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

for any thing I know, the same members who formed the
Committee may be the Committee of the Government, consti-
tuted to consider the state of the representation, and the pro-
bability of a large majority, consequent on a dissolution of Par-
' liament. Suppose it should turn out that much might depend,
as to the:representation in a certain part of the country, upon
the question of education, would it not be said, is it wise to ex-
pose yourself to that ? and would it not be infinitely better to
place the superintendence of these funds in some Neely more in-
dependent than in these who evidently exist on so evenly a
balanced state of parties? But let the Dissenters re-
member that if it be good for this Government it
must be good for their successors.—(Hear, hear.) If
it be right that a Committee of this Government should
superintend the education of the people, and if a change of Go
vernment should unfortunately take place, remember that you
have established the principle, and that the next Government,
whatever it be, will be the body deputed by yourself to manage
the general education.—( Much cheering.) They will intro-
duce their views also into the superintendence of education ;
and suppose their views should be that it is not wise for a
system of education, so far merely as the Establishment is
concerned, that the chief ecclesiastic should be excluded
from it—and suppose they should place in this Council
the Bishop of London and the Archbishop of Canterbury,
what right would you have to object to that ?—(Cries of
" None, none," from the Ministerial side.) None what-
ever,—and they will be supported by a majority in the prin-
ciple.—( I tear, hear.) Well, I don't know, under this principle,
what the Dissenting body may think of having the whole of the
instruction committed to the Establishment. I say, I know
not what they will think, but I will say that if ten years aeo
Lord Liverpool, or if five years ago I had proposed that the
Government should be the body to consider all matters affect-
ing the education of the people, and if I had proposed that a
vote should be passed in three single words, but most im-
portant words, viz., thirty thoasand pounds, without condd ion
or restriction of ally kind to be placed under the controul of the
Executive Government for the purposes of education, then I
do believe that whatever may have been the number of peti-
tions adverse to this plan, the number from dissenting bodies on
that occasion would have been at least equal.—( Hear.) But
that is the principle you are about to establish by the Constitu-
tion of this body. You say you are responsible to Parliament.
Responsible to Parliament ! Why you ought to petition Parlia-
ment for a succession of measures for the education of the
people, to be afterwards considered and decided upon by Parlia-
ment. Bat you constitute yourself that Privy Council to legis-
late upon education in consequence of the authority vested in you
by Parliament—and that is what I object to. Now I say that
when this is made to depend upon a Government with ten of a
majority to support it one night, and twenty to support it
another night--still enough I admit to enable it to go on—and
that that Government is to have given to it this year 30,0001.,
and next year 80,0001. to be applied at their discretion, that is
nut a orinciple; that, ought to
,be adopted for education; that
is an objection that might he felt and ought to be felt
by Dissenters equally with the Church of England, for
it is the establishment of a principle to which on every
ground they ought to object.---(Hear, hear.) Why it is
ungrateful on the part of the Noble Lord to make his censures
on those who object to a Board of this description ; and the
Chancellor of the Exchequer frequently reads an extract of
a eneech in aid of his own speech and cancels the name.
He' says now I am going to read from a high authority—
you will hear the sentiment but wait for the name. Hear
the sentiment and judge of its merits from it own abstract
qualities, which they will be sufficient to carry with them,
and then I will produce the name, and the internal rever-
ence and respect for it will then confirm the merit of the ex-
tract.—( Hear, hear.) Now, Sir, I will imitate the Right
Honourable Gentleman, and I will quote to you two grave
authorities against a Board of this description. I will conceal
the names.—( Hear, hear.) I will conceal the names, because
I cannot allow you in the first instance to form a prejudice in
favour of the authors by letting you know the names in'the first
instance, on account of the high Ecclesiastical authority, or on
account of the high Conservative principles of the party who
held them. You shall judge of the merits of the author from
the sentiments without hearing the names. The Noble Lord
gave us Paley and Fenelon, and then gave us the sentiments
of those illustrious Divines.—( Hear, hear, hear.) Now, I
shall follow the example of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
This is the opinion of certain high authorities who at present
shall be nameless, with respect to the policy of establishing a
Board of Education, not delivered at a remote period.—
( Hear, hear.) I have been constantly told that I am behind
the spirit of the age.—(Laughter.) Sir, I find that to be so,
for if I take up the position her Majesty's Government took up
last year, and try to defend it in the hope of obtaining some
expression of gratitude, I am exposed to a raking fire for the
illiberality of the opinions I advance.—( Hear, hear hear.)
