The Sun. — London, England, 1847-04-23 00:00:00

---.— Worthy of the Noble Lord, worthy of the name he bears, and he believed that the career of the Noble Lord would be yet the brightest illustration of that name. Sir JOHN PAKINGTON desired to offer his thanks to the Noble Lcrd (J. Russell) for his course upon the present question, and to tender hita his support. There was no part of the Hon. Baronet's speech tha he dissented from so much as that portion which allege d that the Government plan had been triumpliant;y re futed. So far from agreeing in this opinion, he thought that the case of the Government had been most clearly and conclusively maintained. Why had the speeches of the Hon. Members for Finsbury. and Durham been so feeble ? Why, but because that they had no system of their own to propose—no scheme or plan on which to proceed. He considered the opening speech of the No ble Lord at the head of the Government had anticipated every objection, and completely made out the necessity of the proposed grant. Fortified, as that speech had been by the able speeches of the Right Honourable Member for Edinburgh, and the Right Hon. Baronet the Home Secretary, little remained for him to say. H e wou ld only refer to one point. It was that which proposed to leave out certain Dissenters from participating in the grant. He could not agree with that exclusion. As a member of the Church of England. and also as a member of the National Society, he wished to deal with the subject before them in a charitable spirit. There were several most important institutions in the country which would not be eligible for the grant. He might instance one of the most valuable establish ments in the country, at which the children of the Churchmen and the Dissenters met together, and were educated, in the most harmonious manner. No difficulty whatever had ever arisen on account of religion. The establishment to which he referred %.• as King Edward's Grammar School at Birmingham. The Hon. Member then read an extract from the rules under which the school was managed.—The following was a statement of the children of the different persuasions in that school:— Church of England 798 Independents Wesleyans Baptists Socinians Lady Huntingdon's 8 Jews 4 Roman Catholics 4 Swedenborgians Calvinists 1 Quakers This: large school was conducted in this harmonious manner. He confessed that he wished most earnestly that he could confine the schools in such a manner as to give religious education to the children, in accordance with the principles of the Church of England ; but, whatever might be his own private opinion on the sub ject, he must allow some weight to the principles and opinions of the other great sects and parties throughout the country.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the ar guments of her Majesty's Government, in bringing forward this measure, perfectly conclusive, and he hoped that the attention of Government would be shortly turned to the condition of the labourer, and to the sanatory condition of the people of this country. He must confess, however, that he was to some extent dis appointed, because her Majesty's Government had not proceeded in a more comprehensive manner than they had done upon these subjects.—(Hear, hear.) Mr. HUME was anxious to say a few words upon this subject, as he mu , t say that from promises and pledges given by the Noble Lord the Member for the city of London to his constituency he did expect to have seen a plan more comprehensive than that introduced upon the present occasion. The Noble Lord stated in the com mencement of the present session that he was prepared with a mere extended plan of general education, and he was quite surprised that at the present time, when a vote . of 700,000/. was taken for the army alone that the paltry sum of 100,0002 only should be required to carry out the plan of the Government with respect to the education of the country. He thought that the people of England were willing to bear a much larger sum for that purpose.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon Member for Edinburgh (Hr. Macaulay) had made a most eloquent, and a most forcible speech upon the subject, and the arguments brought forward in that seeech were in his opinion perfectly unanswerable, and be most cordially agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle. man in considering the present state of education in Scotland as resulting from the improved and general system of education which prevailed in that country.— (Hear, hear.) The system of establishing schools in every parish of Scotland was a most desireable and effi cient one, and one which he should be most happy to see carried out in this country. He quite agreed with the conduct of the Prussian Government, in prosecuting the education of the people, he believe with the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, that it was the duty of every Government to do its utmost to promote the education of the people, and he regretted to hear any Hon. Member in that House say that it was not the duty of the Government to endeavour to edu cate the people. He really thought that that was one of the first, if not the first, duties of the State. He could not reconcile the statement of the Hon. Member for Derby, that the people of Scotland could most of them write a good letter, and yet he went on to say that the people were little better than " barbarians." He would dismiss the subject from his mind, and hurl back the charge thus made upon his country, by saying that the statements of the Hon. Member were perfectly incon sistent and irreconcileable. The Hon. Member then proceeded to contrast the state of education in Prussia and the United States, where a system of State edu cation prevailed, with the state of education in this country, where there did not exist any general system of Government education. The result of the analysis of crime in England fur the last three years, showed that there was a decrease of 32 per cent, in the countries where the people were best educated. Mr. Neeson, who made out these tables, made it evident that wherever there was crime there also was ignorance, and the complete absence of the means of education. To show that Mr. Laing never intended to say that education did no good, he would refer to the ob servations he made in favour of the penny postage, of which he was an anxious supporter. Ile agreed with Mr. Laing that every measure ought to be sanctioned which even indirectly promoted education. He was told by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, and the Noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests, that they were beset with difficulties in this measure, and that they deplored they could cot carry out a more extensive system of education. He maintained that it was the right of every ono to have education, and it was not a matter of toleration. A Catholic or a Dis senter was as good a man as a member of the Church of Eglano, and had as good a claim to the advantage of State education. He did not assent to the character of moral courage which was so generally given to the Noble Lord.—(Hear, hear.) On this question the Noble Lord displayed the greatest cowardice. He was afraid to take the course which his judgment approved, and sculked in the most shameful manner from the adoption of the right course. Ile was going to answer the grounds on which Mr. Baines proceeded in his opposition to the education scheme, but he would not allude to Lhem now. His own opinion was, that the dissenters and the members of the Church of England ought to be put into the same boat and sent across the channel. Ile thought an effort should be made to unite all classes, and he did not doubt, judging from the evidence they had from Holland and from Ireland, that this was practicable. He thought if her Majesty's Government agreed to appoint a Committee to enquire what each party wanted, that means could be devised for this purpose. They adopted such a pro :reeding with regard to the navigation-laws, the poor-laws, and other questions, and he did not doubt, but if this were done with regard to educa tion, a mode would be pointed out to reconcile all differ. ences. When Holland was under subjection to France, at the time of the French revolution, an attempt was made by France to give education combined with reli gion to the people of Holland, and this attempt was met by the ministers of the various creeds in a spirit of good will. The consequence was ; that the clergymen of the different persuasions and the schoolmaster—each in their respective sphere—carried out the intentions of the Government. The next case he had to bring before them to show the practicability of combining a religious and secular education, was the national system of education adopted in Ireland, and he would refer to the 9th report of the National Board, to show the per fect success which had attended their efforts. He attributed much of the crime which existed in this country to the religious differences which prevailed; and those who fomented them could not lay their hands on their hearts and say, that they were doing their duty to God and man; and if crime could be repressed by education, as he thought it might in a great degree, it would be cheaply purchased at 500,000/. a-year, instead of 100,0001., or at almost any cost. He considered that the state of things in this country required a greater and more comprehensive measure than the one proposed, and if' the Committee sought were granted he should be able to prove that a truly national system of education might be carried out without any of the evils which appeared to be involved in the Government plan. He also considered that there ought to be a Minister of Instruction in this country, assisted by a board of persons selected from the most competent in the community, to whom the task of superintending the education of the people should be intrusted. It was on these grounds that he felt it his duty to vote for the amendment of his Hon. Friend. Sir W. JA MES said he should support the plan of the Gcoomveerneft.,.because h e considered that the time had when it was the incumbent duty of the State to promote the education of the e people by every means in its power. If they wanted that of this necessity, it was to be found in the fact tout of every 100 of the population, only from 30 to uld read, and that 1,000,000 or 800,000 of the children, and wereeflt3he poor were re ceiving no education at all r o e u a r g e h d t up to rapine, as it were, as a profession. eilt was in him that a great proportion of the public feer favour of the plan. Looking at the state Church, of the different dissenting denominations,tethe there was as large a mass of public in favour of it as was ever given in support of any other public tneasure which had of late years engaged the at tention of that House. The Hon. Gentleman the Mem bet. for Montrose was the only one in that House , who had advocated a compulsory system of education ; but he did not agree with him, as he considered that the plan of aiding the voluntary efforts of benevolent indi viduals was the best that could be adopted, and that a compulsory system was foreign to the habits of the people of this country.—(Hear, hear.) But where a school was required in a district, such as a colliery district, where there were no benevolent persons to aid it by voluntary contributiens, he thought that the state should step forward and provide the necessary funds.