The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-23 00:00:00

subsisted for many years, might at least have been per-
mitted to go on for another year, without making it
the subject of special comment and accusation.—
(Hear, hear.) Now, that the Honourable Member for
Southwark (Sir William Molesworth), spoke ably in
avour of a general motion for a grant of money for
education, and he wished to carry that motion for aid to
the Roman Catholics as a part of this grant, I consider
that the framing of any minutes upon this subject re-
quires great care and consideration. Should they be
framed upon the ground of their being entirely Roman
Catholic schools for teaching Roman Catholic doctrines,
and having Roman Catholic inspection, I am sure if
they were so drawn up, a great amount of opposition
would be raised to the measure. Should they be framed
so us to afford education in the same manner as in the
National Schools for Ireland, and aid granted to these
schools in the same manner as granted to those schools?
I am not quite sure that the Roman Catholic Bishops
of this country would approve of a measure brought
forward in that shape had it been proposed. lam sure
that some Catholics in Ireland, do object to such a
system, and have expressed great dissatisfaction with
the State education provided for the Irish people. I
therefore think, that on those grounds, it was necessary
for us to postpone this question for further consideration,
rather than to adopt a plan which might not have given
satisfaction. I agree with the Member for Yorkshire
and others, that we could not regard any measure as
permanent which did not include the Roman Catholics.
"This, however, was not proposed to be a permanent
measure. In 1839, we introduced a great alteration,
in the appointment of inspectors to the schools.
The money had, up to that time, been
voted by the Treasury, and in consequence of the want
of any surveillance being exercised, a great deal of it
was thrown away. This, however, was remedied by the
change which was then introduced. We now propose to
change the system as regards pupil monitors, and to im-
prove the condition of the schoolmasters, so that we can-
not be supposed to consider this as a permanent or com-
plete system. I trust that, in the end, we may be able
to come to an arrangement by which we shall reconcile
the various differences, and lay the foundation of a per-
manent system.—(Hear, hear.) I trust that, seeing the
general, I may almost say the universal, opinion that has
been expressed as to the State providing the means of
education for the people, we shall be able to bring in a
Bill that will have the support of the country, and of
bath Houses of Parliament. The opinions, however,
which I have heard expressed, confirms me in the
opinion I entertain as to the propriety of the course the
Government have pursued on the present occasion. Had
we brought in a measure, and asked for a much larger
grant than now proposed, they would have put it out of
the power of the other House of Parliament, when
it came to consider it, to make any change in
the measure. This was the course adopted in the case of
the Maynooth grant. My own opinion is, that the state
of education and of opinion is not sufficiently ripe for
such a proceeding. When, however, the Right Hon.
Gentleman opposite proposed the Bill, I supported him
on that occasion. Bat those questions cannot be dis-
posed of without consideration. They require dolibe•
ration, ripening, and discussion, both in this House and
the country before they can be brought to a satisfactory
termination. I remember that with regard to the ques-
tion of the establishment of the Small Debts County
l)ourts Bill that measure was taken up time after time
by successive Governments, and was introduced in 1824
and 1825 ; it was not till 1846 that it was passed, and it
was only last month it came into actual operation. When
such difficulties, then, accompany the settlement of a
question in which there are no prejudices at work, and
in which no great variety of opinion can exist, it is not
too much to expect that, on a question of this nature, in
which men's feelings are so deeply interested, and which
involves such diversity of opinions, that there should be
some delay in arriving at a satisfactory arrangement. I
think the course we have anopted has tended to bring out
many opinions that will assist in effecting this arrange-
ment, and has shown that this House is not unfavour-
able to the extension of education; and with regard to
many points on which considerable doubt and difficulty
rested, this debate has enabled us to arrive at something
like a clear and satisfactory decision. For instance, with
regard to the proposition of the Hon. Gentleman the
Member for Bath, that we should provide an education
for the people entirely secular, it is so entirely against
the opinions of this, and we may predict a future Par-
liament, that the chance of success from such a measure
is no longer questionable; and I do not think that the
future Ministers who are to bo the successors of the
present Government, and to exceed them in liberality,
are likely to have a long tenure of power, it
schools entirely secular are to be established by
the State.—(Hear, hear.) With regard to the
other points, there has been so much unanimity
expressed, and so much support—handsome and
generous support—given to the proposition of the
Government by the Noble Lord the Member
for Liverpool, the Member for Hertford, and others,
that I will only conclude by thanking them and the
House for the reception that has been given to this pro-
posal, and I trust we shall not Le disappointed in the
hopes we have formed of it.—(The Noble Lord resumed
his seat amid lend cheers.)
Colonel SIBTHORP said that when he recollected how he
had been deceived by former Governments on questions of re-
ligion, he was cautious in placing much confidence in
any Government. The Noble Lord said this was
not to be a- permanent measure—he thought so too. He
thought this was like other measures which had been lately
brought before, them, and the experience of the past induced
him to be very careful in assenting to what he could not but
consider as a snare and a trap, to cover some ulterior design.—
( Laughter. ) .‘ Timeo Danaos et dona ferentes."—( Laughter. )
He wished to see the people educated, as far as they possibly
could be, but he certainly would not agree to any further
grants ; and if the Hon. Member would move the repeal of
the Act of 18.39, he would cheerfully second the motion.
