The Sun.
London, England, 1854-07-01 00:00:00

(Hear, hear.) He could also refer to the reports to show
that the utmost restlessness of spirit had been produced
amongst the pupil teachers ; that expectations bad been
raised in their minds by the promises of the Government,
which were never likely to be fulfilled, and that results
were thereby produced which were exciting the utmost
alarm in the minds of the inspectors. (Hear, hear.) The
inducement to scholars to remain longer at school than
they had previously done was another otthe objects which
were contemplated at the time of the institution of the
Committee of Privy Council ; but he gathered from the
reports that that object likewise had not been accoraplishel,
that the scholars do not now remain longer in the schools
than they had been accustomed to remain, and that no
improvement had taken place in. that respect. (Hear.)
It appeared that, as regarded the teachers, they had not
raised the status or increased the average of salaries ; and
with regard to the pupils, they had not afforded sufficient
inducements to keep them together in large numbers for a
greater number of years. (Hear, hear.) These were the
inferences which he drew from the reports, but his icon-
clusiona might be unwarranted by the real state of the
facts if they were impartially examined. He did not pro-
pose to stop the action of the machinery now employed,
but he proposed that they should not further expand it
until they ascertained, by the inquiry of a committee, the
results that had been actually produced. He proposed,
therefore that the vote should be limited this year to what
it was last year, 260,0001., including the balance of 80,0001.
now stated to be in hand ; the effect of the amendment
being to reduce the amount of the sum proposed to be
voted by taking from it the sum of 80,0001.
Mr. HENLEY, while approving of the purposes to which
the vote was to be applied, said that the Church of Eng-
land had great reason to complain of the conditions upon
which the grants were made. He thought it would be
advisable to have an inquiry into the working of the sys-
tem in the next session of Parliament.

Lord J. RUSSELL said he would not object to such an
inquiry, and expressed a hopo that Mr. 3/flail would not
persevere with his amendment, as it would deprive pupil
teachers and other parties of the allowances they had a
right to anticipate.
Mr. W. J. FOX thought inquiry was essentially neces-
sary, with a view to getting rid of anomalies. On paper
it appeared that a large proportion of the population was
receiving education ; but when they read returns, show-
ing how few people comparatively could write their names,
they must come to the conclusion, from the little progress
made, that the,system was a failure.
Lord SEYMOUR. agreed with Lord John Russell in
thinking that any large and comprehensive system of edu-
cation could not at present be hoped for, owing to the
great variety of opinions on the subject prevailing, not
only in the house, but in the country. Still the existing
system would admit of improvement, and it ought to be
carried out.

Mr. E. BALL did not think the unfavourable results
should cause them to lessen the vote, for the greater the
deficiency of education the greater should be the exertion
to meet the evil.

Mr. JOHN M'GREGOR believed that the money
which the committee were called upon to vote would be
well spent, and that it would contribute greatly to the im-
provement of the rising generation. So far as regarded a
general scheme of national education, he confessed that,
after the defeat of that admirable bill brought in by the Lord
Advocate with respect to Scotland, he fered the time was
not near when they could carry such a bill in this house, in
the face of what he regretted to call, not only religious
differences, but unchristian intolerance. Looking at the
educational position of other countries, the state of igno-
rance existing among our own population was a disgrace
to us, and, instead of diminishing, he would rather greatly
augment the vote.
Mr. BIGGS, and Mr. MILES spoke against the amend-
ment.
Mr. COBDEN thought that Lord J. Russell had been
letting down this question ; that the house, too, was going
back upon it; but he could not acquit the noble lord of
being in some degree the caws°, therehaving been so much
that was indefensible in principle in his proceedings, and
such a backwardness on his part in bringing forward until
now the subject for discussion. The house must make
up its mind, he thought, that there must be a local rate
for educational purposes. It was not necessary to dic-
tate to parishes or corporations what form of instruc-
tion they should have. lie suggested to Lord John to see
if he could not devise a permissive bill, giving to localities
the power to levy rates for the purposes cf education, leav-
ing to them to decide upon what plan. If it were insisted
that in all schools religion should be taught, then he asked,
what religion ? The only plan was to set. aside a particular
time when creeds and catechisms could be taught. lie be-
lieved the religious difficulty was a mere bugbear, and ho
was sorry to see this question touched by Lord J. Russell
with such a feeble and timid hand. The great objection to
the present scheme of education was, that it was not reach-
ing the mass of the people, especially the unskilled la-
bourers. Quantity was more required than quality, and
this object was not to be gained by religious denomina-
tional education. At all events, let this matter be dis-
cussed in the House of Commons until it was disposed-of.
He should vote against the amendment.