—(Hear, hear.) He was strongly opposed to a secular system of education, as he considered that reli gion was an important part of education ; yet he be lieved it to contain more of good than evil ; and, there fore, he would not deny that mode of education to those of his fellow-countrymen who were in favour of it, TITE BUl N s___ LONDON, FRIDAY E . v NI N APRIL Q 3, 1847. the people, or rather, I believe that the State ough t not to educate the people. Well, Sir, what do I find -v /hen this measure comes under consideration ? When I in vited the attention of the House simply to discuss this subject, I find the Hon. Gentleman who moved. the amendment, who was considered to be the Congrega tionalists, the Baptists, the Dissenters, and Anabaptists, has not in any part of his speech declared in far our of this principle, nor has he in any part of his speefth de fended the grounds urged against the state's educating the people. I really thought that bek,re he spoke I was to suffer under the same sort or indictment which the clerk of Chatham undergoes when he is brought before Jack Cade:—" Here is a fellow whom we have found who can read and write." Oh, the monster, we found him setting copies to a boy. Oh, the villain."—(Hear, hear.) I really thought some such charge as that would have been made against us, but after three nights' debate, with the exception of the Hon. Member for Durham, every Hon. Member who has addressed the House has spoken in favour of educa tion by the State. The resolution sets forth that it is contrary to the duty of Parliament to provide State education—that this measure is calculated to increase the powers of the Crown—that it would undermine the constitutional functions of Parliament, and interfere with the religious rights of large masses of the people. Looking at the first part of that resolution, I can form no other opinion than it was intended to constitute a censure upon us who have introduced this measure. Yet some of those who mean to vote for the resolution, say they do so only, not because they wished to throw any blame upon the Government, but because they were anxious for inquiry. The Hon. Member for Durham has, however, declared himself strongly against the in terference of the House with the education of the people, and he declared at the end of his speech, in rather curi ous words, that certain consequences might follow the adoption of this resolution, to the House. That is the Honourable Gentleman's opinion, he argued it, as indeed he always does, with great force and power ; but I must protest against one part of his speech. The Hon. Gentleman said that with regard to the Church schools we admitted an inspector, who was a clergyman, who inquired into the religious sects and the religious instruction of the pupils; that he had beard we intended to make the same inquiries with regard to Dissenting schools ; but he was convinced no Government dared interfere in that manner with Dissenting schools. Now what has there been in our conduct to induce him to make the imputation against us ? Have I not always taken my part along with others in bringing to an end the religious disabilities which fall upon different sects. The repeal of the Test and Corporation Acts we pro posed and succeeded in carrying against the Govern. ment, and we did the same when in Government with regard to many Acts which conferred heavy disabilities upon Dissenters. I think certain sects were obliged to have their marriage solemnised in the Established Church, but they objected to the terms used in the Church ser vice, which was a hardship upon their consciences, and was carried through both douses of Parliament, a mea sure by which they were freed from such obligations, and they were allowed to conduct their marriages according to the obligations which they could conscien tiously undertake. What right, then, has the Hon. Member for Durham to impute to us a wish to interfere with their religious feelings ?—(Hear, hear.) There was, however, another ground of opposition which was taken with respect to this measure—taken here, and taken also at the meetings held in the country. It was said at these meetings that the Government are pre pared to go so far that all distinction between truth and falsehood would be lost, and it was in point of fact repre sented that their principles were latitudinarian. Sir, that objection was taken to this measure, and it was evi dent at the time that there was preparing a very great opposition to this measure on the part of the Dissenters, because it was understood that it would not embrace Roman Catholic schools. In their re solutions these opponents stated that they con sidered it a great hardship and a great injustice, that Roman Catholic schools could now come within the terms of the present minutes. This was a strong opposition coming from parties who opposed the May nooth grant. I find amongst those who voted against that measure the name of the Hon. Member for Dur ham, arid I cannot understand how the Hon. Gentleman can complain of an omission now which a short time ago he would have considered a grievous error.—(Hear, hear.) But, Sir, I come now to the statement of the Hon. Baronet the Member for Suffolk. The Right Hon. Baronet who last spoke entered into some further explanation of our conduct with regard to this matter. The Hon. Baronet the Member for Suffolk has gone much into detail upon this subject, but he omitted several important passages when he read from the correspondence which took place with the Secretary of the Wesleyans. I must state that that correspondence vtas unsought by the Government, but was brought about by Lord Ashley. (The Noble Lord then pro ceeded to read a passage from the correspondence, in which it was stated that the Council intended to take into consideration a minute for making grants to Roman Catholic schools, which would be brought forward in Parliament after the public had had sufficient time to examine its bearings.) Now, I say, continued the Noble Lord, that passage entirely frees us from the charge that we have been endeavouring to deceive the Wesleyans, by inducing them to believe that we had no idea of making grants to Roman Catholic schools. I think this passage entirely puts an end to the charge of the H o n. M em b er opposite, that for the sake of pleasing the We s leyans the Roman Catholic body was to be overthrown. Now, Sir, the observations of the Right Hon. Baronet who last addressed the House makes it necessary for me to recall, for some minutes, to the recollection of the House the occurrence of 1839. We proposed at the commencement of that year that there should be a model school, and with regard to Roman Catholic schools it was provided by the minute of the committee of council that the Douay version of the Bible might be introduced for their use. That part of the proposition excited great apprehension and alarm, and a strong opposition was got up through out the country against it. Feeling that a very general resistance would be made to the plan, it was the opinion of the Government that the only course left them was the one pursued afterwards by the Right Hon. Baronet opposite, namely, to withdraw the measure, seeing and feeling, as they did, that it was not likely to meet the approbation of the population of this country. Other minutes were then proposed, to which great ob jections were also made ; and the principal of these objections was, that the Government had not entirely given up the notion of, at some time or other, reviving those former minutes authorising the use of the Douay version in the schools, and, so far as I can remember, there was no person more strong in his opposition than the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Dorsetshire (Sir J. Graham). Upon that occasion the measure was car ried by a majority of only two. The large minority upon that occasion, it was supposed, did in a great de gree, represent the opinion of the country. A large portion of them were possessed of a dread of seeing the Roman Catholic schools established under such cosditions. The impression upon my mind was, that however ami able it might be to extend aid to the Roman Catholic schools, that for some years to come we should have to make our choice between aiding all the other schools belonging to the church and to protestant dissenters, and not aiding theß?lnan Catholic schools, or o f giving up all hope of assisting education altogether.—(Hear.) My conclusion, and the conclusion of those with whom I acted, was that the better way was to go on giving what aid we could, by the adoption of which course great benefits might be produced, although we could not say that we were satisfied with th e t erms w ith respec t to the Roman Catholics.—(Laughter.) That which excluded the Roman Catholic schools was, that they were to de rive aid in connexion with the schools of the National Society, or those of the British and Foreign School Society. It was that regulation which shut out the Ro man Catholics in the years 1839, 1840, and 1841, during which time the Whigs were in office ; and it also shut them out from the years 1841 to 1846, i n w hi c h p er i o d the Right Hon. Baronet . (Sir J. Grah am ) was a mem b er of the Government. If, then, th e Ri g ht Hon. Baronet was of the same opinions then as he is now, that would have been the time to have impressed his opinions upon the minds of his colleagues.—(Cheers.) I think, Sir, that the Right Honourable Baronet had the ex cuse which we thought a valid one the ex cuse which we had in the years 1839, 1840, and 1841 that the opinion of the' country was so strong upon those points that :the whole aid to education would be endangered by bringing in the subject of the Roman Catholic schools. lam happy to hear the Right llon. Baronet say, with respect to the authorised version, that the Vulgate used by Pascal and Fenelon was good enough to be recommended by the Committee of Council. I do not know exactly what version was used by Pascal and Fenelon, but the Right Hon. Baronet must be aware that in English schools the Vulgate would be of little service.—(Laughter.) Was it desirable that the Govern ment should now add that element of conflict to that which they had already had to endure ? Had the Government revived the proposition of 1839 in favour of the Roman Catholic schools we should have been unable to carry the vote which we now propose.—(n ear , hear.) I say that, in spite of the great liberality shown in the debate.—(Hear, hear.) A remarkable instance of the unwillingness of the House to give further aid to the Roman Catholics took place but a few days ago. A. Bill was introduced by my Hon. Friend the Member for Kinsale (Mr. Watson) relieving the Roman Catholics from the penalties to which it appears to me so obvious that they should not be subjected to, that I do not know any Hon. Member can make a decent argument against the measure.