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

LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, APRIL 23, 1847.

worthy of the Noble Lord, worthy of the name be bears,
and hio belies el that the career of the Noble Lord would
be yet the brightest illustration of that name.
Sir JOHN PAKINGTON desired to offer his thanks
to the Noble Lord (J. Russell) for his course upon
the present question, and to tender him his support.
There was no part of the Hon. Baronet's speech that he
dissented from so much as that portion which allegtd
that the Government plan had been triumphantly re-
futed. So far from agreeing in this opinion, he thought
that the case of the Government had been most clearly
and conclusively maintained. Why had the speeches of
the Hon. Members for Finsbury and Durham been so
feeble ? Why, but because that they bad no system of
their own to propose—no scheme or plan on which to
proceed. He considered the opening speech of the No-
ble Lord at the bead of the Government had anticipated
every objection, and completely made out the necessity
of the proposed grant. Fortified, as that speech
had been by the able speeches of the Right
Honourable Member for Edi:iburgh, and the Right
lion. Baronet the Home Secretary, little remained for
him to say. He would only refer to one point. It was
that which proposed to leave out certain Dissenters from
participating in the grant. He could not agree with that
exclusion. As a member of the Claire!) of England, and
also as a member Of the National Society, he wished to deal
with the subject before them in a charitable spirit.
There were several most important institutions in the
country which would not be eligible for the grant He
might instance one of the most valuable establish-
ments in the country, at which the children of the
Churchmen and the Dissenters met together, end
were educated, in the most harmonious manner. No.
difficulty whatever had ever arisen on account of
religion. The establishment to which he referred eas
King Edward's Grammar Schot 1 at Birmingham. The
Hon. Member then read an extract from the rules under
which the school was manized —The following was a
statement of the children of the different persuasions in
that school:—

Church of England 798
Independents
Wesley arts
Baptists
Socinians
Lady Huntingdon's 8
Jews 4
Roman Catholics 4
Swedenborgians
Calvinists 1
Quakers ... 1
This large school was conducted is this harmonious
manner. He confessed that he wished most earnestly
that he could confine the schools in such a manner as to
give religious education to the children, in accordance
with the principles of the Church of England ; but,
whatever might be his own private opinion on the sub-
ject, he must allow some weight to the principles and
opinions of the other great sects and parties throughout
the country.—(Hear, hear.) He thought the ar
guments of her Majesty's Government, in bringing
forward this measure, perfectly conclusive, and he
hoped that the attention of Government would be
shortly turned to the condition of the labourer, and to
the sanatory condition of the people of this country. He
must confess, however, that he was to some extent dis-
appointed, because her Majesty's Government had not
proceeded in a more comprehensive manner than they
had done upon these subjects.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. HUME was anxious to say a few words upon this
subject, as he must say that from promises and pledges
given by the Noble Lord the Member for the city of
London to his constituency he did expect to have seen a
plan more comprehensive than that introduced upon the
present occasion. The Noble Lord stated in the com-
mencement of the present session that he was prepared
with a more extended plan of general education, and he
was quite surprised that at the present time, when a vote
of 700,0001. was taken for the army alone that
the paltry sum of 100,0001. only should be required
to carry out the plan of the Government with respect
to the education of the country. He thought that
the people of England were willing to bear
a much larger sum for that purpose.—(Hear, hear.)
The Hon Member for Edinburgh (Mr. Macaulay) had
made a most eloquent, and a most forcible speech upon
the subject, and the arguments brought forward in that
speech were in his opinion perfectly unanswerable, and
he most cordially agreed with the Right Hon. Gentle.
man in considering the present state of education in
Scotland as resulting from the improved and general
system of education which prevailed in that country.—
(Hear, hear.) The system of establishing schools in
every parish of Scotland was a most desireable and effi-
cient one, and one which he should be most happy to see
carried out in this country. He quite agreed with the
conduct of the Prussian Government, in prosecuting the
education of the people, he believe with the Right Hon.
Gentleman the Member for Edinburgh, that it was the
duty of every Government to do its utmost to
promote the education of the people, and he regretted
to hear any Hon. Member in that House say that it was
not the duty of the Government to endeavour to edu-
catete fi
rthet pief o inloet. th He rfi
rrseta, l(yiu
tithoughtduties
of
thet h ast
ttaht
ea.t wiaise ocnoeu ol
df
not reconcile the statement of the Hon. Member for

