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

the promoters of this motion was the subversion of the na-
tional system. There was nothing, he said, in the original
instructions to make Scriptural extracts part of the secular
system of education in the national schools. If any corn -
plaint were made against any individual school, or any
number of schools, it should occasion the most rigid in-
quiry. The system was opposed by the majority of the
clergy of the Established Church, and by a diminishing
number of the gentry belonging to it ; and he would speak
of their scruples with all respect, but could not admit that
they made a claim for toleration, but rather the reverse.
The Roman Catholics had a conscientious objection to the
use of the Scriptures, without note or comment, by
young persons. (Hear, hear.) The people of Ireland
were exceedingly alive to the advantages of education,
and would make any sacrifice to give it to their chil-
dren. He enlarged upon the various influences under
which the poor Irish might be induced to send their
children to schools of which they disapproved, and
he argued that the Protestant who demanded the right of
private judgment should be ready to give it to others. He
sketched the working of the system, which had been 21
years in existence. He said that out of the immense num-
bers of children that hsd attended the schools not one
proved case of proselytism had taken place, and from sta-
tistics lie sought to show that the Roman Catholics had
not had an undue share of advantages. In generally an-
swering the arguments on the other side, Sir J. Young said
that it would be most advantageous if more money were
laid out upon these schools ; and he bore a high tribute to
their excellent teachers, and especially commended the
school-books, which had become a national literature, and
for one of which he read an extract which he described se
imbued with morality and true religious feeling. He dwelt
feelingly upon the admirable results of the schools, which
had attained their main object ; and he expressed an ear-
nest hope that the house would persevere in upholding a
system which tended to elevate the allele of the humbler
portion of the Irish nation.
Mr. NAPIER reminded Sir J. Young that he had not
shown the object of the motion to be to subvert the na-
tional system—an object which Mr. Hamilton had expressly
disavowed. He denied that the claim put forward was
not founded on the principles of the Reformation. The
rules of the National Board restricted the use of the Scrip-
tures, which were made an integral and essential part of
education in this country, and this was an offence to the
conscience of clergymen. He pursued at some length the
contrast between the rules applied to English and Irish
schoolsonly a
; he complained of the injustice of adapting them
portion of the population, though constituting
to
we-thirds ; and maintaining that education should have
no other basis than the Word of God, he challenged the
inquiry, which was all the motion sought.
• Lord MONCK opposed the motion, believing that in-
quiry was unnecessary, or the late Government should
have instituted it. Though sensible of the importance of
the religious element in education, he was aware that there
existed a voracious appetite for education in Ireland, and
the national system had been originally established upon
the two principles, of non-interference with religious pre-
judices, and combined instruction of persons of different
religious persuasions. Conscientious objections, though
they should govern individual conduct, ought not to con-
trol the administration of a nation's grant ; the objections
should be reasonable as well as conscientious.
Mr. LUCAS, as far as he understood it, understood that
the noble lord, and the members of the Government gene-
rally, had two opinions on the subject of religious educa-
tion—one an English opinion, applicable to English educa-
tion ; another an Irish opinion, applicable to Irish educa-
tion. He confessed that he preferred, of the two authorities
spoken out of the same lips, the English to the Irish
opinion. He thought the opinion that hon. and right
hon. gentlemen entertained as applied to education in
England was sound, that the opinion they entertained as
regarded Irish education was unsound ; and he could not
understand why there should be a different system for the
poor in Ireland from that which they recognised as right,
true, and sound in this country. But he believed that
what existed in Ireland existed only, and was tolerated
only, because it was in name one thing and in practice
another. Ho believed that the national system of educa-
tion in Ireland was, not in form but in substance, a sepa-
rate system of education. He believed that it was tole-
rated and existed only because it was a separate system,
and that if by any calamity it could become a united sys-
tem, it would either fall in pieces or be productive of the
greatest evils to the people of Ireland. (Hear, hear.)
He agreed with a very great part of what had
fallen from honourable gentlemen on that (the Opposition)
side of the house, but had a great difficulty in agreeing
with the motion they had laid on the table of the house,
because he was not able to satisfy himself of the mo-
tives they had in view. As to the motion itself, it had his
hearty assent, so far as he understood its meaning ; but as
to the object of its supporters—which, if he misunderstood
it, he should be glad to have explained—he could not feel
perfectly clear. He never would put himself in the posi-
tion of refusing the members of the Established Church
what he claimed for the members of his own—the right of
having the poor of their own communion educated in the
tenets of their own Church. He should be ashamed to put
himself in that position ; and if they, alleging on any
ground that the system of mixed education was not satis-
factory to them, wished to have the system of separate
education instead, he was, and should be on all occasions,
ready to support their claim ; because otherwise he did not
know how he could reasonably support his own. For him-
self, he felt no confidence in the management of the Na-
tional Board. He regarded it as a system which depended
absolutely upon the hands into which its administration
might fall whether it would work for good or for evil.
He had heard rumours about the present Archbishop of
Dublin having threatened to resign his seat at the board
if certain things were not done according to his wishes,
and his own books were not allowed to be used at the
schools. It had also been rumoured that the late Lord
Chancellor Blackburne had actually a resolution before
the board, which was awaiting the result of the delibera-
tions in the House of Commons. There were, there-
fore, the two facts before the house—the threat Of the
Archbishop of Dublin and of the Lord Chancellor to re-
sign, as the first step towards an alteration in the manage-
ment, if certain books were not allowed to be introduced—
=lithe inevitabla_conaoque.aces, ;IL-the—withdrawal of the
great bulk of Catholic support from the National Board,
and the entire destruction of the system, if the use of these
were per pitted. What he wished to see was, tho house
lending its assistance to a separate system of education.
L Ho was opposed to this so-called united system, believing
it to be highly injurious ; and entertaining this opinion h c
would not be led to sanction any resolution if it was not
made perfectly clear to his mind that the purpose which it
contemplated was really intended, and was to be fairly
o wried out.