—(Hear, hear.) The Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth (Sir R. Peel) and the Noble Lord the Member for Lynn (Lord G. Bentinck) and the whole of the Members of the Government, voted in favour of going into Committee on the Bill, and notwithstandi ng this the second reading of the Bill was only carried by a majority of 3, and upon the next stage of the Bill it was defeated by a majority of 38. If the Government professed that the rule made in 1819 should not be altered in 1846, if we have not time to deliberate upon future minutes to be made, it is not to be said that we have, especially upon this occasion, excluded the Roman Catholics from this grant. My opinion is that we should have failed if we had attempted it now; but it is possible that we may be able to frame minutes, by the terms of which, when Parliament is next asked to grant, and to those schools, Roman Catholics may be included with other s, and where there is a poor population, may also have the benefit of this grant, — (Hear, hear.) The Government has not con cealed their opinions upon the subject,. we say we will not force P ar li amen t to come to an immediate decision upon the subject, but we do take afavourable view of the education of the Roman Catholic children. I do not agree with the Right Hon. Baronet (Sir _ .c J. Graham), that there is a reason why the Catholics should be included in the present vote. included in the hin ath it ol f i ar s more likely to succeed if they next vote, or in another vote upon the subject. And the dI think the House and the country will a.,..,ret, w e terms upon which such grants will be made. subject did not, o t t , Sir, expect that this would have been made a b the present debate; I thought that the rule which had leaving the religious portion of the education to the ' clergymen of the different denominations, and to the parents of the children. He perfectly concurred in the remarks of the Noble Lord, the Member for Arundel, (Lord Surrey), who spoke so much to his credit the other night.—(Hear. hear.) As, he said, that although those of the Roman Catholic persuasion were not to participate in the grant that he should not, on that ground deny aid from the funds of the State for the purpose of aiding in y p r e o t m h o e ta' ng (Sir Iv . James) edification c o o n u g l d s t n o o t h t e h r e s l p e c ts. thinking(fl ear that h , h a t e a t r. h e ) exclusion of that portion of the community would be another Catholic disability.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the speech of the Hon. Member for Durham was one more against the Church and the aristocracy than anything else ; and he regretted to see a Gentle man, who had attained such a position in the country, would come forward and give utterance to such preju diced sentiments as he had done. Sir JOHN EASTHOPE said it was with the deepest regret that he saw her Majesty's Government submit to consult the expedieney of the moment, which they had done in the present measure. There were great objec tions to it, and there was one greater, and that was the unfortunate compromise made between the Church of England and the Wesleyans, by which the Catholics were excluded.—(Hear, hear.) He admired the speech of the Noble Lord (the Earl of Arundel), and he hoped that the Wesleyans would from it learn true sentiments of Christian charity. Mr. SHARMAN CRAWFORD said it was his intention to vote for the Hon. Member's amendment, for he did feel that the measure of the Government was a violation of the rights of the people, and was a violation of religious liberty, because it gave undue advantages to one sect over another. He was as anxious to support education as any man in the House; but the exclusion of the Catholics was most unworthy of the Govern ment. He did give great praise to the Earl of Arundel for his speech, but it emanated rather from the goodness of his heart than anything else; but be would say that the people of England would respect the Catholic body if they stood upon their rights, for he did not know on what principles any Catholic Member in that House could vote for the proposition of the Government. The Methodist bodies in the town of Rochdale were not parties to any compromise which might have been en tered upon. They had commissioned him to present many addresses, which embodied the truest principles of religious liberty. On the subject of the Maynooth grant, he was one of those who opposed that grant, on the ground that it was hostile to civil and religious rights, and he now opposed this grant on the ground that the civil and religious rights of the Catholics themselves were interfered with. He did not wish that the Church to which he belonged should exercise any undue influ ence over the religious or civil rights of any sect which differed from it. For these various reasons, he would give his vote in favour of the amendment. Sir W. MOLESWORTH entirely agreed in the opinion of the Hon. Member who h'ad last spoken, and Kith the Hon. Member for Montrose, that a system of national secular education. divested of every interference in religious opinion, would be far preferable to the measure proposed. With regard to the measure itself, the first question was, should the Government interfere at all in the education of the people ?—secondly, to what extent it should do so ?—and, thirdly, as to the nature of the education to be given by them ? There were many opinions upon this subject outside, in favour of the non-interference of the Government under any circumstances ; but he would ask whether it was not the duty of every Government to promote the interests of the public and of the Government by educating the people? The Government should teach the people the difference between right and wrong, as that alone would make them willingly obedient to the laws ; and,:there fore, the education of the people was a matter of primary importance to the State. He thought that the State should educate the people. With regard to crime, they were at that moment at their wits' end to prevent its increase. He was chairman of a Committee which had to deliberate with reference to this subject, and they could devise no means to prevent its increase. Although good gaols and good gaolers might in some degree cheek the progress of crime, yet he thought that good schools and good schoolmasters would check it still more. No person objected to large expenditure on the part of the State in matters of less importance than the education of the people, and there should, therefore, no objection be offered in any expenditure fur that edu • cation. He would ask those who were the opponents of State interference, if there were not hundreds of thou sands of people in this country too poor to educate their children ? How then were they to be educated, except by private charity, under which such an efficient system of superintendence as could be exercised under a na tional regulation would be impossible. Many of these educational charities, especially those supported by voluntary contributions, were deficient in funds, depending upon accidental donations for their resources, to increase which they were obliged to have recourse to the most unfortunate, and he might almost say degrading solicitations. If he were a member of the humbler class he should f ee l it more consonant with his feelings to have his children educated at the expense of the state than by private charity. He should rather claim the education of his children from the State as a right, and to which he was entitled for the benefit of the community, than receive it from the uncertain bounty of his fellows citizens, from whom he should take it as a boon and as a favour.— (Hear, hear.) The next question was as to what extent, and in, what manner the State should interfere in edu cation? In his opinion the State should interfere so far as that, no children should from want of means re main ignorant of so much of the elements of an educa tion as would tend to save them from crime. —(Hear.) This system should be carried out without reference to creed or belief. There had been three methods pro • posed in which this interference on the part of the State should have been made, of which he considered that the only practicable one was the proposal that the State should contribute to the support of the alreedy existing schools of each sect. The dissenters of a certain class had, to some extent, thrown an obstacle in the way of the last measure which he had mentioned, as they had a consciencious objection to receiving any grant from the State. In our eastern dominions the people were some times in danger of perishing by starvation, from the failure of the rice crop, and the Government attempted to remedy the deficiency by supplies of animal food, to which the people had an insuperable objection, founded on their religion. lie thought that what food was to the body, education was to the mind. the last objection to which he would refer, was a very grave one. It was the proposition to leave out the Ro man Catholic altogether. He had been much astonished at this arrangement, and up to this week he believed no one out of the Government knew that such an exclusion would be proposed. He regretted the interpretation which had been given to the minutes of 1839. This in terpretation had not, however, been given to it till 1847. Since 1839 till then, no such interpretation had taken place. The Noble Lord said, that as soon as Roman Catholics applied for the grant their application would be taken into consideration, but that, as yet, no such ap plication had been made. This was, however, incorrect. In February last a Mr. Langdon applied to the Council in respect to the educational grant, and Dr. Kay Shut tleworth replied to him, that their Lordships would, if a definite application was made to them in respect to the Roman Catholics, they would give it their most careful consideration. That this was the interpretation of the minutes would seem to he the case, from the proceedings of the Wesleyan Committee of Education, in March and April 1844, according to certain letters and documents of theirs, published in last week's Watchman. To the letters there addressed to the Coun cil of Education they replied that they would be disposed to give every consideration to any objections the Wes leyans might have to offer to the mode recommended by the former. A conference ensued, in which the Council made such explanations about the Scriptures being either read daily entire, or extracts from them, in the schools, such as to remove the objections of the Wesleyans. This would have included the Catholics, as nothing was then said about the authorised verson being alone used. (The Hon. Member then quoted the resolutions of a public meeting, held a few days ago, the Earl of Shrews bury in the chair, complaining of the exclusion to which the Government proposed to subject them in this grant.) After the speeches made by the Noble Lord the Member For the West Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth), and the Right Hun. Baronet the Member for Devonport (Sir G. Grey), he felt encouraged to give notice that he would move, in some stage of the present question, a re solution declaring that in any future grant the Roman Catholics should be admitted to participate in it on the same footiug as other religious sects.