Derby, that the people 4 Scotland could most of them
write a good letter, and yet he went on to say that the
people were little better than " barbarians." He would
dismiss the subject from his mind, and hurl back the
charge thus made upon his country, by saying that the
statements of the H on. Member were perfectly incon-
sistent and irreconcileable. The lion. Menitier then
proceeded to contrast the state of education in Pru,sia
and the United States, where a system of State edu
cation prevailed, with the state of education
in this country, where there did not exist
any general system of Government education.
The result of the analysis of crime in England for the
last three years, showed teat there was a decrease of 32
per cent. in the countri. s where the people were best
educated. Mr. Neeson, who made out these tables, made
it evident that wherever there was crime there also was
ignorance, and the complete absence of the means of
education. To show that Mr. Laing never intended to
say that education did no good, he would refer to the ob •
servations he made in favour of the penny postage, of
which he was an anxious supporter. He agreed with
Mr. Laing that every measure ought to be sanctioned
which even indirectly promoted education. He was told
by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government, and
the Noble Lord at the head of the Woods and Forests,
that they were beset with difficulties m this measure,
and that they deplored they could cot carry out a more
extensive system of education. He maintained that it
was the right of every one to have education, and it was
nota
was
sattaers ogfootdoleraatmiona.o Aas orCaachmooliaacber
a Dis-
senter
was so so
his generally e
judgment
gtiven to the Noble Lord.—(Hear,
of the
a
Church of Egland, and had , good a claim
to the advantage of State education. He
did not assent to the character of moral courage which
hear.) On this question the Noble Lord displayed the
greatest cowardice. lie was afraid to take the course
approved,
He was going to answer the gm. unds on which Mr. Baines
proceeded in his opposition to the education scheme, but he
would not allude to them now. His own opinion was, that
the
adoptive an
osfc utlhke e d
right in the h e most
course.
He manner from
the dissenters and the members of the Church of England
ought to be put into the same boat and sent across- the
channel. He thought an effort should be made to unite
all classes, and he did not doubt,
,judging` from the
evidence they had from Holland and from Ireland, that
this was practicable. He thought if her Majesty's
Government agreed to appoint a Committee to enquire
what each party wanted, that means could be
devised for this purpose. They adopted such
a proceeding with regard to the navigation-laws,
the poor•laws, and other questions, and he did
not doubt, but if this were done with regard to educa-
tion, a mode would be pointed out to reconcile all differ-
ences. When Holland was under subjection to France,
at the time of the French revolution, an attempt was
made by France to give education combined with reli-
gion to the people of Holland, and this attempt was met
by the ministers of the various creeds in a spirit of
good will. The conseque, co wasp that the clergymen
of the different persuasions and the schoolmaster—each
in their respective sphere--carried out the intentions
of the Government. The next case he had to bring
before them to show the practicability of combining a
religions and secular education, was the national system
of education adopted in Ireland, and he would refer to
the 9th report of the National Board, to show the per-
fect success which had attended their efforts. He
attributed muoh of the crime which existed in this
country to the religious differences which prevailed; and
those who fomented them could not lay their hands
on their hearts and say, that they were doing their duty
to God and man; and if crime could be repressed by
education, as he thought it might in a great degree, it
would be cheaply purchased at 500,000/. a-year, instead
of 100,0001., or at almost any cost. lie considered that
the state of things in this country required a greater
and more comprehensive measure than the one
proposed, and if the Committee sought were granted he
should be able to prove that a truly national system of
education might be carried out without any of the
evils wbich appeared to be involved in the Government
plan. He also considered that there ought to be a
Minister of Instruction in this country, assisted by a
board of persons selected from the most competent in
the community, to whom the task of superintending the
education of the people should be intrusted. It was on
these grounds that he felt it his duty to vote for the
amendment of his Hon. Friend.
Sir W. JAMES said he should support the plan of the
Government, because he considered that the time had
come when it was the incumbent duty of the Stsee to
promote the education of the people by every means in
its power. If they wanted evidence of this necessity, it
was to be found in the fact that out of every 100 of the
population, only
were,
as 30 a
profession. I
to4ocould read,tappeared
a
1,000,000 or 800,000 of the children of the poor were re-
ceiving no education at all, and were being brought up
re
to rapine, as itpeltitrdedthtaot
him that a great proportion of the public feeling was in
favour of the plan. Looking at the state of the
Church, of the different dissenting denominations,
there was as large a 'lsms of public feeling
in favour of it as was ever given in support of any other
public measure which had of late years engaged the at-
tention of that House. The Hon. Gentleman the Mem-
ber for Montrose was the only one in that House who
had advocated a compulsory system of education ; but
he did not agree with him, as he considered that the
plan of aiding the voluntary efforts of benevolent indi-
viduals was the best that could be adopted, and that a
compulsory system was foreign to the habits of the
people of this country.—(Hear, hear.) But where a
school was required in a district, such as a colliery
district, where there were no benevolent persons to
aid it by voluntary contributions, he thought that
the state should step forward and provide the necessary
funds.—(Hear, hear.) He was strongly opposed to a
secular system of education, as he considered that reli-
poargooofdethduancateiovnil ;; yaeatd,hebe
there-
fore,
that mode of education to those
were in favour of it,
lgoiifeovnheliwshiaetsf
etwolatooncuwol
dni.inct
nota loponor morettrgeynn mtye
who

