The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-06 00:00:00

the President of the Couneil, or had never read the papers
upon the subject of education which are on your Lordship's
table, could he ever have conceived for one moment that this
discussion was at all bordering upon, or in the slightest degree
had any reference to the discussion now before your Lordships.
Could any man for one moment dream, considering that he
only heard the able and very elaborate speech from the Rev.
Prelate, taken frinn the general text, that above all things re-
ligious instruction is objectionable to the morals of the country,
and is most hurtful to the character of the people ? Could any
man for one moment hear him charge the N..ble Lords, my
friends in the Government, that they were the ready
and willing tools, only waiting to be taken up by the
Central Society for Education—that they were ready
made- tools, anxiously waiting to be put to use by the So-
ciety for the Promotion of Religious Equality—a Society of
which I have heard for the first time to nis,ht.—( Hear, hear. )
I put it to the candour of pair Lordships, whether any person
entering the House, without having heard the speech of my
Noble Friend, or having read those papers which are now lying
before me, could he, by 'possibility, my Lords, believe, after
hearing the eloquent and elaborate declamation of the Reverend
Prelate, against an irreligious education being highly demo-
, ralizing to the country—l put it to you, my Lords, is it pos-
sib:e that he could have conceived that speech was used as an
argument against a plan of education, on which it is
fairly and fully set out in the paper the motion is founded,
and which was staring the Rev. Prelate in the face during the
whole of his speech, that the fundamental quality of the plan
is that there shall be a general and especial religious education ;
that it is to be combined and is to imbue the whole manner of
instruction ; that a chaplain is to be employed to conduct the
religious education of the children belonging to the Establish-
ment in every school, and that the parent or natural guardian
of every child was to have free liberty to instruct him in the
principles of his own religion ? My Lords, could any man
fancy that that speech was' directed against a plan of
which these were the fundamental principle§ ?—( Hear, hear. )
Surely the Central Society must repudiate this principle. One
would think we were discussing a general scheme for the edu-
cation of the people :—all the apprehensions and alarms were
pointed at this—all the mischief apprehended, or affected to be
apprehended, is to be derived from a general system of educa-
tion—,compulsory in its nature—in the hands of the Govern-
ment—irreligious—based on a design to pull down the Esta-
blished Church.—( Hear, hear.) " Anti-Christian" was the
term applied to it m one petition,—" Popish," by another,—
and one petition, culling both the flowers, applied them both—
probably thinking that " Popish," was " Anti-Christian."
—( Hear and laughter.) But what is the plan ? No
general system whatever. A mere minute of Council, re-
cognizing the doings of a certain function by four Members of
the Pi ivy Council which heretofore has been done by one :
namely, the suiserintending the distribution of the annual
isarliamentary grant, and establishing one normal school,
this last having been abandoned. lam sorry for it.—(Hear,
hear.) I wish there had been any grotind for the change res-
pecting this; I complain of the system as not going far enough.
I regret that the Government, in deference to the senseless
apprehensions of some—the miserable affectations of others—
and the foolish !prejudices of the rest—have pared down what
ought to have been a general measure for the education of the
people, into a mere plan for founding a single school in Lon-
don, and appointing a Committee of their own body, to super-
intend the grant of 20,0001. or 30.000/. lam mortified that
Parliament is not ready to do its duty to the people—that after
. 25 years spent in deploring the want of public instruction in
this country—after it has been by all parties confessed, that the
people of England are less educated than tnore of Central
Europe, and only better educated than the people of Spain or
Italy—l am ashamed of our inglorious singularity in this res-
pect—of our shameful exception to the character o the age in
which we live—that after all that hest been confessed, even by
the Right Reverend Prelate—of the utter inadequacy of our
present means of education—that all we have been able to
screw our courage" to, has been the asking Parliament for a
paltry 30,000/., and appointing a Committee of Noblemen to
distribute it.—( Hear, hear.) But it is still more mortifying
to find that there exist millions in this country who have been
so far childish, thoughtless, and unreflecting, as to be led
away by the cry—the clamour—the vulgar exploded outcry
of danger to the Established Church !—( Hear, hear, hear)—
while 20,000/ a-year has been annually distributed by Govern-
ment at their discretion, without any such cry being
raised.—( Hear, hear.) How much must I fear then for my
plan, which is to furnish every parish with the means of M..-
fording to all classes, without distinction of sects, the benefits
of education. However, my Lords, I must do my best to
defend the plan of the Government, which, as far as it
goes, is in the right direction, and which is only to
be attacked by ignorance and misrepresentation.—( Hear. )
My Lords, one,great error which pervades the whole argument
of the Right Reverend Prelates, I wish to clear up at theoutset,
because, till the terms in which we are contesting are ren-
dered intelligible, we are but fighting in the dark. If there is
one proposition more dwelt upon than another by the oppo-
nents of the Government plan, when they' condescend to argue,
which is but seldom, it is this, that to the Church the State
has committed the religious instruction of the people, and that
therefore the Clergy should have the secular education of the
people. First they claim a right exclusively to educate the
children of their own persuasion. How is it possible that there
can be any plan of education based upon the exclusive right of
the clergy to teach the children of the Church ? Are no
Churchmen to be suffered to send their children to be educated
by the Dissenters?—(Hear, hear.) Take care, however, that
you do not give some preference to Churchmen over Dis-
senters. Remember that funds raised by the represen-
tatives of all, should be applied to the benefit of all.
