The Sun. — London, England, 1839-06-21 00:00:00

EVENING EDITTON machinery of parental government was the com mencing of tyranny in the nursery. Parental g overnments were in the east rather th an i n th e wes t ; they were in countries where the rule was arbitrary, and not in countries where they were free institutions. If the L Hon. Gentleman asked him where was the system 1 carried on that was most provident of national educa tion, he would state that which was prevalent in Persia. If they left China, if they left Persia, and came to Europe, where did they find their system of national education ? Why, Austria was the China of Europe ; Prussia stood in the place of Persia. Where every thing was left to the Government, the subject must become a machine.—(Cheers.) He opposed the sys tem to which the proposition of the Noble Lord led on account of its injurious tendency to our national cha racter. The Honourable President of the Central Society for Education, and the school of philo sophers to which he belonged, lay down the principle that centralization must be carried to perfec tion—must be combined with every institution—hut the fallacy which pervaded that school of philosophers was that they usurped all virtue to political institutions, and alloxed none to the national character.—(Cheers.) He held it to be an undeniable truth that there might be the freest institutions in the world, and yet 6 - ere fight be an enslaved people.—(Cheers.) They might Me a Parliament freely chosen, but if there were a servile people as the electors for that Parliament, it might become an unbearably tyrannical one. He would take the instance of the Trial by Jury, the great bulwark of our liberties, the great guarantee or our lights : of what use would that great and glorious insti tution be if the twelve jury:nen were base men ? There had been times when the Trial by Jury was an infinitely worse tribunal than any belonging to the Inquisition. In the time of Charles 11. we iad the Trial by Jury in the same age with Titus Oates. He would take a period distant, yet not very remote, the age of those great barbari ans , b y w hi c h name th e H on . Member for Lis keard designated the councillors of the victor of Agin court—a time when England had as great men as she ever produced —men entitled to the highest name—the times of Pym, Hampden, of Seldom and Wentworth ; men, than whom greater never lived. Yet, who could suppose that the Parliament which had been adorned by such men, should, in less than a quarter of a century, have sunk into the most degraded and most. ignoble tyrinny which ever disgraced a free country. So much for free institutions. What occurred in the country during that time? The national spirit was destroyed—a great spirit of central organization was implanted in the realm—free institutions were secured for the people, but their rights as subjects were destroyed. it might be said, although these principles were correct they are too general. It was impossible to bring for ward a plan without ascertaining the princi ples, which was the foundation of the plans. They must take into consideration circumstances of a - very comprehensive and complicated character before they could decide as to the state of education in this country, because the state of education was not that which was described. Actually it might be so much improved, it might be as much advanced as could be, effected by human means during the course of half a c .ntury ; but the question to decide was not that the state of education was good or bad, but to what power they would entrust the education of the people. —(Hear, bear.) He was the 'advocate of national education, but it did not follow that he should be the advocate of State education. There was a great distinction between them. He (Mr. D'lsraeli) believed that this country was at pre sent mcee in favour of those sectarian exertions, which might ultimately produce general fanaticism, than of that which might produce general infidelity. There was more chance, if the Church of England were destroyed, of the establishment of the Fifth Mo narchy Men, than of the cold and barren system of in fidelity. He was convinced that infidelity was unnatu ral to the masses ; and it was his belief that after the Church of England should have been destroyed, then would succeed to the wildness of anarchy, a desire on the part of the population for that spiritual solace without which existence was to the millions intolerable — a desire for a Church supported by authority, by learniag, and eloquence—and it would then become a question what Church should be established. Now, the Church of England stood in different circumstances, as to the power of the Church of Rome, from those in which it had been placed in the 17th century. The Church of Rome appealed to the imagination irresistibly, and to the reason powerfully ; it was no longer kept down by penal enactments—it had the sanction of an unrivalled antiquity, and there was a much greater probability of its ultimate supremacy than of general infidelity. He thought it had been much too hastily assumed that education had been neglected in this country. It bad been mentioned as a proof of this, that in Manchester a school was esta blished in a cellar !—( Hear.) Now, for his part, he rather considered that as an evidence that the seed of education had taken so deep root in the country, that it would speedily fructify into gene rality—for such a fact would never have been predicted .50, or even 25 years ago.—(Hear, hear.) Now as to the rued districts, the late unfortunate afflir in Kent had been referred to, as showing the neglect of the clergy. lie, on the contrary, believed it was a trium phant proof of the necessity for parochial supervision ; for it was very remarkable that the district in which the riot had occurred was extra-parochial, and the inhabi tants were the scum of the surrounding neighbourhoods. He merely alluded to that to show how carelessly state ments were made, and how easily inferences might be drawn from imperfect data, by which every fact in illus tration of the truth was made the basis of a contrary argument. He believed it was an axiom in civil po licy that in proportion as they curtailed the duties of citizens, they perilled the rights of subjects, and he believed that had been done already to some extent. Tfiey bad already had recourse to a system of central organisation. What had that system not produced, and what might it net produce? And let them re member that the same system that tyrannised in the nurnry would again make its appearance, and operate in old age under the specious pretence of relief. It was always the StatQ, and n'vcr soci:ty—it was always ma- Wncry, and never syernatliy. By their s y s t em o f S tate cetion all were thrown into one mint, and all came out with the same impress and superscription. They might mike money—theyi might make railroads, but when the age ofpa.ision came—when these interests were stirring, which would shake society to its centre, then would they see what would become of the votaries of State education. Who, he would ask, had built their Z.Tiliversities ? Was it central organization ?—(llear.) --oho had built th_ir colleges and their cathedrals? W as it central or,„esinisation ? The time would come when they would find that they had revoletioniz .c 1 the English character, and when they had done that they could no longer expect English achievements. For these reasons, and believing that the proposition of the Noble Lord was contrary to the genius of the country-, he should give it his decided opposition. He objected to the manner in which the subject bad been brought under the notice of the Legislature. It was an important subject, introducing an Un portant change, and it was not decorous on such a great subject not to consult both branches of the Legislature.—( Hear, hear.) Were they so superior to the other branch of the Legislature that they did not require their counsel or their opinions to be con- ' sajted on such an important subject. The Constitution hart taught him that the Lords and the Commons were to be alike consulted. On matters of minor importance he did not contend for an appeal to both branches of the Legislature, but on a subject of this nature, which had agitated the society of this countryto its centre,he thought it was not. nroper to bring forward such a proposition in the languid summer months ; and how was it brought forward ? between a vote for the building of Palace stables, and a proposition for the establishment of d o penny postage. It was extremely desirable th it this question should not be dealt with as a _ par , , :y question, and the fault of its being so considered shout,` rest on the heads of those who had made i t a st Aing-horre for party purposes. He contended t h at th i s " . easure had not been introduced in a manner worthy o f ti l , a Government. Tuis di scuss i on oug ht to no to with calm minds, an d h ow • have been col. could it be so come tt, while the country was in a state of provisi anal insurre. - ction ? A most extraordinary docu ment bad been presb.nted to the House within the las t few days, a document o ?such a nature that they had been so frightened at it as to In\ - ak through the rules of the House, and suffer the Gentleman presenting it to enter into discussion.—(Cries of " No, no.") If they were not - frightened, why •did they permit that Hon. Gentleman to break through the rules of the House ? A petition signed by a million and a half of people, what . ever ignorance it might betray,howeverabsurd or excessive might be its demands, was not to be despised, and they should. recollect that to-night they were to decide as to how that people, and how their posterity, were to be educe ted. While such matters were passing around then :he thought it was not right that such a question F shoula' be met in a spirit of party.