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

Sir ROBERT INGLIS said the Hon. Mem-
ber for Ipswich, whom he did not see in his usual
place (Mr. Gibson was conversing with Mr. Finch on
one of the Ministerial benches), but whom he did see,in
the place to which the speech he had that
evening delivered most properly belonged—(Tory
cheeri)—and who bad received the Papal gift, in this
instance, of the loud and repeated cheers of the Hon.
and Learned Member for Dubin—(Hear, hear, and
laughter)—on which he (Sir Robert) could not congra-
' tulate him, had thought fit to refer to him (Sir Robert
Inglis in the course of his speech, in so pointed a way
as had induced him instantly to rise. [The Hon.
Baronet addressed the House in so low a tone of voice
that we heard him but very indistintly.] The lines
which the Hon. Member for Ipswich had quoted, were
_the common lines used in Infant Schods ; and if the
Hon. Membcr said those lines wue ill adapted to the
instruction of children, he did not understand on what

principle the Hon. Member wished Infant Schools to
be conducted. There could be no better method of
educating children than that, and which the lion. Gent.
himself might adopt in his own ❑ursery. The Hon.
Gentleman bad alluded to certain doctrines held by
same persons connected with the University which he
had the honour to represent. Those were not doc-
trines for which the University of Oxford, as a body,
were in any degree responsible.—(Hear, hear.) They
might be correct or incorrect, but they were in no way
adopted or supported by the University.—( Hear, hear.)
But the University was responsible for the petition she
had sent to that House, and he (Sir Robert Inglis) was
willing to take his share of the responsibility attached
to that petition, She was also responsible for her op-
position to the Governm,nt plan cf education, and in
that responsibility also it was his delight and pleasure
to share. The Government scheme, although changed
technically, and in a slight form, no one who was anxious

for the religious instruction of the people could assent to.
for the evil of it could not be remedied by any modifi
cation. Let no man deceive himself into the belief that
the evil could be remedied so long as the Board of
Privy Council coutinued.—( Hear, hear.) It was not,
es the Hon. Member for Ipswich supposed, that they
doubted the President of the Council, or the President
of the Seal, or any individual who might be in the Ad-
ministration—it was not that they doubted them, but
what they said was, that it was proposed to transfer to
to a body of laymen a function adlich he'onged to the
Church. He contended that, from time immemorial,
under the Romish Church as well as under the Reform
Church that now existed, the education of the people
had been the legitimate prit ileg,re of the Clergy.—( Hear,
hear.) If the Church of Rome were again triumphant,
she would be the last that would allow any other
institution the right to educate her people.—(Hear.)
The plan of the Government, in the first place, trans-
ferred to a body, not directly or necessarily connected
with the Church, functions which belonged to the
Church ; and, in the next place, it deprived the Church

