The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-13 00:00:00

ealenlated to increase the number of thosewho agreed with
his hon. friend, and to be against all national education ;
for in dealing with this question the Government had in-
volved itself in a cerise of difficulties and inconsistencies.
lie did not see how this bill could come out of the dis-
cussion which it would have in that house and in Scot-
land. The Government start by saying in the bill that
education must be religious, and they go on to say that
no test of fitness in masters to teach religion should be
required. (Hoar.) If there was to be no test of this fit-
ness, he wanted to know what religion was the master to
teach; and if he was to teach religion of all men he was the
very one who ought to be subject some test with regard
to his religious teaching. Again, to make the inconsistency
complete, notwithstanding all they were constantly hear-
ing in that house, and especially from the noble lord (J.
Russell), the noblsrlord had repeated the other day at the
British and Foreign School Society, that you cannot and
ought not to separate secular from religions education ;
there was a provision in the bill that there should be secu-
ar instruction at one hour in the schools and religious in-
struction at another. If that was done in good faith you
had adopted the principle of separating religious and secu-
lar instruction. If so, why not avow it, and say that it
could be done • and if it was adopted, he could promise
that you woulCl revive the hopes of the country, and pre-
vent his hon. friend the member for Rochdale from making
converts to his opinions in opposition to all national educa-
tion, and you would conciliate one-third of the people of
Scotland, who, as voluntaries, were opposed to this bill,
and the mass of the people of England and Scotland, who
now trusted to sectarian education, would be with you; for
he would vouch for it, that in all meetings held ou the
subject, the mass of the people would give opinions favour-
able to the principle Let there be one system. But as
long as you said one thing at the British and Foreign
School Society, and another thing in this bill you would
be at 'a deed lock ; and while you stealthily inserted a
clause in the bill to evade the principle on which you pro-
fess to act, and thus played fast and loose with. the ques-
tion, you would weaken yourselves in the promotion of
education, and give encouragement to the party of his hon.
friend the member for Rochdale. He (Kr. Cobden) would
maintain the Government could do nothing for educa-
tion until you separated siacular and religious teach-
ing. The right hon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Napier)
said why not set up on a better footing all the parochial
schools. In Scotland as they are now constituted, and give
grants, to other sectarian schools ? Now, he put it to the
right hon. gentleman if he did not believe that to be im-
Prseiticable, for the right hon. gentleman well knew that
tlesre were religious parties in this country as earnest and
onscientious as the church itself, who renounce state
grants and would not pay rates for the purposes of religious
endowment, who wouldnotreceive endowments forreligious
purposes, and would not send their children to endowed
schools, or where there were endowed teachers. The cen-
ans showed that there were many of the same opinion in
Scotland. How was it in Ireland ? Would the right hon.
gentleman support a system by which Roman Catholics
should be allowed to teach their religion in schools, and
the Protestants to teach their religion in their schools?
No ; and the right hon. gentleman knew that there had
been an attempt to escape from that dilemma, and an at-
tempt to separate religious and secular teaching by adopt-
ing those extracts from the Scriptures which both parties
could read. He (Mr. Cobden) said that all you could do
for national education would fail unless you met the reli-
gious objection as it had been met in America, in Prussia,
and elsewhere, by separating religious and secularteaching.
Do not let him (Mr. Cobden) be called a secularist, or let
it be said that he did not recognise the value of religious
teaching as much as any one ; but if you did notallow the
separation of religious and secular teaching and instruction
as had' been done in other countries, it was of no use pot-
terir,g over the question, for yon would be at a dead-lock,
and could not advance another step. You might pass
this bill, but it would cause another explosion in Scot-
land. Ile saw by the declaration signed by the Lord
Provost of Edinburgh, himself a voluntary, that no vo-
luntary will accept the bill unless you abrogate the
36th clause and the 27th clause, and that no voluntary
will place a child in the schools or sendthem to any teacher.
If you exclude one-third of the population of Scotland the
bill could not be operative. But not only did he (Mr.