—(Cheer from the Alicist A qial benches.) He was glad to hear that cheer, but let the Goverament explain why thii measure was introduced in this manner to only one branch of the I L:gislattv - e• . Mr. WART could not but express his astonish ment at the, arguments of the Honourable Gentleman. If pushed t o t heir utmost extent, they would bring us back te a state of savageness, and throw the people back into that e t ,' ate . . of desirable uncivilization, in white, according to his own acknowledgment, some of 1 constituents were at this moment placed. The Hon. Gentleman 'had gone so far as to ex press a qualified approbation of a cellar life in IPthe town of Manchester ; now a more brutal . system of life be could not well conceive. The Hon. /Gentleman had stated that th ese persons . had a desir,, qeor inform ation and edu cation, and yet he withheld it from them. out a most The Hon. Gentleman had, indeed, drawn igseniou . s argument hi favour of what he it would call free trade in ignorance. —(Hear , hear.) The for leaving every man to himself, 1 'n Member was 1 b. • he pl e aded English i althoug h precedent and 1 Ana ' ^tion of antiquity for that new doctrine, he i , the sans ' that the system of centralization' i swa m as k . him to deny 1 had existed in England centuries ago.—(Hear, bear.) What was the systeM of the Universities of this coun try ? Let him look to the inscriptions on their ancient wails, from which he must draw the inference that the object of those Universities was to increase the educa tion known at that time. The Hon. Gentleman had asserted that it was part of the custom of the realm of England to let education alone. It might be very well that the speculators in railways should be left to them sdves, but it did not follow from that that human knowledge should be left alone. Let the Hon. Mem ber turn to the courts in the neighbourhood, and he would then ask him whether they were not founded on a system of centralisation of justice.—( Hear, hear.) The Hon. Gentleman had referred to China ; in that country there was something worthy imitation. What had maintained that country in its present state but its system of education ?—(Hear, hear.) In that country persons were promoted to offices in the State in consequence of their attainments. The same system had been adopted in Persia, and he could not see why it should not be adopted in all other countries. He be lieved the day would shortly come when that would teke place, and it would be a happy day for this country. The Hon. Member for Kilmarnock, adverted to what he termed the despotism implied in a system of inspection. Now he (Mr. E.) would ask how did it follow that in spection implied the exercise of a despotic, or arbitrary power ? Were there not already in this country in spectors of police, inspectors of prisons, and superinten dents in various forms ? but yet those being again sub ject to the inspection of that House and of Govern ment, were deprived of any despotic character they might otherwise possess. In like manner the House and the Government would inspect the proposed inspectors, " Custodes ipsos custodiet." The Hon. Member for Kilmarnock made his next objection on a religious ground. On the very threshold of his speech he laid it down that education in this country should be under the superintendence of the Established Religion ; and in support of this opinion he quoted some barbarous law Loin of a barbarous age—namely, that education was a " chose spirituelle." But the Noble Lord opposite would maintain that it was a " chose ecclesiastique," making the connexion of education more with the Church than with religion, and being more anxious that the people should receive the dogmas of the Church than the spiritualities of religion. The Noble Lord talked about the Eucharist, Baptism ; and other sacred subjects, which might with more propriety have not been brought into this House for discussion ; but it was clear that he intended to connect education with religion, less than with the secular discipline of the Church. lie (Mr. E.) meant nothing illiberal. He only inferred his feelings from the context of the Noble Lord's argu ments and those feelings, namely, that education should be connected with the Church rather than with religion. That, be (Mr. E.) was very much afraid, was at the bottom of that tender consideration for the souls of the people of which they talked so much. To show that education worked well on the Continent, when sepa rated from religious superintendence, he would refer to the interesting work of Mr. Chambers, and the writings of other gentlemen. Those authorities showed that the system produced the greatest harmony abroad. Again he (Mr. E.) would ask the Noble Lord, had the Go vernment system of education diminished religion in Ireland ? or whether, on the contrary, the documents that had been laid before the House did not show that religious feelings had been extended, and he might almost say, perpetuated by it ? A document he then held in his hand would show, that the system in Ireland now tended more to the promotion of true Christianity than the much lauded system of teaching pupils their Catechism and the Creed before they had imbibed the spirit of religion. But he would not longer refer the Noble Lord to Ireland, with which he must be so well acquainted. He would rather refer him to England, and to his own neighbourhood, to show how well the system advocated by him (Mr. Ewart) proceeded. In the town of Liverpool,. the inhabitants of which exceeded 200,000, there were two schools conducted on the principle of giving education equally to all religious denominations without distinction or pre ference of any sect, and their success had been most gratifying. In testimony of their success he would refer to the evidence of a converted opponent, who had examined for himself, being conscientiously de termined not to judge until he bad carefully investi gated. Those schools were under the superintendence of the Corporation. The testimony which he held in his hand stated that the writer first visited the school in the north-end of the town. He found that the head master was an Independent ; one assistant was a mem lee. of the Established Church ; the other was a Roman Catholic. The three taught together in the greatest harmony. There was the greatest opposition made at first to those schools, and that principally, he (Mr. E.) regretted to say, by the Clergy of the Established Church. These Reverend Gentlemen absolutely used to teach the children on their way to the schools, and they became at last so violent in their opposition to the children, that the orthodox people were obliged to send for the police to conduct the children safely to school. But a short time sufficed to dispel the delu sion that had been raised against the schools. The benefits produced by the schools soon changed the minds of th prejudiced, and the general conviction at present amongst the people of Liverpool was, that the schools which were open for all were for the benefit of all, and that it was quite possible for a system of sound religious instruction to 'be consistent with a sys tem of national education. The other school according to the testimony he held in his hand, was in the south end of Liverpool, and contained between 709 and 800 pupils. - The head master belonged to the church of Scotland, the second master was a Baptist ; the third a Church of England man, and those like their contemporaries in the north school, proceeded in their duties in the highest harmony. Of the pupils there were of the Church of England 294; Roman Catholics 323 ; of the Church of Scotland 12 ; Independents 15 ; Baptiste 20 ; Methodists 48 ; Presbyterians 6. He LMr. E.) would say that the success of the system in iverpool furnished an almost unanswerable argument in favour of the present scheme.—(Hear, hear.) And he would call upon Honourable Gentlemen opposite to satisfy themselves, as the late conscientious opponent, but now strenuous supporter of the system had done, by going to examine for themselves, and then they could not repel the evidence of their own senses in its favour. These schools were in fact more careful to incul cate theological knowledge and to inforce Bibl:eal truth than some of those Colleges which confer rol a degree for B.D.—(Hear.) When he (Mr E.) heard so much of opposition from the on. Gentleman before him on the ground of religion he was afraid he must attribute it to a determined feeling to maintain the ascendancy of the Established Church.—(Cheers.) This was his honest and sober conviction—(Cheers)—and such he believed would be found to be the conviction of the people of this country. —(Cheers.) He (Mr. E.) was determined in matters of education to maintain the supremacy of the State over the Church.—( Cheers.) And he trusted the time would soon come, when it would be impossible to gain say such a doctrine without being accused of attacking the very bulwarks of freedom. Ha maintained that it is the first du:y of the Sate to educate all its subjects equally, irrespective of religious opinions—leaving reli gion what it ought to be, a matter exclusively between Mtn and his Maker. In connexion with this kind of education, he thought the Government ought to throw open to the people public institutions, libraries, galleries of art and other spectacles calculated to refine and etc vete their minds. Notwithstanding the futile and some whet embittered opposition of the Hone Gentleman opposite—(Laughter and cheers)—he (Mr. E.) hoped the day was not far distant, when the people of this country would be brought up by the State in a system of physical, intellectual, and religious education.— (Cheers and ironical cheering.) He warned the Hon. Gentleman against the animadversions of future genera tions. In conclusion, he would say, that though the present scheme was somewhat stealthy, and also sc tray, it would be hereafter looked upon as the glory of the present age, and whether the future destinies of England should set in sunshine or in shade, the origin of the scheme of national education in the present time would be regarded as one of the brightest spots in our history.