L o.d NAAS thought that the hon. member was not jus-
tified in making personal attack upon a noble lord in another
place, withoutnotics of his intention to do so, and from
which the noble lord had no opportunity of defending him-
self.

Mr. LUCAS stated that he had on the previous day in-
formed the hon. mover of the motion of hia intention to
refer to Lord Claucarty.
Lord NAAS was not aware that any such notice had
been given, but still thought that such an attack upon a noble-
man who had contributed so much to the welfare and com-
fort, both temporal and spiritual, of those around him,
ought not to have been introduced in a debate of this kind.
(Hear, hear.) No doubt the nobleman referred to had used
his influence from time to time in the propagation of those
principles which he believed to be right • but he (Lord
Naas) believed that no single instance could be adduced in
which that nobleman had brought any other than the legi-
timate influence of argument and persuasion to bear upon
his tenantry, and he utterly disbelieved that any undue
exercise of his powers as a landlord, such as keeping what
the hon. member had called " the hanging gale of rent"
over his tenants, or any other course of conduct which
would be reprobated by every honest man, had ever been
pursued by that noble lord. He believed the time had
now arrived for a full and complete inquiry into the suc-
cessful working of the system, and for ascertaining whe-
ther the schools in existence fairly represented the boasted
system of combined education. lie believed that the
principal reason why the national system had obtained so
strong a hold upon the affections of the people was be-
cause it was not a " combined system." (Hear.) The sta-
tistics of the schools clearly proved that the system was
not in fact a combined one. In the month of March,
1852, the number of children in various schools was 491,927.
Of this number 21,684 belonged to the Established Church,
424,717 to the Roman Catholics, 40,618 to the Presbyte-
rians, 1,908 to Dissenters, and 1,091 whose religion was not
specified. In pint of fact the children of the Established
Church were to those of the Roman Catholics in the pro-
portion of 24 to 424. Out of 4, iO5 schools, '2,728 were un-
der the patronage of Roman Catholic priests, and 147 under
that of the clergy of the Established Church, while only
eight schools existed in all Ireland which were under the
joint management of Protestants and Roman Catholics. He
disclaimed altogether any intention of obstructing the pro-
gress of the present system of national education. There
was a great deal in the working of the system which might
be safely inquired into. The progress of education in a
great number of the schools was not satisfactory, and it was
not progressing in the manner which it ought to do. TI
ideamodel
that schoolsth they
schools throughout the country was
roost
friend,ialcl;elievilifg
ywvie-reeree°taodubectteadkeina aas superior
fair specimen. way;
.übsouft t_thh_eea
cordially supported the motion of his hon.t.system.
(Hear, it contained no attack on the ems Ing
Sir J. GRAHAM—Having been associated
Essoc,iraite(tewyit,h4itehneEtahrel
of Derby in the Administration
every variety of circumstances uniform
takensystefflthoef dlleaetpienstrline education
°inn wiatss scc founded—havingsuccess— having
eaadnwiii
_airs t
and thinking that there is ,
be in
and differing from the noble llonrdawtthaockh,layismsr
dly csoantedeoalue•dn:
danger— s
upon thelsyhstoeumlditnsoe
words to the house on presentthe
gamitlrigactdsymstyemdatoty
if I
failed to address a few w
anxious to hear from the noble
occasion. (Hoar.) tlf;feaenldthbaetl
pertinent question p
rsoitemostidede
tohfisthme
ohtoiouz,aadnedsiorne
I
wished to hear it distir otly stated whether
lord some unequivocltwdabseycltairivatihoonnn:initleinirbeeferrefnocre
Meath.
(Hear, (Hoar, hear.) I w
part of those who
to obtain
oltain for the Church Education Society in Ireland a
or not there was on the
have opposite
promoted
Holismte grant in aid of their funds. I know not what may
be their intention, but lam sure that at no very distant
period those who promoted the motions which have been
weniraier
thate
ce
brought forward on former oeeasions,odwid,
entertain
reference
wish and did not conceal it. (Hear.) N
to this inquiry,it is absolutely neeessa to
ry consider what has
been urged by those who have already
taken a part in this
debate. I think I was not wrong when I heard, or thought
I heard, the hon. member for the IT • mversity of Dublin
declare to-night that the time
had arrived when it was.ne-
cessary to abandon the phantom, as he called it, of mixed
education in Ireland. (Hear, hear.) Surely the hcn.
gentleman used that expression ; and if he did use it there
can be no doubt of the object and motive which actuated
him in bringing this question forward. (Hear, hear.)
Then the hon. and learned gentleman the member for
the University of Cambridge, who seconded the motion, as
I understood him, put in a claim on the part of the paro-
chial clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, that it
was not only their duty but their desire to administer re-
ligious education to the whole of their flock, the whole of
the parishioners of their respectiveparishes. Now probably
the declaration to which I have just adverted may weigh
in support of the argument of the honourable member for
Meath. He says he is most anxious, in oily vote which ho
shall give, that the interests of the poor of Ireland shall be
considered. In resisting this motion, lam actuated, by
that same motive. (Hear.) It is for the sake of the poor
of Ireland, for the sake of the great body of the people of
Ireland, that I am most sincerely anxious that this system
of mixed education should be preserved. I challe.nng,e, flan.
facts of the case, and I do contend that in steam;
micoxed
sideriug the circumstances of Ireland, the
tlavnien its authors
education has succeeded to the full extenThere
area in that
could have expected. (Hear, h e )
crin. and
airs sysW ni
Of
country 520,000 children educate