Sir ROBERT PEEL—Sir, although I feel it wholly un-
necessary to add anything to the argument by which the motion
of the Noble Lord has been supported, vet I should be unwilling
to permit this House to proceed to a division, without shortly
stating the grounds upon which my concurrence will be given
to that motion. Considering the position which for five years
I held in the councils of the Crown—considering the con-
nexion I had with the appropriation of the educational vote,
during that period as a Member of the Committee of the
Council—considering the opposition which the Government has
had to encounter in proposing the measure, the main outline
and principles of which I cordially approve of, I think on
account of that opposition it is incumbent upon me not to
shrink from taking my full share in any unpopularity which
may attach to the support of this measure.—( Hear, hear. )
Sir, I am:perfectly willing to admit that there are considerations
connected with this measure which I think are deserving of
mature attention. In 1839, I fully shared in the objections
that were urged to proceeding by a single vote of this
House in reference to a matter of so great importance
as a scheme of general education, imperfect though I admit it
to have been. I still think those assertions were based upon a
sound :foundation, as I consider it would have been a great
advantage to adhere to the ordinary course of submitting to
the deliberate judgment of the House the regulations by which
the education of the people is proposed to be carried out.—
( Hear.) I think it is an evil to exclude the House of Lords
from an opportunity of a full consideration of this subject—
(Cheers)—of leaving to the House no alternative but a corn •
plete acquiescence or a peremptory rejection of the measure.—
( Hear.) But, Sir, with my view of the immense importance
of making some progress in the mitigation of the monstrous
evils which attend a neglect of public instruction—(Hear)—
forseeine the probable consequences of insisting on the opinion
which 1 in 1839 of refusing assent to any measure con-
nected with education, unless it had the Legislative
sanction of both Houses of Parliament in the shape of
an Act of Parliament. I will not now incur the risk of fur-
ther delay, by insisting on the objections which I urged in
1839. I feel that I could not, with propriety now insist upon
those objections. For the six years which have elapsed since
1839, there has not only been an acquiescence on my part,
but an acquiescence on the part of the House, in placing the
control of the grants in the hands of the Privy Council.
( Hear.) In 1842, when the late Government assumed power,
the vote to the Privy Council did not exceed 30,0001. It was
by the advice of the Crown that that vote was increased to
75,0001. and then to 100,0001, per annum. We, charged with
the responsibility of the Government, and having the supportof
a great majority of this House, did not think that Parliament
would have acquiesced in 1840 and 1841, after
the debate of 1839, and after a majority of the House
had declared their opinion in favour of the proceed-
ings by vote, seeing that Parliament thought that arrange-
ment had been made between Government and the heads of the
Church, and that in 1840 and 1841 there was no disposition to
renew the discussion of 1839; I say, considering these things,
00/. and more, without apnd the
arliarn einnctr,efarsoemo3f
ot,hoooe
Iv.otteo,
lbw),
,tohe advice of the Crown to
re-
quiring any alteration in the channel through which it was ad-
ministered, I think I should be utterly unworthy if I now, in
1847, attempted to throw any impediment in the way which
might obstruct the application, and in some respects imperfect
remedy, for an evil of which we ought to be fully impressed,
by proposing that we should proceed by Bill rather than by a
vote of the House. But has nothing occurred since 1842 ?
Have we not had an attempt to proceed by Bill with reference
to the education of the people ?—( Hear.) And what was the
result ? When my Right Hon. Friend the late Secretary of
State for the Home Department attempted to introduce a mea-
sure with respect to the education of factory children, and in-
curred the obloquy with which he was assailed—obloquy to
which he exposed himself, because he was actuated by a deep
sense of public duty—he considered that he should mitigate the
opposition that existed by proceeding by a legislative enact-
ment. He did not proceed by vote. nor did he propose
to place any authority in the Privy Council,
We atteomfptthteopineotrpoled,uhcoetfuwre inthele•
tfawciiltihtiensowgirthearteerspect
to
en-
couragement in respect to that Bill than the Noble Lord in
proceeding by a vote of the House of Commons, and
madeeducation an
n
my Right Honourable Friend was compelled to abandon
the
the project ; and I regret that it was necessary to abandon that
attempt, because it was made with the view of uniting all
parties desiring some scheme, by which, without impolitic con-
cessions, great facilities might be given to the education of the
people. Now then, in 1847, seeing the failure of attempting
to proceed by legislation, seeing the evidence that there is,
even with 100,0001., no sufficient, no adequate pro-
vision for the education of the people—moral, intel-
lectual, and religious, I am ready to consent to any
measure, which, without violating the conscientious scruples
of any class of Christians, affords some remedy for those
monstrous evils which exist from the want of education.;
'Cheers.) Sir, in the course of this debate, there has
of people.
duty of the State to interfere with the education
has been but faint
Sir, in the course of the debate, certainly there
apprehend that on
denial of that—( Hear, hear)—and I should
subjects who dissent
great body of her Majesty's
much able argument with respect to theton authoritythe ande
the part of that
from the doctrines of the Established
of education, or to deny the
dis-
position to deny the importanceh
State to promote that education
right and duty of
.t e
I apprehend that
in its power.—( Hear.)
by every means
of the Non-conforming body to this pro-
ceedingthe chief objection
of her Majesty's Government, is not sa
on the part .
of the State to promote education,
much a denial of the right
whether or no the measure proposed is really calcu-
lated Church, there is no
as a doubt
least, if they are consistent with their doctrines on the subject
—( Hear, hear)—only object to it on the ground that the vo-
luntary principle is better calculated to promote education, than
to promote that end. That the Nonconforming body, at
any interference on the part of the State. And, Sir, if I could '
believe that assumption—if I could believe that non-interference
on the part of the State was calculated to facilitate education '

more than such interference, I should at once admit, that in
this country, in which such difference of opinion in religious
subjects prevails—l should, I repeat, at once admit that,
whatever might be the right of the State, it was not desirable
that any such interference should take place.—( Hear.) But I
think the evidence is conclusive that the voluntarypripciple has
failed to mitigate the evils which arise from a want of educa-