The Sun.
London, England, 1853-04-27 00:00:00

that number 70,000 are Protestant children,
naniodofo the
number of Protestants there are 26,000
Church of England. The hon.memberforthe Meath say
is great inconsistency in those who advocate sysatetmheoref
mixed education in Ireland not being prepared
to England. But the circumstances ofthet towo extend
countriest
i
England the members of the
are entirely different. In
to the Established Church
Church constitute the majority, but in England thereis an
infinite variety of sects opposed
—(hear)—and the system here has been to grant to the
Church, and to the bo. dies dissenting fromthe Church sepa-
rate grants of money in order that the members of the dif-
ferent sects may be educated separately, and that religious
education should also be
given
separately. In Ireland the
circumstances are very d eenif r t. The
There the
the members
the members of
the Established Church are a small minority;
of the Roman Catholic Church constitute the immense
majority—(hear, hear)—and the endeavour has been, by
the exclusion of all religious teaching from the system of
joint education, to combine in one _aercommon system the
)
Now it is
members of different creeds. (Hear, h
im-
portant
that there should be no doubt as to the original
principle on which the system was founded , and I contend
there can be no mistake whatever with respect to the in-
tentions of Earl Derby in founding that system. In the
original statement of this plan, and
awas made that the nd in the plan itself as it
originally was recorded, provision
in-
struction should be altogether secular. The introduction
of the Scripture extracts was subsequent to the original
formation of the system. It formed no part of the original
plan, and even now the Scripture extracts are not enjoined
es a portion of the teaching in those schools. They are
taught permitted to be subject to an absolute veto on the
part of the parents of any one child who may object to the
use of these extracts. Such is the rule now—such has been
the rule from the very first commencement of the system.
(Hear, hear.) Now it has been said that the late Govern-
ment were not unwilling to have promoted an inquiry of
this description if it had been brought forward by some
independent member. I am afraid that neither of the
members for the University of Dublin, considering
their relation to that Government, could have been
the mover or seconder of such an inquiry during the
existence of the late Administration. But was it ne-
cessary for Earl Derby, if he wished, to alter the system,
to have an inquiry before a committee in order to ascer-
tain the success or failure of that system ? We have
it from himself that he, the author of the measure, having
the deepest interest in its success, occupying the highest
station in the Government, conferring with the Lord Lieu-
tenant of Ireland, making every inquiry which he might
think necessary—we have it from himself, in his place in
Parliament, that he, having made those inquiries, having
carefully deliberated, came to the conclusion that no ma-
terial change could be effected in the system consistently
with its maintenance. (Hear hear.) With respect to the
hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, I
believe I am correct when I state that, when he was first
a candidate for the representation of that university, about
the year 1847, he was most anxious, in his address to
those whom he was desirous of calling his constituents, t(
impress upon their minds his feelings with reference
),
this system ; and, if I mistake not, these were the wordstc
of his address "I am thoroughly averse to the delusive
system of Irish national education. (Hear, hear.)
sys-
tem, as I conceive, can prosper in which the No
word of God
is not sincerely honoured as the greatest blessing to a
nation. Remember that the word from above is first pure,
then peaceable, and you cannot compromise its authority.
(Hear.) Now the hon. and learned gentleman, on becoming
a member of Earl Derby's Government, I have no doubt
honestly suspended his opposition to the system. No doubt
he had every reason to believe that some inquiry would be in-
stituted. Pending that inquiry he with perfect honour re-
mained a member of that Government. After Earl Derby
had come to the conclusion that no change could be
effected, it is not for me to inquire what course he ought
to have taken. But he continued to hold office, and I con-
sider his speech to-night to be perfectly consistent with his
hostility to the system. (Hear, hear.) It appears to me
most extraordinary that the two principal promoters of
this motion, representing the University of Dublin, should
be in this peculiar position. They represent a university
which does give to the rich of Ireland a purely secular
education without the slightest tincture or admixture of
religious teaching—(hear, hear)—and yet they are the per-
sons who are the most prominent in denyine to the poor of
Ireland the very benefit which the learned body whom
they represent has conferred, and will, I hope, long con-
tinue to confer, upon the upper classes. (Hear, hear.)