—(Cheers.) Mr. PLUMPTRE considered that the proposed mode of education would never give permanent satisfac tion to the people or the clergy of this country. What security had we that the Privy Council Board would be any, or all of them, members of the Established Church, or that they might not be as ignorant and as unworthy sons of the Established Church as was her Majesty's Prime Minister, who it was well known and well recollected had lately asserted in another place that lie could discover little difference between the tenets of the Church of England and those of the Church of Rome? This subject required the most grave and de liberate consideration of Parliament. He thought no original grant should be voted on so important a subject as national education until a Bill for that purpose had proceeded by regular stages through both Houses of Parliament. He might be told that similar votes, such as the vote for the College of Maynooth and the vote for National Education in Ireland had been passed by the House of. Commons alone. If that were the case he thought more was the pity. Those who charged them with uncharitableness charged them unjustly, and reasoned illogically. It had been said that because the country took advantage of Roman Catholic sinews and of Socinian gold, that therefore they were bound to give them th means of education ; but he would say that parties desirous of availing themselves of the be nefits derivable from a residence in this country were , bound to obey its laws and to contribute to its taxes, but the Government was not on that account called on to support them in their religious or political opi nions, however wild they might be, as it would be open ing the door to anarchy and error. Much had been said of Gentlemen on that side of the House presuming to judge others; such a charge came with a very ill grace from those who imputed motives in the manner the Hon. Member for Liskeard had done. He wholly denied the charge, but he had a right to form an opinion for himself, and he was a wise man who desired to form his opinion aright from true and legitimate sources. He would say that the man who denied the THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY, JUNE 21, 1.539. divinity of the Saviour held the most pernicious and fatal errors—so if the Roman Catholics told him he be bieved in the doctrine of transubstantiation and wor ship of saints, and prayers for the dead, he would tell him 11;s opinions were anti-Christian, whether he lived at Rome, Maynooth, or Oxford--(Hear, hear)—and if called on to assist him in establishing this doctrine, he would refuse compl:ance with his request. He believed Christianity was the glory and the defence of this country, but not that vague and undefined system of Christianity which would place the denying Socinun, the blaspheming Jew—( Hear, hear)—the error-holding Romanist, and the coldhearted formali,t, on the same footing with the humble and adoring be liever in the Son of God. Sir G. STAUNTON said that he was aware what ever side he took on this subject lie should be liable to misrepresentation. He had always been a warm friend to religious education, and anxious for its ex tension among every class, and as a private indivi dual he had contributed to the funds for the educa tion of the Dissenter and of the Roman Catholic. He regretted that some plan of national education had not been brought forward sooner. As far as the present plan went to confer that benefit on the Dis senter he approved of it, but he could not suffer that benefit to be accompanied by any act which should damage the National Church, or place those belong ing to it in a low.o- place. On these grounds he had rejoiced at the establishment of the London University, because while it furnished Nonconformists with a place for education, it preserved intact the institutionsof Oxford and Cambridge. If the Government could bring forward a plan giving Nonconformists every facility for education, and not trenching on the Established Church, it should Lave his hearty concurrence ; but the present was not such a plan—by it the Established Church was placed under the superintendence of a board of laymen. It was utterly impossible that Conformists and Noncon formists could ever be safely educated together. He had great reluctance in voting against this plan, and regretted that the question had assumed a party aspect. On minor matters he would give up his opinion to sup port her Majesty's Government, but he felt that on this occasion, although he should regret it exceedingly, that it was his bounden duty to vote against them. He felt that in questions connected with religion, he could not consent to any compromise whatever, and in the present instance, therefore, he felt bound, however reluctantly, to vote against her Majesty's Ministers. Mr. G. KNIGHT was most happy to think th it on the present subject he should agree with the Hon. Baronet who had spoken last, that this was not a party question.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted that the example set by the Hon. Baronet would be followed by many other Hon. Members. He felt bound to complain of the manner in which the present question had been treated by Hon. Members o❑ the other side of the House. He thought they might have been spared half the speech, and all the taunts of the Right Hon. Civilian who had spoken last night.--(Hear, hear.) The Members on his side of the House were not op. posed to national education, they only opposed the Ministerial plan. He thought the Hon. Member far Lambeth had treated the question much more candidly, and he could not but admire his courage when he as serted that the present question was one between the Church and the Dissenters.—(Hear, hear, hear.) In what condition, he would ask, were the Dis senters of England and Wales to enter into this discussion ? In England and Wales there were not above two millions of dissenters, while the popula tion was sixteen millions. Mr. O'CONNELL—Fourteen millions. Mr. G. KNIGHT believed he was correct in stating the population of England and Wales to be sixteen millions. From the two millions of dissenters, was to be substracted the Wesleyan Methodists, and if that was done the Dissenters of England and Wales would be a minority of eight to one. They had, there fore, no right to strugglo for pre-eminence over the Church of England.—( Hear.) If the normal schools, which was the plan of the Goverment, were to be adopted, there would be an equality with a vengeance, for it would reduce the Church of England to the level of those who followed the doctrines of Johanna Southcote. —( Hear, hear.) But then it was said there was to be a Board. Now what would be the effect of that Board ? Why, it would tell the people of England that the clergy were no longer worthy of taking any part in the education of the people, and it would be greatly to be feared that, the supporters of the Government being chiefly Dissenters, the Church of England would not have fair play. Certainly it would have been infinitely better to have trusted this pecuniary grant to the two Societies who had had the management of it hitherto, and he should wish it now to be left in their hands. He was anxious to promote the education of the people, but he could not give his support to any plan which seemed to him to be absolutely to pull down the Church, and totally to disregard and outrage the feelings of the public. Mr. GIBSON said that whatever objection he might I entertain to this Committee of the Privy Council, there was one which had proceeded from the other side of the House that he could not attach much importance to. That Hon. Member had said there was no member of that Committee who was a member of the Church. Now that Honourable Member had drawn an ex traordinary distinction between the . Church and the clergy. The articles told us that the Church con sisted of the cm,gregation of all the faithful—( Hear, hear)—and those four men were members of the Church of England, therefore it was not to be supposed that they would act in hostility to the Church. But the Noble Lord the MeMber for North Lancashire had said that the schoolmaster of Churchmen's children ought to be regulated by the Ordinary. Now . he, as a Churchman,. could not give his consent to that— ( Hear, hear.) He should be unwilling to impose func tions upon the Ordinary that lie was not qualified for. From his experience at Universaties, he should say that the schoolmasters were more fit to be put over the Ordinaries than the Ordinaries were to be put over them. In these times, when a number of schisms were springing up amongst religionists, if the Ordinaries were put over the religious instruction to be given by the schoolmstcrs, even to Churchmen's chit. dren, in his opinion nothing but great inconvenience would be the result. When the Noble Lord talked of setting up the Ordinary over the schoolmaster, it looked something like setting up infallibility ; and if the Noble Lord set up infallibility, he (Mr. G.) doubted whether the people of this country would not prefer setting up the infallibility of Rome to the infallibility of Oxford, the infallibility of Oxford being only of very modern date whereas Rome had prescription for its infallibility.— (" Hear," and laughter.) The Hon. Member for So mersetshire had said that the working classes of this country made no complaints, but that they had not sufficient religious instruction. His (Mr. C g 's) infor mation did not accord with that of the Hon. Gen tleman. The working people had loudly complained to him that they had nothing but religious insti uction. They had asked him why they should not he allowed to teach their children at home to pray ? why they should not be left to take them to Church on Sun days, then and there to receive religious instruction, and be educated et school in secular matters, and in things useful for their guidance in passing through life? But instead of that they said there was nothing taught but strange outlandish texts from the Old Tes tament—( Hear, hear)—and that they were taught things that never could be of use to them either in this world or in the next. They did not teach them their duties to God— they did not teach them their duties to man—they did not tell them of love, forbearance, and charity towards their neighbours—(Hear, hear, hear)—but they told them of Moab—they taught them to understand the positions of mountains—what they called the offices of angels, and such strange things as these.