Cobden) say that you could separate secular and religious
teaching, and cite your own clause to prove it, but he could
show that it had been done in America, where there was
originally one church and one set of schools, where the
catechism was taught, for every one, but in process of
time, and as dissent increased, it was found necessary to
relax the system and avoid teaching the Catechism where
it caused an obstacle to secular teaching, and it was found
necessary also to exclude the authorised version of the
Bible as used in the church from the schools. The hon. I
member for Elgin had quoted an opinion of Mr. Tremen-
heere, and no doubt Mr. Tremenheere
_haled found some
eccentric person in America who stated that vital Chris-
tianity was perishing under the present system in that
country. But was that the opinion in America, or was it
the opinion of an intelligent Swede who had been recently
travelling in that country, or was it the opinion of the de-
putation of the Congregationalists who went to America
and reported on the state of religion, and stated that there
were two millions of communicants there, and that there
had been-no such progress in evangelical religion since the
time of the Apostles as had taken place there. Compare
the religious feeling of England and America as evidenced
in the attendance in churches, the observance of the Sab-
bath, and the respect paid to ministers of religion,
and ho would venture to say that the state of reli-
gion in America was not second to that of Eng-
land. Why could not what had been done in America be
done in England ? Why could not the experiment be
tried in Scotland ? He was told that you could not sepa-
rate secular and religious education in England, for if
you did no one would send their children to the schools.
But be wanted to have that question discussed.
in that house. Who would tell him that you could not
have that separate teaching—for in practice you did have
separate teaching—for religious teaching was mostly car-
ried ou by the clergy and other teaching by the masters of
schools. As regarded Scotland, was there any country in
which there was less necessity for calling the masters to
help the divine, who had always had his share of the reli-
gious teaching of the country? and 12 years ago, when
there was a disruption of the church, and 500 clergymen
1 eft it, their places were soon filled again.. He said that
Scotland might try the experiment whether the schoolmas-
ter could not be separated from religious teaching. Would
any one have supposed from listening to the debate that
night that its object was to improve the secular education
of Scotland, but would they not rather have thought that
it was a question between the old and the new churches of
Scotland ? With regard to the clauses of the bill, there was
one which he was glad to see, that which went to improve
the status of the schoolmasters. There never would be
proper secular teaching till there was a better class of mas-
ters, and that could not be until you paid them better,
and placed them snore in the condition of the middle
classes of society. On looking to the Census, he found that
there were 1,0 +0 masters, and the average of their salaries
Was 461., and they were to have a garden and house of
only two rooms, besides a kitchen. That showed what
the notion of a schoolmaster was fifty years ago. A
salary of 461. to a schoolmaster gave him about half what
a butler gets, and until they were better paid you
had no right to exnect a better class of masters. As
to the clauses genera:lly, as he intended to vote for the
second reading of the bill, solely with the view of die-
cuseing the clauses, he would not now go further into
the, discussion of them. He voted for the second read-
ing also because the majority of Scotch members on his
s 3 de of the house were going to do so, and they ought
to know best what their country required, and because he
thought that education in Scotland, whatever it may for-
merly have been, was now defective. It was the opinion of
Mr. Horace Mann that there were a million of children in
England not at school, who ought to be there, and in Scot-
land the same state of things apparently prevailed. The I
country had had lately examples of the necessity of giving
working people a better education. Was it not necessary
that working people should be placed in a position bettor
to appreciate their social relations, and even their own in-
terests, and that they should be so informed that they
could carry out the more refined portion of our manufac-
tories ? Mr. Whitworth had published an account of the
state of this matter in America, and there it appeared in a
far more satisfactory condition. England ought not to
allow this to be so. If the Americans built a vessel which
made the voyage from there to this country in two days
less than our vessels, we should immediately set ourselves
to work and tax our ingenuity to the highest to equal or
surpass that vessel. But when America obtained a batter
educated and better conditioned set of workpeople, Eng-
land was content to leave her in the enjoyment of her su-
periority. A better education would enable men to under-
stand and appreciate their own position and that of em-
ployers ; to see what capital could and what it could not
do for them.' The house might depend upen this, that if
the schoolmaster were left to do his part, and were enabled
to do it well, 'the clergyman would be able to perform his
task and perform it satisfactorily. It was, therefore, be-
cause he believed that by separating them the interests of
both would best be promoted, that he had therefore voted
and should continue to vote for the separation of religious
and secular education. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. F. SCOTT, who was interrupted throughout his
observations by calls for a division, objected to the separa-
tion of the religious and secular elements of education.
Re believed such a course was not adapted to produce
either a good citizen or a
good Christian. It was because
the bill attempted to do this that he should oppose the
second reading.
The LORD ADVOCATE said that he could not but feel
that the vote to which the house might come would be of
greater consequence than the acceptance or rejection of
this bill, inasmuch as it would involve the question of the
Pcasibility of a system of national education in Scotland.
The rules under which a system of national education must
be framed for
mucos:land were clear and distinct. The na-
tional system
secular as distingnistther be both religious and secular, or
minational. On the 64
and apart from religious or deno-
from religious edneastiblect of a system of secular as apart
'observations of the hon, , there was no need to follow the
Cobden), because in. Scotlandember for the West Riding (Mr.