Tho speech of the hon. member for Meath is a striking
practical illustration of a truth, for which on former occa-
sions I have contended, and which, I think, it is most
desirable the house should bear in mind before it consents
to this inquiry, which is subversive of the principles of a
mixed education. It is this, that the great body of the
Protestant clerg,y in Ireland concur with a very large por-
tion of the Roman Catholic priesthood in Ireland in ear-
nestly desiring to overthrow this mixed system, with the
view of obtaining separate grants for the purpose of pro-
selytizing, and teaching in conformity with their respective
creeds. (Hear, hear.) Now what is the fact ? I am
speaking from the authority of others, but I have
reason to believe —that there is a marked difference
between the priesthood and the laity of Ireland, with-
out distinction of creed. The Protestant Bishop of
Waterford (Dr. Daly) is known to be most hostile to this
system of mixecli education. I believe, notwithstanding
the Ecclesiastical Titles Act, I may say that the Roman
Catholic Bishop of Waterford partakes of the same hos-
tility. They both are opposed to the system of mixed
education. But the laity of Waterford, both Protestant
and Catholic, are most anxious for the establishment at
Waterford of a model school in connection with the mixed
system of education. (Hear, hear.) They have presented
a memorial to the board to that effect, and I believe in
pursuance of the wish of the laity that a model school of
that description is about to be established. (Hear, hear.)
Now what has been the result of this system of mixed
teaching ? I believe that there is no country in Europe at
at this moment where education is conducted on so large a
scale, or I would say, notwithstanding religions differences,
where spiritual knowledge is so widely diffused by teaching
as in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) I contend that a clergyman
of the Established Church, the patron of a school under
the national system in Ireland, has at this time every op-
portunity of administering to the youth in that school of
which he is the patron, not only instruction in the Holy
Scriptures, but instruction in the Church Catechism and
in all the particular doctrines of the Church of England,
to the utmost possible extent he could desire. (Hear,
hear.) If it be not during the hours of secular instruction,
day by day he has the opportunity and right of adminis-
tering religions instruction to all the members of his
church who attend that school. And that right is not
peculiar to him. Every minister of a different persuasion,
whether Presbyterian or Catholic, has the right of attend-
ing that school, and of administering religious instruc-
tion day by day to those who will take it. (Hear, hear. )
But what is really the pretension of the Church Education
Society ? (Hear, hear.) It is neither more nor less than
this : They put in on the eime footing as the claim of
the Dissenters of England. The Dissenters of England, if
they send their children to the national school must allow
them to be taught the Church Catechism. That is the
rule of the National Society. The state of the national
school in Ireland is exactly the reverse. The child would
not be taught the Church Catechism there ; it need not
receive any religious instruction from w-hick the parent
dissents ; and the real desire of the Church Education So-
ciety in Ireland is to obtain aid from the public purse for
the purposes of teaching all those who shall attend that
school a creed from which the larger portion of the popu-
lation of Ireland dissents. (Hear, hear.) I warn the house
from yielding to this motion ; it is not in a covert sense
seeking to dissemble the desire of abandoning "the phan-
tom of mixed education," but it is for the purpose of esta-
blishing a separate system with a separate grant ; and
what will be the conssenence ? The claim put forward by
the hon. member for Meath will be irresistible ; the claim
of the Roman Catholics to a participation in that grant
will be in reference to their numbers, and that claim, too,
will be irresistible. The largest proportion will be given
to the Roman Catholics, and the smallest to the Church of
England ; and you will have the flame of religious discord
spreading throught the country, and a proselytising spirit
unhappily adding to the evils and sorrows of that country.
I believe, instead of a system of peace and concord, you
will have unfoi tunately a great aggravation of all the evils
and sorrows of the country. (Hear, hear.) Now, I think
something was said by the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for the University of Dublin with respect to the opinion
of Dr. Chalmers with regard to mixed education. It is
true that Dr. Chalmers thought that secular education
without any intermixture of religious teaching, was incom-
patible with the good of the community ? I think I have
hero the opinion of Dr. Chalmers on this very point, re -
corded within a very short period of his lamented death ;
and, with the permission of the house, I will read his
words :—" During the last few months of Dr. Chalmers'
life (says his biographer), the subject of national education
was much upon his mind, and the following was written
about a week before his death. Dr. Chalmers says on this
subject—' I would suffer parents to select what part of edu-
cation they wanted for their children, and would not force
arithmetic upon them if all they wanted was reading and
writing ; and as little would I force any part of the reli-
gious instruction given in the schools if all they wanted
was secular education.' " (Hear, hear.) That was the
opinion of Dr. Chalmers. Now, will the house permit me
to read the opinion of Archbishop Usher, a still higher
authority, on, this very point? Archbishop Usher said, the
state of the Country was much to be lamented, when the
people generally were suffered to perish for want of know-
ledge ; adding " the consideration whereof hath sometimes
driven me to treat with those of the opposite party, and
to move them, however much we may differ in other
things, to join together in teaching those main points, the
knowledge whereof is necessary unto salvation, and of the
truth whereof there is no controversy." (Hear, hear.)
