supporting a Bill in which no provision | learned Friend (Lord Colonsay). But was made for religious teaching. Those how was it given? It was given, first denunciations were entirely unjustifiable, of all, by the terms of a Preamble, because there was no man who had sup- which went much further than anything ported the Bill who was not anxious to now suggested; for under the earlier maintain the use and wont of Scotland Acts of the Scottish Parliament no one -namely, that religion should form part was allowed to teach in any college, of the education in the schools-and school, or private house in Scotland who there was no man to whom he had did not belong to the Established Church, spoken on the subject who would not whichever that happened to be at the reject the Bill if he thought that reli- time. In those days legislators did not gious education would be excluded under understand the doctrine of toleration; its provisions. The mode, however, in and whichever Church had the upper which the noble Duke (the Duke of hand-whether Presbyterians or EpiscoRichmond) proposed to recognize this re- palians-they would not allow anyone to ligious teaching was much the same as teach in schools, colleges, or private if in a Mutiny Bill he were to insert a houses who had not the sanction of the declaration recognizing the bravery of Presbyteries or of the Bishops, as the the British Army. It started, too, with case might be. Only in that sense was a proposition which was incorrect; for religious teaching sanctioned by legislahe (the Earl of Dalhousie) utterly denied tion. He argued that the same printhat legislation had ever given the ciple should apply now. In his judgsmallest sanction to the teaching of re- ment, we ought to trust for religious ligion in the parish schools of Scotland. teaching in the confidence we reposed in He would challenge his noble and the management of the schools by the learned Friend opposite (Lord Colonsay) local authorities; and he believed relito put his hand upon a single clause, gious teaching would be continued in in any Act of Parliament from the reign Scotland by the local boards just as of James IV. to the present time, in much as if the matter were left in the which it was enacted that religion in any hands of Presbyteries or Bishops. The shape should be taught in any school in Legislature formerly defined no religious Scotland. If the noble Duke would con- instruction and indicated no religious sent to strike out the words "sanctioned books whatever, but simply trusted in by legislation," there could, he thought, the managing Bodies of the schools, be no objection to the Amendment. which at that time were always closely connected with the Church of the country. This state of things had, however, passed away. We had to deal with another state of things, and he would appeal to the friends of religious education in Scotland to accept the same security as had satisfied the friends of religious education in this country. To the second part of the Amendment he strongly objected, because it stated this was a Bill to afford means for continuing religious instruction to all children whose parents did not object to it on conscientious grounds. This was an inaccuracy, for the Bill afforded no means for religious instruction. There was nothing in the Bill to prevent a school board from setting up a secular school, and noble Lords opposite had not moved an Amendment to prevent their doing so. Therefore the words of the present Amendment were not strictly accurate, and the Preamble, if amended as proposed, would be simply a red rag held out to a bull. What use could there be in inserting

LORD COLONSAY was understood to say, that although the Scottish Parliament had never adopted any measure containing any express enactment on the subject, the importance of religious teaching in the schools had been frequently recognized by the Legislature.

After a few words from Lord LYTTELTON,

THE DUKE OF ARGYLL said, there was one point in which he thought his noble Friend opposite (the Duke of Richmond) would agree with him-namely, that in regard to all questions dealing with religion we ought to act with perfect sincerity both to ourselves and to others. Now, his complaint against the proposed Amendment to the Preamble was that it was not entirely sincere. Without entering into the question as to whether or not previous legislation had directly sanctioned religious teaching in Scotland, there could be no doubt that legislative sanction had been given to it in the indirect sense referred to by his noble and

LORD CAIRNS said, he was sorry to hear the noble Duke compare the recog-provided that local boards desired to nition of religious teaching to the holding out of a red rag to a bull. If there was any insincerity-which he denied in the Amendment proposed to the Preamble, there was insincerity in every word of the noble Duke's speech on the second reading-because the burden of that speech was that means were afforded by the Bill for continuing religious instruction in Scotland according to "use and wont."

On Question, whether to insert? Their | a day when the general subject may be

Lordships divided:-Contents 53; Not-
Contents 32: Majority 21.
Resolved in the Affirmative.
Words inserted accordingly.
Preamble, as amended, agreed to.

The Report of the Amendments to be received on Tuesday next, and Bill to be printed, as amended. (No. 210.)

House adjourned at Twelve o'clock to
Monday next, Eleven o'clock.

Friday, 12th July, 1872.
MINUTES.]-SUPPLY-considered in Committee
- Committee R.P.
PUBLIC BILLS Second Reading - Consolidated
Fund (£8,000,000)*.

discussed; but with due consideration, however, to the general convenience, we cannot fix that day until the House has gone into Committee on the Public Health Bill and the Licensing Bill. ["Oh, oh!" and Laughter.] If any hon. through two or three things at once, Gentlemen opposite are able to get they may be able to meet the general convenience of the House a great deal better than I can pretend to meet it; but as I lie under the unfortunate limitation of being able to do no more than one thing at once, I must, with great respect for my hon. Friends who laugh, try to arrange Public Business for the general convenience upon that footing. The whole evidence, moreover, in the Galway Election Case has not yet been delivered, but I believe it will be delivered to-morrow. We shall then consider whether it will be desirable in the public interest that we should submit a Motion of our own upon the sub

Committee-Public Health (re-comm.) [215], de-ject; and, if not, we will take care that bate adjourned; Pawnbrokers (re-comm.) [233] R.P.

