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

ral and religious instruction then existing in some schools.
The deficiency of religious instruction can only be explained,
because the Committee hes not found any books of religion
which are free from favouring the tenets of one religious sect or
another—none can please all parties. Is not this school formed
on the principle on which the Noble Lord would wish his
schools to be formed, not excluding the Scriptures, but excluding
any education in those books which profess to teach of doctrines.
The Secretary speaks of the alarming deficiency in moral and
religious instruction found to exist in those schools ; and this is
just what I apprehend from this proposed system. You will
find it extremely difficult to maintain that sound moral and re-
ligious knowledge which can only be founded on the conviction
in our earlier years that religion is among the first effects of na-
tional education.—( Hear.) That is the second ground on
which I object to the plan ; viz., that so far as the education of
children of the Establishment is concerned, I think it wholly un-
wise to exclude from direct superintendence and controul the
ecclesiastical authorities, I think they ought to be brought
forward distinctly, for the purpose of superintending the plan of
education.—( Hear, hear.) I also object to the plan of the
Noble Lord on the ground on which it has been supported by
many of its advocates, which as my Right Hon. Friend jut
said, are grounds entirely inconsistent with the maintenance of a
religious establishment. No harm, Sir, has been given to
that—( Hear)—if you are under an obligation to teach the child-
ren of those who dissent horn the Established Church, on the
ground which you allege, viz., that youfieht with Roman Catho-
lic sinews, and that you make use of Unitarian gold. If that be
the ground on which you are bound to educate children of Dis-
senters, in the first place, let me ask you why you shrink from
educating them in the tenets of their particular faith.—( Hear
hear.) And if that be the ground, because you take their gold
and make use of their strength, you are bound to give them
education, answer us this question—why are you not bound
to provide them the means of religious worship ?—( Cheers. )
If your ground is perfect, equal), in respect of contribution, the
objection applies to calling on them to contribute it all.—
( Hear, hear.) If you say there is something special in education
as distinguished from worship, I ask you, do you dissent from
the doctrine of Paley, that the business of the Church is a
scheme of instruction, the end of which is the preservation rf
religious worship.—( An Hon. Member on the the Ministerial
side of the House here made an observation which did
not reach us. )—Why shrink from religion—where do you
draw the line ? All your supporters do not. draw the
line.— ( Cheers. ) The Right Hon. and Learned Gentleman
orposite—and I think he is the only one who foresaw or avowed
the coosequences to which it may lead, and is prepared man-
fully to contend against them—for he maintains this proposi-
tion, that if you call on the Jew to contribute to the exigencies
of the State, the Jew has a right to call on you to contribute
to the maintenance of his education and his religion.—(" No,
no.") Why, how are you to distinguishlit? If you call on the Jew
to contribute to the education of children of the Establishment,
why, according to your principles, may you not call on the
members of the Establishment to contribute to the education of
the Jew ?—( Cheers. ) And I understood the Right Hon. and
Learned Gentleman distinctly to say he foresaw the conse-
quences in which it was to end, he would shrink from none of
-them—that as all were liable to contribution, so all had an equal
claim on the State, not merely to provide for religious worship,
but for religious education.—(" No, no," from Dr. Lushine-
ton. ) Then I misunderstood the Right Honourable and
Learned Gentleman. Well, then, the third question I
have to a,k is, do you believe any good will arise
from the maintainance of this scheme ? There has
been so much misapprehension with respect to the object of
this particular Board.—(Ministerial cheers.) There has been
so much of perfect, of justifiable alarm.—( Cheers, and counter
cheers.) If you have so imperfectly explained your views
that, throughout the country you have raised universal appro-
hension on the part of the public—do you think any scheme of
education of the Board is likely to attract public confidence ?
Was there ever any scheme which excited such universal
apprehension? What answer do you give to this protest
made by the Protestant Dissenters. Th Hon. Member for
Lambeth said they were the great friends of civil and religious
liberty—( Hear, hear, from Mr. Hawes)—is it their opinion
that the scheme of thel Government should be persisted in?
No, they say the general rule ought to be adhered to, the
principle of last year.—(No, no, from Mr. Hawes.) The
Hon. Gentleman says no.
Mr. HAWES—I presented a petition in favour of it.—
( Hear, hear, and laughter.)
Sir R. PEEL—To prevent any possibility of misconstruction,
the lion. Gent. says he presented some particular petition.—(Mr.
Hawes attempted to make some explanations, but was prevented