Here is the first authority :—" But with this difference
of opinion on the subject of education, whatever might be
the individual sentiments of the Members of that House, or of
tl.ese authorities, I confess I do not see, until there is some
likelihood of agreement among the leading persons in favour of
a general system of education in this country, that it would be
a good plan to establish a Commission or a Board of Education
by the Government, because, however it might be constituted,
it would create great jealousy."—( Hear, hear.) That is the
first authority ; the second is this :—" I believe that the inter-
ference of the Government, by appointing a Commission or a
Board of Education in the present state of the question
would create great jealousy, and being convinced that
it would be .injurious to the progress of the question, I shall
oppose the motion, and I hope the Hon. Member will not per-
sist in it."—(Hear, hear, and cries of " Name.") One of them
is the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment, and the other the Right Hon. the Chancellor of the
Exchequer—( Great cheering, and laughter.) They were
delivered last year—( Hear, hear)—in 1838, upon the subject
of appointing a Board of Education. Is not this a Board of
Education, and can you resist our motion?—(Cheers and
au,ghter. ) Do you vote against us to night ? Have you net
said that such a proposition would be positively injurious to
the question—and can you object to the resolution to rescind
the Order in Council ?—(Loud cheers.) The Noble Lord
then declared his opposition to the proposition, on
the ground of the then excited state of the public
mind. Now I S^(l the difference ; the public mind
is now tranquil—there is now no jealousy on the subject
of education, and the difficulties that existed last year, on ac-
count of the suspicions and apprehensions that were enter-
tained, are entirely seethed by the proposal of the present plan
of education of her Mejesty's Government.—(Cheers.) Sir.
I object to the establishment of this Board, on another, and
a distinct ground. I don't maintain the position, that the
Church has a right to interfere with the religion of those who
dissent from it. I never heard anything else from my Noble
Friend.—(Cheers.) What he said was, that in the Established
1 Church education was a 'spiritual concern. My Noble
'l Friend referred to authorities in support of this proposi-
tion, and quoted, among others of the feudal times, Chief
Justice Holt. He quoted it not to show that the Church has
a right to exercise any control ever the Dissenters, but that it
was unwise to constitute a national plan of education exclud-
ing altogether the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church._
(" Hear, hear," from Lord Stanley,) You have found it much
more convenient to misrepresent than to answer my NoVe
1 Friend.—(Loud cheers.) I disclaim, therefore any intention
i of claiming fur the Established Church the right to interfere
with the religion of those who dissent from it. But this I
Olive, that no system of national education shall be established
he Oils country, which shall exclude from all controul and super-
, intentitnee the ecclesiastical authorities of the Church. Sir, if
that proposition be agreeable to the feelings generally of the
1 eneenbers of the Establishment, I say it is a violation of their
1 ycine; nl es and consciences for a Government to propose a sys-
itent of estitation from which the ecclesiastical authorities of that
Church are studiously excluded. Will you tell me what
= is your deihtition of an Establishment ? The Noble Lord opposite
)" has quoted Paley. Paley says, " The single view in which we
ought to consioler any Church Establishment is that of a scheme
of instruction—t.` single end we ought to purpose to them is
a proper provision for the proper communication of religious
.knowledge." Now, observe, I am only speaking of an este-
telishment in so far as it is connected with the instruction of
those belonging, to it; a.'d I again repeat that I repudiate any
coercive control over chose who do not belong to it. But with
, respect to the members of the Established Church and their
1 oialren, if you mean to uphold it. you must not exclude from
it theree who exercise the chief offices of the Church. If the
neje,easof the Church be the diffusion of religious knowledge,
do vosf think it wise that the education of those of tender
years ooeyto:si be separated altogether from doctrinal instruction
a the pt ;nciiele of their Church ? On what ground do you ex-
clude ecciessiasts cal members of the establishments from being
on this Beeed ? .Has it a tendency to raise those ecclesiastical
authorities in the esOimation of the people, to hold out to the
rising generation the p:inciple that, from the superintendence
and control of all doctrine; points, they are studiou,ly excluded
—( Hear, hear)—and do you fit them for being good Chris-
, tans if you exclude from any scheme of education religious in-
structora in the doctrinal points of their belief. Sir, I con-
sider tate is a grave question, whether, in fact, we arc pro-
moting ,harniony by giving joint education to persons
of various religious opinions.—(Cries of " Hoar, bear.")
