The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-15 00:00:00

EVENING EDITION

would materially alter the discipline of the school. What I
guarantee was there for that ?—( Hear.)
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—It would be a yearly vote.
Lord ASHLEY said, if the vote had to be made every
six months, or every six hours, he should equally object
to it. The powers proposed to be conferred on this Corn-
mitte of the Privy Council were such as ought not to be
given to anv body of men. The Church and the Wes-
leyans had declared they were unable to accede to the
conditions. What was the result ? Why, the whole
30,0001. would be at the disposal of the Privy Council,
not for the purpose of promoting the doctrines of the
Established Church, or those doctrines in which the
Wesleyan Methodists concurred, but for the purpose of
establishing any and what schools they pleased—( Hear,
hear)—schools professing the Roman Catholic faith, or
the Socinian faith, or no faith at all—or that party, piebald
faith professed by the Central School Society.—
( Hear, hear.) The minute issued was most severely
to be reprehended. The Church of England embraced a
large majority of the people of the realm, and what gaurantce
was there that the members of the Board would be mem-
bers of the Church of England ?—( Hear, hear.) Let
the House consider the gravity—the importance—and, he
might say, the holiness of the functions vested in that
Board. They were to appoint normal and model schools
—to appoint rectors and chaplains to superintend the read-
ing of the Scriptures. They were to exercise unlimited,
undefined, and hitherto unprecedented functions, and yet
to advise on all these there was no one Bishop--
no one representative of the Episcopal Bench, or
of the Church app)inted. It was left entirely
to persons of very little experience, and of no general
knowledge.—( Hear, hear.) If Dissenters were unable
to maintain themselves by local contributions, why were
they to be fostered and cherished at the expense of the
State ? The Committee were to decide when and where,
and to what extent dissent was to be cherished as against
the Church.—( Hear, hear.) He thought it 'would have
been but right, in deference to the subject itself, and for
the sake of respect to the people of this realm, the vast
majority of whom were within the pale of the Established
Church, that there should have been some spiritual au-
thority in the Committee before a scheme of such awful
and almost inconceivable importance was put forward.—
( Hear, hear.) Why was the country to be troubled
with this hydra of education. —(Ministerial cheers.)
He begged distinctly to state that he applied the term
" hydra" only to that notion of education which her Ma..

jesty's Government had introduced. Godforbid he should '
apply that term to religious education.—( Hear, hear.)
He should be ashamed of himself if he could apply such
a term to that which was the first duty, not only of a
man in public but in private life, to contribute to the
temporary welfare of his fellow-creatures, and to aid them
in the attainment of happiness hereafter.—( Opposition
cheers.) The House was now called on by the Govern.
ment to affirm a new principle in the history of the coun-
try and the Church—namely, that every man had a right
to be trained at the expense of the State in the faith in
which he was born.—( Cheers from the Ministe-
rialists. ) Why was not that principle explicitly
avowed in the minute ?—(Cheers.) If that principle
was so broadly laid down—what was the meaning of the
limitation expressed in the first minute. that after the chil-
dren attending model schools should have attained a cer-
tain number, then and then only would they be entitled to
the appointment of a licensed minister totrain them in the
special religion they possessed. The House was called
upon for the first time to recognise that all forms of belief,
and ministers of every denomination, were equal in the
eye of the State. and equally to be maintained by the
State. The Noble Lord ( Lord .John Russell) shook his
head. Would the Noble Lord show the difference be-
ween his ( Lord Ashley's) statement, and the principle
the Noble Lord maintained? Would the Noble Lord
tell him the difference be laid down between the Established
Church, whose doctrines he professed, and the doctrines
of all the different sects whose doctrines he opposed ?
( Hear, hear, from some Members on the Treasury
benches.) The Noble Lord and the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman by his side ( Mr. Spring Rice) cheered him.
Lord JOHN RUSSELL—I did not cheer.
Lord ASHLEY said it was far from his wish to show
up any dissension which prevailed between the Ministers
and their adherents.—( Tory cheers.) This was most
clear that a more crude and more ignorant proposition—
( Loud laughter from the Ministerial benches)—was never
made than that they were now discussing ; and it was
proved when they found two Ministers of the Crown in
this Howe giving to each other the most flat contradic-
tion._( Tory cheers and loud laughter from the Ministerial
benches.) All this showed how necessary it was that a
scheme of this sort, affecting the temporal Government of
the Church and the interests of the people, should not be
disposed of in a single moment, but that the matter should
be brought forward in a Bill, and that the whole country
should have time to express its opinion as to The whole
of this great and vital subject.—( Cries of " Hear.")
