was no doubt increased by other considerations than those which are proper to a judicial inquiry. The manner in which the motion had been interposed at a critical period of party warfare, and the consequence which it was well known must follow an adverse decision, would naturally incline many members to refrain from voting, or to give to the Government the benefit of their aid. We cannot, therefore, regard the rejection of Mr. Baillie's resolutions as a judicial acquittal of Lord Torrington. The ministerial majority has no character of this kind, and his lordship remains, what he was previously believed to be, an incompetent and tyrannical ruler, reckless of human misery, and swift to shed human blood. It is,' says the Colombo Observer,' of April 15th, because we love the English name, and boast of our birth as Britons, that we have so loudly, so perseveringly, and so successfully protested against those deeds of cruelty and blood, which, in our opinion, were calculated to bring disgrace and odium on the British name. For the proclamation of martial law, there may be a show of defence; for its long continuance, none.' The delinquent governor has been recalled, and that is a great triumph, while the Colonial minister, who was guilty of appointing an unfit favourite to be governor of a valuable island,' has been compelled to revoke the power he gave, and now stands before his countrymen convicted-notwithstanding this majority of a most unworthy and unstatesmanlike appointment, These facts will have their influence on the further distribution of official patronage.

THE RAILWAY AUDIT BILL has been lost in committee by a majority of 62 to 56. The president of the Board of Trade, while affirming that the bill was not as perfect as was desirable, admitted that it would be a great improvement on the existing state of things. Nevertheless, the power of railway directors was exerted to defeat the measure. It contained some clauses to which they might fairly object, and an amendment was admitted by Mr. Locke, which provoked the hostility of the legal profession. The union of these two classes was fatal to the measure. They resolved to damage, and, if possible, to destroy it. This purpose was unhappily effected, and the question is consequently left open for government interference, which, at some convenient moment, may possibly be again attempted. Mr. Peto was perfectly right in saying that those railway directors who opposed the bill would deserve at the hands of the Government the most stringent measure that could be devised.'

THE SUBJECT OF NATIONAL EDUCATION has been again submitted to the House. On the 4th, Lord Melgund moved the second reading of a bill for the remodelling and extension of the School establishment of Scotland, and was supported by Mr. Hume, the Lord Advocate, and the Premier. The bill is, in fact, a Free Church scheme, and is adapted to deprive the Established Church of the control at present exercised over the parochial schools of Scotland. So far we do not, of course, object to it, but it has other aspects, under which it is highly exceptionable. It is an attempt to commit the State anew to a work with which it ought not to interfere, and which it cannot undertake without hazarding much more evil, in the long run, than it accom

plishes good. It seeks to introduce the thin edge of the wedge, and carries with it, so far as principle is concerned, all that is involved in the more elaborate machinery of some of our education-mongers. Further than this, the bill is sectarian, and that, too, under a profession of catholicity. It is a Free Church project designed to promote Free Church interests by means of a compulsory rate. The Presbyterian is to be the governing body, and the Shorter Westminster Catechism to be the manual adopted in each school. The teachers, it is true, are to be relieved from the test at present enforced, and may, therefore, be selected from a larger class, but the formulary to be taught necessarily excludes large bodies which might otherwise furnish well-trained teachers. Tests,' as our contemporary the 'Patriot' justly remarks, 'binding teachers to be of the Established Church, are, indeed, to be abolished; but they must still be of the Established Catechism.' Nor do we attach value to the permission given to parents or guardians to require the exemption of their children from religious instruction. Practically this provision is of little value, as the consequences which would follow from it are of a nature to prevent its being regarded in any other light than as a dead letter. In the course of the debate the same gross blunders were committed as we had occasion to remark on in former instances. Lord Melgund drew an alarming picture of the ignorance of one half of the children of Scotland. His statistics, according to the Lord Advocate, were frightful,' and that legal functionary improved on them by calculating the consequences of such ignorance on the next generation. It is really too bad that honorable members, men of high name and station, should undertake to settle questions of such intricacy and moment in gross ignorance-for we will not suspect them of what is infinitely worse-of the facts which pertain to them, and on which alone the necessity for legislative interference is based. Lord Melgund estimated the number of children to be educated at 600,000, of which he says the Free Church and the Kirk educate 200,000, and other Churches 100,000. Of the remaining 300,000' his lordship adds, 'he was unable to give any account whatever. Taking these figures for granted, Mr. Baines triumphantly remarks that, instead of leaving half of the population uneducated, they would imply an average duration of five years' education for every child in Scotland! So inaccurate are the facts, and so absurd the conclusions drawn from them by those who take upon them to inform Parliament-by official men-by the projectors of the new school establishment! Would that our members of Parliament had themselves a better schooling!' On a division the bill was lost by a majority of 13, the numbers being 124 for the second reading, and 137 against it.