Same time eieee, with respect to Ireland, I thought great
advantage would as.se frorn this kind of instruction. I thought
here was a chance of soothing the religious animosities which
prevailed, by making some: concession on that point founded
upon the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, but I attempted to
surround it with every safeguard to prevent it from being
drawn into precedent. It was a fair trial of a plan, in
order to see if it would not contribute to make more harmony
in future life.—(Cries of " Hear, hear.") 1 confess, Sir,
that subsequent reflection leads me to entertain grave doubts
upon that point.—( hear, hear.) So far 54 children of the
Establishment is concerned, I have come to this opinion, that
their instruction should be a doctrinal instruction ; my opinion
is that you must not shrink from that duty. You are much
more likely to make them good members of society and of the
Church than if you bring them up shrinking from teaching
them the doctrines they profess—in this country I very much
doubt whether you are promoting the probabilities of future
harmony by oiving them, together with the children of Dissenters,
a secular instruction, and handing there over to the minister
of their own particular creed en a given day. I very much
doubt whether it would not be infinitely better that the
Ministers of the Establishment—l speak as I feel—if I were an
Unitarian or a Presbyterian Minister, I would prefer to give
my child, as a chid of my persuasion, a general instruction,
telling him that religion ought to form the basis of all instruc-
tion, rather than 1 would consent to exclude the principles of
religious instruction from the school. But, with respect to
the Clergymen of the Established Church, rather than con-
..

sent to suc!i a plan—a plan which virtually would
exclude the Scriptures from the schools, and prohibit him

from entering it—l would rather quit the connection between
Church and State with respect to education, and leave educa-
tion in its own hands. I ask, why should tie highost ecclesias-
tical authority be excluded from these schools—they surely
ought to have the superintendence of the children of the Esta-
blishment—they must not shrink from that duty. I very
much doubt whether the principle of the Christian faith
—I very much doubt whether there is not a much'

greater chance of harmony in this country by educating the
children of tender years according to the principles of the
Church, than if you were to give them a secular instruction,
and telling them that religion is an open question as it were—
(Loud cheering for some moments)—and telling each that
they are to be instructed in their religious exercises by the
minister of their own creed. Now, Sir, reference has been
made to the religious instruction in America. The Hon. and
Learned Member for Dublin referred to the state of
education in Prussia, and in New York, and Massa-
-1 ehusetts. With respect to Prussia, he was obliged
to abandon his position. Yes, he distinctly declared that he
abandoned the cause of secular instruction in Prussia, for he
tumid it was impossible to instruct the various sects together.
In America, the Hon. and Learned Gentleman informed the
HGase that it had proved infinitely successful. Now, Sir, I
i'lve attempted to make myself informed as to the suc-
e,ess of that plan. The plan is indeed very similar to
mat suggested by the Noble Lord. It was a general and reli-
gious instruction; that is to say, the children are to
be instructed in general matters in the school, and
specially in religious matters, by their respective minis-
ters in their respective creeds.—(Hear, hear.) I have
the Report of the Secretary to the Board of Education in New
York, dated January 14, 1839, in which it is said, " The plan
is that the School Committees shall never direct to be pro-
pounded or used in any of Ow schools any books calculated to
favour the tenets of any particular sezt of Christians." Bat
ob,e, ve the Scriptures are to be used in almost all schools,
either as a devotional or as a reading book. This is
like the normal school.; of the Noble Lord. The Secre-
tarY
die Board, who w4a a man most anxious to pro-
is t
mote education, •t t respect impossiblefor his anxiety to cven ? 'e'4l the
his report without
fi
feeling the utrnoli
benefits of school education to all classes. He says, in my
report of last year,
I exposed th.e alarming deficiency of mo-