—(Hear, l i hear, and laughter.) He was quite sure that if he were to put some of the questions that were put to the chil dren at the schools to the Right Hon. Bironet, the Member for Oxford, he himself would be quite unable to reply to them.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Somersetshire had said in the commencement of his speech that he thought the House of Commons was a very unfit place for theological questions. He (Mr. G.) was much struck with that observation, and he quite agreed in the truthf i ot. He wished he could see the House of Commons, as a Civil Government, regard all the subjects of the realm as men, and not as s) many individuals separated into so many different re lig!ous sections—(Cheers)—but if they legislated on civil rights and civil advantages, with a view to re ligious persuasions, then it did not appear to him that it would be possible to avoid theological questions being discussed in that House. When the Noble Lord opposite first introduced this question, lie anticipated many objections on the other side of the House, which -he thought might never be raised, and the Right Hon. Baronet, the Member for Tamworth, said that for his part he did not think the t such antici pated objections would be raised ; that was, that lie should be an advocate for freedom of education. He said he should offer the most strenuous opposition to any plan that might violate the freedom of education—and that the members of the Church of England should have the same degree of freedom that they were wil -1 ing to concede to others. So far he (Mr. G.) went along with the Right Hon. Baronet, but when he was called upon to assent to a grant of public money out of the taxes paid by the people, in support of a system of national education, then lie felt bound, as far as he could, to prevent the Established Church, or any religious sect or society whatever, from imposing any conditions on the reception of that education, by any who might choose to avail themselves of it.—(Cheers.) He should object to excluding any one from the civil advantages of the secular education that was to be afforded.—(Cheers.) By freedom of education, he understood that which was to be free to the Church man, to the Roman Catholic, to the Unitarian, to the Jew—to all who might think proper to come to be educated.—(Hear, hear.) He should object to that freedom of education which was 'to form two monopo lies—one to the Churchmen and one to the Dissenters, if that was what the Right Hon. Bart. meant by his freedom of Education. Any one might be at liberty to aid such religious tenets to his child's instruction as he pleased, provided he did not thereby prejudice similar rights on the part of others. No human power could for an instant pretend to dispute the rights and preju dices of private judgment in matters of religion ; and when parents were persuaded that only a certain course could lead to eternal salvation, they were of course anxious that their children should receive no dif ferent impression. Let schoolmasters give instruction in religious doctrines in the morning, if it were thought expedient, to all who chose to attend, but the non-attend ance of others on that occasion was not to prevent the liberty to others to attend at another period of the day if they thought proper to receive secular education.— (Hear, hear.) Let only those who chose be at liberty to attend the religious instruction. The Right Hon. -Ba ronet had said, let us set up one monopoly and we will let you set up another, and that was what he called the freedom of education —(Cheers.) But he (Mr. G.) should object to any liberty of education that did not en title every British subject, paying taxation, to derive a corresponding advantage therefrom. —(Hear, hear.) With regard to the general and special religious given in the in structionnorma which lschoolmen .a ti s roponpedionsetd to hefir b s e t minute of the Privy Council, there were certainly great objections to that ; but lie did not consider that as religion—he looked upon it as sectarian ; and it was unfortunate that the ministers of all sects seemed to draw attention to the semblance of their sects rather than to the real or essential dfferences of their religion. He was surprised to hear a Noble and Learned Lord (Abinger) state at Willis's Rooms the other day:that he thought it unwise to give education or communicate knowledge to any person not of the Established Church. It appeared to him (Mr. Gibson) strange that the Noble and Learned Lord's judicial mind should not comprehend the policy of extending the blessings of education and improvement to all. He was surprised to hear him state that he would give no education to the enemies of the Established Church. H e reco ll ecte d the time when the Noble and Learned Lord was en gaged in theological disputation with the Rev. Mr. Cun ningham of Harrow ; and on that occasion the Noble and Learned Lord appeared to be convinced how very easy it was to differ upon religious matters,. He begged to apologise for having so long detained the House. He did not think that any case had been made out for supporting the proposition of the Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire. He believed the four gentlemen who had been appointedoto the Board of Education were as competent as could be found any where else.—(Loud cheers.) It might be that the op position to them originated in their being four Whigs, for they had been told that it was a party question. It could not be forgotten, however, that they were all members of the Established Church—(Cheers)—men of great talent and weight in the country. That their object in bringing forward the present plan was to make up for any deficiency there might be in the exertions of the British and Foreign and the National School So cieties. He contended, therefore, that in no point of view had any case been made out for so hostile and adverse a proposition as that of the Noble Lord. Although (he Mr. G.) had received the votes of the Conservative constituency of Ipswich, he had declared that he would be always the advocate of education upon the princi ples of civil and religious liberty—( Loud cheers)—that was the only principle upon which he was prepared to support a system of national education. Let secular be separated from religious instruction—and let Jew, and Roman Catholic, and Dissenter, receive, at stated times, the religious instruction they preferred.—(Hear, hear.) That was the only true liberty of conscience. He pro tested against the Noble Lord (Stanley's) reference to Henry IV. and Chief Justice Holt, and to the phrase so frequently referred to, of the " Children of the Church ;" as if, forsooth, they were such when they were born, and that the Clergy had some prior claim to them. He (Mr. Gibson) recognised no such claim, and he should prefer hearing the schoolmaster de clare himself a member of the Church of England, but totally independent of his Ordinary.—( Hear, hear.) Talk of the "Children of the Church!" He would re mind the Noble Lord of what Locke said on that subject—" We cannot say that a child is born of the Church, nor can we take faith as an inheritance, other wise it would descend by tenure as land." He pro tested therefore against the Noble Lord's doctrine, as if the clergy were authorized to take possession of the minds of the people, and instil into them what doctrines they pleased. Such a doctrine had not been broached since the time of the Reformation, and it appeared to him as if they were setting up their hatred of Popery in proportion as they approached it, on the principle which philosophers put forward that the nearer re ligious sects approached the more they hated each other.—(Hear, hear.) He trusted the House of Com mons would attend exclusively to the civil rights, instead of taking up and discussing the religious opinions of the people. If that were done, they would no longer have the present difficulties to contend with. They would no longer have to decide whether a man should learn arithmetic because he belonged to the Established Church, or another geography because he happened to boa Jew. He could not understand upon what prin ciple it was professed to mix up religious instruction with secular education. He knew not why it was pro posed to found a sum in multiplication on the doctrine of justification by faith.—(Cries of " Oh ! oh 1" from the Opposition benches.) Hon. Members could not deny that such propositions and such doctrines bad been pro pounded. He contended that attempts had been made to teach religion and secular instruction at the same time. He had seen in the National school books upon that principle —he had_ seen the alphabet taught in this way— " A is an angel that praises the Lord, • B is the Bible of God's Holy Word ; C is the Church, to which righteous men go, D is the De%il, the cause of our woe." —(Much laughter.) The Hon. Member concluded by expressing his determination to vote against the amend ment of the Noble Lord. Sir H. VERNEY could not give his assent to many of the propositions which he had heard propounded from the other side. For instance the Hon. Member for Kent (Mr. Plumptre) said the country could not expect any permanent good from the plan of the Go vernment. Now, as he understood the matter, it was , not proposed that the plan should be a permanent one. So far as it went, he gave his cordial assent to the Government in this plan, and was quite willing to take his share of the opprobrium which it involved. The Government were placed in a position of much diffi culty. No other matter could they have introduced which would have caused them more danger from what he would•call the Ihigious jealousy of the Church. It was said it was the intention of the Government by this plan to weaken the Established Church—if it .was so, he would not be among their supporters, and if it appeared that any such intention existed, "or that such a result would follow the a.,'.option of the plan, be wculd at once leave them. He knew how easy it was to throw odium upon any gentleman who deserted that party with which he usually acted, bat upon such a subject as this he honoured any man who did so, act ingconscientiously, and thanked his lion. Friend behind him (Sir G. Staunton), for so bone,tly and fairly stating his opinion. It appeared to him that the plan was far too limited—the sum to be granted was to small, and he hoped that, as the good of the plan became known in the country, some means would be devised to raise a laraer sum for so good a purpose. He apprehended that it would be a matter of much difficulty to get the poorer classes to send their children to a school which was exclusively under the superintendence of the Clergy.