leaving the religious portion of the education to the
clergymen of the different denominations, and to the
parents of the children. He perfectly concurred in the
remarks of the Noble Lord, the Member for Arundel,
(Lord Surrey), who spoke so much to his credit the other
night.—(Hear. hear.) As, he said, that although those
of the Roman Catholic persuasion were not to participate
in the grant that he should not, on that ground deny aid
from the funds of the State for the purpose of aiding in
promoting education amongst other sects.—(Hear, hear.)
Yet he (Sir W. James) could not help thinking that the
exclusion of that portion of the community
would be another Catholic disability.----(Hear, hear.)
He thought the speech of the Hon. Member for Durham
was one more against the Church and the aristocracy
than anything else ; and he regretted to see a Gentle-
man, who had attained such a position in the country,
would come forward and give utterance to such preju-
diced sentiments as he had dune.

Sir JOHN EASTHOPE said it was with the deepest
regret that he saw her Majesty's Government submit to
consult the expediency of the moment, which they had
done in the present measure. There were great objec-
tions to it, and there was one greater, and that was the
unfortunate compromise made between tha Church of
England and the Wesleyans, by which the Catholics
were excluded.—(Hear, hear) He admired the speech
of the Noble Lord (the Earl of Arundel), and he hoped
that the Wesleyans would from it learn true sentiments
of Christian charity. _ _

Mr. SHARMA'N CRAWFORD said it was his
intention to vote for the Hon. Member's amendment, for
he did feel that the measure of the Government was a
violation of the rights of the people, and was a violation
of religious liberty becsase it gave undue advantages to
one sect over another. He was as anxious to support
education as any man in the House; but the exclusion
of the Catholics was most unworthy of the Govern-
ment. He did give great praise to the Earl of Arundel
for his speech, but it emanated rather from the goodness
of his heart than anything else; but he would say that
the people of England would respect the Catholic body
if they stood upon their rights, for he did not
know on what principles any Catholic Member in that
House could vote for the proposition of the Government.
The Methodist bodies in the town of Rochdale were not
parties to any compromise which might have been en-
tered upon. They had commissioned him to present
many addresses, which emb, died the truest principles of
religious liberty. On the subject of the Maynooth
grant. he was one of those who opposed that grant, on
the ground that it was hostile to civil and religious
rights, and he now opp,sed this grant on the ground that
-the civil and religious rights of the Catholics themselves
were interfered with. He did not wish that the Church

