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

machinery of parental government was the com-
mencing of tyranny in the nursery. Parental governments
were in the east rather than in the west ; they were in
countries where the rule was arbitrary, and not in
countries where they were free institutions. If the
L Hon. Gentleman asked him where was the system 1
carried on that was most provident of national educa-
tion, he would state that which was prevalent in Persia.
If they left China, if they left Persia, and came to
Europe, where did they find their system of national
education ? Why, Austria was the China of Europe ;
Prussia stood in the place of Persia. Where every-
thing was left to the Government, the subject must
become a machine.—(Cheers.) He opposed the sys-
tem to which the proposition of the Noble Lord led on
account of its injurious tendency to our national cha-
racter. The Honourable President of the Central
Society for Education, and the school of philo-
sophers to which he belonged, lay down the
principle that centralization must be carried to perfec-
tion—must be combined with every institution—hut the
fallacy which pervaded that school of philosophers was
that they usurped all virtue to political institutions,
and alloxed none to the national character.—(Cheers.)
He held it to be an undeniable truth that there might

be the freest institutions in the world, and yet 6-ere
fight be an enslaved people.—(Cheers.) They might
Me a Parliament freely chosen, but if there were a
servile people as the electors for that Parliament,
it might become an unbearably tyrannical one. He
would take the instance of the Trial by Jury, the great
bulwark of our liberties, the great guarantee or our
lights : of what use would that great and glorious insti-
tution be if the twelve jury:nen were base men ? There
had been times when the Trial by Jury was an infinitely
worse tribunal than any belonging to the Inquisition.
In the time of Charles 11. we iad the Trial by Jury in

the same age with Titus Oates. He would take a period
distant, yet not very remote, the age of those great
barbarians, by which name the Hon. Member for Lis-
keard designated the councillors of the victor of Agin-
court—a time when England had as great men as she
ever produced—men entitled to the highest name—the
times of Pym, Hampden, of Seldom and Wentworth ;
men, than whom greater never lived. Yet, who could
suppose that the Parliament which had been adorned by
such men, should, in less than a quarter of a century,
have sunk into the most degraded and most. ignoble
tyrinny which ever disgraced a free country.
So much for free institutions. What occurred in the
country during that time? The national spirit was
destroyed—a great spirit of central organization was
implanted in the realm—free institutions were secured for
the people, but their rights as subjects were destroyed.
it might be said, although these principles were correct
they are too general. It was impossible to bring for-
ward a plan without ascertaining the princi-
ples, which was the foundation of the plans. They
must take into consideration circumstances of a -
very comprehensive and complicated character before
they could decide as to the state of education in this
country, because the state of education was not that
which was described. Actually it might be so much
improved, it might be as much advanced as could be,
effected by human means during the course of half a
c .ntury ; but the question to decide was not that
the state of education was good or bad, but to what
power they would entrust the education of the people.
—(Hear, bear.) He was the 'advocate of national
education, but it did not follow that he should
be the advocate of State education. There
was a great distinction between them. He (Mr.
D'lsraeli) believed that this country was at pre-
sent mcee in favour of those sectarian exertions,
which might ultimately produce general fanaticism,
than of that which might produce general infidelity.
There was more chance, if the Church of England
were destroyed, of the establishment of the Fifth Mo-
narchy Men, than of the cold and barren system of in-
fidelity. He was convinced that infidelity was unnatu-
ral to the masses ; and it was his belief that after
the Church of England should have been destroyed,
then would succeed to the wildness of anarchy, a desire
on the part of the population for that spiritual solace
without which existence was to the millions intolerable
—a desire for a Church supported by authority, by
learniag, and eloquence—and it would then become a
question what Church should be established. Now,
the Church of England stood in different circumstances,
as to the power of the Church of Rome, from those
in which it had been placed in the 17th century.
The Church of Rome appealed to the imagination
irresistibly, and to the reason powerfully ; it was no
longer kept down by penal enactments—it had the
sanction of an unrivalled antiquity, and there was a
much greater probability of its ultimate supremacy
than of general infidelity. He thought it had been
much too hastily assumed that education had been
neglected in this country. It bad been mentioned as a
proof of this, that in Manchester a school was esta-
blished in a cellar !—( Hear.) Now, for his part,
he rather considered that as an evidence that
the seed of education had taken so deep root in
the country, that it would speedily fructify into gene-
rality—for such a fact would never have been predicted
.50, or even 25 years ago.—(Hear, hear.) Now as to
the rued districts, the late unfortunate afflir in Kent
had been referred to, as showing the neglect of the
clergy. lie, on the contrary, believed it was a trium-
phant proof of the necessity for parochial supervision ;
for it was very remarkable that the district in which the
riot had occurred was extra-parochial, and the inhabi-
tants were the scum of the surrounding neighbourhoods.
He merely alluded to that to show how carelessly state-
ments were made, and how easily inferences might be
drawn from imperfect data, by which every fact in illus-
tration of the truth was made the basis of a contrary
argument. He believed it was an axiom in civil po-
licy that in proportion as they curtailed the duties
of citizens, they perilled the rights of subjects, and he
believed that had been done already to some extent.
Tfiey bad already had recourse to a system of central
organisation. What had that system not produced,
and what might it net produce? And let them re-
member that the same system that tyrannised in the
nurnry would again make its appearance, and operate
in old age under the specious pretence of relief. It was
always the StatQ, and n'vcr soci:ty—it was always ma-
Wncry, and never syernatliy. By their system of State
cetion all were thrown into one mint, and all came
out with the same impress and superscription. They
might mike money—theyi might make railroads, but
when the age ofpa.ision came—when these interests were
stirring, which would shake society to its centre, then
would they see what would become of the votaries of
State education. Who, he would ask, had built their
Z.Tiliversities ? Was it central organization ?—(llear.)
--oho had built th_ir colleges and their cathedrals?
Was it central or,„esinisation ? The time would come
when they would find that they had revoletioniz .c 1 the
English character, and when they had done that they
could no longer expect English achievements. For
these reasons, and believing that the proposition of the
Noble Lord was contrary to the genius of the
country-, he should give it his decided opposition.
He objected to the manner in which the subject bad
been brought under the notice of the Legislature.
It was an important subject, introducing an Un-
portant change, and it was not decorous on such
a great subject not to consult both branches of
the Legislature.—( Hear, hear.) Were they so superior
to the other branch of the Legislature that they
did not require their counsel or their opinions to be con- '
sajted on such an important subject. The Constitution
hart taught him that the Lords and the Commons were
to be alike consulted. On matters of minor importance
he did not contend for an appeal to both branches of the
Legislature, but on a subject of this nature, which had
agitated the society of this countryto its centre,he thought
it was not. nroper to bring forward such a proposition in
the languid summer months ; and how was it brought
forward ? between a vote for the building of Palace
stables, and a proposition for the establishment of
do penny postage. It was extremely desirable
th it this question should not be dealt with as a

