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

aided and encouraged by the proposal is such as
could lead to the gibbet. (Hear, hear, hear, and
cheers.) Another course has been taken in oppo-
sition ti this measure., by a gentleman whom I
regret to see opposed to the plan before
the House. The amount of that gentleman's
argument is this—that there is a certain
class of people in this country which is found in con-
nexion with vice and crime, with ignorance and brutal
sensuality; and in that condition the people must be left.
For arm no means of education are to be provided
Imprisonment, transportation, and the gallows are for
them, but none of the milder means of religion or know-

ledge. Sir, I never can consent to such a proposition as
this. lam not disposed to entertain extravagant opi-
nions upon the subject, nor do I suppose that vice will
be effectually overcome, but still I trust that the number
may be diminished, and that not only the path of duty,
but the path of worldly advantage, point to education ;
and I hope that by this means many may be rescued
from the hands of crime and misery, and we should
then have the happiness of saying that we bad performed
the duty incumbent upon us, and we can with better
conscience and more satisfaction to ourselves, say
to the criminal that the puni,bment which the laws
inflicted upon him we had endeavoured to avert
as far as in us lay, and that we would have led you to
the paths of virtue, and it is not by our law that
you have come to this disgrace and punishment.—
(Cheers.) With respect to some objections urged
against the particular plan before the House, I cannot
help saying, that I think there is considerable force in
them; but still, although the measure is not exactly
what we might wish, still it must be borne in mind that
we had to deal with a great number of existing schools,
which already occupied the ground ; and which,
according to their own system, ought to impart educa-
tion in the way that seemed to them the most likely to
produce the desired result. I must confess that I think
the measure would have been better had it pro
moted a more general system of education, and
one in which both the children of the members
of the Church and those of Dissenters might have joined.
The first of these in point of numbers and amount is the
National Society, in connexion with the Church of Eng-
land. There are more than 900,000 day scholars in
their schools, and the amount of their funds is very large.
The rule in all these schools is, that the liturgy and the
catechism shall be taught, and there is likewise a neces-
sity that all the children shall go to the Established
Church on Sunday. They have now relaxed with re-
gard to the rule, and leave it to the managers of the
schools. But we had to consider, in 1839, whether we
ought to have attempted to spread over the country one
general system of education, and one that did not agree
with the British and Foreign School Society and the
Dissenters. It would have been very unwise to have
made such an attempt in 1839 as now, and Ido not think
that the prejudice which existed against it would act
otherwise than to create division, and eventually failure.
We said that in 1839, with regard to the Church schools,
they were to act according to their own views, and that we
would not interfere with religious instruction in any
other way than that the Church inspectors appointed by
the Privy Council should visit the schools and report as
to the kind and degree of education given. With respect
to the other schools, we stated that we would not inter-
fere with respect to the religious instruction given in
them, but with regard to the secular part of the instruc-
tion—that the inspectors should report upon it and upon
the state of the schools and their efficiency. Now, Sir,
the rule adopted in 1839 with respect to the building of
schools, and adopted now with respect to the educa-
tion of the pupil teachers and stipendiary monitors in
Church schools, is, that there shall be an exami-
nation of the pupils in the Church catechism and
the liturgy, but in schools not connected with the church
of England no examination of that kind is to take place
except as to the secular branches of learning. We con-
fine our examination to the secular branches of learn-
ing. It seems to me exceedingly strange that there are
many persons who agree with me that education ought
to receive some assistance from the State by a grant of
public money—agreeing with me that it is not sufficient,
that voluntary efforts should be made—agreeing with me
that the state of crime calls for some effort on the part
of the Government—and yet say that these rules con-
tain such a violation of the liberty of conscience, that
they cannot assist or even partake of any grant pro-
ceeding from such a source. Yet these are the same parties
who in 1839 consented that schools should be built from
public money in the proportion of 18s. 6d. to the pound, and
that in the schools the liturgy and catechism of the Church
of England should be used I own that I cannot under
stand the nice distinction which these persons make on
this occasion; for be it observed it is not a
a question in which the Church of England arrogates to
itself the power of superintending me instruction of the
people. All that the Church of England asks is this,
that in her schools—schools raised by the Church of
England, and built by members of her communion, that
her liturgy and catechism should be taught. It seems
to me to be a scheme not of a compulsory nature, but
one in perfect accordance with religious liberty, and
with which Dissenters ought to be satisfied. If, indeed,
the Church subscribed a much larger amount than the
Dissenters, then of course they would be entitled to a
larger share of public grant. But that was not a differ.
ence in principle, but one which arose from its prac-
tical operation. Ido not, therefore, see why the Dis-
senters should refuse to acquiesce in this grant in con-
sequence of part of the money going to the
schools of the Church of England. This is
not the whole of State education. It is only
in aid of voluntary effort.—(Hear, hear.) We
theh respectivewhich are
not lion c ali t ie s.