Now, I feel satisfied if Archbishop Usher, having given
expression to those opinions, were now alive, that he, the
Primate, would be the patron of the National School
Society of the city of Armagh. That is my firm convic-
tion. But I say, mixed with all this system of religious
difference, there lurks a degree of political difference.
Something was said about the examination before the
committee of 1839. I was a member of that committee,
and perhaps you would like to hear a specimen of the
evidence given before it on this very question as to the use
of the Bible among the poor in Ireland. A witness said
as soon as the system was announced meetings were got up
in every town of Ulster, at one of which Lord Roden
preensidea ; the people were led to believe that the Govern-
triliatt were
about to take their
Bibles from them ; and at
it waineeeovting they carried their Bibles with them, and after
enabling gun clubs were established, for the purpose of
lair. Lsra.n.sarts to protect their Bibles. (Laughter).
Sir J. GRAIT—What is the name of the witness?
question and arisw--The evidence will be found in the
witneers„r,reinbered 7,687 and 7,688. lam not
aware of the
honourable and leargi name at this moment, but if the
laugh.)
he
will find it.
(Am
igentleme.n will go into the library,
think I show you that therearioeee lurk under the whole of
Again, I say, I
this semblance of reli
political animosity. Let
speakin%read what the Rev. Mr.
also a bitter ingredient of
Trench says. He states,
town in which
Church Edu-
he lived—" There is a national scii(e)foltbe
the national
cation school • I visited both of the aildina
:icl,l;terl asked the
school I found' Scripture extracts werme
master of tie Church Education school wean'
turo extracts were read in that school." Whatthe Scrip-
reply ? " Oh, no, sir; we aro all Tories here." (L wag
the
Now, I say this house will act most unwisely if tlirtl'eLi)
sent to this inquiry, moved for the reasons and withethe
intentions, hardly dissembled, which have been avowed
this evening. lam quite satisfied that this system, of
which we have had twenty two years' experience, has
wrought infinite good in Ireland. Is it stationary ?
Un-
happily the population of that country has been diminiahed
by nearly two minions • and do the numbers attending the
Y.
national schools diminish in the same. proportion? On

contrary, during all the period of the la;t four YearB
'
while, the population has been diminishing, the numbers
attending the national schools have progressively and
largely increased. In the last year, when emigration has
been at the greatest height, the number attending the
schools has been larger than ever before was known, and
that number exceeded 25,000 children. When, therefore,
torsi Derby, the author of this system, and who has lately
had an
.opportunity of controlling its operation, has; ):
you deliberately that he cannot ;contemplate any change

which can be made in that system which will not be
injurious to it—when you have the example and expe-
rience of twenty-two years—when there is no reason
d th
andrelleiaaynneee e
gentle-anbe
assignedplaced, e x fceerp t thehis opinioninquiry of uptehne hon.wh
mantime thha
se
Termi
vbeear
wfho re
nt
"then U ipvhear
ns ittoy of
m of
mD
iuxbel n
e, d
ot hatoa h
t otn,e,
is to be abandoned, but which phantom I have shown is a
reality—(hear, hear)—l ask, can you have a system more
successful than that which embraces within its sphere a
larger number of the youth of the country than that of
any country in Europe ? For these reasons Ido sincerely
hope that the house will agree with me that it would be
highly inexpedient to assent to the motion that has been
been made to-night. (Cheers.)
Mr. WHITESIDE said he had endeavoured to gather
from the right hon. gentleman who had just sat down the
reasons on which he resisted the very moderate motion of
his hon. and learned friend. The answer of the right hon.
gentleman was that the system of the National Board of
Education in Ireland, though in danger, was faultless, and
that the more it was inquired into the more its advan-
tages would appear; but tho right hon. gentleman, not-
withstanding, contended that that system would be in
peril if a fair and honest inquiry was instituted into its
working. He (Mr. Whiteside) believed that the hon.
member for Meath spoke the truth when he said that the
National Board was lately on the very point of dissolution.
