The Sun.
London, England, 1852-06-04 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON,

, The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that the Government nod no interest in p: easing the
vote; but it had bee's cuotomaty to allow precedence to
the estimate for the Briiish Museum. They could have
put it first on paper, hut then they would have de-
siroted the privilege which it was tta, pride of the LT-on.
Getitlemsn to avail himself of. The late Sir R, P?el
and the Noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). anti greater nu-
thoriths thou ke (the Chancellor of the Exahcquor)
WWI, had always accorded this privilege to the Hon.
Member fvr the University (Sir R. H. Inglis) as trustee
of the Museum.
After a few words from Mr. LABOUCHERE,
Mr. STANFORD complained of the new arrangement
by which the three classes of the attendants of the Mu-
seum had been amalgamated with reference to salary,
and thus an attendant commencing now under the new
arrangement at a minimum salary of 501. would not at-
tain the maximum salary of 150/. for a considerably
longer period of years than under the old system.
Mr. GOULBURN said that there was no ground for
dissatisfaction to the attendants under the now arrange-
ment, which had been adopted by the trustees in confor-
mity with the recommendations of the report of the
Committee of that House. That arrangement was that
the attendants should be paid by salary instead of by
fees, and that, in accordance with the principle adopted
in most of the public offices, persons appointed to offices,
as attendantz, should enter in the lowest class, from
which they could rise by intelligence and ability to the
highest class. But the trustees, in making that arrange-
ment, stated that it would not apply to those ,who had
been appointed under the old system.
Mr. ANSTEY objected to the vote being taken out of
its place. It was No. 12 on the votes, and it was on this
occasion taken as No. 2.
Sir R. 11, INGLIS said the answer of his Right Hon.
Friend the Member fur the University of Catneridge was
perfectly satisfactory. He (Sir R. H Inglis) threw him-
self, therefore, on the indulgence of the House; and he
hoped the Hon. and Learned Member would not think it
necessary to interrupt the discussion.
Viscount DUNCAN, for one, had not anticipated that
vo:o No. 12 would be taken before vote No. 10.
After a few words from Mr. W. Williams, Mr. Stan-
ford, and Mr. Scully,
Mr. ANSTEY moved that the Chairman should re-
port progress.
The motion was, however, withdrawn.
164,5771. for education in Ireland.
In reply to Mr. FOX,
Mr. WALPOLE said the system of education in Ire-
land was intended to be a combined system. In endea-
vouring to carry it out certain members of the Established
Church complained that they were not partakers in that
grant. Another objection was that every minister
of the Established Church who objected to the
greet was precluded from any chance of participation in
it. There were serious objtctions to the system, and
the answer of the Government was, that certainly, for
the purpose of encouraging education, they intended to
encourage applications from clergymen of the Esta-
blished Church, as well as otters, in respect to partici-
pating in this grant, without at all excluding itYliers.
Sir J. GRAHAM said it had been his misfortune to
differ from the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for
Dublin University (Mr. G. A. Hamilton) on former
occasions with reference to this vote, but when he so
differed from him he had to defend a measure of a
former colleague of his, the present head of
the Government; and the injustice, if there
were injustice in the matter, as alleged by the parties
adverse to the grant, was au injustice which was well
weighed from tiar to time. When the Earl of Derby
was his (Sir. J. Graham's) colleague, he was not only
the author, but the steady defender and supporter of
this measure; and he never admitted that there was any
injustice in the mixed grant.—(" Hear, hear," from the
Irish Members.)

Mr. WALPOLE had not stated there was injustice in
,he mixed grant. What he said was, that it was an in-

ustice that those who objected on conscientious motives

to the mode in which the grant was distributed, vwere
precluded from the chances of preferment merely be-
cause they did not give the system their support.
Sir J. GRAHAM had understood the Right Hon.
Gentleman to take two objections—the last of which was
not with reference to the grant, but to the distribution of
patronage. The other allegation was, that there was in-
justice in the mixed system of education itself, in which
1,700 of the clergy of the Established Church could not
participate. Now, he (Sir J. Graham) confidently con-
tended, as the Earl of Derby had hitherto confidently con-
tended, that if they departed from this system of educa-
tion, based on its present principle—if they attempted to
rectify that injustice, which, according to the Secretary
of State, was inherent iu a system of mixed education—

