The Sun.
London, England, 1870-06-22 00:00:00

THE EDUCATION BILL.

The debate on the amendment of Mr. Richard on the
order for going into committee on the Elementary Edu-
cation Bill, was resumed by
Mr. MIALL, who commenced by a reference to the tem-
Aerate manner in which the member for Merthyr Tydvil
had introduced his proposition, and expressing his deep
sense of the gravity of the subject of education. He said
that the educational question was undoubtedly in a critical
condition. The measure which had been submitted to
theta would require all the help that the House could
hive it in order to get it through, supposing that the
.04-Ouse determined that it should proceed with it. He
bW.ould not left a finger against the passage of the
11l unless he were fully convinced that it was not
acialned to meet the wants of the country in that reg ird. He
Protested against the position in which his right hon.
f:ielld had placed those who had refused and might
efuse to accept the religious clauses of the bill as finally
settled by the Government, and throwing upon
them
the responsibility of defeating the nieasure.
Ilje Saw considerable efforts made to adapt the bill
,° the supposed wants and tastes of the public mind,
but no sooner was it introduced than it raised a storm of
excitement. The Bill had been amended and re-amended,
allclhe asked whether, after it should pass, it was likely
tic
ti, effect a permanent settlement of the education ques-
,ll. He did not suppose that there were many members
"Ito thought that the measure could work for fifty years
Without disturbance.. Describing the measure in a very
pi°l.(lB, it proposed a system of denominational sell ools, sup-
e ,mented by rate schools, and he asked whether denomi-
nationalism was the basis upon which to found a system
h would last, or adapt itself to the wants and wishes
theof country in future years. He argued that the de-
llo
tlinational schools had failed to supply the wants of the
country, He did not believe that they ought to teach

Christianity as they taught geography. The House
might depend upon it, and so long as they .put
blind before the eyes -of society, leading it to
be supposed that theY were teaching religion by means of
the schoolmaster, to those poor little miserable creatures
who probably did not understand a word of the subject,
they would interpose between the religious bodies and that
which was their proper mission. If the State would only
undertake the teaching which the State could teach, and
leave religious instruction to be undertaken by those who
in his judgment were competent to give it, then the work
would be tolerably well done between them.
Sir CHARLES ADDERLEY denied that the denominational
Schools had been proved a failure, and said they were
asked by the amendment to accept a scheme which was
wholly problematical, and hampered with a great religious
difficulty.
Mr. VERNON HARCOURT said the Government Bill was
pure and undiluted sectarian denominational education,
whilst the. arnendmens of the hon. member for Merthyr-
Tydvilwa in favour of secular education. Ho had nohesita-
tion in saying that he could adopt neither one nor the other,
an•l he wanted to know whether there was not
an alternate course. He believed that the -reli-
gious feeling of this country was in the direction of
unsectarianism, and in his opinion the tendency of modern
civilisation was to remove the differences which separated
the various communities of mankind. He asked why
they could not give general instructions to the school
boards and schoolmasters as to the spirit in which they
wished religious teaching to be given. He contended that
the proposition of the hon. member for South Hampshire
did not solve the religious difficulty but if anything
aggravated it. He condemned the proposal to increase the
grants to what he called denominational teaching and said
that the vote would occasion an annual battle. He
objected to denominational education on two grounds—
first that it was deleterious to civil society, and the cause
of religion and truth, and secondly that it multiplied
small schools instead of forming large schools which were
the best for the education of the people.
Mr. COWPER TEMPLE defended the amendment which
he had proposed, and which had been accepted by the
Government. It provided that in schools which were to
be paid for by all classes of the community, controversy
should not 131 taught. The State could not define what
was sectarian, but it might impose a condition that no
religious controversy should be taught.
_

