The Sun.
London, England, 1847-04-20 00:00:00

and there was no sum voted in the estimates,
over which such surveillance was exercised. The
result would be that the voluntary system would be
stimulated, because before paying 2,000,0001., 4,000,000/.
would have to be paid by those locally interested in the
schools. He thought, therefore, he had met that part
Then of
the objections with regard to the proposed
scheme in-
creasing the influence of the Crown. it was
stated that it was unconstitutional, and that Parliament
In adopting it would exceed its functions. He really
wished that those who urged this doctrine had shown
in what way the plan was unconstitutional. Tell him
what principle of the constitution would be violated.
Fifteen or thirty. times the Hon. Gentleman the Member
fort Finsbury, in the course of the speech, urged
that the Committee of the Privy Council was a
self-elected body—a self-constituted body ; and
inquired if the House would place so much
irresponsibility in the hands of such a body ? Why it
was not more a self-elected body than the Board of the
Treasury—it was appointed by her Majesty, under the
advice of her responsible Minister. He confessed that
he was quite at a loss to understand how he could say
that it was a self-elected office any more than that of the
Secretary of State. Then what constitutional principle
was violated? He said they ought to have an Act of
Parliament. True, they required an Act of Parliament
to give the Crown any power which it did not possess;
but if the Crown possessed the power of dealing with
this matter, and the House should vote the money sought,
surely the Crown would not act unconstitutionally in
expending it for the purpose for which it was voted.
Surely these were fair principles—surely they were con-
stitutional. Were they illegal on the part of those who
thought proper to expend their money upon them ?
Might he not give a stipend, out of his own private
resources, tot schoolmaster—a salary to a stipendiary
monitor, or to a pupil-teacher ?
~Surely he might do so
without seeking an Act of Parliament to legalise such
a proceeding. The cases were strictly analagous—(Hear.)
Why, the Hon. Gentleman seemed to talk as if nothing of
the kind had ever occurred before in this country ; for
instance, grants of money had been voted for the mili-
tary schools, and for the Military Asylum, for granting
aid to which an Act had been passed. When he was
cretary at War, he found no difficulty in inducing
Parliament to grant a sum of money for an institution
which was established for the purpose of educating the
daughters of soldiers. That was the usual, the constitu-
tional way of giving the Crown money for legal pur-
poses. If the Crown asked for what it had no powers to
airy out, they must have a separate Act: this he thought
was the proper interpretation of a constitutional grant.
Then, again, the Ministers were responsible for the
proper distribution of the money. As between Church-
men and Protestant Dissenters, it was impossible for
him to conceive a system of stricter impartiality, as
Baptists, Dissenters, Free Churchmen, Presbyterians,
and Members of the Church of Scotland, would equally
participate in the advantages which it would bestow;
the advantages were all in common, and a certificate of
a dissenting clergyman or of a parochial minister would
be of equal importance and have equal weight, and the
boys of the dissenting school were just as likely to be-
come stipendiary monitors as those brought up in the
Established Church, or to be Queen's scholars.
The same observations would apply with equal
truth to the schoolmasters, where four churches of diffe-
rent sects existed in a neighbourhood, no one would
possess a greater advantage than the other. Then the
Dissenters would not be worse off than they were now.
—(Hear, hear.) They would increase the uses of na-
tional schoolmasters, and that could do noinjury to the
Dissenters ; and he hoped that the Non-conformists who
had gone away from them in a moment of irritation,
would not show themselves non-conformist or unchris-
tian.—(Hear, hear.) The Churchman was as deeply
interested in the education of the people as the Baptists,
Presbyterians, or Dissenters. He thought it was for the
great interest of all, that in some form the great body:of
the common people should be educated.—(Bear, hear.)