He believed also there never was-a time when inquiry into
this system could be conducted with greater benefit than
,-,
at the present moment. With regard to the present na-
tional schools, he might state that upwards of 2,000 of
them were in the yards of Roman Catholic chapels—a fact
which indicated clearly enough the character of the
schools and the kind of education imparted to the chil-
dren. The Presbyterian schools were attended by Pres-
byterian children separately and almost exclusively ;
and it was a curious fact, and might be regarded as a
compliment to the Established Church, that her schools
were attended by about 40,000 Roman Catholic children,
while very few were to be found in the schools of the
Church of Scotland. The reason assigned by some
parties was, that the people belonging to the Established
Church were half Papists ; but he thought that was a mis-
take. (A laugh.) He might say, on the part of the Roman
Catholics, that it was wrong to suppose they objected wholly
to the reading of the Scriptures in their schools, because he
knew many parishes where the Roman Catholic clergy pre-
sented the Douay version of the Bible to the people of their
own flock. (Hear, hear.) It had been said that certain
parties in Ireland wanted to force the Roman Catholics to
read the authorised version. He denied it. Even the
Kildare-street Society did not dare to propose anything of
the kind. He subscribed himself to a school which main-
tained, about two years ago, 150 children, of whom 55
were Roman Catholics. The Scriptures were read every
day in the school ; no party objected to it ; and he was
not aware that any of the Roman Catholic children had by
proselytism abandoned their religion. The motion before
the house was commenced by justice and fairness. He
asked for inquiry into the system of education. If it isras
proved to be sound, let them maintain it ; but if they
could make it better, he hoped they would not refuse the
modifications desired by the Protestant people of Ireland.
(Cries of "divide.")
Mr. FAGAN moved the adjournment of the debate.
(Cries of "no, no," and "divide.")
Lord J. RUSSELL opposed the motion for an adjourn-
ment. This was a question upon which the house had fre-
quently deliberated—all its merits were sufficiently before
the house. (Hear, hear.) The hon. and learned gentlemen
who had conducted the debate on the other side had stated
the whole case in the most powerful manner against the
present national system of education. The hon. and
learned gentleman who last sat down had stated that
what the Protestant clergy of Ireland wanted was that
they should have the power of reading the Bible in the
authorised version to Roman Catholic children as well as
to Protestant children. He was glad the hon. and learned
gentleman had stated thus openly and frankly the object
of the motion now before the house. It was true that
object was implied in the nomination of the committee.
The house would observe that what the hon. gentleman
opposite wanted was, not a general committee to inquire
what had been the operation of the national system of
education in Ireland, but a committee to introduce into
that system the modifications to which reference had been
made during the debate. Well, supposing the house were
to agree to those modifications, surely it would not be
denied that the Roman Catholic priests should have a
power similar to that given to the Protestant clergymen—
that they should have the right to teach Protestant children
the Roman Catholic doctrines which were contained in the
formularies of their Church? Now he asked the house
whether the effect of this would not be to destroy the
mixed system of education in Ireland ? Agree to the pro-
posal of the honourable and learned member who intro-
duced the motion, and they would have to establish at
least two separate systems—one Roman Catholic, the other
Protestant—and each endowed perhaps to the extent of
100,009/. or 120,003/. Why this would be raising a new
Maynooth question. (Hear, hear.) As the subject had
been sufficiently discussed already, he certainly should
oppose the motion for adjournment. (Cries of " divide.")
Mr. KIRK, who vainly attempted to address the house,
presented a petition from the dean and inhabitants of Dro-
more, in favour of the national system of education.
Mr. CONOLLY having seconded the motion for adjourn-
ment,
The house divided, when the numbers stood thus :
For the adjournment of the debate 2B
Against
Majority —234
For Mr. Hamilton's motion
Against
Majority against the motion —7o
SOUTH SEA AND OTHER ANNUITIES COMMU-
TATION BILL.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER moved the
third reading of the bill.
Mr. SPOONER hoped that the right honourable gentle-
man would not press his motion at that late hour. His
honourable and learned friend the member for Suffolk (Sir
Fitzroy Kelly) had a notice on the paper in reference to
this bill which he would not be able to bring forward if
the third reading were taken that night. lie begged to
move that the house do now adjourn.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
the honourable and learned member for Suffolk had been
in the house at the commencement of the evening, and had
s sid that he would be prepared to move his amendment
that night.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON said that when there was a
notice of an amendment on the paper it might have been
fairly concluded by honourable members that so important
a measure would not be pressed to a third reading at so late
an hour.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER thought
that, after the distinct declaration of the hon. and learned
gentleman the member for Suffolk, they bad no right to
presume that he would not have attended in his place to
irring forward his motion.
