The Sun.
London, England, 1854-02-22 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, WEDNESDAY EVENING, FEBRUARY 22, 1854.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

neglect by the Government of this questiOn. He did
not care whether this was to be treated as a private
or a public bill, but he cared a great deal for the principle
of the bill, and trusted that so important a measure
would not be put aside by a paltry dispute whether it
ought to be a public or a private bill according to the
forms of Parliament. What was the provisions of the
bill ? That education ought to be universal. To be
universal it ought to be religious, but the religious
teaching ought to be given in a fair and tolerant manner.
It was because he believed that this bill would do that
that he gave it his most cordial adhesion, and his opi-
nion was that this bill was, without exception, the most
important measure on the subject of education that had
ever been submitted to Parliament, and it acquired ten-
fold importance from the extraordinary part which her
Majesty's Government had taken in this question of edu-
cation. When they took office last year they introduced
a bill on the subject, but it did not even get to a second
reading. Now the noble lord told them that this general
measure was totally forgotten. They had instea of it
a reform bill, which nobody wanted, and now that it was '
come nobody cared for, with a fanciful device for re-
presenting the minority, instead of a bill for providing
education. The noble lord dwelt on the advantages
of the present system of education. (Hear, hear.)
He (Sir John Pakington) thought it perfectly clear
that the present system did not meet the demands of
the people. We had no system of education deserving the
name of national. He should like to see in every
parish a Church of England school teaching church
doctrines to all who were willing, but, in the
case of dissenting families who had children, that these
children should be allowed, to come to the school, and
if the parents made themselves responsible for the reli-
gious teaching of those children, that the scruples of
those children should be respected. Would religion
suffer by that ? On the contrary, he believed it would
be greatly promoted. At King Edward's School, Bir-
mingham, which had on au average 1,200 scholars, this
system had been adopted when the present Bishop of
Manchester was at the head of the school ; and the re-
sult was, that there were pupils of almost every religious
denomination in the school. Where schools were esta-
blished in destitute districts, where no sectarian schools
existed, he would have them conducted on the principles
of the established church, as was done in the pauper
district schools, care being taken not to force Church of
England doctrines on dissenting children whose parents
objected to their being so taught. In that respect he
did not altogether approve of the plan of this bill ; but
with that exception be thought it the noblest measure
of education that had ever been laid before the house.
Mr. BRIGHT said that the right hon. gentleman in
his opening observations seemed to think that the pro-
moters of this bill had some right to complain of the
course which he (Mr. Bright) and his colleague had
taken in respect to it. Now, those with whom he (Mr.
Bright) acted did not blame in the slightest degree the
course taken by the advocates of the bill. The fact was
that the forms and rules of this house would not allow
such a bill as this to be brought in as a public bill, and
therefore no blame could be attached to its promoters
for making it a private bill. (Hear, hear.) At the
same time, the obvious requirements of the people
of Manchester were such as to make it impossible
that such a question could be dealt with by a private
bill. He was not willing to admit that the promoters
of this bill were the only persons that advocated the esta-
blishment of a system of education at Manchester. The
movement in favour of such a system had been some
years in existence in Manchester, and had commenced
with the opponents of this bill. The present measure
was one that had been brought forward in opposi-
tion to the plan advocated by the great majority of the
people in Manchester. His party knew very well
that they could not carry the measure they advo-
cated by a private bill, and they, therefore, had never
attempted to do so. They felt that this was not the
way to get this important question settled. The right
hon. gentleman who spoke last appeared disposed to re.
pudiate the authority of a corporation of a great city,
because he said that it was not appointed for educational
purposes. He (Mr. B.) did not:know that he was elected
for educational purposes, and yet he felt he was entitled
to express an opinion upon the subject. If any one
municipal body was capable of expressing the opinions
of the community, he should say it would be admitted
to be the corporation of Manchester. He believed that
every person who knows the proceedings of that body
since it was first established, would admit that there was
no town in the United Kingdom more indebted to the
enlightened labours of the members of the corporation
than that of Manchester. But what did this bill ask ?