Lord J. RUSSELL—I can hardly resist, after the speech
we have just heard from the hon: gentleman, from endea-
vouring to set the committee right with regard to what 1
really said a short time ago, and the representation I really
made in proposing this vote. The hon. gentleman says,
that although his charity is very large, he could agree to
carry it so far as to feel at all satisfied with the representa-
tions I have made to the house, and the language have
held. But then, I must say he has not carried his charity
very far; for he has not carried it so far as to state cor-
rectly what I did say, and he has been obliged to 'allege
something quite different from what I have said. (Hear.)
I said that, in my opinion, it was very desirable, in the
present state of education in this country, to improve tho
quality of it. I said that the plan of distributing grants
by the Committee of Privy Council was not equivalent to
a system of education ; that it was not a system ; and that,
therefore, the good to be effected by it was not, I thought,
to be accomplished so much byan extension of the quantity,
as by an improvement in the quality. I said in a subsequent
part of my speech, that I thought there was not at present
that concurrence of opinion, especially with regard to the
religious part of the subject, that would authorise and j ustfy
the Government in bringing a plan forward thissession ; but
I never sail, and I never dreamt of saying, that the quality
of the education to be imparted was the only thing 'to be
looked to, or that a general measure was not to be hoped
for when a greater concurrence of opinion prevailed. Now,
although the hon. gentleman has pointed out, as he con-
ceived, that this is a question which is not surrounded with
so many difficulties as may be supposed, yet in every step
he has gone through he has only -shown how great are its
difficulties. He hardly made a single proposition to which,
in a few minutes afterwards, he did not show how great
were the obstacles to its adoption. (Hear.) The hon. gen-
tleman says, " Let there be the reading of the Bible, let
there be even the learning of the Catechism in those
parishes where the population belong to the Church of Eng-
land ;" but he went on to say some time afterwards that the
voluntaries objected to any teaching of religion by the State.
Yet you are to pass an act of Parliament which would
authorise those parishes to which he refers to teach the
Bible and to teach the Catechism. But let us recollect that
there are not so many parishes as the hon. gentleman sup-
poses which are composed entirely of Churchmen ; At all
events, there are a considerable number of parishes where,
although Churchmen may be in a great majority, there are
some 5 or 10 dissenting families. When these parishes are
authorised to levy a local rate, and when these Dissenters
are told by the vote of the great majority that that, local
rate should be applied to the parish schools, in which the
Bible and the Catechism should be taught, would not those
who were voluntaries protest against the rate ? Would
there not be some danger of the objection made by the
right hon. gentleman the member for Midhuret in 1852
(Mr. Walpole) taking effect, that a school rate levied under
such circumstances would iu fact be raising a now church
rate question ? (Hear, hear.) Does not the hon. gentle-
man who proposes this scheme see that this is only one of
the difficulties of the plan he desires to propose. (Hear,
hear.) But these questions are not new either to Parlia-
ment or to the country ; the whole subject is a navigation
something like the navigation of the Danube as described
a few months ago in this house, impeded by wrecks on
eaeh side of the channel. (Hear, hear.) Mr. Whitbread
attempted to introduce a system of national education.
Mr. Brougham, many years afterwards, brought forward
with his usual ability a great plan of national education. He
was defeated chiefly by the Protestant dissenters. In the year
18391 proposed, not a system of national education, but a nor-
mal school, which was thought to beso threatening by many
members of the Established Church, that I was obliged to
withdraw it without even coming to a vote. My right hon.
friend who sits near me (Sir J. Graham) a few years after-
wards brought forward a plim of education with regard to
factories. I gave him what support I could on that occa-
sion. I said I hoped the measure would not be opposed ;
but Oa° dissenting body throughout the country raised such
an opposition that my right hon. friend was obliged to
withdraw the plan he had produced with so much care. But
what has happened of late years ? A noble friend and rela-
tive of mine, Lord Melbourne, brought forward a bill rela-
tive to this subject, exactly the same as that which the hon.
member suggests. He proposed, and I thought it a very
g sod bill myself, that every parish in Scotland should have
the power of levying rates, and of settling all the terms and
conditions upon which the rate should be applied to the
particular schools. He said, and said, I think, very fairly
—" The people of Scotland aro a religious people ; you
mustleave it to them to establish their own forms of teach-
ing religion in sebeols, argil yen ought to' esve it entirely
to their discretion in what manner the) euould make the
division of the rate." But, although the members of
the Government of that day voted for the bill, it was de-
feated. And what did we see only the other day? The
Lord Advocate brought forward a bill, the provisions of
which he explained and supported with great eloquence
and ability. It appeared to me that this bill was a most
excellent measure, and I think it was a great misfortune
that it was lost ; but it encountered the opposition of reli-
gious bodies of various kinds, and it was defeated. It
was in favour of religious teaching ; bat it did not admit
that which the voluntaries of Scotland specially require—
that, so far as any religious teaching is concerned, it
should be paid for by a separate payment from the children
who aro taught. It did not contain that provision ; it
enacted broadly and stringently that there should be re-
ligious teaching in the schools. The voluntaries opposed
it, the Established Church opposed it, and the bill was de-
feated. Yet, after these attempts, and after many failures,
only a few of which I have recounted, the honourable
gentleman comes forward and represents me as the only
obstacle to the establishment of a general system of
education, and he attacks me for what I have done
upon this subject. What I have done has been done
tentatively, as it is called. In the year 1832 a grant
of public money was proposed for the purposes of
education; and, in 1839, the Government to whiclio
I belonged—that of Lord Melbourne--upon a proposition
made by me to Lord Lansdowne—who then held the office
which I have now the honour to fill--proposed the formation
of a Committee of the Privy Council to regulate the distri-
bution of the grants, and to endeavour to improve education
throughout the country. The vote upon that subject was
carried in a very full house' by a majority of two. That re-
suit, at all events, showel that there was some difficulty
upon the subject. A year or two afterwards—l believe in
the followingyoar —the heads of the Church, the Archbishop
of CvntEeniiy and the Archbishop of York, at a meeting with
Lord Lansdowne and myself, concurred in the terms on which
we should act in concurrence with the National, Society.
Every difficulty was then got over in that way. Iu the year
1816 We proposed a further motion to extend and increase
the grant for education. I believe that a groat deal of good
has been done by the course which has been taken upon the
question. I believe that if we had attempted in 1839, or in
1817, a great national system of education, we should proba- I
bly have failed; but I believe that, by proceeding in the