they must come at once to separate grants in proportion
to the population of Ireland, in which case he was very
much mistaken if the Established Church of Ireland
would gain materially by the change. This was
not, however, the moment for discussing this question
further.—(Hear, hear.) As to the other point— distri-
bution of patronage—the observation of the Right
Hon. Gentleman did not certainly apply to the Govern-
ment of the late Sir Robert Peel, inasmuch as that Go-
vernment felt it to be its duty to recommend for promo-
tion to the episcopal bench in Ireland three bishops who,
if he mistook not, were unfortunately as he thought, op-
' posed to the system of mixed education, and who, al-
though they were elevated to the episcopal bench by the
advice of Sir Robert Peel, nevertheless thought proper
to use their episcopal patronage against that system.
Lord EBRINGTON—When the Right Hon. Gentle-
man (Mr. Walpole) spoke of the exclusion of the clergy
of the Established Church from all hope of preferment,
he seemed to forget the enormous amount of patronage
in the hands of the bishops of the Established Church
in Ireland, and a great part of which had, in past times,
been sedulously employed by them for the encourage-
ment of resistance to that combined system of education
which successive Governments, down to the present time,
had thought it their duty to defend.
Mr. LABOUCHERE admitted that it was not con-
venient to discuss the question at that moment; but
havi: g the deepest sense of the importance to Ireland of
the mixed system of education, be could not refrain
from stating that he had heard with alarm the language
which had been held by the Secretary of State that
night; and ho entreated the Government to take care
how they tampered with a system of education on the
maintenance o.! which the future prospects of Ireland
essentially depended.
Mr. W ALPOLE was in the recollection of the Com-
mittee, but he did not think one word had escaped from
him from which it could be inferred that the combined sys-
tem of education was intended to be superseded —(Hear.)
On the contrary, he said, in answer to the Noble Lord the
Member for London, on a previous evening, some weeks
ago, that there was no intention on the part of Govern•
ment to interfere with the combined system of national
education in Ireland. He said then, as he said to-night,
chat he thought, when a grant of public money was made
for purposes of education, that it was but reasonable
every portion of the community should receive a share
of that grant—(Cheers)—and that it was worthy of
consideration whether those who, by conscientious mo-
tives, were excluded from a share of that grant at this
moment, should not be included in it in future 2—

:Cheers.) He also went on to say—on the ground of
Lnjustice—that he did think it was an injustice, when
he members of the Church of Ireland from conscientious

motives objected to that grant, but were found agreeing
upon all other questions of general policy, that they
should be refused patronage merely on the ground that
they would not give their adhesion to this system of
mixed education. That he believed was all he said—

that was all he meant to say—and he did not think one
word tell from him to the effect that the Government
intended to supersede in any way the system of educa-
tion in Ireland.—(Hear, hear.)
Sir J. GRAHAM—The Right Hon. Gentleman had
told the Committee what the Government did not in-
tend to do, and he now asked him, as a matter which
to the people of Ireland was next in importance only to
the question (Maynooth) recently brought before the
House by the Hon. Member for North Warwickshire
( Vlr. Spooner), what was the intention of the Govern-
ment with a view to remedy the injustice of which the
Right Hon. Gentleman stated complaint was made. Ile
wanted to know wherein was the injustice in the present
mode of distributing the vote? He understood the Right
Hon. Gentleman to state that, in his opinion, as now dis-
tributed under the nyxed system, there was an injustice,
and that that injustice ought to be remedied. It was not
unreasonable, therefore, to ask the Right Hon. Gentle.
man, since he was of opinion there was a practical in-
justice in the present mode of distribution, and intended,
on the part of the Government, to adhere to a common
scheme of education, and to one general mode, how he
intended the members of the Established Church should

participate in this grant, and the mixed system of edu-
cation be still retained.