It asked Barliament, under the modest guise of a pri-
vate bill, to tax the ratepayers of Manchester to an
amount estimated at no less a sum than 40,0001. or
50,0001. a-year. Now, he would ask the right hon.
gentleman if he (Mr. B.) had brought in a bill to extend
the same principle to the county of Worcester, and to
lay the expense of carrying it upon the county rate ; to
appoint a district school committee, and to give power
to draw upon the county treasurer for 50,0001. or
100,000/. a-year ; and if such bill were opposed by every
magistrate of the county, would the right hon. gentle-
man be disposed to support such a measure ? Why,
the thing was monstrous and incredible. The present
bill had never been submitted to a single public meeting
in Manchester, nor had it been circulated amongst the
members of this house. He confessed be could not un-
derstand how any one who valued representative insti•
tutions or the maintenance of peace and concord of a
great community should, because it was called an edu-
cation bill, snap at the first thing of the kind that
offered, although obstacles of an insurmountable char-
acter stood in the course the promoters of the bill
recommended the house to pursue. The measure pro-
posed to establish, by a system of district voting, ac-
cording to Sturges Bourne's Act, a district school com-
mittee, who would be empowered to demand those local
rates for the support of the existing schools at Manches-
ter, under the present management, but for the benefit
of the whole population of that city. The bill proposed
that the whole of the children in Manchester should be
educated at those schools—that the children of the rich,
of the middle, and of the working classes should all re-
ceive the like instruction if they chose to go to those
schools. Now that was different to the system which
the corporation were in favour of. When this proposi-
tion was before the corporation of Manchester there was
an amendment moved, containing an expression of opi-
nion strongly opposed to this bill ; but, in order to secure
perfect unanimity, those words were withdrawn, and the
petition commented upon in the course of this discus-
sion was agreed to. This petition could not be presented
to this house, and he supposed that it lay in one of those
small rooms which Sir Charles Barry had built for the
concealment of such documents. (Laughter.) He asked
whether it would be proper that a question of this im-
portance was to be settled by the gentlemen of the long
robe up stairs ? (Hear, hear.) It was said that this was
to be a model bill. They had already obtained a bill
for Ireland, and he believed, next week, they were to
have a bill for Scotland. Why should they not take
those bills as model bills? When they had bills for two
important portions of the United Kingdom, why should
they not have a bill for England and Wales ? (Hear.)
If even the house consented to pass this measure, the
bill could not work. Did they think that the passing of
such a bill in the face of sixty municipal councillors, al-
dermen, and mayor of Manchester —that its provisions
could be carried out ? What was the theory which the
bill adopted ? Why, that every man—whatever his reli-
gious opinions might be—should contribute directly and
annually to the teaching of every other religious opinion
in Manchester—some of those opinions he believed to be
destructive— all of them to be erroneous. He observed
the hon member for Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) look-
ing at him with amazement while he uttered this obser-
vation. They had not heard of any of that honourable
member's propositions this year as yet ; but he (Mr.
Bright) would fully admit that the hon. gentleman
was most conscientious in his notions. But he did not
believe that even with the peculiar views which the hon.
member held that he would be disposed to pay a rate
under the circumstances required by this bill. (Hear,
hear.) He (Mr. B) felt that he could not pay a rate
under this bill without the same violence to his feelings
as the payment of a church rate would involve. If this
bill were to pass in any shape, he believed it would have
the effect of importing into Manchester the evils of a
church rate, which had been already abolished, and of
causing such a revulsion in the public mind with regard
to education, that, instead of promoting education, it
was his honest opinion that a system of education would
be postponed for many years. He was a strong advo-
cate of a sound system of education. He, however,
thought that the problem would never be worked out by
a bill of this sort, brought in by persons unconnected
with Manchester, and which was in opposition to the
views of the corporation of that city. He was of opi-
nion that the proper course to take would be to with-
draw this bill, and all those who were interested in the '
question would probably at no distant period agree upon
a measure which would receive general approbation.