by loud cries of Order, order, from the Opposition benches.)
1 will simply read what passed at a special meeting of a Com-
mittee of the Protestant Society for the Protection of Reli-
gious Liberty, held on the 15th of June, 1839.—( Hear, hear,
from Mr. Hawes.) The Hon. Gentleman said the Protestant
Dissenters were the great friends of civil and religious liberty.
Now, what is the opinion thus given upon this scheme ?
I am confident that the principles they recommend are these,
that, as a generalrule, you should adhere to the practice of late
years, to make ample grants to the National Society and the
British and Foreign Sch ,o 1 Society, but to relax the rule
which limits the application of sums of money according to the
amount of contribution. That is the advice of this body of
Protestants.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member for Dub-
lin said there had been 1,600 petitions presented last year.
Whenever any great masses of petitions have been presented
in opposition to the views of Honourable Gentlemen opposite,
there is the nicest scrutiny as to the modes in which the petitions
are got up, and the misapprehension under which they
labour. When petitions on the other side are got up, exactly
by the same combination and influence, then they are referred
to as conclusive expressions of public opinion.—( Hear, hear. )
The Hon. Member spoke of 1,600 petitions having been pre-
sented a short time since. I have now the satisfaction of in-
forming him that up to this day not less than 3,050 petitions
have been presented the other way.—( Cheers. ) Do you be-
lieve it possible that 3,050 petitions could be presented merely
by the religious portion of the community from some exagge-
rated kind of report. The Honourable Member had
referred to the number of signatures. Now what answer
do '1 give ? Where are the counter-petitions ?—( Cheers.)
If the public feeling is in favour of the Government plan, why
have not counter-petitions been presented ?—( Cheers.) How
happens it that in opposition to the plan 3,050 petitions have
been presented, and the total number presented in its favour
does not amount to s:).—(Cheers.) You told us last year that
one of the objections to the Board of Education was the na-
tional jealousy on the subject of education. You are good
prophets on that subject. I respect you in the character of
prophets, for you saw this. But when you found your apprehen-
sions confirmed, why have you not the manliness to admit it.
What inducement other than religious motives and real con-
scientious sense of objection could have induced the Wesleyan
' Methodists to oppose it ?—( Hear, hear.) They had no pecu-
niary interests to induce them to do so. Nay, under this
system they had a greater chance of benefiting than they would
have had if they had returned to the principles on which they
acted last year, for they were then excluded altogether. Yet
they came forward at a time when an opportunity was given
them of sharing in this grant, and recorded their opposition.—
( Cheers.) how did you treat the Wesleyan Methodists when
they came forward for the abolition of slavery or the horrors of
the slave trade? Then you gave them credit for the highest
disinterestedness and the purest motives. When they come
ferward in opposition to your scheme of instruction, although it
is impossible they can have been influenced by any but
the purest motives, you say they are the dupes of credulity
and the victims of misrepresen:ation and exaggeration ;
and you attribute their zeal to any but the real cause.
Now, what is the question before us? It is not the
question which some of you have attempted to make—it is
not the question whether the school-door shall be closed—
sshether the Executive Goveenment shall be relieved from all
responsibility as to education—but it is simply a question, will
you ram n to that system upon which you acted last year,
which was founded by Lord Althorp, to which I believe a
majority of this House would not refuse its assent? Do you be-
here you will give greater satisfaction to the people by persisting
against the prayer of 3,050 petitions that have been presented
than by withdrawing the scheme and by rescinding the
Order in Council? I apprehend there cannot be a
doubt. I have referred to one of the United States.
Let me snow you what has occurred in another of
these States where the same principles are adopted
that is the State compels the institution of schools. In New
York a petition was presented from William Griffin and others,
who felt aggrieved at the practice of praying, singing, and
other exercises in the schools, and therefore praying they
might be discontinued. The petition presented against the system
of education of the New York Legislature was examined and
reported upon. The report stated that the objection to the
national system was opposed on two grounds—first, that it
taught the Christian religion at the'public expense—next, that it
invaded the rights of the equality of conscience, and
that the children of the petitioners were exposed to it.
Now, here was a limit as to the reading of the
Eible, proposed by those very parties who had at
first a right in the election of a school-master, and in de-
termining sl hether or not the Bible should be at all read in the