Committee-Report — Bastardy Laws Amendment [109].

[205-247];

Report Wild Birds Protection
Railway Rolling Stock (Distraint) * [116.248].
Considered as amended-Metropolitan Tramways
Provisional Orders Suspension * [219].
Withdrawn-Salmon Fisheries (No.2) (re-comm.)
[178].

The House met at Two of the clock.

a day is provided when other hon. Gentlemen will have an opportunity of inviting the attention of the House to the subject.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY asked when the Government would be likely to the Irish Members would be necesto come to a conclusion? Some notice sary, as the majority of them were absent in Ireland.

MR. GLADSTONE said, of course, it was necessary to consider the Irish PETITION-JUDGMENT OF MR. JUSTICE cussion might take place on Thursday Members. He hoped, however, the dis

IRELAND-GALWAY ELECTION

KEOGH-QUESTION.

MR. MITCHELL HENRY (for Mr. BUTT) asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he will give precedence to his Motion relative to Mr. Justice Keogh on Monday the 22nd instant, or on any other early day?

MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I must distinguish between what relates to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member (Mr. Butt) and the general subject. I cannot undertake to give precedence to the Motion of the hon. and learned Member over other Motions of which Notice has been or may be given by other Members. I must leave them to fair and free competition among themselves. But I may repeat what I have already stated to the House. We shall be prepared at a proper time to name

week.

IRELAND-THREATENING LETTERS.

QUESTION.

SIR THOMAS BATESON asked the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether he is aware that Sir Arthur Guinness has been threatened with death unless he sends an apology to the Freeman's Journal, for venturing to correct the editor of that newspaper on a matter where he had been in error relative to the Dublin Exhibition, with a further demand for a handsome subscription to Captain Nolan's Fund, or the consequences? The Question was based upon the following letter which had appeared in The Times :

MR. BAXTER said, that circumstances had come to his knowledge which rendered it desirable to reconsider the de

"Guinness,-We are ordered to inform you that an Orange whelp like you insulted our clergy's and peoples newspaper last week, as if any one cared about you or the infernal Exhibition, and unless you send a appology to Free-cision arrived at relative to the diminuman's Journal, and likewise give a hanson sub- tion of the superannuation allowances scription to Capton Nolan's fund before a week, referred to in the Question of the hon. your life is not worthe a month's purchase, for we Member for Roscommon. will send you a bullet, as well as that scoundrel Keogh, as we have a person hired to shoot you and him and no mistake, so take warnin in time."

He asked the right hon. Gentleman to look at a photograph publicly sold in the streets of Castlebar, and representing

the effigy of Mr. Justice Keogh.

ARMY-TROOP SERJEANTS OF YEOMANRY AS MUSKETRY INSTRUCTORS. QUESTION.

tary of State for War, If Troop Serjeants of Yeomanry who hold the Hythe certificate as Serjeant Instructors of Musketry are entitled to twopence a-day additional pay, which is allowed to Serjeants in the Rifle Volunteers under similar circumstances?

MR. A. EGERTON asked the Secre

MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, I have complied with the request of my hon. Friend to look at the photograph. We have no official report of the threatening letter addressed to Sir Arthur Guinness; but if the letter is made known to the Irish MR. CARDWELL: In 1870, the Government it will become the subject of inquiry in due course, as is the case in Westley-Richards carbine was given to Ireland with reference to threatening the Yeomanry, and the adjutants and letters generally, which are unfortunately one serjeant of each regiment were sent rather characteristic of the mode of to Hythe; and since that time all the recarrying on Public Business in that country. Meanwhile, I may express my sense-and it is rather a strong - of the imprudence of making these threatening letters the subject of distinct notice here. I know that my hon. Friend's object is an excellent

sense

one.

It is that public indignation may be drawn towards the authors of these letters, and that the ministers of the law and the Executive Government may be stimulated, if they require it, to diligence in discovering them. But it appears to me that any good done in this way is more than counterbalanced by the evil caused by the notoriety given to these unworthy productions, which is more than anything calculated to flatter those who write them and encourage those persons to write more. I am sorry they should be honoured with the notice given to them on this occasion.

IRELAND-SUPERANNUATION ALLOW.
ANCES-VALUATION DEPARTMENT.

QUESTION.

THE O'CONOR DON asked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he is willing to reconsider the decision he arrived at relative to the diminution of the superannuation allowances to be made to certain officers removed from the Valuation Department of Ireland in October 1870 ?

Sir Thomas Bateson

giments which had access to ranges have gone to the targets, but no addition has been made to the pay of the serjeants. All these questions, however, will come under review in considering the new ar

rangements.

ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE-CONDUCT OF

THE POLICE.-QUESTION.

MR. MELLOR asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to proceedings against a publican, the landlord of the "White Bear" Inn, at Ashton under Lyne, where two police officers in plain clothes entered the said public house on Sunday the 16th of June last; and, if so, whether he considers the proceedings on that occasion justifiable; and, if not, whether he will take the steps necessary to ascertain at whose instance, by whose orders or directions, and at whose cost such proceedings were instituted and carried on ?

MR. BRUCE said, he had heard nothing of any proceedings of the police against a publican at Ashton, and it was impossible for him to say whether the police had acted illegally on that occasion; but he would suggest that if they had acted improperly, complaint should be made to the chief constable and justices at Ashton. The Secretary of State had no authority whatever over the local police.