Such measure should be a general one—should legislate
very little, but should give permissive powers, some-
what extensive, to the various corporations in the
county, or other authorities, to be determined according
to the peculiar circumstances of each place. He was
not against experimental education in Manchester ; but
that was not to be tried by such a bill as the present.
He was extremely anxious for this great question to be
put in a train of settlement, and he was ready to afford
his best aid towards the attainment of this object. With
these views he asked the house to reject the second read-
ing of this bill.
Mr. BALL might be excused in addressing to the
house a few words upon this subject, when the right
hon. member for Droitwich (Sir J. Packington) who
had expressly warned the house against long speeches,
found it necessary to take up an hour with his remarks.
(Laughter.) He rose to adduce one fact to which he
begged attention of the house. In Great Smith-street
was a reformatory institution in which were received 100
felons. By a statistical statement, .in connection with
this institution, it appears that merely secular education
did not prevent crime, for 83 out of every 100 had been
educated in secular matters. As the accounts well ob-
served, "You might as well expect to make a good
musician by training his eye, a good painter by training
the ear, as to expect to make a man moral by teaching
him to read and write and cast accounts."
Mr. WALPOLE would say a few words, more upon
the inconvenient position of the matters before the house
than upon the principle upon it that matter stood.
Two important principles were involved in the bill, first,
the imposition of a compulsory system of rating for
the purposes of education, and, secondly, the taking
of endowed schools from the objects proposed by their
founders. The imposition of a compulsory rate for
the purposes of education would have all the incon-
venience and unpleasantness of a church rate with-
out that prescriptive usage which was attached to
the latter. The manner in which the bill would
operate to set aside the intentions of the founders of en-
dowed schools was this :—lt was proposed that children
might be sent to these schools, and yet be at liberty
not to attend to those religious duties which had been
annexed to the school Dy its founder, In process of time

grees have founded schools, have contributed their own
money to the support of those schools, have laid down
their own rules of managemeut, and have appointed
persons of their own connections to conduct them from
time to time, and to take care that those rules of ma-
nagement are not infringed. (Hear.) This being done,
the Government and the Legislature have stepped in,
and have said, "As you are agreed in your general
system of education, and as you support that system
with your own money, we will contribute such sums
from time to time as will enable you to improve the
character of the education you give, and to perform the
better the task which you have undertaken for your-
selves, and we will provide for a general inspection of
your schools, in order that you may be able to raise
them to the height of the very best conducted schools in
this country." (Cheers.) This system you will call an
imperfect system. (Hear, hear.) It is not such as any
one, laying down a theory of national education, would
propose as the best that could be devised ; but it is a
very intelligible system—it is a very practical system—
and it is a system which, by experience, has been found
to extend the amount of education, and to improve its
character in a very great degree. (Hear, hear.) But
according to this bill, as I understand it, the ratepayers
are, by means of a board which they are to establish, to
undertake to pay the whole expense of the schools.
(Hear.) They are to become free schools, and they are
likewise, one and all, to be obliged to admit persons as
pupils, who do not conform to the rules, with respect to
religious teaching which the several managers have laid
down. (Hear, hear.) Still it is proposed to be provided
that the schools shall continue under the same manage-
ment as heretofoi e. (Hear, hear.) It seems to me that
there will be great difficulty in carrying out that system.
(Hear, hear.) I can understand that men may devote
themselves with great satisfaction to the management of
schools to the funds of which they have contributed their
11., or 21., or 51., or 101. every year. (Hear, hear.) I
can understand their saying, "We have founded these
schools in conjunction with some of our neighbours who
agree with us in opinion." Whether they be members
of the Church of England, or Dissenters, or whatever
else they may be, I can understand their saying, "We
are agreed as to the rules by which these schools are to
be governed, and we will attend them from week to
week, and from month to month, to see that they are
perfectly conducted according to that system which
we conscientiously believe to he the best ; " but
when you say that these persons shall no longer
contribute their money, and that the rules which
they have laid down as the best shall be open, in
particular cases, to exceptions, it seems to me that they
will cease to take the interest which they have taken
hitherto that they will cease to perform from
week to week that duty of superintendence which is now
a labour of love—and that you will, therefore, no longer
be able to depend on their continued attention to the
management of the schools. (Hear, hear,) It appears
to me, sir, that, upon that subject, there would be this
difficulty in carrying out the very laudable object in
view. (Hear, hear.) My right honourable friend the
member for Morpeth (Sir George Grey) has suggested
that a permissive bill should be introduced in the nature
of a public bill, to permit committees to set up schools
according to one system, or according to several systems.