—( Hear, hear.) For his part he would be most happy that his Right lion. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, would endeavour to improve Church property, and that the enormous increase might be ap plied to the purposes of education—that was a plan which he should like to see adopted ; but he fully believed that the working classes for whose ben; fit the schools were wanted, would not send their children to a school which was under the direction of the clergyman of the parish. He spoke upon the subject from an experience of schools of from thirteen to fourteen years, and he had always found a great ea'ouay existing on the part of lliisenters when schools were under the exclusive superintendence of the Church. Those who had found so much fault with the plan pro posed by the Government had not propounded any scheme of their own ; it was very true that of late years the Church had bestirred herself, and had made many successful attempts at education, but their exertions were not at all adequate to the demand. One great objection made to the plan was that the schools would be under Government inspection ; he was most de cidedly of opinion that that was a part of the plan which ought not upon any account to be abandoned. It was a paramount duty of the Government to secure the peace and welfare of the people by providing for them a good system of national education—( Hear, hear) —and if the Government or the Parliament made a large grant for the purpose, he saw no abuse in their watching over its appropriation in a very strict and narrow manner, and he sincerely trusted nothing would induce the Go vernment to give up that part of their plan. He be lieved the school the Government had in view as a model school for those whom they assisted, was a very large one situated at Norwood, for the children of de. ceased parents. A better school there was not in Eng land ; and if the Government could cause to be esta blished many like it, they would confer an essential be nefit on the country. It was said the proposal of the Board of Privy upon the Church, and th a t i t wou ld wea k en its power. The Councillors threw obloquy Minutes of the B oar d sa i d no suc h t hi n g. There was to be a Chaplain of the Church of England in every school, therefore the charge was not in any way borne out.—(He ar , b ear. ) He thought it was the paramount duty of the Government to introd uce so me system of nat i onal educat i on, : w hich would be . in r eality deservin g t h e name o f a n ational system.-- (Cheers.) The re was not hi ng i n the world so dange rous to any country as os having ignorance. a large l n population grow inggr up in a state o fthis great me tropolis there was an enormous popu l a tion growing up in a most dangero us s t ate o f i gnoran ce_a greater dang er did not exist in any other part of the world, and it was the duty of the Government to do all in their power to abate the evil. The Government had his sincere thanks for attempting to remedy an evil which he conceived was every day becoming.more aggravated. Sir ROBERT INGLIS said the Hon. Mem ber for Ipswich, whom he did not see in his usual place (Mr. Gibson was conversing with Mr. Finch on one of the Ministerial benches), but whom he did see,in the place to which the speech he had that evening delivered most properly belonged—(Tory cheeri)—and who bad received the Papal gift, in this instance, of the loud and repeated cheers of the Hon. and Learned Member for Dubin—(Hear, hear, and laughter)—on which he (Sir Robert) could not congra ' tulate him, had thought fit to refer to him (Sir Robert Inglis in the course of his speech, in so pointed a way as had induced him instantly to rise. [The Hon. Baronet addressed the House in so low a tone of voice that we heard him but very indistintly.] The lines which the Hon. Member for Ipswich had quoted, were _the common lines used in Infant Schods ; and if the Hon. Membcr said those lines wue ill adapted to the instruction of children, he did not understand on what principle the Hon. Member wished Infant Schools to be conducted. There could be no better method of educating children than that, and which the lion. Gent. himself might adopt in his own ❑ursery. The Hon. Gentleman bad alluded to certain doctrines held by same persons connected with the University which he had the honour to represent. Those were not doc trines for which the University of Oxford, as a body, were in any degree responsible.—(Hear, hear.) They might be correct or incorrect, but they were in no way adopted or supported by the University.—( Hear, hear.) But the University was responsible for the petition she had sent to that House, and he (Sir Robert Inglis) was willing to take his share of the responsibility attached to that petition, She was also responsible for her op position to the Governm,nt plan cf education, and in that responsibility also it was his delight and pleasure to share. The Government scheme, although changed technically, and in a slight form, no one who was anxious for the religious instruction of the people could assent to. for the evil of it could not be remedied by any modifi cation. Let no man deceive himself into the belief that the evil could be remedied so long as the Board of Privy Council coutinued.—( Hear, hear.) It was not, es the Hon. Member for Ipswich supposed, that they doubted the President of the Council, or the President of the Seal, or any individual who might be in the Ad ministration—it was not that they doubted them, but what they said was, that it was proposed to transfer to to a body of laymen a function adlich he'onged to the Church. He contended that, from time immemorial, under the Romish Church as well as under the Reform Church that now existed, the education of the people had been the legitimate prit ileg,re of the Clergy.—( Hear, hear.) If the Church of Rome were again triumphant, she would be the last that would allow any other institution the right to educate her people.—(Hear.) The plan of the Government, in the first place, trans ferred to a body, not directly or necessarily connected with the Church, functions which belonged to the Church ; and, in the next place, it deprived the Church of that which did belong to her. Could the Hon. Member for Ipswich deceive himself into the belief that men who held those Mitrtisterial offices, would al ways be men favourable to the Church?—(Hear, hear.) Did he not remember that the Test and Corporation Act was repealed ? Did he not remember that the Roman Catholic Relief Bill was passed ? The Privy Council might admit members who were not of the Church of England—it might admit members of the Church of Rome. The Hon. Member for Ipswich, who did belong to the Church of England, and whose aspirations were warmly in favour of the Church, although his vote was not, was bound in common fairness to admit that the Church of England would not be very safe in the hands of such persons.—( Hear, hear.) Then it had been said the Church of England had very much neglected her duty. He was not prepared to defend the state of the Church of England in the eighteenth century. There had no doubt been a great apathy, and which perhaps might have prodaced the results no v seen—( hear, hear, from the Ministerialists)— but they were not to legislate in 1839 upon the state of the Church in 1750. They were to take the ener gies of the Church of England, as they now saw them displayed, and they were to ask themselves whether there could be found so good an instrument for the particular purpose on which the House was called to legislate, as they found in the Church herself. The question was not whether in former days the Church of England might have ade quately discharged her duties, but whether in the pre sent generation of her sons she was not fully occupied in diffusing the blessings of education. They had received statistical accounts relative to crime from which they were told it was clear that the Church of England had been lamentably deficient in doing her duty. Those accounts told two ways.—(Hear, hear.) He had a return of the number of prisoners in Newgate at a period so far distant from the present as to make it clear that the account could not have been prepared for the purpose for which he now used it. The return comprised 52 boys, committed for various offences, from the 17th October 1821 to the 12th of March 1822 ; and they were classed as follows :-19 were taught to read there, 16 not having had any previous instruction ; 18 were taught in schools not in connection with the Church of England ; 9 had no instruction ; 6 were taught in schools belonging to the Established Church. Was he not entitled to say that such was the superiority of the mode and principles of instruction in the Esta blished Church, that whilst 18 of the prisoners had been taught in schools not in connection with the Church, 6 only in connection with the Church were in the same prison. Surely that argument, if good for anything, was appli cable to the present case, because no one could deny that the majority of persons nominally professing. Chris tianity were. in favour of the Church.