upon the subject of education. Ido not think the question
was stated very fairly in that letter, but the mode in which
it was stated was this —" We are in the enjoyment of a sys-
tem of religious education ; we, by our own efforts, are in
possession of that system, notwithstauding what is said of
Prussia, notwithstanding what is said of America, we, the
the wolkiug men of England, are in possession of a fairer sys-
tem of education, which produces men of more thought and of
more capacity and intelligence than those systems which
are so highly vaunted. Will you, the member for the West
Riding of Yorkshire interfere with that system, and by
introducing a secular system of education, overthrow that
which is established?" (Hear.) The argument was very
ably put in that pamphlet. Ido not think it is just as
applied to the hon. member for the West Riding ; but, at
all events, I think that any fears of that kind ought to be
allayed, for I believe you cannot establish any system of
national education, wisely or effectually, in which you do
not take into account the immense good which has been
clone, and the immense good that is row doing, by these
various societies. (Hear, hear.) I should be very glad,
if in a parish 'meeting, or if in a meeting of a town coun-
cil, it could be agreed that a particular kind of school
should be established ; that that school should be resorted
to by the parish, or by the inhabitants of the town gene-
rally, and that the school should work in harmony. At
the same time, we must recollect, that in order to
make any school work well, you must have an active
and zealous superintendence of it, and not only
of the school itself, but of the sctoolmaster and the
teachers. (Hear, hear.) If it is a school conducted in a
manner to violate conscience, or if it is pernicious to the
community, the masters and teachers at the head of it
ought not to take care of it. (Hear.) What I ask the
house to consider is, that there is as immense mass of
poor, who, I am sorry to say, are beyond all the efforts
hitherto made in their behalf. What the hon. gentleman
the member for Somerset says is quite true. There are in