to which he belonged should exercise any undue influ-
ence over the religious or civil rights of any sect which
differed from it. For these various reasons, he would
give his vote in favour of the amendment.
Sir W. MOLESWORTH entirely agreed in the
opinion of the Hon. Member who had last spoken, and
with the Hon. Member for Montrose, that a system of
national secular education. divested of every interference
in religious opinion, would be far preferable to the
measure proposed. With regard to the measure itself,
the first question was, should the Government interfere
at all in the education of the people ?—secondly, to
what extent it should do so ?—and, thirdly, as to the
nature of the education to be given by them ? There
were many opinions upon this subject outside, in favour
of the non-interference of the Government under any
circumstances ; but he would ask whether it was not the
duty of every Government to promote the interests of
the public and of the Government by educating the
people? The Government should teach the people the
difference between right and wrong, as that alone would
make them willingly obedient to the laws ; and,:there-
fore, the education of the people was a matter of
primary importance to the State. He thought that
the State should educate the people. With regard to
crime, they were at that moment at their wits' end to
prevent its increase. He was chairman of a Committee
which had to deliberate with reference to this subject,
and they could devise no means to prevent its increase.
Although good gaols and good gaolers might in some
degree check the progress of crime, yet he thought that
good schools and good schoolmasters would check it
still more. No person objected to large expenditure on
the part of the State in matters of less importance than
the education of the people, and there should, therefore,
no objection be offered in any expenditure for that edu•
cation. He would ask those who were the opponents of
State interference, if there were not hundreds of thou-
sands of people in this country too poor to educate their
children ? How then were they to be educated, except
by private charity,-under which such an efficient system
of superintendence as could be exercised under a na-
tional regulation would be impossible. Many of these
educational charities, especially those supported
by voluntary contributions, were deficient in
funds, depending upon accidental donations for
their resources, to increase which they were
obliged to have recourse to the most unfortunate,
and he might almost say degrading solicitations. If he
were a member of the humbler class he should feel it
more consonant with his feelings to have his children
educated at the expense of the state than by private,
charity. He should rather claim the education of his
children from the State as a right, and to which he was
entitled for the benefit of the community, than receive it
from the uncertain bounty of his fellows citizens, from
whom he should take it as a boon and as a favour.—

(Hear, hear.) The next question was as to what extent,
and in what manner the State should interfere in edu-
cation? In his opinion the State should interfere so