—(Hear, hear.) He could not agree that instruction in mere writing and arithmetic deserved the name or education. The Hon. Member for Ipswich had asked, why should not a boy learn arithmetic without learning the doctrine of justi fication by faith?—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir R. Inglis) grieved to hear such a question asked. The Hon. Member had endeavoured to excite feelings of ridictde by the m de in which he made that remark. He (Sir R. Inglis) contended that even the elementary parts of education might be connected, and ought to be con nected, with Christian instruction. The pervading principle of religious feeling ought to be prominent in the mind both of masters and pupils. H the Honourable Member for Ipswich said that man was an immortal being, he (Stir R. Inglis) called upon him, on the ground of that immortality, to neglect no opportunity, in any circumstances, to prepare them, and guide them into the way of peace and everlasting happiness. That was the object of their being here, and anything v. hick diminished the chance of obtaining that result was clearly short of universal charity. That universal charity could never be obtained by the com promise of any principle.—( Hear, bear.) If a parent or teacher had a just sense of Christian care and re spensibilitv, he would not sacrifice the opportunity of instructing those children, and therefore the ministers of he Church of England would not consent to the un ho'y alliance proffered to them by the Government under this plan. The Hon. Member for Lambeth had asked, " What is truth ?" That question was asked 1,800 years ago. If the Government believed the doctrines of the Church of England to be the truth, let them not sanction that which they did not believe to be the truth. Those who had influence in a nation, were hound to promote that, for a nation, which they would promote for their own family or parish. Every man was responsible to God for the power given him. Those Honourable Gentlemen who held office under the Crown, were bound to use their power for the pro motion of truth. But would any tell him that the Egan of the Government did not tend to the promotion or that which they believed to be untrue? They ad mitted that their design was to extend the benefits of national education to those who now required it, not to those belonging to the Church merely, but to persons of all descriptions. But it was said that Roman Catholics, Jews, a;;d Dissenters paid their portion of the national tax.s, and therefore ought to receive a certain portion of the national income. But did nny one refuse to pay for a gaol because he did not use it, or refuse to pay for a public road, on the ground that he never traversed it ? It was inseparable from a national system that it should be supported by those who did not belong to it. He understood nothing of a national establishment of reli gion which all were not bound to support, although it was not bound to support all. Those who wielded the power of the State ought,so long as establishments con tinued, to make them the object of their care. With these views of the duty of the Government to uphold the cause of religion on their own individual obligation, he could not understand how his Noble and Right Honourable Friends could justify themselves in the aid they were now giving to those whom they believed to be in error.--(Hear.) He was very much deceived indeed if the plan-proposed by the Government was calculated to give happiness to the people of this great country here or hereafter. There, perhaps, he might have sat down, but he felt bound to say that the manner in which his Right Hon. Friend, who had closed the debate last night, had addressed the House, had given him great pain. It gave him pain to bear a man like his Right Hon. Friend, who held a high office in the Church, throwing his authority into the scale in favour of the Government plan. If there was any truth in his (Sir R. Inglis's) arguments, those of the Right lion. Gentleman would go for nothing, for they never could bring together under one roof those who differed on spiritual subjects.—(Hear, hear.) The House had hoard that from all the petitions that had been presented against the present plan ; they had heard it from the Roman Catholics of Mayo, they had heard it from the great body of the Wesleyan Methodists, and they had heard it from many of the other bodies of the Dissenters. Never was there a subject on which petitions from all sects and denomi• nations had been presented in greater numbers than against the proposed Government plan of education. It had been asked were the petitions that had latterly been presented against the present Government plan ? He had already stated that they were. Indeed he had presented a petition which actually referred to the day of the adjourned debate ; it could not therefore be said that the country had m'staken the object of the plan. H e believed the number of petitions on this subject had been unexampled. The only support the plan had received was from those who in the House constituted the great number of the supporters of the Ministry, who out of the House made the most noise in their support, but who neither in that House nor out of it really represented the wishes of the people. Mr. O'CONNELL had intended only to have spoken to the general merits of the question, but as he had been so pointedly referred to by the Hon. Baronet opposite, he felt bound to notice some of the opinions he had put forward and some of the mistakes he had made. He would begin with the least material, the number of petitions that he had stated had been presented on this subject. He admitted that a great number of petitions had been presented against the Government plan, but those petitions were miserably deficient in signatures.—( Hear, hear.) There had been 1,600 petitions presented against the plan.—(Cries of 3,000.") He held in his hand the last return of the number of petitions, and there they were stated at 1,600. Not more than three or four of these petitions had been printed, because they were all so similar that it was not necessary.—(Cheers.) To those 1,609 peti tions there were attached only 165,729 signatures ; while on the subject of the extension of the franchise to Ireland there were presented only 192 petitions, but the signa tures amounted to 170,942. From Scotland 611 peti tions had been presented relative to the extension of Church accommodation, and to those petitions there were attached 141,370 signatures. Upon the subject of what was • called Orange domination, or in other words the approval of the course pursued by her Ma jesty's Government 710 petitions had been presented, to which were attached no less than 550,356 signatures. What did this prove ? Why the dexterity of the sup porters of the other side of the House in getting up pe titions in great numbers, but a want of tact in obtaining signatures to them.—(Great laughter.) All the petitions that had been presented against the plan were so similar in appearance, that they ap peared to have been begotten at the same time.— (Increased laughter.) It was a gross mistake to sup pose that the good sense of the people of England was in favour of a bigoted plan of education.—( Hear, hear.) The attempt to raise the No Popery cry, had signally failed.—(Hear.) It was growing weaker and weaker every day.—( Hear, hear.) lie (Mr. O'Connell) regretted to see the Noble Lord, the Member for North Lancashire, supporting it, because he considered such support unworthy of the great talents of that Noble Lord. The Right Hon. Baronet had laid it down as a principle that it was the duty of the Government to show a pre ference for Protestantism ; but how were they to ehow this preference ? They ought to carry out this prin. ciple. It was not sufficient not - to encourage that which was not Protestant, they ought to go further, and not be content with supporting truth, it was their duty to proscribe error.—(Cheers.) Let them work out their principle if they could, let them carry it out if they dared—(Cheers)—let them exclude Catholics from the Legislature. He was there in spite of them now ; let them send him out if they could.—(Cheers.) They had already tried exclusion, and had found that it would not serve their purposes. Under a system of exclusion the Catholics had multiplied immensely in Ireland, and had rather been on the increase in England. Let them therefore take up the good old Spanish plan, and burn, and thus work out their principle. But he would tell them they could not work it out—the principle was a bad one —fatal in politics and unsound in religion—because that was no legitimate rdigion which would attempt to force consciences. —(Cheers.) Force might make hypo crites, but persuasion alone could make converts.— (Loud cheers.) The Right Hon. Gentleman had in sinuated that his opinion, to which he had given expres sion, was in opposition to the opinion of the Catholic Church. He would tell that Right Hon. Gentleman that he held no opinion as a Catholic which was in oppo. sition to the opinion of the Catholic Church. He sub mitted to the authority of his Church, and if he held any opinion which was not in accordance with the opinions of that Church, he would at once give such an opinion up (Loud cheering) he subjected himself' entirely to the Church. He begged pardon of the House, but the Right Hon. Baronet had taunted him, when he denied the accusa tion, that he considered him an heretic. He had no right to judge him.—(Cheers.) He believed his opinions to be erroneous, but he believed he adopted those opinions with sincerity, and with caution, and if he had taken the trouble to investigate, and had been baptized in the Christian Church, believed him to be a member of the Catholic Church, if he had adopted those opinions with caution and sincerity. He felt that he had no right to judge him ; it was a matter between his God and himself ; to God alone was he responsible, and not in any case had a human being a right to judge him. Oa this subject all were equally irresponsible —(C,heers)—and whether it were a paltry bribe for a school or for a place in the Excise, or for a seat on the bench, or for a precedence at the bar, all these were of the same category—all belonged to the same princip'.e of persecution. The Right Hon. Baronet had' no right to persecute him, and he had no right to persecute the Right Hon. Baronet.