His firm and solemn belief was, that this plan of national
education was hostile to revealed religion itself.—( Hear,
hear.) He would not charge any body of men with such
an unlawful intention, but he spoke of the plan as it came
before him, and this was his deliberate conviction, and it
was the conviction of nine-tenths, he might say of ten-
tenths of those with whom he had conversed.—( Laughter. )
What was the meaning of dividing religion into general
and special?_( Hear, hear.) Was there ever such a thing
put at the very frontispiece of national education ? This
was no less than a disjunction of the most sacred truth.—
( Laughter.) If gentlemen laughed when he touched on
'such subjects as this they did not represent the people of
England.—(Tory cheers.) He did not believe that ten
thousand people could be got together in Palace-yard who
would receive with contempt and jeering a religious senti-
ment.—(" Oh, oh 1") Therefore he said this was a disjunc-
, tiou of sacred truth. What did they mean when they used
- • the f.eroa voligloo? -They divided religioninto general and
special. Immediately afterwards they said religion was to be
confined to the whole matter of instruction. What religion ?
Was that"religion general or special ? Did they mean a
part or the whole of religion ? It they meant the whole
of religion, why did they make that distraction, and then
superadd a quality which had no existence whatever?
If they meant a part of religion, what right had they in
teaching these children to withhold any part of religion ?
By this term general and special they might include every
religion and reject every religion. They separated doc-
trines from precept, and they elevated precepts by suppress..
ing the doctrine. Let them look at the effect that it
would produce on the minds of the children. They
would be taught that moral precepts were of greater value
because they were universal, and that doctrines were of
inferior value because they were necessary only
for a few.—(Hear, bear.) Dr. Kay quoted as an
instance of general religion the sermon on the mount.
Was there ever a more unhappy instance of the meaning
of general religion ? What was the value of that sermon
on the mount? Whence did it derive all its sanction, but
from the person by whom it was spoken ?—( Hear.) And
if in teaching children they suppressed the character of
that person, they undertook to teach children that the ,
character which nine-tenths of the people held, was not
the true character according to the revealed word. He
asked how this instance could be taken as an instance of
general religion ? This, of all others, was the one which
least bore out his proposition.—(pear, hear.) He did
not think the Privy Council had any right to issue such a
document as that, which bore on its face such theo-
logical errors. A little more caution was requisite—
a little more deliberation would have been decent.
Now, in the model school, religion was to be confined to
the whole matter of instruction. To what extent was reli-
gion to be inculcated in the whole matter of education ;
and how was it to bear on the system, when all the
children met in the same school ? Then, they were
all to be taken asunder for special instruction.
Would that have a beneficial effect on their
minds ? If no special creeds were enforced, they
would suppose, if they were suppressed, that they were of
ne value at all, or if they were of general importance, why
were they not enforced? Although it might be said that
it was not the business of the State to enforce the truth,
surely it was to abstain from teaching that which was false
and contradictory. Were they to set up Socinian teachers
and schools, to subvert and overthrow and oppose every
doctrine maintained by the Church of England? In what
a position would they place the State! Must not the con-
clusion be come to, that the State professed no religion ? If
the State would not teach the truth, it was tar better
that it should teach nothing at all.—( Hear, bear.)
i What could be worse than conflicting translations—what
could be more mischievous than allowing the promiscuous
use of the Romish version, which admitted much that we
considered apocryphal, and the Unitarian version, which
excluded as apocryphal much that we considered
I divine ?—( Hear, hear.) It appeared that the normal
school was considered essential by the Government. Now
the model school was a necessary consequence upon the
adoption of the normal school, which, however, must
now be postponed till greater concurrence of opinion had i
been gained in its favour. Were the teachers of every re-
ligious persuasion to be maintained and fostered in their
faith at-the expense of the State? Were the Roman Ca-
tholic Priests and the Socinian teachers to be supported
and fostered by the public funds.? And wera they after-
wards to be allowed to superintend schools, supported at
the public expense ? Why attempt to change the system
which had long been working so well ?—( Hear, hear.)
The Church of England had been charged with bigotry,
monopoly, and exclusion; with bigotry because she would
not surrender her own faith ; with monopoly, though she
asked no fresh grant for her own education system, and
only asked that a system might not be established, the end
of which would be to beat down all her most essential doe-
trines—( Hear, bear)—with exclusiveness, forsooth, though
she had made no objection to the division of the annual
grant of 20,000/. between her own system and that of the
Dissenters, thus consenting to an abatement of her strict
principles, by allowing the maintenance of other than her
own doctrine.—(Hear, hear.) She had consented
to waive Church principle, but she would not sur-
render religious principle, and that had become the
question now.—(Hear, hear, hear.) She was charged
with indifference to education. Notwithstanding that, she
supported 6,778 schools—in connection with the National
Society—teaching 597,600 children. And the present
system was made just at the period when the Church
was making unprecedented efforts for education, and
effecting the most sweeping reforms in her system.—
( Hear, hear.) Why should the Government persist in
pressing this system against the religious feeling of nine-
tenths of the people of this country.—( Hear, hear.)
They might carry a vote in that House, but it was impos-
sible they could succeed in their scheme. The expres-
sions he had made use of were not stronger than the reso-
lutions of the Wesleyan Methodists in opposition to the
scheme of the Noble Lord. Would he altogether lay
*slide ever consideration for the feelings of that exem-
-I)oage body of men who had come forward manfully
assistance of the Church, and who had exhibited no
ordinary degree of geenerosity. in their last effort, as by
the regulations of th ew minute they would be entitled
to a share in the n
aside all grant,considerations of but they had consented to lay
individual advantage, because a
door was opened to vast abuses and to the establishment
of sects and creeds from vvhichtheyconsciebntiously differed.