(Hear, hear.) Well, sir, if there is a desire in Man-
chester to establish schools of that kind, I think that
such a measure would be better—seeing the objec-
tion made by the town council—than urging any further
progress in the bill before the house. (Hear, hear.) I
am afraid it will be long before we shall be able to ob-
tain a national system of education in which there shall
be anything like uniformity. (Hear, hear.) My hon.
friend the member for Montrose appears to think that
there is no difficulty in the matter which might not be
easily got rid of by a very simple exercise of the powers
of the Government. He says that if the Government
would only make up its mind to such a system as he
proposed for the establishment of schools for secular
education over the whole country, leaving the religious
teaching to the clergy and to the ministers of the dif-
ferent dnominations, the question might be settled at
once. I think, iu the first place, that there would be
great objections on the part of this house to entertain
such a proposal ; and I think, in the second place, that
if this house and if Parliament could be induced to as-
sent to such a scheme, there would be great repugnance
on the part of the country to adopt it. (Hear, hear.)
And, sir, I have never been able to persuade myself
that that secular scheme which seeks to get rid of the
religious difficulty would be suited to the people of
this country, or that we should be acting in con-
formity with our duty in endeavouring to promote
it. (Hear, hear.) It seems to me that religion is a thing
not apart from, but connected with, secular instruction.
—(cheers)—and that it is one of the very first things which
in teaching the poor of this country, you ought to teach
because by so doing you will be teaching them what
they are to do in their progress through life ; and if you
instruct them simply in reading and writing, in geo-
graphy, and history, and arithmetic—if you do not tell
them what their duty is—if you do not make them un-
derstand the obligations which they owe to God and
man—you 'do not perform the office you have under-
taken, and leave the work of education incomplete. I
think the notion that one part of this work may be left
to the schoolmaster, and the other to the clergyman or
minister, is a very unpractical one. It is impossible
that the clergy or the ministers of any other denomina-
tion can have time, without becoming schoolmasters
themselves, to attend daily at the school, and to give
the sort of instruction which is contemplated. I see,
therefore, not only great difficulty, but great objection
to the introduction of such a plan. It has been stated
that there are three systems of education—the vo-
luntary, the denominational, and thesecultr— at present
before the country ; and that the selection and adoption
of any one of these systems would get over the difficulty.
But every one of these plans is full of difficulties of its
own. The denominational plan is subject to many dif-
ficulties wh-ch are hardly got over even in the plan at
present entertained, of giving grants of public money ;
and when you come to raise a rate, you will find those
difficulties increased tenfold. I will put the case of a
parish where the inhabitants are chiefly churchmen, or
where the dissenters are not so numerous as to justify
the establishment of a separate school on their own ac-
count. In that case what are you to do ? Are you to
establish a school according to the national plan in
which every child is required to go to church and to learn
the catechism ? Would the dissenter not think it hard
to be required to contribute by a rate to the maintenance
the school under such circumstances as these? Then,
again, there are a number of Roman Catholics
in the country, whose opinions would hardly
be satisfied, unless separate schools for Roman
Catholic children were established ; and, on the
other hand, there are a great many Protestants to whose
feelings it would be very repugnant to pay rates for the
support of Roman Catholic schools. The difficulties, in-
deed, are so numerous that I might occupy half an hour
in stating them, but I only wish it to be understood that
it is not from mere neglect upon the part of the Govern-
ment that the difficulties laid in the way of the settle-
ment of this question have not been removed, and that
there are really grave reasons why we should pause be-
fore we attempt to introduce and to carry out such a
system as that to which I have referred. (Hear, hear.)