—(Loud cheers.) He had thought it right to diserntarass the subject of this topic, and he now proceeded to the question before the House. He had shown how signal had been the failure of this attempt to revive the "No Popery" cry. They had the power of the Established Church, and the well or ganized machinery of the Wesleyan Methodists to back them; and yet how paltry had been the signatures which they had obtained.—(Oh, from the Opposition benches.) When he said.so he meant to cast no doubt on the respectability of the parties who had signed those peti tions, but certainly the signatures were paltry in point of numbers. What was the question the Government had proposed by the minute of the 11th April? the formation of normal schools, and in that minute they had proposed what, strictly speaking, they had no right to do, that a chaplain should be appointed for the exclusive instruction of children belonging to the Established Church. It was perfectly right the children belonging to the Established Church should have religious instruction, but not at the expense of the Catholics and Dissenters, for whose instruction no Chap lains were appointed at the public expense. Thus the Esta blished Church, by this plan, was placed in a more favourable position. The funds for supporting this system of edu cation were not taken from the Established Church—no part of the revenues of that Church were divested for tl e purposes of defraying the expences of these schools. Those expences were to be defrayed out of the general funds of the nation, to which the Members of the Protes tant Establishment, the Dissenters and the Catholics of the three:countries, alike contributed ; therefore, so far a Government plan gave the Established Church a decided advantage, which was not consistent with strict justice—but he would Oct therefore have departed from the plan, because on such an important sulject as edue,e. den he would not look t) any little advantages on one side or the other. The Noble Lori proposed that the children of different religious persuasions should be educated in common. lie thought that nothing could be more desir. able in this country, which was separated into 50 or 60 difforent religions persuasions, than to take advantage of the unsophisticated feeling of youth, mitigating in after days the bitterness excited by religious ddference.s, and thus endeavouring in some degree to assuage the angry pas sions,l which might arise, in consequence by the re collections of childhood. The Honourable Mem ber for Soinersetshire had slid that this experiment was tried and had never succeeded ; he denied the fact ; he admitted that it had not been tried in Prussia, for the Ca tholic children were there educated under the instructions of the Catholic clergy, and the petition that bad been complained of so much, the petition of the Archbishop of Tuam and the clergy of his diocese, what did that peti tion claim ? Did it claim that the Catholic clergy should have the superintendence of the education of the children of the Protestant establishment ? No. That they should superintend the education of the children of the Dissen ters ? No. But merely that they should superintend the education of the Catholic children. But what the Right Hon. Bart. claimed was, that the eduction of the Dissen ters, the education of the children of Roman Catholics, the education of children of all religious peruasionse should be under the exclusive controul of the Established Church. —( Cheers from the Ministerial benches, and cries of " No, no," from the Opposition.) He knew that the Right lion. Baronet, the Member for Tarnwortb, had not made this assertion, but what the other Right Hon. Baro net had said was this, " You shall not educate your own children, you shall all go under the yoke of the Esta blished Church, and submit to the inspection of the Esta blished Clergy ;" therefore, he contended for the same es the Archbishop of Tuam, and he had no right to impugn, as he had done, the opinions of the Catholic Clergy of Connaught. The Hon. Member for Somersetshire had begun by signifying his dislike to enter into pole mics, and it was fortunate he had done so after the statement he had made; he had then indulged in a splendid panegyric on the Established Church of this country for having educated a greater number of children than any other sect : granted, they had done so. That was a reason for not making any grant to them : they had funds enough already. He had expected, after this splendid description of what the Established Church had done for the promotion of education, that the lion. Gentleman would have said " See what we have done ! see what funds we possess! we ask no participation in this miserable Government grant; we will give up the whole to you, who do not, like ourselves, enjoy possession of eight mil lions a year." But instead of that they were not content, but said—" We have so much, now give us more," —(Hear, hear)—thus reminding him of the personage in the Old Testament, who, not satisfied with the possession of his own large flock, would have the solitary ewe belonging to another.—( Cheers.) , He would now come to the Government plan of the 3d of June; in that plan the Government had given up the system of normal schools; he was sorry they had so far yielded to public clamour. lie had hoped that a more healthy spirit Lad been abroad among the English public, and they would not have objected to a plan which proposed that the tutors of each religious persuasion should be educated in common. Let them be educated in co mmon on the grounds of the general religion, while on s He had religion each should be educated separately. beard that this division of religion had given great offence, su t e h h at ;m th ,f e u r lto w p c ic re s thoughtn e r ita l and der special gatory to their common Christianity, to suppose i ohne into ge not many points on which they were not all agreed. He (Mr. O'C.) durot hardly speak upon ten of the Sermon on 1 int hat House. The Noble Lord (Ashley) had dwelt for an hour upon them. He had spoken )_teeNoble Lerd said it. He e dinary merit, or but a Had and ear. ) Mount, and said that he t t e l d e s u a g n t e a tio it n. p_es ( s i, e j s o se n d o no exutra t ,: r l : 1 Pardon him (Mr. (Mr. O'C.) heard him say so emphatically, and with much pain and sorrow. But did not that Sermon pos s e ss a cha.. EVENING EDITION. ratter of the most sublime and amiable • Christianity ? has it not spoken in behalf of the meek, of the hungry, and thirsty, for justice sake, of the administration of justice and no rev, and of the blessed peace makers ?—(Flear, hear.) Those were the merits of the Sermon on the Mount. He (Mr. O'C.) did not for a moment doubt the divinity of it. But let th em f orget t h at di v i n i ty an d con trast its principles with those of the Pagan philosophy of the same time, with its self exaltation, its triumphs over enemies, its vengeance upon those who might be in one's power contrast thoe with the principles of that solemn Sermon, and tell him (Mr. O'Connell) then, could it be believed that an English nobleman of the nine teenth centesy would rise up and say that he found no thing of sublime divinity or morality in that Sermon ? (No, no, and Hear, hear.) He ( Mr. O'Connell) bad heard the Noble Lord say so, and it teas now published for him, and if he were here he was sure the Noble Lord would have the manliness to avow that he had said so. The Noble Lord also referred to a chapter in Isaiah re specting.the prophecy of the Messiah, and placed a dif ferent construction upon it. But was not the Noble Lord mistaken ? Would not some of them admit that the Sscrmon on the Mount was an admirable piece of general instruction, and might be read in harmony by Christians of every denomination at the same time ?—( Hear, hear.) Would it not be. the working of a mighty good to convince all children of the wisdom and Christian obligation of prac tising the precepts of that Sermon ?—( Hear, hear, Lear.) He (Mr. O'C.) was sorry that the normal plan had been given up----he hoped it would he revived in a better time. The Hon. Member for Sornereetshire said that in Prusia the religious persuasions were edu cated apart. Now he (Mr. O'Connell) implored the Right Hon. Baronet, who was so convinced of the superior merit of Protestant over Catholic education, to refer to the account of the morals of Prussia, as illustrated in the 4th chapter of the work, recently from the pen of the well known Chaplain cf Chelsea Hospital, the Rev. Mr. Gleig, the author of the " Subaltern," and other talented works. The Rev. Gentleman stated that the observance of the Sabbath in Prussia was most exemplary, though it was relaxed in the evening, and that the general tenor of the lives of the Prussian Catholics was most pure. Look, then, to Mr. Laing's book on Sweden, where the reforma tion was successful, where the Clergy were respected, where education was widely spread, but where the preva lence of crime was dreadful. His ( Mr. O'Connell's) only object in referring to this contrast, was not to give pain, but to induce moderate reflections on both sides. He would not leave education without religion. Let them be educated together as far as they could, and then sepa rately, whni important religious distinctions arose. He would caution systematizers against the inherent vices of the system they supported. But if their plan bad in some degree failed in Prussia, it had been completely successful in Holland. He knew that some mistaken fit - m.6es amongst the Calvinists in that country were de claring off from this general acquiescence. The Hon. Mem ber for Somersetshire knew the reason, but he would not tell it. The excuse they alleged, however, was the advance of Catholicity ; and no doubt the Catholic religion was ad vancing in that country as well as in this ; but was that a reason why the experiment should not be continued ; if it contained nothing unfair and unjust, and if it developed pure Christian knowledge, and gave the adherents of every persuasion an opportunity of arriving at sound convictions. —( Hear.) But the normal plan had been given up; the present plan merely asked for a sum of public money, not belonging to the Established Church, which they had not. The Hon. Member for Kent seemed to think the Catholics came out upon him for some of his money. He said you believe in transubstantiation, and so he (Mr. O'C.) did. You believe in the efficacy of prayers for the dead, and so he did ; and one of their own Judges the other day said that it was a salutary thing to pray for the dead.