This This proved that they were not actuated
cal feetin,gs, but by feelings the most exayltepdarttyhaotrctld dignify human nature.-_(Cheers.) And should it be
deemed advisable to revert to the plan first proposed by

Lord ASHLEY had stated that the plan was hostile
to the Constitution, but he had not designated it as uncon.
stitutional.—( Laughter. )
Mr. HAWES believed the plan was hostile to the old
Tory Constitution.—(Laughter.) He was astonished at
the attack that had been made upon the measure, and the
language that bad been used in those attacks. He should
not have been suprised at its proceeding from the
Pope and the Vatican, but he was astonished at its
coming from the quarter it did.—(Hear, hear.) The
Noble Lord had undoubtedly been driven from his
first scheme. He (Mr. Hawes) was sorry for it. The
plan would have been more acceptable to him had it been
still further divested of everything like a sectarian charac-
ter.—(Cheers.) Under that plan a Jew would have
been refused education ; but he saw no reason why, under
a truly national system of education, every man, whatever
his creed might be, should not be benefited.—(Cheers.)
He should be glad to know if any Hon. Member advo-
cated a system of national education of which the principle
was an exclusion of the members of particular creeds ?
( Hear, hear.) Great efforts had been made to show that
that the present system was devoid of religious instruc-
tion. But if the documents cannected with the subject
were attentively perused, it would be found that such was
not the case. It would be difficult to take any line which
would reconcile these contending opinions, and he re-
gretted to find that the efforts of the Government had
failed. It had failed by the union of gentlemen entertain-
intt the opinions of the Noble Lord opposite, and a new
ally of the Noble Lord of the high Church party, the
Wesleyan Dissenters.—( Hear, hear.) It remained to be
seen, whether the Wesleyan Dissenters were disposed to
leave the question in the hands of the Church.—(Hear,
hear.) The plan now before the House was nothing more
than a continuance of the plan on which the Government
had first acted.—(No, no.) There was, perhaps, some
little difference, but it was in favour of religious liberty.—
( Loud cheers.) He rejoiced, therefore, that the question
had come to the present issue—(Loud cheers)—and
he believed, that by standing up manfully in sup-
port of a sound system of national education, the
Noble Lord (John Russell) would do more to
attach the Liberal party to him than by any other measure
he could bring forward ; and if the Noble Lord would but
manfully adhere to that principle, ho (Mr. Hawes) as an
humble Member of that body, would offer whatever support
he could to his Administration.—(Loud cheering.)
Lord F. EGERTON said, if it was the usual practice
of the House he would be content that the House should
come to a division after the speeches of the Noble Lord
the Member for North Lancashire and the Noble Lord
the Member for the West Riding of Yorkshire. He
was not surprised that his Noble Friend's speech
had been stigmatized with harsh epithets, and as
intensely uncharitable, for he believed it was in.
tensely inconvenient to the Government, and it would
be found to prove intensely effective upon the intelligence,
and understanding, and religious convictions of that House
and of the public. The Hon. Member for Lambeth had
attempted to rc.ply to his Noble Friend by quotations from
his former speeches; he believed, however, that the Hon.
Member misconceived and somewhat misrepresented the
bearing of the speech. The discussion on that occasion
was whether Dissenters should be excluded from the Uni-
versity without previously subscribing to the Thirty-nine
Articles. The hope and bearing of his Noble Friend's
argument was that that exclusion should be no longer
allowed to exist.—(Hear, hear.) His Noble Friend had
been charged with arguing that the Members who were
the depositories of power in that House—the Members of
the Government—should not be entitled or allowed to in-
terfere in the question of education. He did not
understand his Noble Friend to say any such thing.
His Noble Friend had said that, though he might have
little objection to the money being voted for the support of
two Societies, whose principles of action and of education
were well known to the community, he could not have the
same confidence in the system of action of a Committee of
the Privy Council. It was with great reluctance that he
took part in the debate, but having been entrusted with
upwards of 50 petitions from the Wesleyans, inhabiting
the district which he had the honour of representing,
he had not been able to present those petitions
himself, from causes over which he had no
controul, but he had entrusted them to his Noble Friend
(Lord Ashley), who had kindly laid them on the table.
The objections of that great and respectable body showed
the Church that there was danger in the plan of the
Government. The Hon. Member for Lambeth thought
the feeling amongst that body would not be permanent,
but he saw no reason to doubt it, because they had taken
up their opinion upon a calm, careful, and impartial re-
view of the whole plan. The Noble Lord urged many
objections to the Government scheme, but amidst so much
noise and cries of question and divide, that it was impos-
sible to hear a consecutive sentence. He concluded by
i
, saying that he agreed n all that had fallen from his
Noble Friend (Lord Stanley), and would cordially support
I ,
cis motion.