Mr. WALPOLE could not do better than repeat the
observation he made in reply to the question of the
Noble Lord the Member for the City of London on a
former night. On that occasion he said it was worthy
of consideration whether some portion of the grant
might not be applied to those members of the Church of
England and others in Ireland—tor there were others in
Ireland who equally objected to the mode of distribu-
tion—whether some portion of the grant might not be
applied to those who trom conscientious motives ob-
jected to the mode in which it was at present distributed,
but he never intimated that there was any plan on the
part of the Government as to the mode in which that
was to be done. He meant that the question deserved
consideration.—(Hear, hear.) The term of " injustice "
he intended to apply to the refusal of preferment and
patronage to persons merely on the ground that they
would not give their adhesion to the mixed system of
education in Ireland. That was an injustiee of which
he thought they had a right to complain, and in answer
to the question of the Right Hon. Baronet he might say
that the remedy for that injustice was to distribute the
amongst those who dissented from, as
ho were in favour of, the combined Bpi-
tem r nationale fairly
education and he believed that the
patronage i
0
pwaetlrlo as patronage w
had been so distributed since her Majesty's
gthose
,
present Govern,
I A
hadmeldritlL T comeosw
, into
toe
prepared
w e r .—(H t
e ar,;
)Mr. G. A.
pro-
pose the vote, under the impression that there was a
full understanding in
'n the House, in consequence of what
fell from his Right Hon.
Friend some time ago, that it
was the intention of Government to take the vote into
consideration, and to adopt
Sir J. Graham had taken
a united system
upon himself to assert, was some means of ascertaining
whether the system which
(Hea-, hear.) He
rence of opinion prevailed in Iri-hind.—
n the subject
or not, for that was a point upon which great diffe-
rence
unwilling to enter into a discussion upon
—(An ironical cheer from the Irish Members)—because
he thought that all things considered, it wits not desira-
ble that a discussion should be proceeded with on a ques-
tion of this nature at that particular moment.—(Hear,
hear.) He repeated, he was quite willing to propose tne
vote upon the understanding, which he believed the
House had come to, that the Government had signified
an intention of taking means to ascertain whether this
system was a combined system or not; and further,
of considering whether some mod© might not be de-

wised by which to remove the conscientious objec-
tioes entertained by a considerable portion of the mem-
bers of the Peei;ablishsd Church its Ireland. With re-
gard to the course which he liimaslf lied taken upon the
question, he rememnered stating in that House, on one
occasion, that the syssern of education in Ireland was
one of the institutions of the country, and chat, consi-
dering the number of schools in connexion with it, it
would not be consistent with what was right and just to
divide the House against it, but that ho thought such
modification might be introduced into it as, without sub-
verting the system, would remedy the injustice of which
a large proportion of the Protestant population of Ire-
land complained.
Mr. KEOGH said that the two Right Hon. Members
for Dahlia University (Mr. Napier and Mr. G. A. Ha-
milton) bad been most consistent, determined, and un-
changeable opponents of the system of national educa-
tion in Ireland, and that if the first-named Hon. Gen-
tleman were then present, he would not deny his (Mr.
Keogh's) assertion that he had been also one of the
most bitter of its opponents. The Hon. Member who
had just addressed the Committee stated that he was in
favour of a " modification" of the system, but that was
exactly the same expression which was applied to
every other subject—religious, social, commercial,
or political, upon which Honourable Gentlemen on the
Treasury benches had to touch.—(Hear, hear.) He as-
sorted that two thirds of the Darbyito candidates in Ire-
land had distinctly pledged themselves not to support
national education as it existed—not to support May-
nooth—but to repeal the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill of
lastsession.—(Hear.) This, he would admit, was per-
haps only a modification. But what was the modifica-
tion that was wanted? He knew that Government dealt
in negatives, and that they could enumerate a long
catalogue of things they did not mean to do, but he
wanted to know what they meant to do? He had heard
that it was essential to have consistency in public men.
It had been generally admitted that the Noble Lord at
the head of the Government had formed and marked out
the present system of national education in Ireland.
But when the Honourable Gentleman the Member for
the University brought the same question forward
some time back, the Noble Lord (Lord George Ban-
ana) was the principal speaker against the motion,
and that system of which Lord Derby was the reputed
author. He wanted to know whether that was to
be considered in the light of a modification? If every-
thing was to be subject to modification—Maynooth—our
commercial system—and the present question, the most
important question possible to the people of Ireland,
then ho was bound to say there was no confidence to be
placed in public men, and the sooner the present gentle-
men who held office vacated their posts the better it
would be for their consistency and the country.
Mr. WHITESIDE vindicated the consistency of the
Right Hon. Gentleman. He considered, however, that
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman (Mr. Keogh) ought
to have avoided the argumentum ad hominem, as, if he
did not mistake, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman
entered public life us a member of a Conservative
body, and as a Conservative.—(Hear.) A change had
" come o'er the spirit of his dream," and the Hon. and
Learned Gentleman who had joined a totally opposite
party, now advocated totally opposite principles with
as much talent and as much honesty as he had for-
merly advocated Conservative principles.—(Hear, hear.)
The Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Ripon, and
the Hon. and Learned Gentleman, in their remarks had
used the term the people of Ireland. If the lion. and
Learned Gentleman meant to assert that he represented
the entire population of Ireland, he must beg to dissent,
and though he was desirous of paying due respect to the
Roman Catholic people of Ireland, yet he must, at the
same time, declare that the Protestant and Presbyterian
part of Ireland were entitled to the attention of that
House, for they represented a large proportion of the
wealth, intelligence, and commerce of that part of the
empire. What had been stated respecting the act of Sir
R. Peel, in promoting eminent men to the episcopate in
Ireland from England, formed a strong circumstance in