Before I sit down, I wish to say that I have been mis-
apprehended with respect to something that I said upon
the subject of education in Scotland. (Hear, hear.) I
said that it was absolutely necessary to legislate upon
that subject ; that a bill would be introduced by the Lord
Advocate, and that an opportunity would be afforded for
ascertaining the opinion of the house, on the discussion
which would take place upon it. (Hear, hear.) I did not
say that I should he prepared to recommend the exten-
sion of the same measure to England, because a plan
which might be very suitable for one country might be
very unsuitable for the other. (Hear, hear.) The result,
therefore, to which I come is this. I think that the house
can hardly, in the face of the strong protest. against the
passing of a private bill upon this subject on the part of
the town council of Manchester, put the people of Man-
chester to the expense of going before a committee. I
think there is a great deal of good in this bill, and that
it is a most praiseworthy attempt. I cannot vote with
my right hon. friend the member for Manchester upon
the motion which he has submitted to the house ; and I
think we must pause some time before any general and
uniform system of education can be carried out. (Hear.)
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE did not for one moment
wish to diminish the importance of religious education,
but in his opinion religious education was purely a do-
mestic matter, and ought not to be permitted to interfere
with the passing of a bill like this. It was desired by the
great majority of the people of Manchester ; and after
the time and money which had been spent upon it, the
house would be acting unjustly if it rejected the measure
on the ground urged by the right hon. gentleman who
had moved the amendment.
Mr. W. J. FOX observed that the object of this bill
was to promote, expand, and endow what was called the
denominational system of education, and that system
was one which, in his belief, could never be brought
into harmony with the opinions of mankind. It was true
that the people of this country were a religious people
and that they desired that education should bear a re-
ligious character, but did any man desire such education
to bear the stamp of a religion which he believed to be
not only erroneous but pernicious ? And what had been
the fruits of this denominational system ? Looking at
our prison returns, he there found facts which could
hardly be conceived. The numbers of criminals who had
been and who had not been to schools were given, and
he found that education as administered, had not proved
such a barrier against crime as would be supposed. His
remark did not apply to Ireland, for under the admirable
system in force there, which went on the principle that
while religious education was not neglected, the mind
should be opened and the faculties developed, the num-
bers of criminals receiving such education were con-
tinually diminishing ; but religion, without general
knowledge, was most apt to degenerate into fanaticism
or superstition. It was said that one in 8i of the popu-
lation attended schools ; but what said the return of the
registrar general of marriages for 1851 ? Why that of the
300,000 persons married in that year only 117,000 of the
number could write their names, but made their mark.
Our education, then, was what was vulgarly called a
"sham," and what he recommended was that the govern-
ment should endeavour to carry out the suggestion of a
right rev. prelate, uttered about a year ago at a meeting
of the Church School Societyin Ireland, with respect to
the establishment of a sound system of secular educa-
tion. They could at best but make the schoolmaster a
very imperfect religious missionary, by substituting his
religious teaching for that sort of work which he might
be able to accomplish with credit to himself and useful-
ness to the community. On those grounds he should
refrain from voting for the second reading of the bill ;
while at the same time he thought the local objections
were such as not to allow of the bill being further pro-
ceed with.
Sir J. PAKINGTON expressed his deep dissatisfac-
tion at the speech of the noble lord (Lord J. Russell),
and his regret that the noble lord had left the house,
and that no other member of the Government was pre-
seat which he thought they might take as a proof of the

HOUSE OF COMMONS-(YESTERDAY.)
MANCHESTER AND SALFORD EDUCATION

BILL.
Mr. ADDERLEY moved the second reading of the
above bill. It was a bill by which the ratepayers of
Manchester asked Parliament for leave to rate themselves
to support an education for all classes in that great
city. He regretted it was a private bill, but he would
take care, as far as in him lay, when it had passed a
committee upstairs he would move for its re-committal,
in order to the full discussion of the bill. (Hear, hear.)