The people of Scotland worild
wouldthat system was impossible.
Commons, he believed not have it, the House of
pass it, and the feeling
of the country generallY Waan::geainst it. (Hear, hear.)
That point, therefore, might
there was the denominational
ate thrown aside. Then
hu'in•beS:nBcotland that had
found wanting.
been tried and proved, and
denßottintansatione must be
(Hear, hear)) In the first place
that were
found willing to take up the matter.
satisfactoril y arranged, the system made edvuecanti!
the feeling, perhaps
on the will, the position, °: dnepenhde
caprice, of the denominations in which the trust waavpeiaat
The cons, :quence was—it had always been found lei
—as it
was four ,c 1 in England so was it found in Scotland--but
while t' .0 country was subsidising denominations a great
mass of ignorance was growing up. If that were the case,
there was only the system followed by this bill to be
adopt, id. In regard to this the Government had been met
by a ' sariety of arguments, some of which were hardly to
be CI pected. He (the Lord Advocate) bad been told that
fie o tight to have commenced this discussion by giving
stati dice The hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. Miall) had
esp daily insisted upon this point. Ho (the Lord Advo-
cat 9s. thought that at the present time he might with the
fire at est safety take it for granted that the facts of this case
•statistics.
W sufficiently patent without going into
W art was it to him that a few more or a few less attended
e.,Aletie in ono corner of the kingdom or another, so long as
be kreNv, and the house knew, that the general state of
ed ucati sn was defective. It was mere trilling to expect a
rc ferenoe to statistics. Why, the hon. member for Roch-
tl le himself, after saving he haul no information, put his
fie igrir upon the gist of the whole matter when he pointed
to th 3 poverty and crime existing in some of the large
St ,otf ish towns. But the hon. member said these wi-
se rat de beings want food and clothing. Granted, hut they
ed education also. If the hon. gentleman's argu-
men t were worth anything, a man ought not to he clothed
if he could not be fed, and ought not to be fed if he could
not be clothed. (Hear, hear.) Then the Government
We 3togo on from day to day doing nothing because they
cosi! (I not do all. (Cheers.) There must be a beginning.
lie ; tdmitted that Government could not do everything,
but they at least could do apart, and being able to do it
OLizi rt to do it. (Cheers.) If the hon. member, if any

hon. member, chose to bring in any sanitary measure, he
promised not to meet him by saying " Oh, you have not
educated the people." (Hear, hear.) Why ought the
matter to be discussed on the question of the relative rights
of this or that man to the government of schools ? The
hon. member for Dublin seemed much to misconceive the
bill.. It was not adapted to a country of mixed religionists,
but to a country where the system was uniform. The
measure had now been before the country two months,
and he (the Lord Advocate) admitted that it had met with
a variety of opposition on a variety of grounds. Oae man
opposed because religion was excluded, another because
it was included in the bill. He had read a pamphlet signed
"J. C. Colquhoun," written with the purpose of proving
that the measure was a mere copy of the American system;
the hon. member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden) held
sittemeloassealymoedneolu,
ghat: d
(Hear,
ovarG;heeranrm.)enEt
vheand
Dnort.
fuopl l ot hwaet d 8 3-
Muir and Lord Dunfermline had agreed in opposing the
bill. Yet with all this there was a large amount of support
in Scotland ; not from the free church, as had been in-
sinuated, but from the moderate and philanthropic men of
all denominations. He had presented a petition from the
town council of Glasgow in favour of this bill, which con-
tained more members of the Established Church than any
other town council in Scotland. He had also presented a
petition signed by upwards of a hundred of the first men
in Glasgow, all of whom were members of the Established
Church. This petition had been exhibited at the Ex-
change, and within a short time had received these signa-
tures. What was the reason of this? Why the men of
Glasgow saw the evil of ignorance increasiug from day
to day under their eyes, and they found that the
time for squabbling had gone by, and that of honest co-
operation was at hand. (Cheers.) He would now ad-
vert shortly to the provisions of the bill itself. It proposed
to deal, in the first place, with the parochial schools. It
proposed to double the salaries of the schoolmasters, to give
them 50/. instead of 34/. for a maximum, and 251. for a
minimum. It also provided for an educational survey in
Scotland, which had never yet been attempted, the result,
of which was to be reported to Parliament. Hon. gentle-
men complained that this was a final measure. It was
never intended to be so. It provided for obtaining infor-
mation for future legislation, and in the meantime it legis-
lated so far as the present information justified. Not only
so, but the bill had a third clause which he thought was
important. They wished to establish reformatory schools,
but that hon. gentlemen opposite proposed to put an end to
by voting against the reading of the bill. Let them con-
sider on what ground it was that these provisions, which
were considered beneficial, were to be sacrificed ou the
second reading of this bill. The objections were two-
fold, and singularly inconsistent. One was that it was
proposed to do away with the test which limited the choice
of the schoolmaster to those who were of the established
church ; and the other was that they were dealing with a
religious question, and leaving power in the hands of the
ecclesiastics. With regard to the last of these objections,
it was not necessary for him to speak. He did not speak
of individuals, but he knew well that among the volun-
tary party in Scotland he had many good friends. He
had only to name one, than whom a more kind, worthy,
and stout-hearted ' liberal never breathed ; he meant Mr.