favour of the argument of the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Secretary of State for the Home Department that this
question ought to be reconsidered, and that something
ought to be done whereby 1,700 members of the Established
Church in Ireland might be able in their parish schools
to read the Scriptures. Had the Right Hun. Gentleman
(Sir J. Graham) read the debate on the question, he
would have seen that one of the most learned of those
prelates (the Bishop of Ossory) had not asked for a re-
versal of the system, but had recommended a reconsider-
ation of it, so as to allow clergymen of the Established
Church in Ireland to do as clergymen of the Established
Church did in England. The Right Hon. Gentleman,
the Secretary of the Home Department, had not dis-
entitled himself to the respect of the Roman Catholic
people of Ireland for what he desired to do. The Right
Hon. Gentleman did not desire to withdraw a sixpence
of the grant from the Roman Catholics; but he wished
to devise some change which in his (Mr. Whiteside's)
belief, if carried out, would improve the system both in
Ireland and Scotland. He begged to remind Hon.
Gentleme❑ that out of the number of pupils in the na-
tional schools there were between 36,000 raid 40,000
pupils members of the Church of Rome.
Mr. KEOGH begged leave to answer the statement
made so openly by the Honourable and Learned Gentle-
man, that he t,Mr. Keogh) had entered that House as a
supporter of the Conservative party. Now he had
very frequently heard that same statement made, but
not at such a time and in such a manner as to permit
him to give an explanation and contradiction. It

ought to —be known to the Honourable and Learned
Gentleman, as it was certainly known to many Hon. and
Right Hon. Gentlemen whom he was addressing, that
,uch a statement was wholly and entirely unfounded.
Ile Hon. and Learned Member for the University of

Dublin knew that the statement was untrue; he had the

most entire and perfect reliance on that Hon. and Learned
Gentlomaa's honour, believing that no consideration
would induce him to travel out of that line which con-
. _