THE ANNUAL MEETING OF THE NATIONAL SCHOOL SOCIETY was held on the 4th, and its proceedings bore out the strong feelings of interest with which it had been anticipated. It is well known to our readers that a dispute has long existed between the society and the Privy Council respecting what are termed the Management Clauses in the trust deed of schools receiving Government grants. This is but one amongst many of the difficulties created by the tampering spirit of our legislature; and it will go on to increase, as well it may,

so long as that spirit is persisted in. The High Church party want to insure the paramount influence of the clergy in the management of the society's schools, while the moderate, or Low Church party, require a proportionate infusion of a lay element. It is but the old question of priestism revived in a form suited to the nineteenth century, and we are not sorry that ministers should thus be taught the folly of their measures. Surely they have difficulties enough to contend with, and need not go out of their way to increase them. However, if they will not learn otherwise, we shall be glad at their being taught wisdom by perceiving the impracticable nature of the task they have undertaken. For three years past strong resolutions have been adopted at the annual meeting of the society, condemnatory of the policy of the Privy Council. That policy, however, has been persisted in, and so far our sympathies go with the Government. If we are to have public grants of money in aid of educational schemes, let us by all means guard against putting such grants under the exclusive control of a clerical body. Recent circumstances have awakened a strong feeling within the Church itself. The more enlightened portion of its members are desirous of rescuing the National Society from what they deem a false position, while many others-the bishops especiallyare supremely concerned to put an end to the discord and contention now so rife within its pale. The Annual Meeting of the society was therefore very numerously attended. The two archbishops and thirteen bishops, with a few peers, and some members of the Lower House, were present. The Primate presided, and in his opening speech deprecated discussion, and expressed a hope that, in the event of such discussion being persisted in, no such spirit would be prevalent as would be inconsistent with a meeting of Christian brethren.' The Rev. G. A. Denison, in conformity with the notice given, then moved, That this meeting deeply regrets that her Majesty's Government continue to disallow the equitable claim of members of the Church of England, as set forth in the resolution of the annual meeting of this society, June 6th, 1849-That founders of Church schools, who see fit "to place the management of their schools in the clergyman of the parish and the bishop of the diocese," should not, on that account, be excluded from State assistance towards the building of their schools.' To these words he added the following-not to set himself right with his friends, but with a large portion of the public:- That this meeting desires to express its sense of the very great importance of securing the most friendly relations and the most harmonious co-operation with the civil power, and of being enabled to accept assistance of every kind from the Parliamentary grant for education, provided always that such co-operation and such assistance involve no interference, direct or indirect, actual or virtual, with the doctrine or the discipline of the Church.' It is scarcely necessary to say that Mr. Denison's resolution was expressive of the views of the Puseyite section of the Church. They cheered its announcement, and were most hearty throughout his speech in the expression of their approval. The resolution was seconded by A. J. B. Hope, Esq., M. P., and the following amendment was moved by Sir John Pakington :- That the cause of sound

religious instruction and the interests of the Church demand, at the present juncture, the friendly co-operation of the National Society and the Committee of Council; and this meeting, satisfied that such cooperation must be for the advantage of the National Society, as well as of the Church at large, desires to deprecate any renewal of the agitation which has characterised the recent meetings of the society, and to express its earnest hope that the two bodies may act cordially together.' The general subject was thus fairly launched, and much strong feeling evidently prevailed. When the chairman rose to put the question, the Bishop of London interposed with a brief speech after his own fashion, entreating the meeting to reject both the amendment and the resolution.' The truth or error of the opinions expressed was of little moment. What the bishop cared for was the avoidance of the appearance of discord. About that he was concerned, and in order to compass it, he would have both parties suppress their views, and unite in apparent harmony, when each was sensible that no real unity existed. If such be the harmony of the Church, may we long be strangers to it. It may deaden conscience, may benumb the vital powers, nay, in some cases-and this is the best that can be said for it-it may prevent the utterance of uncharitableness and wrath; but it bears no marks, and answers none of the higher ends, of Christian fellowship.