The advocates of the denominational system in this
country invariably refer to the services of that system in
America ; but, from the evidence of Mr. Twistleton, the
principle most vital in America is not that of the de-
nominational system, but what he (Mr. Adderley) hoped
would long remain there—the strong religious feeling
which they have derived from the pilgrim fathers of
England. He proposed as the only feasible proposition
for this country, that there should be a rate for the pur-
poses of education, but that it should be made applicable
to the foundation of all existing schools, in denomina-
tional hands. The bill he moved the second reading of
was supported by the majority of the ratepayers of Man-
cheAer, and he hoped the bon member for Manchester
would not—throwing over all his professions in favour
of education oppose it.
Mr. GIBSON moved as an amendment that educa-
tion to be supported by public rates is a subject which
ought not to be dealt with by any private bill. He gave
credit to the promoters of the measure for the motives by
which they were actuated, but the first question, as it
appeared to him, for the house to consider was, could
they deal with the important subject of national edu-
cation, a subject of high public polity upon which Par-
liament
had as yet pronounced no definite opinion —could
they deal with it by what was called private legislation ?
He believed it was never intended by the house when it
framed its rules for the conduct of its business, that such
a matter as national education should form the subject 111
of a private bill. He gave the hon gentleman credit for
his endeavours to educate the children of Manchester,
but he wished he had tried his legislative powers on
Staffordshire in the first instance. The honourable
gentleman called upon the house to commit itself to a
principle of national education for the purpose of pro-
viding for the education of the people of Manchester.
The right hon. gentleman then referred to the select
committee on education, which arose out of a measure
similar to this, of which he was chairman, which made
no report ; but he had come to the conclusion upon the
evidence that the measure was ill adapted to its purpose,
and would lead to serious religious differences. At the
same time he thought the gentlemen who had spent so
much time, labour, and money on the promotion of this
scheme were entitled to great credit, but however ex-
cellent their motives, he did not believe their labours
would be productive of any great good. The right hon.
gentleman concluded by moving his amendment.
The LORD ADVOCATE referred to an observation
made by Mr. Adderley, in which he attributed to him
that he said, " that rather than that mathematics should
not be taught in schools he would exclude Christianity."
He did not know where or when he could have said such
a thing, and the hon. gentleman had not informed him,
but he was sure that it was totally inconsistent with all
his sentiments. It was probable that he might have
said that if you could not teach the people all that you
wished, you should teach them all you could. With re-
gard to this bill, although be should be sorry to offer
any obstacle to any attempt to promote education, he
could not, as it stood, vote for the second reading.
Mr. ADDERLEY said that he quoted the expression
alluded to from Dr. Bryce's pamphlet.
The LORD ADVOCATE.—Then Dr. Bryce had
made an erroneous statement. _ _ _

Sir G. GREY, with reference to the course which it
was advisable for the house to take, said that on the one
hand there was a bill professing to remedy evils of great
magnitude in large populations which had been promoted
at a large expenditure of time and money, and in con-
formity with the rules laid down by Parliament, and for
which the greatet credit was due to the persons who
projected it, and on the other was the objection of the
mode of proceeding by means of a private bill, which had
great weight on his mind. It was impossible to look at
the provisions of the bill in connexion with the evidence
which was before the select committee on education, and
not to see that this measure being brought forward as a
private bill was objectionable, inasmuch as its principle
though it was intended only for Manchester, was ap-
plicable to every large municipality in the community ;
and the very fact of the hon. member for Staffordshire,
who was unconnected with Manchester, bringing forward
the bill should be a warning to the house that it was not
applicable to Manchester alone, and the speech of the
hon. member was a proof also of general applicability.
He (Sir G. Grey) concurred in the principle of the mea-
sure, but having attended the committee which sat last
year on education, he would be prepared to support a
general bill which proposed a scheme for co-operating
with all existing schools and giving aid to voluntary ef-
forts on behalf of education. .But he felt that the propo-
sition to go into committee of the whole house on the
bill would not meet the objection to its being a private
bill—for the whole house could not consider the pro-
visions of a bill of a local nature. If you went into a
committee of the whole house, you would have assertion
against assertion as to the feeling of Manchester. On
that point ho was not able to form an opinion even on
the evidence before the committee. He was anxious to
hear the opinion of the government as to the course
which ought to be taken. He would only offer one
suggestion—that the bill should be treated as a public
bill, with a permissive power, which would enable any
locality to adopt it without coming to Parliament for
fresh powers.