The house then divided on the question of adjourn
ment

For the adjournment
Against .

Majority against the adjournment ... 37
On our re-admission to the gallery we found
Sir J. PAKINGTON moving the adjournment of the
house.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
this was a question with respect to which every day's
delay was matter of most serious inconvenience. (Hear,
hear.) Here were parties the whole foundation of whose
property was to be changed to the amount of 10,000,0001.,
and they could not krow the terms under which it was to
be changed until the bill had become an act of Parlia-
ment, when it would be the duty of the Treasury to state
the terms under which the Exchequer bonds would be
issued. Under these circumstances he certainly felt great
difficulty in consenting to the further postponement of the
third reading. (Hear, hear.) The absence of the hon.
and learned member for Suffolk was as much a matter of
regret to him as it was to honourable gentlemen opposite.
Mr. SPOONER thought there was good reason for not
proceeding with the bill that night. There was a very
important point connected with the measure still unde-
cided, and that was the situation in which the trustees
were placed by it. Trustees for reversionary interests, as
the case stood at present, had the power of altering and
disposing of this stock without the consent of the persons
who had that interest. The right hon. gentlemen had said
that he did not wish to change the law, and that it must
be left exactly as it had been before. In every other pro-
position of a similar kind which had been made to parlia-
ment, trustees had been obliged to act according to the
provisions of the new law, but under this measure they
might take any one of three courses.. A clause, he
thought, should be introduced, preventing them from act-
ing without the consent of the person who had the rever-
sionary interest.
Sir J. Y. BULLER said it was clear that if the right
hon. gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not
give way, the house would be involved in a debate upon
the third reading of the bill, and as he thought this would
be most unadvisable he would move that the debate should
be adjourred.
The SOLICITOTt-GENERAL said that in consequence
of communications which had taken place with the hon.
and learned member for Suffolk, a clausehad. been prepared
to accomplish the object desired by the hon. member for
North Warwick (Mr. Spooner), namely to restrain trustees
for parties having a limited interest from accepting the one
particular portion of stock that would have the effect of di-
minishing the capital without the consent and approbation
of a judge of the Court of Chancery. There was a clear un-
derstanding that the bill should pass,through its final stages
that night, and he was sure that the greatest possible desire
had been shown to meet the wishes expressed by hon. mem-
bers on the other side of the house.
Mr. NEWDEGATE having briefly supported the ad-
journment,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
it was perfectly vain to proceed with a bill of this kind in
the face of such a determination as was manifested by
hon. members opposite. He would not, therefore, waste
the time of the house by pressing it, but he could not with-
draw the motion for the third reading without entering his
protest taninst this proceeding. The hon. and learned
member for Suffolk (Sir F. Kelly) having made an express
declaration on this subject, disappeared from the house.
It was alleged that he had done this because it was half-
past one o'clock. but the hon. and learned member was not
in the division which had taken place; and then honour.
able gentlemen come forward with their presumptuous
suppositions and interpretations, flatly in contradiction of
the intentions which the hon. and learned member had
stated. (Hear, hear.) He should propose now to read the
bill a third time, inserting the clauses, and making the
amendments he had to propose, and then to let the final
stage of the bill stand over, ii order to give the hon. and
learned member an opportunity to move the additional
clause of which he had given notice.
Sir J. PAKINGTON disclaimed. any intention to offer
unfair opposition to the progress of this bill ; his con-
viction
("Wednm easaeayjfn
part was that there was some misunderstanding on the
be taken up to
finati oft ther hon. and learned member for Suffolk. If tle
the bill were fixed for the following day
branch of the le,:
no delay could be occasioned, as the bill could
After a few w'orBdas
House of Lords on Thursday, and that
re did not sit on Wednesday.
Sir J. Y. EULLEIrrn Mr. HENLEY,
journment of the debateNv. ithdrew his motion for the ad-
The amendments and the additional clauses proposed by
third
rhegirnere were then inserted in the
th
bill,eCwhhaincchelwloarsorfetandeaEthx
the final stage should be ia'o3n tliiist being
understood that
Y, when the honour-
able and learned member tor Suffollw9' :Id have an oppor-
tunity, on the motion "that the bill
the addition of a new clause, of which he ohfidmogNi'vineng notice._

The house then acijommed at a quarter to two o'clock.