our large towns, and in a great part of the country, a mass
of people who have not been educated at any school,
whose children are not educated at any school, and who
are beyond the efforts which are now being made, and, of
course, beyond auy of these parliamentary votes which
are merely given in aid and addition to the efforts of
others. This is the population to which I think any
measure of education ought to be directed. I think
that the present existin,, schools, which-are doing groat
good, let them be of whatb denomination they please, let
them carry on the business of education in any manlier
which their own conscience tells them is right—they are
providing for the great mass which is outside, and laying
the only practical foundation for any scheme of national
education. The honourable gentleman the member for
the West Riding, has represented—following too much in
this respect the representations made by the honourable
member fur Rochdale—that the committee of Privy
Council is an irresponsible power, and that Parliament

has not been informed of the measures adopted by it.
Why, what we are endeavouring to do now is a testimony
to the contrary ; a❑d I am sure it is our wish that there
should be full discussion upon the subject. But the

honourable gentleman says there was a plan adopted
last year, secretly, for a capitation rite over certain
parishes, and that this has existed a long while. Why,
last year, upon the 4th of April, I stated at great
length the views of the Government won the subject
of education, and I mentioned that the measures
then proposed to be.-introduced, which had been laid
before the Privy Council, shofild be lak before Parlia-
ment. I said on that occasion :—" Seeing that such a
plan could not be universally adopted ii this country,
and for this plain reason, that in many ?arishes in the
country there could only be one school, we propose by-
a minute, which has been for some time unler considera-
tion, but which is not fully matured, to allcw in certain
instances to places which have not municipa corporations
a certain sum per head for each child attendiig the school.
It will be necessary, however, to confine any such grants
to those schools where the schoolmaster has oltainod a cer-
tificate of ability. That minute, when its provisions shall
have been fully matured, will be laid upon tie table, and
the house before coming to any vote upon it will have
ample opportunity for duly considering it." I produced the
minute soon afterwards; and if any one had wigied tomako
any observations upon it, it was fully open to bin to do so.
I cannot but think, therefore, whatever may bethe defects
of this system, that, as I have said, it suppliis all that
can be supplied, without calling it a plan of education.
The proceedings of the Committee of Council ike those
of any other department, are open to Parliamem Every
estimate that is formed, every ground upon whtli grants
are made, is laid before Parliament, and Parliament has
an opportunity upon every occasion either of rejecting or
approving its proposals. Under these circumstances I can-
not agree to the amendment of the hon. gentleman. I
should be glad to think, however, that by means of this
discussion we may be able to arrive at anything lily agree-
ment. The hon. member for the West Riding has exerted
himself most laudably for the improvement and extension
of education in this country • but I do not believe, if we
were to bring in a plan which took no notice of relig.on, we
should obtain the assent to it either of this house 01 of the
country. (Hear.) I believe_ a plan of this kind would be
liable to all that feeling of opposition which was roused