Adam Black, who had been the leader of the voluntary
party for many years, and he came boldly forward and
said that however ho might wish to see this bill modified
in certain particulars, still he was too good a friend to his
country to think of opposing it. (Hear.) But the real
reason why they proposed to sacrifice this bill was that it
proposed to take the exclusive power out of the hands of
the Established Church. (Hear, hear.) There was no other
reason. It was not because there was not sufficient security
for religion. Security for religion could be given without
making the members of the established Church exclusively
eligible to the office of schoolmaster. They (the opposition)
did not like any security but one, and that was a security
that secured a monopoly to themselves. If they were ready
to surrender limiting the right of choice to a particular
class he was ready to meet them. He was not wedded to
any particular mode of carrying out his views, but this he
saw that unless the test was done away with it was utterly
impossible to carry a measure of education. He had been
attacked for not quoting statistics. Now, the religious
census had disclosed a state of things, which he for one did
not expect. Look at the position of the Church of Scot-
land. The Dissenters in Scotland belonged nearly to the
same denomination as the established Church. One set of
them went off in 1730 on the ground of patronage, and the
other in 1843 on the question of the interference of the
courts. The majority of the people did not belong to the
established church, but no one could be a master of a paro-
chial school who did net belong to the Established Church.
Now, if they were to pay Government money for maintain.
ing these schools, Parliament must consider the ground on
which these schools were established. Take the five north-
ern counties, and it would be found that 6,000 belonged to
the Established Church, and 41,000 to the Free Church.
Was it possible that they could with the slightest success
keep a national system where the parties were in the pro-
portion of 6 to 41; those who made up the 6 being eligible,
and those who made up the 41 being not eligible. But they
told him that these were exceptionable cases. They were
most unfortunate exceptions. Take the large counties, where
there was a million and a half of people, making one half of
the population, and there again the persons notbelonging to
the Established Church were in a large majority. It might
be said that he wished to attack the Church of Scotland.
He was quite sure that by sweeping away these subjects of
contention he was doing a most friendly act to the Church
of Scotland. He now came to the superintendence of the
church. He stated in introducing the bill that he did not
consider this question of superintendence of the same im-
portance as that of the test. He did not know, if the mat-
-1 ter of the test had been given up, that he should have con-
sidered the superintendence of so much importance, but he
felt it necessary to make a few observations, in conse-
quence of the remarks of the hon. member for Perthshire.
It seemed to be supposed that the preamble of this bill
was a slight on the Church of Scotland, and that the ob-
servations that he had made in bringing in the bill were
intended as a slight. No doubt his former speech was a
little highly-coloured, but, on the other hand, when he
felt that in the General Assembly the preamble of the bill
was stated to be a foul calumny, he thought it due to him-
self to say a few words in explanation. His observations
did not apply to those who had taken them so much amiss.