—(Hear, hear.) Lord MAHON supported the proposition of the Go vernment. When they considered the enormous amount of ignorance which prevailed, he could not see what other course they could take than supporting this grant. By re ferring to the various reports submitted to this House, they would find the enormous amount of ignorance which prevailed and the necessity which existed for the change It was impossible that they could have things as , they were,• and a change was, therefore, necessary. If this plan of the Hon. Member for Dumfries were im practicable, as he thought it was, then there remained only some such measure as that of her Majesty's Government. He thought, for instance, that the propo sition of providing retiring pensions and situations, under certain circumstances, under Government, would require to be abandoned. Still, as a whole, he would undoubtedly support the Government, believing their scheme to have been brought forward in an earnest and truthful spirit. When he looked to the present artificial state of society, he could not think that they were alto gether faultless who opposed even this limited measure of education ; he thought that they should, before punishing crime, give the people the means of knowing good from evil. Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he was always very unwilling unnecessarily to occupy the time and attention of the House, but as he concluded that the Hon. Member for Finsbury intended to press his motion to a division, he could not reconcile it to his sense of duty to give a silent vote on that occasion. The motion made by the Noble Lord at the head of the G ivernment was that they should resolve themselves into a Commit teeas an of Supply for the purpose of voting 100,0001. of the tlaigatuiaryS.elecNtow.;t public money in aid of education. Tee motion moved amendment, by the Hon. Member for Finsbury was subject, that an Committee be appointed for the purpose of facts were notoroappeared to him, in reference to this inquiry os was altogether superfluous. The quacy of the mean' s and f that there was a great inade isdnucation in England was wasadm itoiteaddeon(asall hhaanddsieenThhie motioted n then, he presumed, ) for the purpose of conveying a censure on her Majes ty' s artsovoefrnment—(ex the 11,417 pressions of dissent from differen p House) — and although ho was not prepared to say that been committed in this matter, yet it would, consideringnot the difficulties which surrounded the question, be tem be in his opinion unjust in the extreme to mark with severity any -thing that might have been done a m i ss . He , was well aware of the extreme difficulty that att en d ed this question, and be felt bound to say, therefore, that they should rather endeavour to rectify their omissions, than ensure what they might discover to be wrong. It was in this spirit that he should direct his attention to the matter under discussion ; and on the threshold of this subject the abstract question presented itself, as to whether it was, or was not, the duty of the State to in terfere with the education of the people. He could not hesitate, in discussing this abstract question, at coming to the conclusion that it was not only one among the highest duties of the State, but among the noblest, if not indeed the most noble, functions of the Government, to do everything to extend and diffuse knowledge, to elevate the moral, and cultivate the religious feeling of the people committed to its care, and looking at this as a Christian assembly, he could not hesitate to state that the noblest and purest system of education for the people was that system of morals which had received the Divine sanction, and which held out to mankind on the one hand a future state of eternal reward, or on the other a state of eternal punishment. But this view of the subject would lead him into considerations which at present he did not intend to enter upon. To pass them from that subject, and to tura from the abstract to the practical question, if it were to be admitted for the pur poses of the debate, that in the abstract it was the duty of the State to promote the education of the people, the real question as a practical one would be, how could that duty be best performed? Now, as was the case with all matters of poliey, the practical question must be considered in reference to the varied circumstances in the different parts of the United Kingdom. The question had been transferred to Scot land by the most able and eloquent Gentleman who re presented the metropolis of that country, and in refer ence to Scotland, it should be remembered that at an early period of its history the happy circumstances oc curred of the one religion being embraced by the entire people, and the education of the country was delegated to the Church. There was here no difficulty, as, when the Presbyterian religion was first introduced in the reign of James 1., and again in the reign of William 111., edu cation was altogether confided to the national Church, formed part of its social and prac tical system, and received the sanction of the Scottish Parliament first, and afterwards of the Parlia ment of the United Kingdom. The education of the people progressed in strict alliance with the Church as by law established until the late disruption, which he to that day deplored. Religious feelings and secular edu cation went hand in hand, and very many circumstances combined to elevate the people of that portion of the island in history, and enabled the country, notwith standing its natural disadvantages and its poverty, to rise to a level with the highest and most civilised nations in the world.—(Llear, hear.) In Ireland, again, the circumstances were exactly different. There the reli gion of the State was the religion of a small minority ; dissent from that religion was the distinguishing fea ture of the great majority in that country. Their religion was not recognised by the State, bat Parliament had granted, year by year, considerable sums of private money, not in alliance with the Church, indeed, but still by this system Dissenters were admitted to partake of benefits in which Churchmen alto parti cipated. It was, therefore, consistent both with the practice and policy of the case that the views of the Go vernment should vary with the varied circumstances of the United Kingdom. And now let them turn to Eng land. Here from an early period, unhappily to the latest period, to that very hour, the greatest differences had arisen on the subject of religion, and every class of the community had been bitterly divided on the subject of their religious faith. In that difference of opinion on religious matters had consisted the real difficulty of legislating on the subject of education. The State had encountered violent and uncalled-for interference both from the members of the Church and the supporters of different religious persuasions. Now he felt bound to say that in his own person he had some experience with reference to the attempts of Ministers of the Crown to interfere on this subject,—(Hear, hear, anti laughter,)—and he had never been enabled to do as much for education as his zeal would have led him to do. But he had done this at all events; ho had navigated the channel, he had sounded all the depths, and he had marked the rocks and the shoals which were to be avoided by future Governments.—(Hear, hear.) If he had done no more, he had at least done this ; he had shown the Government that succeeded, that which they ought to avoid if they wished to bring forward a measure calculated to extend the education of the people. He thought then, that it was indispensably necessary that the course which had been hitherto pursued should not be persevered in, namely, that an annual vote should be taken, and that from time to time rules and regulations should be determined upon in the deliberations of that House. Now, he did not think it altogether superfluous to point out how occasional assistance ought to be administered with caution, by the State for the education of the people. Under the Government of Lord Grey, a small sum was asked for the aid of building school-houses. That small sum was, he believed, 20,0001., or 30,000/., to be disposed of under the inspection of the Government; but by other, and after regulations, the distribution of that sum was placed at the disposal of the Committee of Privy Council. Of course, under the circumstances, to which he had adverted, the difference of opinion in matters of religion rendered it cxeeedingly difficult to give any aid for the purposes of religious and secular education; and, therefore, it was limited to the mere external fabric of the schools. Grants were subse quently made to two institutions, the one the National Society, immediately connected with the Established Church, and the other, the British and Foreign Society, which had the confidence of a large portion of the Dis senting bodies. Until a recent period, in the year 1839, no assistance was given, except for the single pur pose of building schools, and a further restriction was observed that the schools to be built must be con nected with one or other of those societies. The first relaxation of that rule took place when Lord Melbourne was at the head of the Government, but the order of Council of 1839 still maintained, as an indispensable con dition that these schools should be connected with one or other; of these two societies. The rule was also maintained that the assistance of Government should only be given for the building of the fabric, except in special cases; these special cases were to be connected with one or other of these two societies. fie was no' aware that the Government of Lord Nlelbourn.. ever en. tertained any more than two or three of these special cases, and they took care that in these cases the requirements should be rigorously executed. He thought that the first time assistance was given, to the amount of 5000/., for 1842, to two normal schools in connexion with the two societies, In the year 1843 an annual vote of 1,0001. per annum to the National School, and 750/. to the British and Fo reign Schools, was substituted in lieu of occasional grants, and annual contributions were also given in aid of the Normal Schools of Scotland. After this depar ture from the original rules, applications were pressed upon this Committee for annual contributions in aid of maintenance of the members connected with those Schools. When thi.se cases were to be considered, he felt it his duty to state to the House, that these cases would be sure to be interrupted, and they would be in volved in such a discussion as they were now engaged in ; and they would find it necessary altogether to desist from allowing these grants. If it could be shown that the means of education were deficient, and that Parliament determined to give grants to one denomination, then ho showed that on the same prin ciple they were bound to extend that provision to all persuasions. —(Hear, hear.) A time had now, however, come when they felt it necessary that some assistance should be afforded to the Dissenting bodies in the cause of education, and he was greatly rejoiced that they should, at last, be allowed to receive that assistance which they so well merited by their exertions. But he was bouaeL to say that if they admitted the principle, that assistance should be given to the Dissenting body, the Roman Catholics should also be allowed to parti cipate in the ben e fit. Th e on l y ground of exclusion which was alleged, was, that they did not use the authorised version of the Scriptures ; but what was the authorised version of the Roman Catholics ? It was the bible from which Bossett and Fenelon drew the texts from which they preached, and from which Pascal drew his immortal thoughts. Would it be told them that this version was to be the sole barrier against the admission of Roman Catholics to the benefits which the State had provided ? Surely Protestant zeal would not go so far as that. The Hon. Member for Southwark had referred to Mr. Landell, he (Sir J. Graham) had long had the honour of an intimate acquaintance with that gentle man, and he assured the House that his every word might be depended on implicitly. He was of opinion that an effort should be made by the overnment in order to ascertain whether terms could not be agreed on by which the Roman Catholics might be enabled to come in for some share of the benefits of Government assistance.