Sir John Pakington withdrew his amendment in conformity with the suggestion of the bishop, and the resolution of Mr. Denison was rejected by a large majority. This decision is undoubtedly a triumph to the moderate party in the Church, and as such we rejoice in it. We have long thought that the Oxford or Pusey party had passed its zenith, and the vote of this meeting furnishes another confirmation of our view. Temporary circumstances may give currency to its dogmas for a day, but their inherent absurdity cannot fail, in the long run, to induce their contemptuous rejection.

.

THE METROPOLIS WATER BILL was read a second time on the 5th, by a majority of sixteen, the numbers being 95 for, and 79 against it. Sir George Grey and Sir William Clay were the only defenders of the measure, and they utterly failed to show that it would accomplish any one of the objects which public convenience, health, or economy, require. It was not without difficulty that 95 members were found to record their votes in its favor. As the Daily News' remarks, The names of all the heads of departments who have seats in the House, of the law officers of the Crown, both for England and Scotland, and of most of the "dead votes" of the party, will be found in the majority. The Household troops took the field in force on the occasion.' We look in vain to the speeches of the Home Secretary and of Sir William Clay for any explanation of the bill. The former apparently could not, and the latter would not give it. Had Sir William forgotten his character as senator, and spoken only as proprietor of some of the water companies concerned, he might readily have thrown light on the matter, but had he done so, the fate of the bill would have been sealed. Every one admits that the present supply of water in London is deficient in quantity, exceedingly impure, and far too expensive. These are the three things which need correction, and how does the

Government propose to effect it? The nine existing companies are to be amalgamated, their property to be taken at a valuation, and their stock to be consolidated. The one company thus created is to be invested with the exclusive right of supplying water to the metropolis, a Secretary of State being empowered to dictate the source of supply, and to limit the rates charged when the net profits of the company shall clearly exceed 5 per cent. on their stock. How these provisions are to compass the objects sought we cannot divine. If nine companies, though competing, to a certain extent, at least, have failed, what can be expected from one only, to which, moreover, an absolute and perpetual monopoly is guaranteed? As to the supervision of a Secretary of State, the thing is perfectly farcical. No practical man will deem it worth a thought. The members of Government have already more to do than they can accomplish, and no effectual oversight of water companies will therefore be maintained by them. The Times' puts the case correctly, when it says, Relieved at once from responsibility and hazard they may do just what they did before, with this single qualification, that a Secretary of State may curtail their profits if he can discover them, and may enforce his orders if the "necessities of patronage" will permit his meddling with a body which has "seventy representatives in Parliament." The last clause of this passage reveals, as we believe, the secret history of the measure. Seventy members are said to be interested in the existing water companies, and Government has succumbed to them. But if these companies are sufficiently powerful now to induce a ministry to damage its reputation by proposing so monstrous a bill, what can be the worth of that future supervision on which alone our prospects of improved quality and diminished cost are based? If the Home Secretary now submits to be dragged through the mud at the bidding of these seventy gentlemen, how will his successors manage to keep them in order in all coming times? The thing is too palpably fallacious to be relied on for a moment. As to the financial bearing of the question, it is difficult to avoid the employment of strong terms. It is an assertion,' says the Times,' and we cannot do better than quote its words, verified by calculation, and not inconsistent with probability, that the water service might be placed on a footing unexceptionable in regard to quality and quantity of supply, at a cost which, even after a fair purchase of vested interests, would effect a reduction of one-sixth in the present rates, and would, in thirty years' time, leave the service entirely free. In another form it has been credibly estimated that an outlay of 2,000,000l. judiciously applied, that is to say, a current expenditure of 100,0007., would furnish us with all that we desire. In the face of these unimpeached calculations, Sir George Grey is for delivering us tied and bound into the hands of a company who, over and above what they may please to term their expenses, are empowered to charge us 5 per cent. in perpetuity on a fictitious capital of 4,800,000l., and to borrow 2,000,000l. besides to draw interest from our pockets in like manner.' Such a measure cannot surely pass, and it will be well for Sir George Grey instantly to look about him, for some creditable mode of retreating from his position.

THE CHANCERY REFORM MEASURE OF THE GOVERNMENT has