He was speaking of that period of the history of the Church
of Scotland when those gentlemen had little to do with
swaying it, of the time when other men were at its head
—such men as Andrew Thomnan and Thomas Chalmers,
and others who raised the Church of Scotland to what
she was twelve years ago, the cheapest and most hard
working church establishment in the world. He did not
say it arose from neglect, but from 1800 to 1825, the
parochial schools had been going down year by year, and
he believed that in 1825 there had been no period in
the history of Scotland for 150 years when they
were at so low a standard. About 1830 or 1835 there be-
gan a revival. The unfortunate disruption happened in
1813, the free church went out and carried on their educa-
tion, and those who remained behind carried on theirs,
and that very reason now prevented the superintendence
being efficient. The schoolmasters who were tried for
offences succeeded sometimes on a point of law, but more
often the presbytery rather allowed an inefficient school-
master to go on than engage in an uncertain and expensive
law suit. In this state of the law whole parishes bad been
neglected. In 1799 the General Assembly made an order
on the presbyters to send up general reports on the state
of the schools, but that order had been systematically dis-
obeyed. He was therefore justified in saying that the
superintendence of the presbyteries had not been effective,
and that it was well to take away the superintendence
from this general body, and place it in a local body, the
minister of the parish and the heritors. Now, he admitted
that there was some force in the observations which had
been made with regard to taking security for religion. He
had felt ever since the bill was introduced that theoreti-
cally it was difficult to say that the schoolmaster should
teach religion without there being some security for his
character. It was said that the plan was not sufficiently
popular, and that it was not sufficiently religious. To
meet the first objection, he proposed that the provosts, or
delegates of the town councils of Edinburgh, Glasgow,
Perth, and Aberdeen should ex officio be members of a
general board for deciding on the quaiification of school-
masters. To meet the second objection, he proposed that
the principals of the Universities of Edinburgh and Glas-
gow, two delegates from the Universities of St. An-
drew's and Aberdeen, and that the principals of the Free
Church College and the United Presbyterian College should
also be ex officio members of the same board ; and he
thought the presence of so many ecclesiastics would afford
sufficient security for the religious character of the school-
master. Ho should not like to see, as one of the ultimate
results of the measure, a system of normal training estab-
lished which would send the master out with a certificate
of both moral and religious character. It was impossible
to include that object in this bill, but he had no doubt
that an approximation to its attainment would be made
by the board. His hon. friend the member for the West
Riding complained that it had not been stated what the
religion was to be. It was unnecessary to say what reli-
gion was to be taught in Scotland. If he were wrong on
that point the whole bill was misdrawn ; it had no foun-
dation and no meaning, unless the people of Scotland were
agreed that the teaching should be that of the Presbyte-
rian faith. With regard to the remarks of the hon. mem-
ber for Montrose on the dismissal of masters, and other
matters of that kind, he begged to say that so far he was
perfectly willing to modify the bill. With respect to the
position of the Roman Catholic] church, he wished to ob-
serve that the 36th clause had been very much misunder-
stood. When it was contemplated to set up a national
system, and to impose a national rate in support of it, it
was quite plain that many would have have to pay
the rate who could not take advantage of the educa-
tion. He had not supposed at first that the Episcopalians
came under that category as well as Roman Catholics;
but it now appeared that they did. Now, without enter-
ing into fine polemical distinctions, he admitted that it
would bo impossible to call on these parties to pay the
rate, and not in some shape or other give them good and
substantial assistance in their own education. (Cheers,)
His idea was that, under the denominational clause,
assistance might well be given in poorer localities. That
clause, however, had not met with favour ; and therefore
all he could say at present was, that either by the ma-
-1 chinery of the denominational clause, or by that of the
Privy Council grant, the Government, while asking Roman
1 Catholics and Episcopalians to subscribe to the national
rate, would rather aid them in their work. (Hear, hear.)
He did not know that he bad anything more to say. He
felt that a great responsibility rested upon him ; but he
also felt, that by walking either to the right hand or to
the left, he should have raised up two opponents for one
that he had conciliated. If he had taken the advice of
the Established Church, he would have had all the rest of
Scotland against him ; if he had taken the advice of the
Secularists, he would have had both the Established and
the Free Church against him, and a very large majority in
that house. If hon. gentlemen could show him a better
Plan, let them do so ; but if they could not, let them sup-
'lt: hacoeuase7l miser
porrtahim in doing his best to rescue his country from ig-
(Loud cheers.) Mr. BOWYER 'rose amid the marked impatience of
. this quioliilewas understood to state that he repre-
sented the views the Roman Catholics of Scotland on
wished to ask he Gaolivtec.l
er tlol'ilus
..enjoyed, under the minutes of
„,es with regard to education, and he
assurancep
ii
i,thattt
,iii n d
Council, many advantages
including the Roman C. etui
billi to li.whetherteha.: ril,.,
ht
th4e they
fwt(hnerl would give any
1
would anut bo ovnerulnot
of " Divide.") too,
The LORD-ADVOCATE repli d
siiile to tusks them batter, at all e
Londe worse. (Hear, hear.)
The house then divided, when the numberskheedr
For the second reading .. ... say the
that if it was not events they they would not be
were--
Against it ................................. 18-1 .. . ......................... 193
ig(hLtousda
Majority against the Government ......
The bill was accordingly rejected. 9
The announcement of the numbers was received with
loud and continued cheering by the Opposition.
MANNING THE NAVY (BOUNTIES).
The House went into committee pro forma.
RAILWAY AND CANAL TRAFFIC REGULATION
BILL.
Mr. CARDWELL moved that this bill be read a third
time.
Mr, I, BUTT objected to reading a third time and pas-