far as that, no children should from want of means re-
main ignorant of so much of the elements of an educs-
tion as would tend to save them from crime.—(Hear.)
Ills system should be carried out without reference
to creed or belief. There had bt en three methods pro
posed in which this interference en the part of the State
should have been made, of which he considered that the
only practicable one was the proposal that the State
should contribute to the support of the alrerdy existing
schools of each sect. The dissenters of a certain class
had, to some extent, thrown an obstacle in the way of
the last measure which he had mentioned, as they had
a conscientious objection to receiving any grant from the
State. In our eastern dominions the people were-some-
times in danger of perishing by starvation, from the
failure of the rice crop, and the Government attempted
to remedy the deficiency by supplies of animal food, to
which the people had an insuperable objection, founded
on their religion. lie thought that what food
was' to the body, education was to the mind.
the last objection to which he would refer, was a very
grave one. It was the proposition to leave out the Ro-
man Catholic altogether. He had been much astonished
at this arrangement, and up to this week he believed no
one out of the Government knew that such an exclnsion
would be proposed. lie regretted the interpretation
which had been given to the minutes of 1839. This in
terpretation had not, however, been given to it till 1847.
Since 1839 till then, no such interpretation had taken
place. The Noble Lord said, that as soon as Roman
Catholics applied for the grant their application would
be taken into consideration, but that, as yet, no such ap-
plication had been made. This was, however, incorrect.
In February last a Mr. Landon applied to the Council
in respect to the educational grant, and Dr. Kay Shut-
tleworth replied to him, that their Lordships would, if
a definite application was made to them in respect to the
Roman Catholics, they would give it their most careful
consideration. That this was the interpretation of the
minutes would seem to be the case, from the proceeding •
of the Wesleyan Committee of Education, in March
and April 1844, according to certain letters
and documents of theirs, published in last week's
Watchman. To the letters there addressed to the Coun-
cil of Education they replied that they wouli be disposed
to give every consideration to any objections the Wes-
leyans might have to offer to the mode recommon led by
the former. A conference ensued, in which the Council
made such explanations about the Scriptures being either
read daily entire, or extracts from them, in the schools,
such as to remove the objections of the Wesleyans.
This would have included the Catholics, as nothing was
then said about the authorised verson being alone used.
(The Hon. Member then quoted the resolutions of a
public meeting, held a few days ago, the Earl of Shrews-
bury in the chair, complaining of the exclusion to which
the Government proposed to subject them in this grant.)
After the speeches made by the Noble Lord the. Member
For the West Riding of Yorkshire (Lord Morpeth), and
the Right Hon. Baronet the Member for Devonport (Sir
G. Grey), he felt encouraged to give notice that he
would move, in some stage of the present question, a re-
solution declaring that in any future grant the Roman
Catholics should be admitted to participate in it on the
same footing as other religious seots.—(Hear, hear.)
Lord MAHON supported the proposition of the Go-
vernment. When they considered the enormous amount
of ignorance which prevailed, he could not see what other
course they could take than supporting this grant. By re-
ferring to the various reports submitted to this House,
they would find the enormous amount of iguorancewhich
prevailed and the necessity which existed for the change
It was impossible that they could have things ae
they were, and a change was, therefore, necessary.
If this plan of the Hon. Member for Dumfries were im-
practicable, as he thought it was, then there remained
only some such measure as that of her Majesty's
Government. He thought, for instance, that the propo-
sition of providing retiring pensions and situations,
under certain circumstances, under Government, would
require to be abandoned. Still, as a whole, he would
undoubtedly support the Government, believing their
scheme to have been brought forward in an earnest and
truthful spirit. When he looked to the present artificial
state of society, he could not think that they were alto-
gether faultless who opposed even this limited measure
of education ; he thought that they should, before
punishing crime, give the people the means of knowing
good from evil.
Sir JAMES GRAHAM said that he was always
very unwilling unnecessarily to occupy the time and
attention of the House, but as he concluded that the
Hon. Member for Finsbury intended to press his motion
to a division, he could not reconcile it to his sense of
duty to give a silent vote on that occasion. The motion
made by the Noble Lord at the head of the Government
was that they should resolve themselves into a Commit-
tee of Supply for the purpose of voting 100,0001. of the
public money in aid of education. Tne motion moved
as an amendment by the lion. Member for Finsbury was
that a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of
inquiry. Now it appeared to him, in reference to this
subject, that an inquiry was altogether superfluous. The
facts were notorious; and that there was a great inade-
quacy of the means of education in England was
admitted on all hands. This motion then, he presumed,
was made (as had been hinted at) for the purpose of
conveying a censure on her Majesty's Government—(ex-
pressions of dissent from different parts of the House)—
and although he was not prepared to say that some had not
been committed in this matter. yet it would, considering
the difficulties which surrounded the question, be in his
opinion unjust in the extreme to mark with severity
anything that might have been done amiss. lie was
well aware of the extreme difficulty that attended this
question, and he felt bound to sky, therefore, that they
should rather ende. your to rectify their =loins, than