existing system which was satisfactory to the people should not be 
 disturbed, he would vote most cordially for the motion of his right 
 hon. friend. (Applause.) 
 
 Sir K. Anstruther said the obvious effect of the motion from 
 the opposite side of the House would be to prevent the Bill being 
 proceeded with. (" No, no.") It was impossible to say this was
 
 Si 
 
 not a party proceeding. Tlie motion came as an amendment to 
 the motion that the Speaker leave the chair. If it were carried, 
 the Speaker would not leave the chair, and there would be an end 
 of the Bill. It was obvious this result was desired. The lion, 
 member for Rutland (Mr Noel) had been all the evening employ- 
 ing those winning ways which made him deservedly popular on 
 both sides of the House, to induce lion, members to continue the 
 debate until the Opposition was fortified to its full strength and 
 in readiness for a division. "What else could have been the 
 reason for English members continuing the debate when Scotch 
 members w^ere anxious to go into Committee and proceed to 
 business 1 This Bill would not prevent the teaching of religion in 
 schools. All that the 13tli clause did was to prevent a teacher 
 teaching anything but doctrine accepted by the Scotch people. 
 There was no statutory obligations upon any one in the Scotch 
 schools to teach religion; it was the custom to do so in every 
 school, because the peo])le desired it; as long as they desired it, 
 they would have it, and, if they ever ceased to desire it, no Acts 
 of Parliament would make them continue a system of religious 
 teaching they objected to. The lion, member for Boston made a 
 shrewd remark when he said the Bill allowed School Boards to 
 teach creeds and as much religion, in fact, as they liked, 
 whereas other lion, gentlemen opposite denounced the measure 
 as being purely secular. He agreed with that observation of the 
 lion, member for Boston, and he hoped to see amendments 
 introduced into the Bill to confine within certain limits that power 
 of the School Boards. The course of action taken by the Govern- 
 ment was to put confidence in the people of Scotland, and to say 
 that the people of Scotland knew what they wanted, and should 
 have it. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 Mr NeWDEGATi! said tliat the people of Scotland objected to 
 that Bill because it would introduce into that country the authority 
 of tlie Privy Council, instead of the authority of the law as it now 
 existed. They were content to have religious education enforced 
 Ulider the present law, but they objected to have it enforced by the 
 authority of a department. (Hear.) They had some ground for their 
 suspicions on that point, because twice during the discussions on 
 the Ilnglish Elementary Act of 1870 the House had, at the instiga- 
 tion of the Government, emphatically rejected proposals for 
 making Scriptural education an essential part of that Act. Yet
 
 55 
 
 the right hon. gentleman (Mr For.ster), as if -to console the Scotch 
 jieople, assured them that this Bill was framed on the same prin- 
 ciples as the English Elementary Act. Hon. gentlemen opposite 
 were so much better Ministerialists than they were members for 
 Scotland, that they would reject the resolution now before the 
 House because it distinctly afhrmed that religious and Scrij^tural 
 teaching which had been the leading principle of Scotch education 
 for centuries. 
 
 Lord J. Mannp:rs said that the hon. baronet, the member for 
 Fifeshire (Sir R. Anstruther), breaking the long silence which had 
 prevailed on the other side of the House, came forward at the last 
 moment to inform them as to what would be the result of carry- 
 ing tlie amendment of his hon. and learned friend (Mr Gordon). 
 He ventured, however, to state that the information which the 
 lion, baronet had given them was entirely erroneous, and, if acted 
 upon, would lead the House into a very grave misconception. 
 Tjie hon. baronet told them that if the amendment were adopted 
 it would be fatal to the further progress of that measure. Now, 
 he would assert — and he appealed to the S23eaker whether he was 
 not correct in asserting — that if the House acceded, as^lie trusted 
 it would do, to the amendment of his hon. and learned friend, it 
 would be perfectly competent for tlie Government to proceed with 
 tlie Bill on the very first day they chose to bring it forward, and 
 that the amendment would be found to be in strict accordance, 
 not only with the main principles of the measure as sustained in 
 argument by the Government, but with the recognised forms and 
 practice of the House. (Hear, hear.) 
 
 The House divided, when the numbers were — 
 
 For the resolution, - - - - - 21 G 
 
 Against, - - 209 
 
 Majority, - - - — 7 
 
 On the paper on which the numbers were written being handed 
 to Mr Gordon, the cheers from the Opposition Benches were so 
 loud and continuous that he was unable for some minutes to 
 announce tlie result of the division to the House. The ainiounce- 
 ment having been made, it was followed by another burst of 
 cheering, which lasted for some time. 
 
 The words proposed by Mr Gordon were then added, and the 
 question thus amended was put as the main question, when the 
 Government declined a second division, for obvious reasons, and 
 allowed the 'resolution to be carried unanimously on the merits.
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 F J^ T :bj a. 
 
 For Govermucnt. For Resolution. 
 
 Henry James, Sir Geo. Jeukiuson, Bart. 
 
 Sir Geort^e Grey, Bart., J. Hardy. 
 
 G. E. Browne,..., i Colonel Olive. 
 
 C. Gilpin, Sir James Stronge, Bart. 
 
 — Howard, Viscomit Newry. 
 
 Sir Thos. Bazley, Bart., Douglas Straight. 
 
 Sir J. Trelawny, Bart., Sir L. Palk, Bart. 
 
 Jacob Bright, Sir S. Northcote, Bart. 
 
 N. G. Lambert, S. Cave. 
 
 Colonel French, Charles Wy nn. 
 
 John Locke, Gab. Goldney. ^ 
 
 — Torrens, Geo. Ward Hunt. 
 
 — Fortescue, Colonel Knox. 
 
 M. Bass, Colonel Grant. 
 
 T. E. Headlam, Colonel Cole. 
 
 — Samuelson, — Lowther. 
 
 Major O'Eeilly, — Johnston. 
 
 G. Hodgkinson, Sir E. Buxton. 
 
 W. F. Cogan, W. T. Mitford. 
 
 Edmund Dease, W. H. Gore Langton. 
 
 Sir T. D. Lloyd, Bart., John Leslie. 
 
 F. W. Cadogan, G. C. Bentinck. 
 
 A If red Seymour. Guildford Onslow. 
 
 Lord C.Bruce, Lord Henry Thynuo. 
 
 — Brand, A.. Staveley Hill. 
 
 Colonel Amcotts, .....A. J. Beresford Hope. 
 
 The O'ConorDon, S. G. S. Sackville. 
 
 John St. Aubyn, Colonel E. Corbett. 
 
 John Piatt, Thomas Meyrieh. 
 
 George Waters, Lord Aug. Hervey. 
 
 Samuel S. Marling, Sir M. Beach, Burt. 
 
 Henry Strutt, T. B. Hildyard. 
 
 Edward Horsman, Henry Barnett. 
 
 Major G. Gavin, Colonel Vendeleur. ; 
 
 Sir Henry Davie, Bart., Thomas Baring. 
 
 Georo-e Melly. >• Ci^ptai'i Dawsou Darner,'
 
 '/v>* 
 
 ^m-m 

 
 
 ■,■".*" ,^ * 

 
 ^'K^>^~ ->■ 
 
 ?^ii 
 
 ^s- "•* 
 
 &..•: • 
 
 wmt 
 
 I' ,1 /; • 
 
 ^^^•^ "'^ 
 
 
 
 *^>i- 
 
 *• •.>•[* ~^- .-e^.