—(Heart hear, and laughter.) You believe in the sacrifice of the mass, and therefore you want me to give you some of my money.—( Laughter.) He (Mr. O'C.) certainly did want money from him, but it was only some of his own. All be wished to say to the Hon. Member was, that he believed that he upheld some dangerous errors—that he respected his pre judices, however—that he did not mean to put his hand into his pocket to take his money, but that he (Mr. O'Connell) only humbly begged that when the Hon. Member put his hand into his (Mr. O'Connell's) pocket to take out his, money, that he would let him have his sh are .—( Hear and laughter.) This was but common sense, and it' it were , what was the converse but swindling and robbery ?—( He ar, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet talked much a bout Christianity, and he believed him ; b u t if h e (Mr. O'Con nell) were to put his hand i n t o hi s pocket for money f or Catholic education exclusively, wou ld lie not call it robbe r y ? He demanded only the same a d m i ss i on f rom hi m . He would , however, tell the Ri g ht H on . B arone t t h a t he was not wise in discussing thi s ques ti on —h e was no t w ise in apply" ing it to the W es l e y an M e th o di s t s .—( H ear , hear.) Now, to what did this Go v er n m en t pl an p ro p ose ? I t proposed i t to take the grant, and to di s t r ib u t e a grea t p or tion o f a to the National School Soci e ty, w ith w hi c h th e y Wine be satisfied ; more than h a lf o f th e mone y, i n fact, was to be given to this Society. No doubt they would maker 11°1 objection to that application, and he wou ld not qrre with the Right Hon. Baronet or the Hon. Member for Ipswich upon that ground. Next came the British and Foreign School Society. He did not know what they thought of that. Oh, nosy he saw a beam on the counte ' trance of the Right Ron. Baronet the Member for Ox ford, significant of his favour of the Foreign and British School Society ; but universally the Dissen ' ters were to receive another large portion of the money. Su it had taken place last year, and the year before ; but then the Noble Lord the Member for North Lancashire, was silent. What raised his Noble wrath now ? It was the "No Popery" cry. He made no com plaint while the money was distributed between the Na tional School—the British and Foreign School, and the Dissenters, but the moment - - a miserable erumb--•-the moment a paltry remnant was proposed for the instruc tion 0f the Catholics, the Noble Lord rose in his place and cried out against it. The lion. Member for Maid ' gone complained of the manner in which tbo Govern ment brought forward the question, but the question was not brought forward by the Government; but by the Noble • Lord opposite, in moving the resolution to get rid of the order for going into the Committee of Supply. The Noble Lord wished to get rid of the four Noblemen who would superintend the di t-ibu i n. The Hon. Member for Lambeth had justly said that he had never heard a speech of such bitterness or malignity as that which the Noble Lord had made against any grant to the Catholics. He (Mr. O'Connell) had already shown the trickery and delusion practised in the ' petitions. The Noble Lord had claimed the powers in ordinary, and in referring to the French passage in the reign of Henry IV., he chou'd have blush 0:11'; from tie time Pope Gregory IV. sent Austin th e M on k - to convert his ancestors, to • the time of Henry IV., not a single law against dissent or freedom in religious life was passe' —( Hear, hear, hear.) Then in that reign was rol l the infamous statute °' De Heritico C om b uren do, on the otherwise illustrious William of Wykeham, who, bu t for his conduct then, would have been long since canon' ized among the Saints, disgraced himself by condemning [ the heretics, while the act consumed them by slow fire. William of Wykeham, however, carried cut his principles; r he did not act half way en them, as the Right Honourable ' Barcnet did. It is said (continued the lion. and Learned Member) that the Established Church is so triumphant in its numbers that it ought to engross all the State bounty Now I like statistics, Before the Reformation there we re 97,000 places of worship in England, with one-third of t he ' present population a n d one - twent i et h o f t h e wealth. What has h ippened since, with all your reformation and all you r zeal ? Why th e number of Churches in th e Establishment' . is 11,825 ; there are no parliamentary documents showil • the number cf Di s s en ti ng meet i ng h ouses, b ut f r om ea euhstions I have seen, I believe the number, including chapels, to be 8,716; the proportion of nine to twelve ; taking the population of England at 14,0000 0 ' according to the last census, there are only 8,000,000. be- longing to the Establishment; 6.000 000 Dissenters an • Catholics. Between Ireland and Scotland there were 8,009,000 Dissenters and Catholics; and scarcely 1,000,000 of the Esteblishment ; so that altogether there we re 1-1,0:!0,000 dissentients t o 9,000,000 Conformist=.—( H ear ' hoer.) And do you su pp ose t h at t h e re l at i ve num b e rs °‘ t the different persuasions are to be calculated by the relative number of the Churches? Remember that your Churches were built without any ex p ense t o t h ose w h o now worship in them ; recollect th it there are many unoccupied Churche s in London, and other large cities ; remember that the pre sence of a Church does not always prove the presence of a . congregation, whereas th e p resence o f a Di ssent i ng meeting house, or a Catholic chapel, not only proves the presen c , of a congreg,tion, but a wealthy one._( Hear, hear.) make these statements to teach Honourable Members some degree of moderation.— (Hear, hear.) I wish not their money, and when they rob me of mine, I only want them not to come down upon me with the " No Popery" Ye ll ' because I ask them to do some justice to Catholics and Dissenters.—( Cheers.) You have, it seems, fallen greatly in love with the Wesleyan Methodists. The Noble Lord ( Stanley) praised them highly. I did not hear the Hon. Baronet (Sir R. Inglis) praise them. I believe them, however, in private life to be a very moral set of men — with their religious opinions, I have nothing to do, but I deny their right to any respect, as having shown themselves of any great political utility. Their history is marked ; the first political movement of John Wesley was his encourage ment, some say by writing the address to the Protestant As sociation, in 1780, which ended in what is now celled an onnete, in the burning of part of the metropolis; ce rtainly he signed some very inflaionatory letters in support o f these principles, doubtless n o t wi t h a vi e w to excite the outrage that followed. The post hoc is not the prop ter hoc, but certainly the treasons and burnings did follow those letters. I should be glad to hear any one step in the pol limal his tory of the Wesleyane, which would show their zeal f or civil and religious liberty. I never knew them join the p em eal jo o i f n th to e rest Test of a t n h d e C P e r o r p t e e s r t a a t n i n t n D A i s c s t e s n . ter s I to n e o v b e t r a i h n n t e h w e r t h e I knew them to be violently- 1 will not say m a lig- Hear, hear.) obtain the emancipation of the Catholics ; on the contrary, apnedtitoiofnt,hweihrenri You exclaim betcoauslet.—th(ey now join you in the "No n i n a n theirtly opposedfasrenr Popery" cry. But I warn you that you stand on trea cherous ground, when trusting to their support. Hear the g t h h t ey to sp f e u a l k l i o ci f ig th ,b e u ir s t% o ' n hich, they deem it a violation that they ' opposition to the intended scheme —upon the strong first paragraph liberty- 0 be taxed for teaching a system of religion which they s . c i i n en t c h e e , ir consider " false and injurious." Sir, I wish not to use ground of harsh language, but I am bound, on my faith, to deem their doctrines " false and injurious," and I demand, on their principle, that I should not be taxed for the teaching of such doctrines.—( Hear, hear.) Remember, your's is m a t , n th d edi r s e t c , t , o b r r ie e s t , hre h n aisL ( n L o sug a h tt t r e a r c , t a i n o a . rich Church ; at, think you that your stalls, and bishop rics, should y rt e c u s r , b ar• ) You think that they differ only slightly from you. I know not how you scan your religious differences, but I know they differ in discipline; they have their own teachers ; they differ from your system of parochial supervi - Sion, and your hierarchy. Oh, let their principle be heard in Ireland, and on their first quarrel, they will turn upon you, and say " You embraced us when we held that re''' gioua freedom was violated by the payment of tithes," &c. (No, no, from the opposition.) Oh, you don't understand it 1—( Laughter.) If they do not consider your doctrines s erroneous, why should they separate from you ?—( He ar, and Hear, for e there . hear.) And after you have taken the " armed man upon "i Perfu n c °Ltpli If. h . t i! that 0, er rors bear. ) Ih e 'ta n eq ua ec iu th, kept !ant. k e i t elle( out opi Act He