Then with respect to the expense. No man who con-
tributed to the education of the people could say that he
would not gain any advantage—(Hear, hear)—because
he utterly denied that the Dissenters gained nothing by
a man being made a good man, and a good Christian ; it
was just as much a matter of interest to him as it was
that the defence of the coast should be preserved and
kept up in an efficient manner.—(Hear, hear.) The
Hon. Gentleman had asked them for a Committee to in-
quire into the effects which this educational system
would have upon the civil rights of the people. In
what way it was to effect their civil rights, he did
not think it necessary to inform us. He ought to
recollect that in a densely populated country in which
the system of unions was carried out, civil liberty could
hardly be more than a name. He was a very short
sighted. friend of the people, who, in making great efforts
to give them additional franchises, made no effort, but
rather offered resistance to an extended system of educa-
tion. From the clamour, then. which has been raised,
(continued the Hon. Gentleman) I appeal with confi-
dence to the country, to whom, in no long time,
we must render an account of our stewardship.
I appeal to a future age, which, when enjoying
the blessing of a sound and efficient system of
educatien, will look back with astonishment to
the resistance which our present efforts meet, and with
still more astonishment that such resistance was off-Ted
in the name of civil and religious freedom. (The Hon.
Gentleman resumed his seat amid loud cheers.)
Mr. ROEBUCK heartily agreed with the Right Hon.
Gentleman that it was the duty of the Government to
educate the people. But he would carry the argument
further, and say that it was also the duty of the Govern-
ment not to throw any obstacle in the way of carrying
out that duty. This was the charge which he made
against the Government. The Right Hon. Gentleman
had slided in his false conclusions on indisputable pre-
mises. He dissented with the Honourable Baronet
who rat near him (Sir R. Inglis), in his argument,
which went to prove that it ought to be the
business of the Government to keep the people in igno-
rance. The Noble Lord found the people heated with
religious differences, and he sided with the majority. He
quarrelled with the Government because they had not
found, as it was their duty to do, a system—a national
system. The Government found it necessary to do
something. A general election was at hand. The Noble
Lord tells the Catholics to remain quiet—that a new mi-
nute can be made—and that if they only held their peace
everything should be right with them. He would
wish to know if this was the sort of proceed-
ing for the Government to adopt; did they doubt that
this was an attempt on the part of the Government to
conciliate interests which were wholly irreconcileable?
So long as the Government of this country chose to mix
up religion with national education, so long would all
attempts fail to raise the people from that grovelling ig-
norance in which the Right Honourable Gentleman had
described them to be—so long would all their endeavours
fail to remove the evil. Let the question
be tried by the issue. They might say that they would
have schools. In different religions, suppose they had
a community in a small village, they could not have all
separate schools. They could only have one school, and
what would they do with those who did not agree with
one favoured sect in religion?—said the Noble Lord, in
such a school we shall teach a religion after the fashion
of the Church of England, within schools—and what
was to be. done with the Catholic, the Wesleyan, and the
Baptist ; should they be excluded from these national
schools? It was said that a secular education was not
complete without religion. What was the Church of
England about—what was it for—not to inculcate her
doctrines upon the members of the Church. All those
who b longed to al* Church of England ought
to receive religious instruction according to the
forms of that Church. The Noble Lord only
performed one half of his duty to the poru!atbn, if he
excluded half of them from the benefits of this measure.
He wished, however, to know how the money was to
be applied. If he voted away any sum for the army or
navy, he knew it wee to be applied for a specific pur-
poee, but in this instance the Government came down
and asked fur so many hundreds of thousands to carry
out a minute of Council, which they might alter at
pleasure. It would be said that the Administration
were men with liberty on their lips, but who, when the
time mole to try them, were found far from equal to
the exigency. He thought, also, that the time would come
when the country would have to look to other parties
to guide them, and when to the hand which struck down
the corn-laws, they, would have to look for the esta-
blishment of a real liberal system of education. He
had made this explanation in order to guard the vote
which he intended to give. He maintained that the
principle of the Government was not the one laid down
by the Right Hon. Gentleman the Member for Edin-
burgh. lle (Mr. Roebuck) said it was the duty of the
Government to educate the people, but he denied that
it could be done by the narrow and sectarian mode of
the Right Hon. Gentleman.

EWART, who rose with Mr. Hindley, then
moved the adjournment of the debate, which was
stzreed to.
SERVICE OF HEIRS AND CROWN CHARTERS