_
par,,:y question, and the fault of its being so considered
shout,` rest on the heads of those who had made
it a stAing-horre for party purposes. He contended
that this ".easure had not been introduced in a manner
worthy of til, a Government. Tuis discussion ought to
no to with calm minds, and how
• have been col. could it
be so come tt, while the country was in a state of
provisi anal insurre.-ction ? A most extraordinary docu-
ment bad been presb.nted to the House within the las t
few days, a document o?such a nature that they had been
so frightened at it as to In\-ak through the rules of the
House, and suffer the Gentleman presenting it to enter
into discussion.—(Cries of " No, no.") If they were
not -frightened, why •did they permit that Hon.
Gentleman to break through the rules of the House ?
A petition signed by a million and a half of people, what-
. ever ignorance it might betray,howeverabsurd or excessive
might be its demands, was not to be despised, and they
should. recollect that to-night they were to decide as
to how that people, and how their posterity, were to be
educe ted. While such matters were passing around
then :he thought it was not right that such a question
F shoula' be met in a spirit of party.—(Cheer from the
AlicistAqial benches.) He was glad to hear that cheer,
but let the Goverament explain why thii measure was
introduced in this manner to only one branch of the
I L:gislattv-e• .
Mr. WART could not but express his astonish-
ment at the, arguments of the Honourable Gentleman.
If pushed to their utmost extent, they would bring us
back te a state of savageness, and throw the people
back into that et,' ate.. of desirable uncivilization, in
white, according to his own acknowledgment, some of
1
constituents were at this moment placed.
The Hon.
Gentleman 'had gone so far as to ex-
press a qualified approbation of a cellar life in
IPthe town of Manchester ; now a more brutal
. system of life be could not well conceive. The Hon.
/Gentleman had stated that these persons. had a desir,,
qeor information and education, and yet he withheld it
from them.
out a most The Hon. Gentleman had, indeed, drawn
igseniou.s argument hi favour of what he
itwould call free trade in ignorance.—(Hear, hear.) The
for leaving every man to himself,
1 'n Member was
1 b. • he pleaded English
i although precedent and 1
Ana
' ^tion of antiquity for that new doctrine, he i
, the sans ' that the system of centralization'
i swam ask . him to deny 1