accordance
impose V
take the schools exactly where they are situated. We
find the
upon them
ls
existing
rmtintegin s w
with the rules which are established for theirmage-
ment. To say, then, that the State should not under-
takena the education of the whole people might be an
objection where such a thing was proposed, but it was
by no means applicable to the present scheme, even if a
large amount of public money was to be devoted to it.—
(Hear, hear.) Sir, it is said that some other better
scheme of education might be proposed which would be
more to the purpose—that it would be better to confine
ourselves to secular education—and, with regard to reli-
gious education, not to interfere, but to leave is to the
ministers and religious instructors of the various de-
nominations. As far as I understand Dr. Vaughan, he had
no objection to assist the Church of England schools or
those of the voluntary societies ; but he would have the
inspectors of the State take no notice of the religious
instruction of the pupils. Now, that is nearly the same
thing as we are proposing to do, and I think that this is
rather a distinction without a difference. But
there are others who speak of a secular
education, and who mean very differently—a school
was to be established by the State, and the school-
master a State officer, and to have nothing to
do with the communication of religious instruction,
which was to be left to the respective ministers of the
parents of the children. This view was brought for-
ward by the Hon. Member for Bath some years ago,
but to such a scheme I have the most decided objection.
To omit altogether the inculcation of religious duties, to
omit the precept of the love of God and the love of
their neighbour, would be in my mind a great, a se-
rious, and an irreparable loss. I think no advantage
of uniting the various religious sects, would compen-
sate for this apparent declaration on the part
of the State, that secular education alone would
absorb its attention to the exclusion of religious instruc-
tion. Ido not think that this would be found to operate
well, and I likewise do not believe that from the manner
in which the time of the children of the labouring poor
is occupied, you could impart to them in this way a
sufficient amount of religious instruction. In addition
to this, I think it is a scheme which would not be accept-
able to the people themselves,—(Hear, hear)—and I am
of opinion they would be likely to confound such a
scheme with irreligion.—(Hear, hear.) They would he
wrong, I admit, in that interpretation of it; but still, no
explanation or evidence which might be given them to
the contrary would be so strong as to overpower and
put an end to that feeling. The question, therefore, I
have to ask the House is whether, considering the various
difficulties with which this question is surrounded, it is
prepared to go with us in giving a grant of money to be
disposed of according to the Minutes of the
Privy Council, or whether it will go with the
Honourable Gentleman the Member for Finsbury
and propose against us a vote of censure.—(Hear, hear.)
But, Sir, before I sit down I wish to direct the attention
of the House to one or two other points, which I think
deserve some notice ; and, in the first place, with re-
gard to the claims of the Roman Catholics. Now, Sir,
with respect to that subject I have to say that, in the
minutes of August and December, 1846, it never arose.
There were certain rules laid down in conformity with
the original intentions of the Privy Council, and to these
only was their attention directed. By these minutes it
was settled that no school should receive a grant for
education unless the Scriptures were read daily in it.
If, however, the Catholics had a desire to establish
schools, and, for my own part, I should be glad of such
an intention, I think the greatest caution is requisite in
drawing up minutes by which grants to such schools
should be authorised. I do not think it would do to
have monastic schools, or schools where Protestant
children would not have an opportunity of reading the
Bible. That schools should not be established open
to this objection, I am not prepared to say, but I see
no reason why hat difficulty should be raised now.
Although half a million of money has been expended in
education under the superintendence of the Privy Coun-
cil, not a shilling had gone to a Roman Catholic school.
I therefore see no reason why such an objection
should be raised now, unless for the purpose of
throwing a stumbling-block in our way.—(Hear, hear.)
Such being the character of our proposal, and the diffi-
culties being so great with regard to any other plan, I
ask the House if there is any reason for instituting an
inquiry as to " whether the regulations attached thereto
do not unduly increase the influence of the Crown, in-
vade the constitutional functions of Parliament, and
interfere with the religious conviejions and the civil
rights of her Majesty's subjects." I have already, I
think, sufficiently touched on the constitutional points
of the subject, and shown that this plan will not in-
terfere with the constitutional rights or religious feel-
ines of her Majesty's subjects ; and as regards the
influence of the Crown, I thought that this influence
was rather diminished than increased by the plan pro-
pored. As regards the stipendiary monitors and masters
of schools, the grants will be made on the reports of in-
spectors appointed by different administrations, and no
schoolmaster, after seven-or eight years, when he has
attained his majority, will feel himself bound to give his
vote in favour of the views of any minister because he
had previously received portions of the grant at the re-
commendation of the inspectors. With regard to the
other marks of esteem to the monitors who may not be
appointed schoolmasters, such as employing them in dif-
ferent branches of the public service, this is a suggestion
which was made in this House, I believe, by the present
Secretary of State for the Colonies, when the Right
, Honourable Baronet opposite was in office, and when
Lord Grey was in opposition, so that it was
not brought forward with an intention of in-
creasing the influence of the Crown.—(Hear.)