—(Hear, hear.) He was bound to say that he could see something like expediency in not doing so on the present occasion, but he did not see any justice in doing so. (Cheers.) The present vote was not a vote of 100,0001. only, it was in addition to the sum authorised to be expended under the new minutes. By this vote, which might cause an outlay— which he for one did not grudge—of not less than 1,000,000/.—some persons had set it down at 2,000,0001. —now, lout of all this sum the Catholics would not receive one shilling, and the whole subject was to be put off to an indefinite period, when the con sideration of the question would be brought forward by itself, and, he must say, invidiously.—(Cheers.) Ile thought that the proper time to do justice to his Roman Catholic fellow subjects was the present moment. He should not vote on the present occasion with the Hon. siember for Finsbury, because he thought that the course taken by Government was justifiable and prudent with this single exception, however, that they ought to have allowed the Roman Catholics to participate in the vote.—(Hear, hear.) He thought it was infinitely better to proceed by order in Council in the present state of feeling in this country, than to attempt by Act of Parlia ment to establish any uniform system which would not be in accordance with the general wishes of the people. The good, however, that might arise from the course pur sued by the Government, he would not purchase at the expense of what he thought was due to his Roman Ca tholic fellow subjects.—( tear, hear.) lie must, there• fore repeat that he entirely approved of the Government measure, wit's the single exception he had named, and he really thought it would be averse to all religious li berty and religious toleration it' his Roman Catholic fel low subjects were to be excluded from participating in this plan. Lord JOHN RUSSELL—Sir, I own after three nights' debate, I rise very considerably relieved of any apprehension I might have entertained with respect to the course the discussion might have taken. The great objection stated to the front of this measure . was, that the State ought not to interfere with tile education of the people, and the various petitions presented to this House on the subject, or at least the greater part of them were declared to be against that principle, while the 500 delegates assembled from various parts of the country declared that experience has convinced them that a rule ought to be laid down that the State should not interfere with the education of subsisted for many years, might at least have been per mitted to go on for another year, without making it the subject of special comment and accusation.— (Hear, hear.) Now, that the Honourable Member for Southwark (Sir William Molesworth), spoke ably in avour of a general motion for a grant of money for education, and he wished to carry that motion for aid to the Roman Catholics as a part of this grant, I consider that the framing of any minutes upon this subject re quires great care and consideration. Should they be framed upon the ground of their being entirely Roman Catholic schools for teaching Roman Catholic doctrines, and having Roman Catholic inspection, I am sure if they were so drawn up, a great amount of opposition would be raised to the measure. Should they be framed so us to afford education in the same manner as in the National Schools for Ireland, and aid granted to these schools in the same manner as granted to those schools? I am not quite sure that the Roman Catholic Bishops of this country would approve of a measure brought forward in that shape had it been proposed. lam sure that some Catholics in Ireland, do object to such a system, and have expressed great dissatisfaction with the State education provided for the Irish people. I therefore think, that on those grounds, it was necessary for us to postpone this question for further consideration, rather than to adopt a plan which might not have given satisfaction. I agree with the Member for Yorkshire and others, that we could not regard any measure as permanent which did not include the Roman Catholics. "This, however, was not proposed to be a permanent measure. In 1839, we introduced a great alteration, in the appointment of inspectors to the schools. The money had, up to that time, been voted by the Treasury, and in consequence of the want of any surveillance being exercised, a great deal of it was thrown away. This, however, was remedied by the change which was then introduced. We now propose to change the system as regards pupil monitors, and to im prove the condition of the schoolmasters, so that we can not be supposed to consider this as a permanent or com plete system. I trust that, in the end, we may be able to come to an arrangement by which we shall reconcile the various differences, and lay the foundation of a per manent system.—(Hear, hear.) I trust that, seeing the general, I may almost say the universal, opinion that has been expressed as to the State providing the means of education for the people, we shall be able to bring in a Bill that will have the support of the country, and of bath Houses of Parliament. The opinions, however, which I have heard expressed, confirms me in the opinion I entertain as to the propriety of the course the Government have pursued on the present occasion. Had we brought in a measure, and asked for a much larger grant than now proposed, they would have put it out of the power of the other House of Parliament, when it came to consider it, to make any change in the measure. This was the course adopted in the case of the Maynooth grant. My own opinion is, that the state of education and of opinion is not sufficiently ripe for such a proceeding. When, however, the Right Hon. Gentleman opposite proposed the Bill, I supported him on that occasion. Bat those questions cannot be dis posed of without consideration. They require dolibe• ration, ripening, and discussion, both in this House and the country before they can be brought to a satisfactory termination. I remember that with regard to the ques tion of the establishment of the Small Debts County l)ourts Bill that measure was taken up time after time by successive Governments, and was introduced in 1824 and 1825 ; it was not till 1846 that it was passed, and it was only last month it came into actual operation. When such difficulties, then, accompany the settlement of a question in which there are no prejudices at work, and in which no great variety of opinion can exist, it is not too much to expect that , on a question of this nature, in which men's feelings are so deeply interested, and which involves such diversity of opinions, that there should be some delay in arriving at a satisfactory arrangement. I think the course we have anopted has tended to bring out many opinions that will assist in effecting this arrange ment, and has shown that this House is not unfavour able to the extension of education; and with regard to many points on which considerable doubt and difficulty rested, this debate has enabled us to arrive at something like a clear and satisfactory decision. For instance, with regard to the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman the Member for Bath, that we should provide an education for the people entirely secular, it is so entirely against the opinions of this, and we may predict a future Par liament, that the chance of success from such a measure is no longer questionable; and I do not think that the future Ministers who are to bo the successors of the present Government, and to exceed them in liberality, are likely to have a long tenure of power, it schools entirely secular are to be established by the State.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the other points, there has been so much unanimity expressed, and so much support—handsome and generous support—given to the proposition of the Government by the Noble Lord the Member for Liverpool, the Member for Hertford, and others, that I will only conclude by thanking them and the House for the reception that has been given to this pro posal, and I trust we shall not Le disappointed in the hopes we have formed of it.—(The Noble Lord resumed his seat amid lend cheers.) Colonel SIBTHORP said that when he recollected how he had been deceived by former Governments on questions of re ligion, he was cautious in placing much confidence in any Government. The Noble Lord said this was not to be a- permanent measure—he thought so too. He thought this was like other measures which had been lately brought before, them, and the experience of the past induced him to be very careful in assenting to what he could not but consider as a snare and a trap, to cover some ulterior design.— ( Laughter. ) .‘ Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."—( Laughter. ) He wished to see the people educated, as far as they possibly could be, but he certainly would not agree to any further grants ; and if the Hon. Member would move the repeal of the Act of 18.39, he would cheerfully second the motion. Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, although I feel it wholly un necessary to add anything to the argument by which the motion of the Noble Lord has been supported, vet I should be unwilling to permit this House to proceed to a division, without shortly stating the grounds upon which my concurrence will be given to that motion. Considering the position which for five years I held in the councils of the Crown—considering the con nexion I had with the appropriation of the educational vote, during that period as a Member of the Committee of the Council—considering the opposition which the Government has had to encounter in proposing the measure, the main outline and principles of which I cordially approve of, I think on account of that opposition it is incumbent upon me not to shrink from taking my full share in any unpopularity which may attach to the support of this measure.—( Hear, hear. ) Sir, I am:perfectly willing to admit that there are considerations connected with this measure which I think are deserving of mature attention. In 1839, I fully shared in the objections that were urged to proceeding by a single vote of this House in reference to a matter of so great importance as a scheme of general education, imperfect though I admit it to have been. I still think those assertions were based upon a sound :foundation, as I consider it would have been a great advantage to adhere to the ordinary course of submitting to the deliberate judgment of the House the regulations by which the education of the people is proposed to be carried out.— ( Hear.) I think it is an evil to exclude the House of Lords from an opportunity of a full consideration of this subject— (Cheers)—of leaving to the House no alternative but a corn • plete acquiescence or a peremptory rejection of the measure.