school. Now they say it is a violation of their consciences to
conpel the Bible to be read in the school.—(Cheers.) So do
Out flatter yourselve., that your plan, even if admitted, will give
universal satisfaction.—( Cheers.) People will ultimately make
the same objection to its operations—and for these combined
reasons I trust not the Government, but the House will con-
sent to the proposition, and advise her Majesty's Ministers to
rescind the resolution. Sir, I object then to the appointment
of this Education Begird on these distinct grounds :—First, that
it is the public feeling that it is not wisely or safely constituted.
Second, that even if it could be so constituted, it ought not to be
constituted entirely of Members cf the Government. And
Third, that as to the education of the children belonging
to the Establishment, it is unwise and improper to ex-
clude from the control and superintendence of such edu-
cation those ecclesiastical authorities who have the proper
oh n-ge of religious instruction. And, lastly, because there
have been this year presented against your schemes petitions
unexampled in numbers, and unimpeachable for purity of mo-
tive and disinterestedness of views; and besause the temporary
success of your schemes, even it carried by a small majority, so
far from advancing the cause of sound religious instruction,

w:11 be the commencement of a new religioU's struggle in this

country, upon the worst arena on which any con'est could pos-
sibly b~ cendacted.—(Long and continued cheering.)
'I he House divided and the numbers were—

For the motion
For Lord Stanley's amendment 275
Majority ... --5
The amount of the numbers was heard with loud cheering
from both sides of the House.

On our return to the gallery we found,
Lord JOHN RUSSELL proposing to the House to take
a vote.

---
Sir R. PEEL said he should object to the House taking y
vote.—( Great cheering.) The Noble Lord had proceeded any
by a Bill, but by a vote of that House, and now he proposed
that there should be only one night allowed for considering the
measure.—(Much cheering and great uproar.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I must recal to the attention of the
House that the motion was to go into Committee of Supply,
upon which the motion of the Noble Lord was interposed with
a three nights' debate—( Immense cheering)—having began by
a speech containing every sort of misconstruction.—( Tre-
mendous cheering.) lam perfectly aware that, with such a
full House, it would be useless to divide, and I shall not there-

fore persist in now going into Committee, but I protest against
the opposition which, I must say, is a most unreasonable one.
Sir R. PEEL rose amidst cries of " Spoke, spoke,"—
" Chair," and great confusion.) He said, how have I spoken
more than the N..ble Lord ?—(Cheers.) I merely wish to
say one single sentence, without pledging myself to take any
particular course upon the next proceeding, but I do object to
this principle of legislation—for legislation it is, upon this most
important matter in this way, that nothing would have induced
toe to consent, and, although I have never done it before,
I should have felt myself justified in offering my obstruction
to a vete being taken at half-past two o'clock in the morning,
ithout our having an opportunity of stating our opinions
upon the vote itself.—(Cheers.)
Lord J. RUSSELL hoped there would be no objection to
the Speaker teaving the Chair, but without taking any vote.—
(Cries of " Adjourn.")
Sir R. PEEL said he saw no objection to that, but wished
to know what was its object.
fordRUSSELL—In order that the discussion might be
taken inCommittee..—(Cries of " No. no," and renewed calls
for adjournment. )
Sir R. PEEL had no wish to offer any unreasonable opposi-
tion. He only wished to leave a full opportunity of discussing
the F,olicy of the vote. He hoped a full opportunity would be
afforded the House or discussing the vote, and of dividing upon
it. Hz should advise his Hon. Friends to 1?e content with that.
—(Cries of " Hear, hear, and " Adjourn.”)
colonel SIBTHORP—Sir, I must protest against the ob-
jection go the Right Hon. Gentleman that he has spoken. I ob-
,.