Mr. NAPIER thought that this country was in a
humiliating position on the question of education, and
sooner or later it must be grappled with. The house
ought to have the opportunity of availing themselves of
the services of those excellent men who had promoted
this plan, and he would give the bill his earnest support.
After a few words from Mr. HARCOURT in support of
the bill,
Mr. WIGRAM said he should not perhaps oppose
the bill merely on the question of whether it was a pri-
vate or a public bill ; but he thought if it passed it would
to a great public precedent for all other towns, if it was
seen that its principle was approved. The hon. member
then referred to our having had for many years a system
of education which had been of great benefit, and ob-
jected to any measure which tended to disturb it. He
should vote against the second reading of the bill.
Mr. HUME urged that the present system of educa-
tion was not sufficient to give education to the people
generally, and it was necessary that Government should
do something more. There was no chance of Parliament
agreeing to any general measure, unless the Government
laid down some rule by which a distinction could be
drawn between secular and religious education ; but for
his part, he thought the two ought to be kept entirely
distinct from each other. The duties of the schoolmaster
should be left to the schoolmaster, and the duties of the
clergyman to the clergyman. Education, however, should
be provided by the state, or by a public rate, and just
as the law would not permit a child to starve, so it
should not allow a child to go without some species of
education. He, therefore, entreated the Government to
take this subject up without further delay, and introduce
some general measure which should be applicable to the
whole of the country. (Hear, hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I have been asked several
times in the course of this discussion to state what is my
view with respect to the question which Is now before
the house. lam about, sir, to comply with that request,
although I am afraid that my view will not be of much
use to the house in guiding it to a decision upon this
subject. It seems to me that there are difficulties insu-
perable with respect to the proposition which is now
before us. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman who
brings forward this bill is entitled, I think, to great credit
for having undertaken that task. (Cheers.) Still more
credit is duo to those who in Manchester have gone on,
year after year, bestowing great labour and much time
in endeavouring to bring to perfection a measure which
should be for the benefit of the community, and espe:
oially for the benefit of the poor. (Rear, hear.) Sir, I
am sorry to think that the forms of this house should in-
terpose any difficulties in the way of accomplishing so
laudable a desire. But it is evident, in the first place,
that if the society or association who are the promoters
of this bill had attempted to introduce it as a public bill
they would at once have been stopped—(hear, hear) ;
that you, sir, would have interposed your authority, and
would have stated that the provisions of the measure
being applicable to Manchester alone—it being a mea-
sure for the education of the people of Manchester, and
not in any way extending to any other part of the coun-
try—it could not be permitted to be proceeded with in
that form. (Hear, hear.) Then, sir, it having been in-
troduced as a private bill, I must confess Ido not think
that the resolution of my right hon. friend, " That edu-
cation to be supported by public rates is a subject which
ought not to be dealt with by any private bill"—is, in
itself, an abstract proposition which the house ought not
to support. (Hear, hear.) It seems to me that if the
members of any community are satisfied that there would
be great difficulty in carrying any general measure
applicable to the whole country, and that the order,
morality, and welfare of their own community would be
promoted by a bill allowing them to raise rates for the
purposes of education, the house ought not to inter-
pose any obstacle to their obtaining that object. (Hear.)
But, sir, the difficulty here is, that the community of
Manchester are not agreed in reference to the merits of
this scheme—(hear)—and this appears to me to be the
real objection to proceeding with the bill. (Hear, hear.)
If, as I say, the community of Manchester generally
had said, " We want a bill of this sort ; we think that
it would be a great benefit to Manchester ; the number
of those who are opposed to it is' very small ; will you
allow us to vote some of our own money, to be raised
by rates among ourselves, to purposes of education l" I
should have been one of the last persons to prevent their
having that measure. (Hear.) But a resolution has
been passed unanimously by the Town Council, repre-
senting the ratepayers of Manchester, and requesting
in effect that the house will not proceed with the mea-
sure. (Cheers.) Now, sir, with respect to the measure
itself 1 do not wish to enter into details, because I
think the details, if it were a public measure, might be
subject to any amendment or improvement that might
be suggested ; but I confess that I see with respect to
one part of the measure very great difficulties. (Hear.)