— ( Hear.) But, Sir, with my view of the immense importance of making some progress in the mitigation of the monstrous evils which attend a neglect of public instruction—(Hear)— forseeine the probable consequences of insisting on the opinion which 1 in 1839 of refusing assent to any measure con nected with education, unless it had the Legislative sanction of both Houses of Parliament in the shape of an Act of Parliament. I will not now incur the risk of fur ther delay, by insisting on the objections which I urged in 1839. I feel that I could not, with propriety now insist upon those objections. For the six years which have elapsed since 1839, there has not only been an acquiescence on my part, but an acquiescence on the part of the House, in placing the control of the grants in the hands of the Privy Council. ( Hear.) In 1842, when the late Government assumed power, the vote to the Privy Council did not exceed 30,0001. It was by the advice of the Crown that that vote was increased to 75,0001. and then to 100,0001, per annum. We, charged with the responsibility of the Government, and having the supportof a great majority of this House, did not think that P ar lia m ent would have acquiesced in 1840 and 1841, after the debate of 1839, and after a maj orit y of the House had declared their opinion in favour of the proceed ings by vote, seeing that Parlia ment thought that arrange ment had been made between Government and the heads of the Church, and that in 1840 and 1841 there was no disposition to renew the discussion of 1839; I say, considering these things, 00/. and more, without a p nd the arliarn e in n c t r , e f a r s o e m o 3 f o t , h ooo e I v . ot t e o , l b w ) , , t o he advice of the Crown to re quiring any alteration in the channel through which it was ad ministered, I think I should be utterly unworthy if I now, in 1847, attempted to throw any impediment in the way which might obstruct the application, and in some respects imperfect remedy, for an evil of which we ought to be fully impressed, by proposing that we should proceed by Bill rather than by a vote of the House. But has nothing occurred since 1842 ? Have we not had an attempt to proceed by Bill with reference to the education of the people ?—( Hear.) And what was the result ? When my Right Hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for the Home Department attempted to introduce a mea sure with respect to the education of factory children, and in curred the obloquy with which he was assailed—obloquy to which he exposed himself, because he was actuated by a deep sense of public duty—he considered that he should mitigate the opposition that existed by proceeding by a legislative enact ment. He did not proceed by vote. nor did he propose to place any authority in the Privy Council, We atte o m f p t t h t e o p in eo tr p o le d , u h c o e t fu w r e inthele• t fa w ci i l t i h tie n s o w g i r th ea r te e r spect to en couragement in respect to that Bill than the Noble Lord i n proceeding by a vote of the House of Commons, and madeeducation an n my Right Honourable Friend was compelled to abandon the the project ; and I regret that it was necessary to abandon that attempt, because it was made with the view of uniting all parties desiring some scheme, by which, without impolitic con cessions, great facilities might be given to the education of the people. Now then, in 1847, seeing the failure of attempting to proceed by legislation, seeing the evidence that there is, even with 100,0001., no sufficient, no adequate pro vision for the education of the people—moral, intel lectual, and religious, I am ready to consent to any measure, which, without violating the conscientious scruples of any class of Christians, affords some reme dy for those monstrous evils which exist from the want of education.; 'Cheers.) Sir, in the course of this debate, there has of people. duty of the State to interfere with the education has been but faint Sir, in the course of the debate, certainly there apprehend that on denial of that—( Hear, hear) —and I should subjects who dissent great body of her Majesty ' s much able argument with respect to the ton authority the and e the part of that from the doctrines of the Established of education, or to deny the dis position to deny the importa nceh State to promote that education right and duty of . t e I apprehend that in its power.—( Hear.) by every means of the Non -conforming body to this pro ceedingthe chief objection of her Majesty's Government, is not sa on the part . of the State to promote education, much a denial of the right whether or no the measure proposed is really calcu lated Church , there is no as a doubt least, if they are consistent with their doctrines on the subject —( Hear, hear) —only object to it on the ground that the vo luntary principle is better calculated to promote education, than to promote that end. That the Nonconforming body, at any interference on the part of the State. And, Sir, if I could ' believe that assumption—if I could believe that non-interference on the part of the State was calculated to facilitate education ' more than such interference, I should at once admit, that in this country, in which such difference of opinion in religious subjects prevails—l should, I repeat, at once admit that, whatever might be the right of the State, it was not desirable that any such interference should take place.—( Hear.) But I think the evidence is conclusive that the voluntarypripciple has failed to mitigate the evils which arise from a want of educa- . - tinn.—(Cheers.) Sir, I believe, if we could know the real extent of this evil—if we could have presented to us a full account of all the crime which has been generated by igno rance—if we could know what really has taken place within the last fifty years—if we could know how much evil the ex ample of the parent has introduced—how his example has in troduced infection into the character of his children—if we could know how much of violence, how much of rapine and crime against life and property have been caused by a dearth of education—if we could know how many souls have been intro duced into the presence of their Creator and Judge, ignorant of the character, use, and principles of Christianity—l think we should be disposed to shudder at our:neglect, and to repair, without delay, the evils of past legislation.—(Loud cheers.) Sir, I look to the volume of evidence which has been pre sented for the last few years. I hold in my hand one of those volumes, the reports of the Commissioners who were ap pointed to inquire into the state of education of the children employed in the several mining districts of the kingdom. A single report refers to the education of the children in Flint shire and Denbighshire, Lancaster, Staffordshire, Durham, North Wales, and South Wales. The evidence had been collected from men of the highest acquirements, and of the most superior attaintainments, and they uniformly come to the same conclusion, that there was complete degradation in many parts of the country, on account of the neglect of education. I believe that we are little aware of the extent to which ignorance prevails.— (Hear, hear. ) We see returns of the number of children educated, but we rarely inquire what is the real state of the question. We may he told that there are from about four or five hundred thousand children, of whom three hundred thous . and are educated, and two hundred thou• sand are not. This is a sufficiently painful reflection. But if we are really acquainted with the education which the three hundred thousand receive, our reflections would be still more painful. I have not come to a conclusion on this subject without having maturely weighed the amount of evidence on both sides of the question, and although I 'crow that any re ference to these documents is not very palatable to the House, yet they are far more important than any speculative arguments which I could adduce. I will take an important case with respect to Oldham, in Lancaster, and I find in the evidence of the curate of the church of St. James's, in Oldham, this testimony, which he gives in reference to the state of the educated classes in the district. And now, considering whether it be safe to trust to the voluntary principle for the education of the poor, and for the arguments of those who say that the rule of the State ought to be non interference. Let us listen to what this gen tleman says, speaking of the district of St. James :—" There is in this district no public day-school whatever; I have made several attempts to establish one. I have even sought assistance from the National Society. A good building has been erected, and two smaller ones—one for infants, and another for more advanced scholars. An attendance of scholars can be got, but no money to pay a.enaster. This state of things has been endured four years—three masters have successively tried to maintain a school here, but without avail." Now, here was a district which up to the present hour contained no pubic day-school whatever, it was quite true that there were Sunday schools. The parents had no objections to these as they did not inter fere with the working of the children, and because the chil dren attending these schools were returned as educated. But what is the opinion of this gentleman on this education? He says—" It is obvious that schools composed thus must be imperfect in the extreme— as schools they do harm, by lowering the opinion of the people of the value of secular instruction, and teaching them to be satisfied with a quantity with which they ought not." They had no day schools, none of the habits engendered in schools ; and the clergyman thinks mere attendance, without any prepara tion for it, does more harm than good ; and yet these are the persons who are returned as educated. They had it in evi dence that these Sunday schools were an imperfect instrument for education ; that they did more harm than good, and that for secular education they were worse than useless. The evidence of the boys themselves was worth attention. One of them, fifteen years of age, says, " I have been at a Sunday school for five or six years and I have not learnt to read more than my letters." He went to a Sunday -school for five or six years, and he did not know how to read his own language—he did not know how to read or write. A day school could not be established; those parties who would send their children to them were not willing to pay for them. Is not this a proof that the voluntary principle could not be relied upon?—( Hear, hear.) What was now proposed ? To elevate the character of the schoolmaster; to exalt his position in the scale of society, and to give him encouragement to advance himself. As to the patronage gained by the Go. vernment, it was an objection so futile that it ought not to have been advanced irf the House.—( Hear, hear.) But the most important tendency of the measure was to raise the character of the schoolmaster. At present, as soon as they had a competent schoolmaster, as soon as he had proved him self capable to discharge the duties of such an office, tempta tions were held out to him to leave his situation, and to enter other employments, which would lead to more certain pro motion. How then can you succeed, unless you teach him that the office is an honourable one, and unless you hold out to him some prospect that when he will be incapacitated, that the State will not neglect him, but reward him for his faithful services. Sir, that part of these minutes, which has a tendency to improve the condition of the schoolmaster is one to which I give my hearty concurrence.