science dictated and truth enjoined.—(Hear.) He en-
tered that House at a peculiar time—he entered it when
to be a supporter of the Right Hon. Baronet the late
Member for Tamworth was to place himself in a position
of great unpopularity in Ireland. He believed he was
the only man in the country who ventured to put him-
self in that position. He would, however, claim no
merit on that ground. Conscience dictated to him the
course he should pursue, and he followed that course.
He placed prominently in his
.addresses, which appeared
in every newspaper in Dublin, the fact that he
avowed himself to be a distinct, direct, unequivo-
eating supporter of the commercial and political
policy recommended by the Right Baronet, and
that Right Hon. Baronet having been driven from power
by those Hon. Gentlemen whom he saw opposite by a
combination which it was unnecessary to describe, he
was perfectly prepared to support the policy that Right
Hon. Baronet advocated. He might say the records of
that House and the recollections of Hon. Members would
prove that to that commercial policy ever since he had en-
tered that House he had firmly and continuously .
ad-
hered ; and further, that he had never given a vote in
contravention to that policy.—(Hear.) He should be
sorry to recriminate with Hon. and Learned Gentlemen,
but, as far as his policy and consistency were concerned,
he would say for himself that he never was the person to
go into private quarters and private circles and hold
himself out as the supporter of a policy ho afterwards op-
posed. He did not profess in early life to be an advocate of
a retorm in the representation of the people. Ho never
held out to the people that he preferred republican to
monarchial principles. He did not go down amongst a
portion of the people of Ireland, with whom republican
principles were a matter of history, and hold himself out
as a person prepared to carry those principles to their
uttermost limit.—(Hear.) Ho took his principles from
a more moderate level. Ho saw the Right Hon. Baronet
the Member for Tamworth was prepared to do justice
to the people of Ireland, and he gave him his support.
Ho
now declared his honest conviction to be that the
Right Hon. Baronet was worthy of support. He had
sat in that House for five years, and the records of the
House would bear out the assertion he now made. The
Noble Lord, once the leader of the party opposite, had
admitted to him that he had not entered the House as a
Protectionist and turned Free-trader. He had de-
clared ho was a Free-trader. He adhered to that
opinion, and if the Hon. and Learned Gentleman had
reflected he would not have dwelt on such topics, the
more especially if he looked to the Hon. Gentlemen who

sat on his left.
Mr. WHITESIDE said, that if the Hon. and Learned
Metnber asserted that he had expressed anti-monarchi-
cal opinions at any time of his life, he could only tell
him it was a fiction. During the twenty years he had
been at the bar, he had always supported what he be-
lieved to be sound Conservative principles. The Hon.
and Learned Member had only done what some of his
countrymen had done before him, and had drawn on his
imagination for his facts.—(A laugh.)
Sir J. TYRELL regretted that the discussion had de-
generated into a personal debate. He did not think
the Hon. and Learned Member for Athlone was in a

condition to lecture Protestant gentlemen on that side
of the House, or the Government, on consistency or mo-
difications of opinion, unless he could show that he him-
self had been consistent in his personal conduct as a
Member of that House. He had a strong recollection

,hat the Hon. and Learned Gentleman entered that House

taking on himself the " moderate level" of the Carlton
Club. How came it, then, that the Hon. and Learned
Member was now on the other side? The fact was, that
the Hon. and Learned Member looked up to a superior
. __ . ._..

power—to the Synod of Thurles and to his Holiness
the Pope, both of whom had denounced the mixed sys•
tern of education as taught in the colleges recently es•
tablished in Ireland. If injustice were done to a large

portion of the Protestant people of Ireland by the miaed
system of education in question, it was not surely im-
proper in the Government to consider a remedy for that

inj tistice.—(Hear.)
Mr. ANSTEY said the question before them was not
meantthe c consistency nbsyi smt e
on
dc
fi
co
af tHi oon n. H. Am' colbr b
ifiecas t
iouwhat
nt
was the
understood
Minister
b by
the Duke of Richmond and ethers of the party opposite
to mean the restoration of protection, and he wished to
know what modification meant as applied to the national
system of education in Ireland. He wished to know if
a sum necessary to support the 1,700 sectarian Church
schools were subtracted from the grant whether a cor-
responding sum would be given to the sectarian schools
of the Church of Rome.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER wished
to remind the Committee of The question before them.
That question was the vote far the combined system of
education in Ireland, and as that vote had been proposed
by the Government, and as far as he could collect Hon.
Gentlemen opposite were prepared to maintain that sys-
tem, the best thing they could do in the present state of
Parliament would be to support the vote.—(Hear, hear.)
A great deal had been said us to the intentions of the
Government on this subject. He might be permitted to
inform those Hon. Members who had addressed the
Committee, that when the Government had to propose
any change in a subject of so much importance as that
tint
Supply—(Hear.) They weres:de(rateionr,theywouldn all
tdlol
io
saonixnau Cs
thatommitttheee
of
combined system of education should be properly sup-