But, then, it is said that the Church should be provided by the
State with ample means for giving secu,ar instruction to all
classes, Churchmen and Dissenters. How is that. to work?
. The Members of the Established Church are to teach not only
secular, but religious instruction? Of course they can teach
none but their own religion. To the Dissenter's child as well
as the Churchman's? That is impossible ; unless, indeed, the
Dissenter consents. But how is his consent to be obtained ?
And if you cannot get it, are we to allow you the exclusive ap-
propriation of money voted for general instruction ?—(Cheers.)
For, after all. though you may think this a vulgar point, it is a
necessary one—it is that on which the whole dispute really
arises. If the clergyman is to teach his religion to all classes,
the Dissenter will not send his child to be, as he thinks" per-
verted," or as the Church thinks " converted "—( A laugh)—and
thus loses the benefit of a grant,—towards which, neverthe-
less, he contributed—( Hear, hear)—for it is not as with the
, two Bishops in the reign of James 1., who asked one whe-
ther the King might not take his money? to which the an-
swer was, " Assuredly,"—and on asking the other Prelate, he
answered, " Please your Majesty, you may take my bro-
ther's money, for he gives it you."—(Laughter.) But
the Legislature compelled the Dissenter to pay, and than it
is proposed that he should not participate in the benefit
of the grant.—( Hear, hear,) Well! is the clergyman only
to give secular instruction? If so, for that the Dissenting
tea"her is, ex concessis, equally qualified. If he is to give
religious instruction, therefore, the Dissenter is excluded. If
secular instruction, the'Dissenter is as well qualified.—( Hear,
hear.) What is meant by leaving all instruction in the hands
of the Clergy? The Right Rev. Prelate said that no men
could be more unfitted to act as schoolmasters than her Ma-
jesty's Ministers—that they were incapacitated by other duties,
and so on—and it was wittily suggested whether they were to
whip the boys ?—( Laughter.) Nobody ever dreamt of such a
thing. The words of the Minute are, that the Committee of
the Privy Council are to " consider ail matters affecting the
education of the people;" was it ever imagined that this meant
they should see to the etails of the education—to the books and
slates used—to the declensions and inflections of grammar ?
Certainly they might as well look to the operation to which I
have just alluded, and on which I abstain from further remark.
—( Laughter.)
The Bishop of LONDON—I was not speaking of the
Government plan at all, but of tie plan whit'( the Government
were urging us to adopt, and of which, I understand, the pre-
sent plan to be preliminary.
Lord BROUGHAM—ReaIIy, my Lords, this it too hard,
to have to defend not only the plan which is adopted and pub-
lished, but a plan which I know nothing of—which nobody
knows any thing about—which may at some uncertain period,
by some unknown person, be proposed : which has no existence,
save in the fancies ~f imaginative' individuals.—( Laughter. )
But the argument is, that the Government are unfitted, by
other duties, for the business of education. I wonder, my
Lords, that the acuteness of the Right Rev. Prelate did not
lead him to discover that other men besides her Majesty's
Ministers had their time fully occupied. I have often heard it
said, that the clergy of this country are badly paid, and
hardly worked. No man has more than myself, both privately
and officially, seen and regretted this. I know that no class of
men are more hardly worked in their vocation than the clergy.