— ( Hear, hear.) I regret the opposition of the Nonconformist bodies to this measure, I have shown my attachment to the Dissenters on many occasions. I have supported many Bills which had their relief for an object: and, notwithstanding, my attachment for the Established Church of this country, I should be sorry to gain any covert advantage at the expense of another church—and, if I thought it unjust to the Dissenters I would not support it—it is impossible to forget the services which they had rendered to education, even when the English Church had neglected it.—( Hear.) It is impossible to forget the services and the example shown by the Non-conformist. But having considered the objections of the Dissenting body, Ido not believe they are founded in justice. I think that the principle of the aid proposed to be given is perfectly fair, and that these minutes in fact adopt the voluntary principle.— ( Hear, hear.) This is no State interference in the ordi nary sense. The minutes can only be set in force through the interference of the voluntary principle. Volun tary provision for the salary of the schoolmaster is essential before the aid of the State can be obtained, and it is open to the Dissenter to take advantage of it as well as to the mem bers of the Established Church. The Dissenters who now complain of the partiality arid injustice of these minutes ought to recollect what would have been the opposition they would have met with on the part of the Established Church if they had been proposed ten years since. —(Hear.) Being then deeply impressed with the impartiality, and the perfect equality of these minutes towards the Dissenters, I cannot but give them my support. The Church are not seeking any direct advantage in consequence of these minutes. It is said the Church receives some eighteen-twentieths of that aid at this moment. Do they receive it on account of the superior numbers of the members of the Establishment ? If they do, can it be more justly given ? If it is not on account of their numbers, but on account of their zeal arid liberality in the cause of education, do not that superior zeal andliberality also constitute a claim to increased assistance? Try it on what principle you will, you can urge no objection to this mode on account of the supposed advantage which will be gained by the Church. There is no denying that the Church is powerful, and I rejoice that it is so.—( Hear, hear.) I think that the power of the Church is i n c reas i ng ; an d why is it in creasing? My firm belief is that the power of the Church is increasing from its hold over the affections of the people of this country. It is becoming strengthened because it is becoming more awakened to the amount of duty it has to perform. My firm belief is that the Church has acquired a hold, an increased hold, on the respect and veneration of the people of this country by its willingness to snake a timely and salutary reform, and by its readiness to consent to a reduction of the superfluous emolu rents of the higher orders of the Church dignitaries, in order to devote those emolume n t s t o a ff or d increased accommodation and means to the spiritual charge of the people by its superior members. It is my opinion that the conduct of the Church in that respect has greatly increased its power—and it is a legi timate source of power. It is not the Government grants that are giving the Church an increased influence. That is a com plete mistake; the Church would be just as powerful without this aid. In what way does that aid increase the power of the Church in any district where the Church population is more numerous than any other sect ? It is the Church's power over the affections of the people. I say it not invidiously with re gard to the Dissenters, because I give to the Dissenters the full credit which is due to them—they are actuated by the same spirit, of which all religious opinions are beginning to perceive the necessity. The influence of the Church has been increased by the conduct of the church, and it will continue to be so. Give or withhold this pecuniary aid by the Government to the Church, and its legitimate sources of influence over the popu lation will not be diminished ; and I rejoice that it is so, as the principle is one of fairness. On these-roue da I gshallshall give my u pport to the motion of the Noble Lord, and not vote for support e—motion or amendment of the Hon. Member. I think that we have had abundant time. I think that the facts are well be fore us, if we will but resort to the evidence of which we are in possession. The institutions of this country are not capacious enough, as they at present exist, to provide for the education of the countless millions which are engaged in varied pursuits. Sir, in the course of this discussion, a question of great im portance has arisen with regard to the condition of other sub jects of her Majesty other than those who are members of the Established Church, or those whom we usually call Dissenters —I speak of the Roman Catholics. Sir, lam of opinion that no system of general education, even in England would be ad mitted as a conclusive, or comprehensive one, which excluded the Roman Catholics from its operation.—(Hear, hear.) The Noble Lord says there is no alteration in th e p r i nc ipl e o f t h e minute of 1839. In that respect I beg to differ from my No ble Friend; I think we are about—practically at least—to make a difference, a material difference, in the principle upon which we have begun these minutes. You are about to admit to the participation of the advantages of this grant the members of the dissenting body, which certainly has hitherto been ex. eluded. Hitherto the Wesleyan body—practically at least—has not had any participation in this vote. They were not in connexion with the British and' Foreign School Society, and therefore that rule which excluded from participation in the advantage of the Parliamentary vote, any society not in connexion with the National Society, or the British and Foreign Schools Society—excluded the Wesleyans ta from any pecuniary advantage from it. You are b ou . t ro. alter the principle of these minutes in that respect. that this rule, have given an assurance to the which has hitherto prevailed, shall W in be connexion with e n s e le e Yaes' obligatory—and that these schools, whether or n a l e either of the parent societies, sheste e b n o t d it y led sh t a o ll ai b d e , and that authorities of the . I y consulted in respect of the ß inspection ect ion Catholice f a these concerned, schools. So far as the position of the what is the material difference? a o There haedrveanistaagem.ateyrieael are e e g r e e i n e c g to widen and spread e in point of principle as swen over with the public bounty an unusual space, and the more wide that space is the more marked will be the exclusion.— (Hear, the more Therefore I think that the ti me h as come—and I aamore anxious to avow my opinion, as this respect may be unpopular— an an avowal of opinion in (Hear, hear) —the timehas come when justice and g oo d po li c y call from you a mature consideration of the position of the Roman Catholic. Take the case now of the Roman Catholics of Manchester and of Liverpool, or in man y other places. Now let us deliberate upon this question without insisting upon the alteration of the minute-- or inquiring into the meaning of particular terms, or whether the word " Scripture," is meant to signify "authorised version," or whether the Roman Catholics are excluded from this grant in consequence of their not being in connexion either with the National Society or with the British and Foreign School Society—let us neglect these, and instead of them, see that we are about to adopt—l will not say—a permanent system, but an extended system, on which we are about to act, and let us consider wheth er or no w e can exclude on at ground or pretence, if we ca n con ti nue the exclusion, of they Roman Catholics; it would perhaps be expedient as my Hon. Friend said, to postpone the consideration of the question fo some months, but lam not bound or i nc li ned upon thataccount to force or precipitate the adopti on o f any measure, and I will admit that it requires some consideration ; but I am t not disposed that there s h a ll be any doubt as to he opinion which I ente r tain. — (Loud cheers.) Let us take the' population of Manchester. There is a particular district in Manche s t er ca ll ed " Irish Town number of that pe o pl e res idi ng thare2 and I ep t lgdreat t ha t is th o there are not less than six t y t h ousand or seventy thousand ousandlrish people inhabiting it. They are a class of people that come over there, and who, speaking generally, are distinguished by their industry and good conduct. They Male over to the wealthy manufactures of Mtittchester, to live there and give the advantage of their labo ur . They have no natural pro. tectora—there were no wealthy Roman Catholics oonneeted with Manchester to have regard to their spiritual concerns. And of that body there is no one there probably who posseleed the means of superintending the education of 60,000 or 70,000 of the inhabitants of the poorer classes. How is that education to be provided for them ? 'f he priests no doubt would attend to them, but I apprehend that the means of the priest to pro vide a system of education are most limited. Is it to the ad vantage of the State that the children of 00,000 or 70,00 0 should he brought up in ignorance? I confess that I cannot COn. ceive a more urgent case; and not only so far as the inielle ettla advantage of the Roman C a th o li cs i s concer ned ; but if it be only for the truth of the p rnc i p l e you h a ve brought forw ard against barbarism, or on account of the crime and degradation of character which is caused by ignorance—if it be for that principle which you have all agreed to, those children ought not to be brou g ht up in mi ser y and ignorance, which could only lead to crimhet. As a question of policy and justice, I maintain that you oug to make some provision for the education of the rising gene ration. The schools of the Roman Catholics, in large to w . , at present, are very i m p er f ec tly su pp or t e d, a nd, therefore , a 15 important that their case should be taken into consideration; It was more likely that such a course—the gran ting sums 01 money to maintain their schools—would soften their feelings, and reconcile them to the truths of Protestantism, than by acting in an intolerant and exclusive spirit. —(Hear, hear.) This was a snitch more advisable course than to leave the rising generation in a state ( f perpetual ignorance. My firm per sua , ion is that considerable advantage will result secularn that the children of all shall have the benefit of a edu cation. On this head I must state, that I listened to the speech of the Right Hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary with the greatest satisfaction—a aptech which holds out great hopes of a settle men t o f th e question in a manner to m eet the . wishes which th e H ouse h as expressed. I know that th e q u f s, _ tion is most diffi cu lt, an d I t hi n k that it is wise to proceed with caution ; still I think that some means should be taken for providing for the education of the children of Roman Cathoi I'a. I think there is a prospect of passing this measure , and understand, from a d ec l ara ti on of the Government that we maY rely upon an early consideration of the claims of the Roma° Catholics. That being the case I s hall no t b e inclined to Si t e the risk of urging, at this time, the Government at once to pro.: pose a scheme of R oman Catholic education. But Ido can, upon them not to accept the suppo r t o f an y body to the presto" minutes, holding it as a principle that the Roman Ca tholics are to be excluded. There ought to be no exclusion.