"Our London Letter" The Norfolk News, May 11, 1872.

With Monday commenced a series of debates which will be almost unintelligible to the English reader, for on that day the discussion on the Scotch Education Bill began. Directly the orders of the day were announced, amongst which this bill was first, the house practically resolved itself into a kind of Scotch Committee, to serve on which but very few English members volunteered. Most of them speedily lapsed into a state of coma. One gentleman whom I will not name, and who sat on the end seat of one of the benches below the gangway, was so lost to the cause of Scottish education, that he nodded till his chin became a fixture on his waistcoat, and he was in imminent danger of tumbling off his perch. Mr. Disraeli has the happy knack of going to sleep in such a manner that the deeper his slumber, the deeper his gravity apparently becomes, and the more statesman-like he is considered to be by Conservative strangers who admire him from the gallery. He was very statesman-like on Monday. Mr Gladstone was not asleep, but he looked as if he very much desired repose. Sir James Elphinstone and Sir John Hay, who as Scotchmen felt bound to remain, were both wandering at intervals, and would very much have preferred a debate on the Naval Estimates. The universal apathy was certainly to be excused, for Mr. Gordon, the late Lord Advocate, who had an amendment against the Bill, is about one of the dullest speakers that ever graced the House of Commons. He is a hard, dry Scotch lawyer, and he leans over the table and emits a hard, dry clatter, very much like that of the internal machinery of a flour mill. From beginning to end, not one syllable of sentiment escaped him ; and when he talked about "religious education," he did so just as if it were a kind of drill for a squad of recruits. For my own part, I do not pretend for a moment (for reasons which must be obvious) to criticise any thing he said, save one sentence only which did by chance penetrate the clouds. He was arguing that it was the duty of the State to educate children in "religion," that is to say, to make them do the "Catechisms, Short and Long," and to commit to memory the "Whole Duty of Man" and what is called the "Scheme of Salvation." The State, he maintained, in a system of national education, took the place of the parent. Nobody could deny that it was the duty of the parent to attend to the child's religious training, therefore it was the duty of the State, &c, &c. This was a very pretty syllogism, a fine specimen of professional logic, the major premise including precisely what was sought to be established in the conclusion. For some time the debate was very one-sided, as there was an evident desire on the part of the Liberal members to get into committee as soon as possible. On the other hand, the Opposition were most anxious for delay, and their oratory was very extended. Sir James Elphinstone reminded us of the "Cottar's Saturday Night," and concluded from that well-known poem that the State should be our theological instructor. Sir James is, I should think, the very first person to whom Burns seemed to teach that lesson. However, Sir James was was merely intending to fill up a gap - a somewhat ignoble duty which he is always ready to undertake, and it really did not matter what materials he used. Mr. Bentinck enlarged on the ancient theme of the danger of separating secular from religious teaching. Something must have happened to upset him for he broke out in a most curious and comical attack against Mr. Disraeli, whom he used as an illustration of the danger of a godless training! It was altogether unprovoked, and moved the House to much surprise and laughter. I have observed that Mr. Bentinck gradually fills with hatred to Mr. Disraeli from time to time, and when it reaches the brim, over it goes, wherever he may be, whether there be any external cause for the overflow or not. On this occasion, he absolutely went out of his way to gain the desired opportunity. Nobody, he said, could dispute the skill in writing possessed by the member for Buckinghamshire. Yet in his younger days he had written a book entitled "The Revolutionary Epic," which might more appropriately be called "The Regicide's Manual," so abominable were the precepts it inculcated.. The moral was, that without the Catechism revolutionary epics might be produced to an alarming extent in national schools. I think most people who have read "The Revolutionary Epic" will say - even those who have the most conscientious objections to the catechism - that if the use of the Catechism will prevent a crop of such poems as the "Epic," by all means let every child in the Kingdom be taught the Catechism constantly. For some time, it seemed as if Mr. Glyn was confident of victory. At any rate, no unusual precautions were taken, while the other side strained every nerve. Multitudes of members who would have voted against the amendment if they had been properly summoned were away, and when they were wanted it was too late to send for them. I more particularly noticed the absence of Mr. Fawcett, Sir Henry Hoare, Sir Charles Dilke, and Mr. Bernal Osborne, beside other gentlemen of lesser importance. The result was that at last, when the division came, the Conservatives had a majority of seven, the announcement being received, as a matter of course, with the most vociferous cheering. The winners naturally will not admit that their victory was anything else than a triumph of purest principle. It was really, however, the result of the simplest bungling.

The first business of the House to-night consisted in wasting a large portion of most valuable time over an amendment of Mr. Hodgkinson's on the Ballot Bill by which it was proposed to limit the exposure of candidates at elections within a certain prescribed sum. Mr. Hodgkinson himself spoke for a quarter of an hour or so, and when the amendment was put from the chair an overwhelming majority declared against it. Nevertheless, the Ayes insisted on challenging the Speaker's decision, and the bell rang for a division. The House was very full, and there was great difficulty in getting members into the building. When they were all assembled, the Noes so much preponderated that there were loud shouts of "Agreed." However, a division was forced, and the result was a majority for the Noes of about four to one. Mr. Sclater-Booth next endeavored to persuade the committee to abolish Clause 1, and to return to the old principle of public nominations. He admitted the evils of public nominations, but he asserted that those evils might be remedied by the giving power to the returning officer to adjourn the nomination in case of disturbance. Much amusement was caused by Mr. Wykeham Martin arguing against nominations by means of a passage from Mr. Disraeli's "Coningsby," which the House evidently did not recognise till its authorship was revealed. Mr. Disraeli himself seemed rather flattered than disturbed by the reference to him, although he certainly was made responsible for opinions against which he would now vote.

A SILENT MEMBER