—( Hear, hear.) I have often exp essed my humble gratitude
for their efforts in the cause of education. Hut the faithful dis-
charge of their regular duties, with the visitmg of their flocks,
are quite sufficient to occupy their time.--( Hear, hear.) And
secular instruction is as sufficient to occupy the time la schosl-
master as are the duties of religious instruction to engage the
time of a clergyman. Where, then, is the reasonableness of
talking about committing to the clergy the education of the
people exclusively? In what way are they to perform it?
I deny that the clergy are any more the teachers of the people
than the laymen. I deny that they have that right any more
than the laymen. They are teachers in the highest sense of
the word, bat they are teachers and preachers—they are to
teach religion and and the others are to teach learning. They
may even combine the two together, but to talk of the
clergy as a body having a pre-eminence in secular education ap-
pears to me the most absurd and gratuitous of all propositions.
The Right. Reverend Prelate said that intellectual learning is all
very well for men of high rank and learning, because in them
it might operate as a substitute for religion, but in the common
people religion alone could insure moral conduct ; and I believe
that in some he would be disposed to regard learning. My
Lords, Ido not understand this.—( Hear.) Ido not think the
upper classes can dispense with the sanctions of religion any
1 more than the poor. Ido not agree in that code of moral laws
laid down by the Right Rev. Prelate; if he will allow me to say
so, I think he has laid down a very unsounddoctrine. (Some Noble
Lords near the bar were conversing together in rather a loud
tone, and the Noble and Learned Lord exclaimed.) If Noble
Lords are fatigued with the course of this deba' e, I will relieve
them by moving an adjournment, for I am more fatigued than
they. The subject is very important and lam determined it
shall be discussed. You may divide either to-night or Mon-
day, but I will be heard. My Lords, I was grappling with
the distinction made by the Right Rev. Prelate, that you
might dispense more safely with religion in the one el••ss than
the other—the sanction of honour was sufficient with men in a
high station of life—
The Bishop of EXETER—Might be.
Lord BROUGHAM—The Right Rev. Prelate said that
men in the lower station of life were not influenced by that
sanction of honour which produced good effects in men
of higher ranks. Now the sort of sanction honour
makes is of a doubtful kind in the upper classes—
to pay damages in certain actions rather than tradesmen's
bills; to prefer paying debts of honour incurred in gambling,
contrary to the law of the land, in preference to just and lawful
debts ; to take offence at a word, and go out and kill a man ;
*to give up all intercourse with a neighbour, and friend, and re-
lation who has refused to go out and kill a man. That is the
code of honour of the Right Rev. Prelate. It is an odd, whim-
sical, and grotesque code.—t Laughter.) I don't say anything
against it ; it is the moral dispensation under which we live,
and which I should hope when the schoolmaster is abroad, some
twenty years' hence will be entirely annihilated. I know of no
such distinctions between different classes of society. I call
vice," vice"--crime, " crime"—unlawful conduct, " unlawful
conduct," whether committed by a peer or a peasant ; and
whether honour induces the one to do what religion condemns,
what law denounces, what morality abjures, what the feelings
of the natural man abhor and despise, I call that wrong, I call
it crime, I call it sin, whether is is committed in a high station
or a low ; and here the moral law, the secular doctrine of the
schoolmaster, coincides entirely with the spiritual teaching of
the priest. I know it is very often said, and indeed has been
said to-night, that the poor have too much to do in
the way of gaining their daily bread, to cultivate learning.
Those who say that are ignorant of their habits—are ignorant
of their tastes—are profoundly ignorant of theircapacities—and
more ignorant of the salutary effects which that kind of tuition
is calculated to produce. Why, there has existed fur the list
half century in the eastern part of this metropolis, a society
composed of the humblest journeyman labourers, whose reading
has been the mathematical sciences—confined to the most ab-
struse of those sciences. Five men out of those whom I now
address, " who sow not, neither do they spin, who toil not any
more than the fillies of the field;" who have money, and
fonds, and teachers, as well as time at your command, not five
of you, I would venture to say could read those books.
which are complained of by this Society of journeymen artisans
as not profound enough in the mathematical sciences.—( Hear,
and a laugh.) Now, that is a fact, for I am connected in the pub-