--(LO .. cheers.) If there is the prebability of an early election, I' may be important that there should be no misunderstandi n v. - ( Loud cheers.) If the Government recognise the prinetol: which I understand them to recognise, and fairly avow tha t recognition, then they give fair notice to all parties, tha, although there may be some delay in the preparation el_ additional minutes, yet the principle is recognised that y o t must not take one class of Christians and of her Ala , jesty's subjects, and doom them to perpetual ignoranc e , upon account of their religious opinions. I would entree men of all religious denomin a tio ns to consider wh at has been the cause of delay in the promotion of education. It has arisen originally from a belief that instruction wa s dangerous to the institutions of the country. That impressio n passed away, it was succeeded by great indifference,--tlr difference from which the Dissenting body was the first to be awakened, and set the example of activity in the cause of education. They were followed by others, and there have of late years been great activity and great zeal exhibiredi, We are all admitting the import a n ce of e d uca ti on , but a' are preventing its progress because they ar e a f r aid that solv e other body would interfere with their religious opinier °4 Thus, Dissenters object one day that the education of The he Church does not recognise the claim s of Dis s enters. ;, Church again objects that the Dissenters do not recognise : claims. Whilst this is going on, what is becoming of the Buu children born every day, of the 300,000 added yearly to ottr3 population ? Whilst we are fighting and squabbling tR,. b these points of difference, we are neglecting that vi 14 1% ought in all Christian lands to be a subject of deep ea ns ; deration, viz., the enlightenment of the people in Chr isti* principles—the improveme n t of th e i r intellectual culture; and their instruction in secul ar knowledge. I believe tbs true charity, true policy, an d t rue regard for re lr g ittu, truth, ought to encourage us to lay aside our differ ences "; to contemplate the mag n it u d e o f the present evil, and teach the children of sects the great truths of Chris tianity.—( Cheers.) lam f or a religious education , a t a o l ; posed to a secular education.—( Hear, hear.) I the difficulties of the ease. Y e t s till I think that some arrankt ment should be made by which the children of all sects rarrt be made to participate in the benefits of the Goveraluld grant. Ido not believe that a purely secular education lerruAo be acceptable to the people of thi s country, but 1,..L.4 believe a religious one to be at the least as isoporte as secular education; and I believe it to be for the inter e i : st of the country. I believe it to be for the interests or t r Protestant religion which shrinks not from the light, but . e o :f a rejoices in the spread of knowledge, that the people I t not be left in a state of ignorance; but, by receiving in s le l !, e o a .. - tual culture, their minds should be prepared for the recer. l o : of those great truths which, in the first instance, is the 0° e o iort dation of all religion. and more especially of that re - r t g. which relies more than any other on self-judgment anerio,frh, lectual culture, which co ur t s inquiry, and is, thereforp „og more likely to recommend it s elf to a wise and re sell people.—( Loud and continued cheering). • con' Mr. PLUMPTRE was anx i ous to say a few words, to sequence of the debate that evening. Wherein did the were so culty consist? Was it that the people of England we " ignorant people ? No ; but they were a Protestant peole.: and therefore it wa s th a t there were objections to the propos!, tions which were made by the Government. The p ro P ° % might be expediency, but it was not Christianity. Th e p c ? l d" placed no dependence on their le aders on either e: of the House, and he thought that they would at the prope r religious feelings and act upon theta. opportunity, choose goo d and faithful representatives, who would truly consult their Mr. NEWDEGATE, who rose amidst the utmost con fusion, was understood to ask Lord John Russell whether it was the intention of her Majesty's Government to submit the future minutes of the council, with respect to the admission of Catholics to a participation in the grants of the Government, to the House? Lord J RUSSELL—Of course, on future minutes he must ask opinionousethoefnPadrilviaidmeden, w t. Then there appeared -- t h h e e H For the grant 372 Against it ..................... 47 This s U H A iI K I Majority f or the Gover . n —325 ettnth QUAKERS' AND Committee. ph jEWB' neI'MARRIAGE BILL. The remaining orders of the day were then disposed of, and the House adjourned at One o'clock RAILWAY SHARE MARKETS. LIVERPOOL, ArRIL 22. STOCK EXCIIANGE.—The sales are —Arnbergate, Notting" ham, Boston, and Eastern Junction, 3 dis.—Birkenhea Lancashire, and Cheshire Junction, 3 / 4 Oxford Junction, 8/ p.—Chester and Birkenhead , 4584 East Lancashire, New (scrip), 3s p. —Edinburgh and Gir i ; gow,72—Liverpool, Crosby, and Southport, 1 5 /A p.—L°,;',7: ° and North-Western, 172 1 / 2 —Ditto, Quarters, 1 5 1 1 3 4 — ' - '" --- New Quarters, 10 p.—London and Manchester and 13irrnier ham, Quarters (A), 5 5 / 8 p.—Manchester and Leeds, Ha e*v 8% p.—Ditto, 32/. Shares (late Extension), 1 1 4 P. - 7 , 4 n : chester, Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, Quarters, 1% dis.--14 chester and Southampton, % dis.—Midland, 116—Ditto, ~ Shares, 3% p.—Ditto, New, 2% p.—North Staffordshire, 2.%*1 p.—North- Western, 335. 9d. dis.—Preston and Wyre,Sar 51—Shrewsbury and Hereford, 1% dis.—Sbrewsb ur y Chester, (late N. W. M.), 5 1 / 4 p.—Ditto, New, Par — °u s t or Eastern and Dover, No. 2, p.—Ditto, No. 4, and Newcastle, Preference, 3 1 % p.—East Indian, ls. MANCHESTER APRIL 22. STOCK EXCIIANGE.—The sales ' are—Birkenhead, Lane!: shire, and Cheshire Junction, 3 4 East Lancashire (late D and P.), par—Ditto, New, par---Ditto, New (scrip), Greo y and Fleetwood, Preston, and West Riding Junction, -16— Northern, '3 l—Huddersfield and Mancheste r Rai wa Canal, 1% c.—Liverpool, Manchester, an d Newcast le Junc tion, 1 %—Manchester and Leeds, 321. Shares (late Extol; sion), 114—Ditto, Fifths (late 'West Riding Uttion) , * , l o 2 —Manchester Sheffield, and Lincolnshire, Quarters, 21 1 4—Ditto (Sheffield and Lincolnshire), 2 11-16—"hire'.. cheater and Southampton, 19s. 6d. —North Stafford s, 2 1-16—North-Western, 2 Oldham Alliance, , !4 —Shrop shire Union, I%—South -Eastern and Dover, No. 4,1-16 p.- . " South Yorkshire, Doncaster, and Goole, M c. LEEDS, Aram 22. STOCK EXCHANGE. -The sales are-Ambergate, Notting' -Ditto,ha an N dß e o w sto s n c , rip l6 , s 6. sd. p.-Eastis.-East L h a n n a ca \ s v hiersetoerw, k 6d. dis.-Hudderstield and Mancheste r , 7 3. 6d . p.-Lee d s and Dewsbury, New Extensions, Scrip (pink), I s . die.--Leedsdie.--Leedsand Thirak, 4 dis.-Ditto, New, 2% di s. -Di tto, P re ference , 11s. p.-London, Oxford, and Chelt en h am, 15s. dis.-151°- NYstre 3 , d.. IO P chester and Leeds, Fifths, 4% p.-Ditto, 321. Shares (late Extensions), 18s. 6d. p.-Ditto, West Riding Union, 1 , 1 , 5 ' p.-Midland, Preference, 2 1 / 8 p.- North B r i t i s h, H a lves, " i p.-Ditto, Thi r d s , 40s. p.-Ditt o , Q uarters (l ate Carlisle Branch), PA p.-Ditto, Extension (scrip), 103. 6d. North Staffordshire, 21. 3s. 6d. p.-Northern Counties Unie l b dis. - North-Western, 375. dis. SHEFFIELD, APRIL 22. STOCK EXCHANGE._.The sales are-Ambergate, Notting' ham, and Boston, los. dis.-Manchester, Sheffield, and L l ,, colnshire (Grimsby and Sheffield), 6% Shares, 214_ dis.-Ditto, 121. 10s. Shares, 3.55. dis.-W" Riding Union, 14s. p. NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE, APRIL 22. Counties' STOCK EXCHANGE.-The sales are-Eastern Coun_e_, dis.-Ditto , 2u ..1 York Extensions, % dis.-Fleetwood, Preston, and Neat Riding, 15s. dis.-Manchester, Great Grimsby, and Sheffield' r. dis.-Ditto, Extension, 48s. dis.-Newcastle and Ca 1 . !_ 5 1e . 111;A -Newcastle and Berwick, New, 2 7-16 p.-North . rt tish, Thirds, 425.-Ditto, Quarters, 14 p.-West Riding Union, 15s. p. EDINBURGH, APRIL 21. STOCK EXCHANGE.-The he 'sales are-Caledonian, New, 435. 6d.-Dundee and Perth, New, 19 1 h-East Lothian Co t ; tral, 52e. 6d.-Edinburgh and Bathgate, 71. is.-Edinburg h ' Leith, and Granton, Quarters, 13 s. 3d.-Edinburgh 0 1 , Northern, New, 728.-llitto, Newport, 7/. 65.-Edinburg' and Perth, 535.-Ditto, Halves, 195.-Great Northern, 62-9. 6d.-North British, 32%-Ditto, Quarters, 69 5 . 6d .- Ditl" New Quarters (scrip), 235. 6d.-Ditto, Thirds, 61s. Scottish Central, 25 4-Shrewsbury, o,lnr es .rY, and Cheshu7 New, 21s. 6d.-Stirling and Midland, 4 55.-Direct Bombay and Madras, 35.-Ea s t Indian, It-Great N or th o f GLASGOW, APRIL 21. STOCK EXCHANGE.- The sales are-East Indian, 316 East Lothi an Central, 51s. 6d.-Edinburgh and Halves, 19/.-Edi n b urg h and Perth (New- Co.), 543 T - 0-.-- -2, Glasgow, Kilmarnock, and Ayr, 5 84-Ditto Halves , 63/4-Glasgow, Dumfries, and Carlisle, 51/2 Great Souther of Madras, I s . 6d.-Ki lmarnock and Ayr4Direct, don and Brighton, 52 1 4-3rladras, Nellore, an d Arcot, is " Manchester and Southampton, 22e. 6d.-Miffiand,Halves, 414 Central,- N o 2 r t s h British, t - rk and New Ne Q w u c a a r s t t e i r e s , 3 ( 3 s ih c (scrip), 233.--°c BIRTHS On the 22d inst., the wife of G. Robins, Esq. , Bedford -street, Covent-garden of a daughter. t- On the 17th inst., at Gloucester, the lady of Lieutenant' Colonel .1. R. Osborn, of the B al A of a daughter. Ben rmY, Airs. On the 18th inst., at Wavertree, near Liverpon y Laker, of a son. surgeon, of MARRIED. Oa the 22d inst., at Axbridge, Somerset, by the Rev. G. Beadon, the Rector Herbert Adolphus Reed , Esq 'ah ° - "Walworth, London, to Mariae Harriet Vesie, youngest dativ ter of Robert Parker, Esq., of the former place. b, On the 7th inst., at the British Embassy, St. Petersbulrg_ Henry Brunner, Esq., to Emily Georgiana, of Robert Cattley, Esq. third On the 21st inst., Edward Gardner, Esq., to Hester, Dover daughter of the late Mr. G. Harrison, Barton-court, Dove daughte, DIED. On the 16th inst Joh n L hE f Lea, Surrey, •, eec , Esq , o aged 86. On the 18th i ns t., i n N ew - roa d, Gower-street North/ Amelia Mary, youngest daughter of Captain J. Chiosso..,:o On the 19th inst., at Rottingdean, near Brighton , Margaret Parry Thoas. On the 19th inst., m in Cavendish-square, Harriett A n . ° Christine, youngest daughter of Sir James Hawkins White tiled, Bart., Q.C.13., Admiral of the Fleet. On the 19th inst., Louisa Elizabeth, the wife of John A- 11 " drews, Esq., surgeon, of Salisbury. 112, London: Printed FnCl Published by Ai utiDO 1:011.Nu, of ''.;;;cinc4 Strand, Printer, at The San ()Mee, No. 112, Strand , in thefo 0, of the Savoy, in the County of Middlesex, realty, 1847.