of that which did belong to her. Could the Hon.
Member for Ipswich deceive himself into the belief
that men who held those Mitrtisterial offices, would al-
ways be men favourable to the Church?—(Hear, hear.)
Did he not remember that the Test and Corporation Act
was repealed ? Did he not remember that the Roman
Catholic Relief Bill was passed ? The Privy Council
might admit members who were not of the Church of
England—it might admit members of the Church of
Rome. The Hon. Member for Ipswich, who did belong
to the Church of England, and whose aspirations
were warmly in favour of the Church, although his
vote was not, was bound in common fairness to admit
that the Church of England would not be very safe in
the hands of such persons.—( Hear, hear.) Then it
had been said the Church of England had very much
neglected her duty. He was not prepared to defend
the state of the Church of England in the eighteenth
century. There had no doubt been a great apathy,
and which perhaps might have prodaced the results
no v seen—( hear, hear, from the Ministerialists)—
but they were not to legislate in 1839 upon the state
of the Church in 1750. They were to take the ener-
gies of the Church of England, as they now saw them
displayed, and they were to ask themselves whether
there could be found so good an instrument for the
particular purpose on which the House was
called to legislate, as they found in the
Church herself. The question was not whether in
former days the Church of England might have ade-
quately discharged her duties, but whether in the pre-
sent generation of her sons she was not fully
occupied in diffusing the blessings of education. They
had received statistical accounts relative to crime from
which they were told it was clear that the Church of
England had been lamentably deficient in doing her
duty. Those accounts told two ways.—(Hear, hear.)
He had a return of the number of prisoners in Newgate
at a period so far distant from the present as to make
it clear that the account could not have been prepared
for the purpose for which he now used it. The return
comprised 52 boys, committed for various offences, from
the 17th October 1821 to the 12th of March 1822 ;
and they were classed as follows :-19 were taught to
read there, 16 not having had any previous instruction ;
18 were taught in schools not in connection with the
Church of England ; 9 had no instruction ; 6 were
taught in schools belonging to the Established Church.
Was he not entitled to say that such was the superiority
of the mode and principles of instruction in the Esta-
blished Church, that whilst 18 of the prisoners had been
taught in schools not in connection with the Church, 6
only in connection with the Church were in the same prison.
Surely that argument, if good for anything, was appli-
cable to the present case, because no one could deny
that the majority of persons nominally professing. Chris-
tianity were. in favour of the Church.—(Hear, hear.)
He could not agree that instruction in mere writing and
arithmetic deserved the name or education. The Hon.
Member for Ipswich had asked, why should not a boy
learn arithmetic without learning the doctrine of justi-
fication by faith?—(Hear, hear.) He (Sir R. Inglis)
grieved to hear such a question asked. The Hon.
Member had endeavoured to excite feelings of ridictde
by the m de in which he made that remark. He (Sir
R. Inglis) contended that even the elementary parts of
education might be connected, and ought to be con-
nected, with Christian instruction. The pervading
principle of religious feeling ought to be prominent
in the mind both of masters and pupils. H
the Honourable Member for Ipswich said that man
was an immortal being, he (Stir R. Inglis) called upon
him, on the ground of that immortality, to neglect no
opportunity, in any circumstances, to prepare them,
and guide them into the way of peace and everlasting
happiness. That was the object of their being here,
and anything v. hick diminished the chance of obtaining
that result was clearly short of universal charity. That
universal charity could never be obtained by the com-
promise of any principle.—( Hear, bear.) If a parent
or teacher had a just sense of Christian care and re-
spensibilitv, he would not sacrifice the opportunity of
instructing those children, and therefore the ministers of
he Church of England would not consent to the un-
ho'y alliance proffered to them by the Government
under this plan. The Hon. Member for Lambeth had
asked, " What is truth ?" That question was asked
1,800 years ago. If the Government believed the
doctrines of the Church of England to be the truth, let
them not sanction that which they did not believe to be
the truth. Those who had influence in a nation, were
hound to promote that, for a nation, which they would
promote for their own family or parish. Every man
was responsible to God for the power given him.
Those Honourable Gentlemen who held office under
the Crown, were bound to use their power for the pro-
motion of truth. But would any tell him that the
Egan of the Government did not tend to the promotion
or that which they believed to be untrue? They ad-
mitted that their design was to extend the benefits of
national education to those who now required it, not
to those belonging to the Church merely, but to persons
of all descriptions. But it was said that Roman Catholics,
Jews, a;;d Dissenters paid their portion of the national
tax.s, and therefore ought to receive a certain portion of
the national income. But did nny one refuse to pay for a

gaol because he did not use it, or refuse to pay for a
public road, on the ground that he never traversed it ?
It was inseparable from a national system that it should
be supported by those who did not belong to it. He
understood nothing of a national establishment of reli-
gion which all were not bound to support, although it
was not bound to support all. Those who wielded the
power of the State ought,so long as establishments con-
tinued, to make them the object of their care. With
these views of the duty of the Government to uphold
the cause of religion on their own individual obligation,
he could not understand how his Noble and Right
Honourable Friends could justify themselves in
the aid they were now giving to those whom
they believed to be in error.--(Hear.) He was
very much deceived indeed if the plan-proposed by the
Government was calculated to give happiness to the
people of this great country here or hereafter. There,
perhaps, he might have sat down, but he felt bound to
say that the manner in which his Right Hon. Friend,
who had closed the debate last night, had addressed the
House, had given him great pain. It gave him pain to
bear a man like his Right Hon. Friend, who held a
high office in the Church, throwing his authority into
the scale in favour of the Government plan. If there
was any truth in his (Sir R. Inglis's) arguments, those of
the Right lion. Gentleman would go for nothing, for
they never could bring together under one roof those
who differed on spiritual subjects.—(Hear, hear.) The
House had hoard that from all the petitions that
had been presented against the present plan ;
they had heard it from the Roman Catholics
of Mayo, they had heard it from the great body of the
Wesleyan Methodists, and they had heard it from many
of the other bodies of the Dissenters. Never was there
a subject on which petitions from all sects and denomi•

nations had been presented in greater numbers than
against the proposed Government plan of education.
It had been asked were the petitions that had latterly
been presented against the present Government plan ?
He had already stated that they were. Indeed he had
presented a petition which actually referred to the day
of the adjourned debate ; it could not therefore
be said that the country had m'staken the object of the
plan. He believed the number of petitions on this
subject had been unexampled. The only support the