many years ago to the plans I liave noticed. But afer
I do not believe that there is a great deal of ignorance in
this country. I do not believe there is any country in
which education has made such rapid progress as it has
in this within the last few years. I trust the result of that
progress will be that we shall come to a general conviction
that that which remains to be done should be effected by
Parliament. I quite agree with the hoe. gentleman, that
there is no work snore wolthy of Parliament than the esta-
blishment of a system of national education, and to afford
that education to every child in the country. But I trust
that whenever such a plan is brought forward it will have
been maturely considered, because if the failures which
have taken place are repeated, like that for Scotch education
this year, it must have the effect of very much postponing
the adoption of any plan for England and Wales for many
years to come. I have endeavoured, whether well or ill,
from the year 1839 to the present time, to promote educa-
tion, and I was in hopes that, though not able to carry
any system myself, I had effected something towards that,
great object; but I am very sorry to find, from the repre-
sentations of the hon. member for the West Riding, that
he considers me the great obstacle to education. (No, no )
Mr. EWART expressed his satisfaction with the noble
lord's statements, and believed that great good had been
done by the committee of Privy Council. He was con-
vinced that nothing would be effectual as a national sys-
tem of education which did not include a general rate com-
bined with local self-government. He trusted that when
next the subject came to be discussed the noble earl would
be able to tell the house that something lad been done for
the reform of grammar schools, a reforms, which, in his
opinion, formed a necessary pendant to the reform in the
university.
Mr. L. HEYWORTH was entirely for the voluntary
principle, and was astonished that the hon.mernber for the
West Riding should doubt its efficacy. Tie best way to
educate the people would be to follow out the system of
free trade legislation which had already been auspiciously
begun, and the increased comforts that would follow would
make the people the more anxious for intellectual improve.
ment.
Mr. MIALL, on the understanding that the Government
would grant a committee of inquiry next sessnn, withdrew
his amendment, and the vote 'was agreed to.
193,009/. national education (Ireland).
Mr. KENNEDY bore witness to the good ^esults which
the system bad produced in Ireland, but wasztexious that
its benefits should be extended by the introdiction of in-
dustrial and agricultural schools.
Sir J. YOUNG quite agreed with the hos. gentleman.
No subject could bo of more importance that a judicious
union within certain limits of industrial and literary edu-
cation, but ho thought even the hon. neembe. himself had
shown that industrial education had been aready carried
to a great extent in connexion with the natbnal system of
Education in Ireland. These were measures which could
not but lead to the well-being of Ireland, aid showed that
as far as they could Government had performed their duty.
He saw no advantage that could arise frora the committee
the hon. gentleman proposed, and though( that the house
might safely leave the matter in the hands of the Govern-
ment.
The vote was then :weed to.
On the next vote 79,8151, for the devartneent of science
and art.
Mr. HASTIE expressed a hope teat in a future year
there would be grants for museums in Glasgow and other
large towns of Scotland.
Mr. CARDWELL observed, what might be done in a
future year he could not say, but he could not hold out
any hope that such a grant as was suggested would be pro-
posed.
Mr. JOHN MACGREGOR contended that Glasgow was
as much entitled to a museum as Edinburgh.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS complained that these new institu-
tions were extremely costly and prolific of patronage. Here
was a vote of nearly 80,0001., of which 17,000/- was for
salaries.
Mr. CARDWELL said the vote had been carefully
looked over, and was as low as possible.
Mr. HEYWOOD said the vote for 8,2001. for meteoro-
logical observations at sea would give great pleasure to
many scientific gentlemen. The Americans had paid great
attention to the subject, and the result had already-been
the reduction of the voyage between New York and South
America by a fortnight.
Mir. J. BALL hoped that this vote next year would be
larger. He believed that within a very few years the
Science of meteorology would so advance that in central
Europe the weather might be prognostigated many days
beforehand, and that even in this notoriously uncertain
climate it might be predicted with perfect accuracy what
it would be for 24 hours. (Laughter.)
Mr. DRUM3IOND was glad to hear that within a short
period they would know when they might with safety cut
their hay. That would juiced be a " step in the right di-
rection." (Laughter.) He could not conceive why they
should class together science and the fine arts. Science,
he believed, was making seise progress, but the fine arts
certainly were not. This fne art movement was a perfect
piece of national imposture. (Laughter.) It was not
much better than their votes for education. It was the
monomania of the day. (Laughter.)
The vote was then agreel to.
2,006/: for the salaries of certain professors at Oxford
and Cambridge.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS should divide the committee on
this vote. Considering the immense revenues which the
universities possessed he wus astonished that such an item
should have been put upor the votes.
Mr. WILSON said that these charges had been taken
from the civil list. There was, moreover, a provision in
the bill which they had just passed which held out an in-
ducement to the universifies to take these charges upon
themselves ; for the hones undertook, when they did Fee
to abolish the stamp duty sn degrees.
, Mr. HEY WOOD thongst it would be better to pa's the
vote, and to have a complete° next year on the university
revenues and how they wee disposed of.
Mr. CRAUFURD complained that a portion of this vote
of 100/. was intended for the professor of civil law at Cans-
bridge, although that professor's chair had been vacant for
the last twelve months.
The committee then diviled, when the numbers were—
For the vote
Againet......... .
Majority -129
Mr.CAIIINS said the hcnourable member for Ayr called
"No !" and, ho believed, voted in the other lobby. He
asked that the lion menthe's vote be struck out. (Hear.)
The CHAIRMAN said if the hon. member for Ayr said
" No," his vote must stand No. (A laugh.)
The numbers were avert announced—
For the vote
Against ite..
Majori

153
26
-----127