I allude particularly to that part of it to which the hon.
and learned gentleman the member for the University
of Cambridge has referred. (Hear hear.) The present
system on which this bill professes. to be founded is a
very intelligible system. (Hear.) Each religious de-
nomination—the Established Church, the Protestant
, Dissenters, the British and Foreign School Society, and
the Roman Catholic Association, all in their several de,

ihe children not following the founder's religious views
might outnumber those who did follow them, and thus
the character of the endowment would virtually be
changed. Now, without discussing these two points as
principles, he (Mr. Walpole) would say that they were
not of tha character to be dealt with by a private bill.
A private bill was not printed and brought under the
notice of each member of the house, in the same manner
as a public bill, nor was the same notice given of its second
reading. It was said that this bill was a private bill, but
would the house allow him to point out that it was not of
a character to allow it to pass through under that denomi-
nation. A bill might be brought in as a private bill,
the object of which was the repair of churches and the
levying of a rate for that purpose, but would the house
allow it so to pass 2 So it was with a measure like
the present, involving as it did a great educational
principle. For these reasons he thought the course
now taken likely to lead to great public inconveni-
ence, and he regretted that the Government should not
have brought the subject before the house in a public
measure of their own. He dissented from the amend-
inent as tying up the house from future legislation ; and
as to the second reading, he thought that the course of
the promoters would be best served by postponement.
He would not support a motion for a second reading that
day six mouths, but would suggest that the amendment
should be withdrawn, and the second reading refused,
with a view to the re-introduction of the bill and full
consideration at a future time.

Mr. MIALL advocated the voluntary principle, and
opposed the hill.
Mr. BROTHERTON said that although he had for-
merly been a party to the introduction of this bill, he now
felt that, seeing it could not be carried out without the
consent of the inhabitants of Manchester and Salford,
and that they were opposed to it, there was very good
reason for postponement. Differences of opinion existed
in Manchester and Salford on the subject of popular
education, and there were many symptoms of approxi-
mation, and he hoped the time was not far distant when
all would agree on a general system. He should vote
against the amendment, but if that were negatived should
then support the postponement of the second reading
for three weeks, and in that time he thought a bill might
be agreed on which would meet the views of the people
of Manchester and Salford.
Mr. MUNTZ would vote against the second reading
of the bill, not with the view of impeding the progress of
education, but because it was evident that the town
council of Manchester, the representatives of the people
who were to be affected by it, were opposed to it. He
wished to extend education, both secular and religious,
but so long as the two were combined together in one
measure, so long be feared they would be without a ge-
neral system of national education.
Mr. ADDERLEY, in reply, said he would have been
content with the proposal of the right hon. member for
Morpeth (Sir G. Grey) for a permissive bill, but after
the course taken by the opponents of the bill and by the
Government he must divide the house on the question.

Mr. GIBSON proposed to introduce the words—
le present time" into the amendment.
The house then divided—
For the second reading 76
Against it
The amendment was then put and agreed to.
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Sir J. PAKINGTON said as they had now got through
the private business (quarter to twelve), he wished,
before the house proceeded with the orders of the day,
to put a question to some member of the Government.
(Hear, hear, and a laugh.) But as there was no member
of the Cabinet present, perhaps some other member of
the Government would be enabled to say whether it was
intended to proceed with the Oaths Bill on Monday next.
Mr. J. WILSON, after a brief consultation with one
or two of the subordinate members of the Government
near him, said : The right hon. gentleman has given no
notice of his question, and I am not, therefore, in a
position to answer it. (Laughter.)
Mr. WALPOLE gave notice that he would put the
question to-morrow.
Mr. WILSON believed the Oaths Bill would be pro-
ceeded with on Monday if the estimates should have
been voted.