LORD ROBERT MONTAGU defended the Government
from the charge of having exercised " moral coercion " on
its followers, and remarked on the concessions which had
been made consequent upon the demands of members
below the gangway. His Lordship argued that they
could not help having religious teaching which must be
denominational, and that being the case it would be much
better to have it taught by formularies.
Mr. OSBORNE MORGAN said that the proposal of the
member for South Hampshire would be inoperative as
regarded religious communities except three—the Church
of England, the Church of Rome, and the Wesleyan. It
would, however, transfer the responsibility of the reli-
gious teaching from the Church to the individual
teacher, where he maintained it ought not to rest. He
believed that religious teaching was the backbone of a
nation, and the question was how and by whom was the
instruction to be given. His experience had proved that
the strength, depth, end extent of the religious convic-
tions of a people were in an inverse proportion to the
amount of pains taken by the State to enforce religious
teaching.
Mr. MACARTHUR said he could not assent to the amend-
ment of the hon. member for Merthyr Tyclvil. He thought
the Nonconformists would almost to a man object to the
increased grant, and he regretted that the Government
should have int reduced such an element of discord. He
did not think the people of the country want the Bible
excluded from the schools, but simply increased educa-
tional facilities. His opinion was that the children could
not be taught morality unless they were taught the truths
of religion.
On the motion of Mr. Dixon, the debate was
adjourned.
The House was then adjourned until nine o'clock.
On the reassembling of the House at nine o'clock, the
attendance of members was very thin, and it looked as if
a " count out " would take place. The members, how-
ever, came straggling in, and when the Clerk reported
that, in consequence of having to go to Oxford, the
Speaker would not resume the chair, the benches looked
comparatively speaking, occupied. Mr. Dodson took the
chair and cast his eye about the House for Mr. Charley,
who had a motion on the notice paper in reference to
illegal lotteries. The hon. member, however, was not to
be seen, and after a brief period of expectancy his col-
league rose and explained that illness of a rather serious
character prevented his being in his place to introduce the
subject.
SPIRITUAL LORDS IN PARLIAMENT.

In such a House as described Mr. SOMERSET BEAUMONT
moved for leave to bring in a bill to relieve lords spiritual
(hereafter consecrated) from attendance in Parliament.
Considering the interest and importance of the subject
the emptiness of the Conservative benches was phenomenal.
Not one of their recognised leaders was in his place at the
commencement, and it was evident that if the House pro-
ceeded to a division, and the Government and its immedi-
ate supporters sanctioned the proposition, they would be
in a very insignificant minority. The member for
Wakefield did not trespass much upon the attention of
the House in urging his motion upon their acceptance,
and if his speech was not brilliant it possessed the merit
of being clear and to the point. He expressed a very
firm conviction that the spiritual lords did not either
benefit the State or the Church by being permitted to
participate in the deliberations of Parliament, and Mr.
Locke King, who seconded the amendment, declared that
a debating bishop was " a bishop out of place." Great
laughter accompanied this declaration, while Sir Wilfred
Lawson received something like a cheer, at any rate he
evoked considerable enthusiasm, when he gave expression
to his regret that the hon. member for Wakefield had
not gone the extreme length of relieving those already
consecrated of their responsibilities and functions
as Imperial legislators, If politics, he insisted,
were too vile for women they were equally so
for " those holy and reverend men." The hon.
baronet said that their intentions were good, but their
legislation had always been mischievous. Mr. Gladstone,
before stating the reasons which he thought justified the
Government in not acceding to the proposition before the
House, could not resist a good-humoured allusion to the
absence of the Opposition chiefs, and created amusement
by talking about the "union of the two front benches." The
Prime Minister, in the course of his speech, emphatically
contradicted the statement that the dioceses suffered
through the bishops residing so long in London. Any one
conversant with the habits of the prelates of the Church
knew that they had ceased to reside in London during the
session, and whatever might be said about their seats in
the House of Lords, it could not be said that the duties

attached to those seats were allowed sensibly to interfere
with their diocesan duties. " Dismiss the bishops from
the House of Lords," said the Premier, " and you greatly
weaken the influence of the State over the Church." The
right hon. gentleman said the English bishops might have
had 'their faults like other bodies, but as an historical
fact they had been eminently, distinguished by independ-
ence and regard for character. He went on to say that
the main and governing reason for resisting the motion was
the character"which it bore in the view of the Government
to the proportion of the House of Lords. If there was to
be, as there ever had been, a House of Lords in this coun-
try, it was well that it should be as strong as possible, and
if they were to remove the bishops it would not strengthen
that chamber. It must be remembered that the bishops
had contributed to the intellectual force of discussion in
the House of Lords in a proportion infinitely transcending
the numbers of the body.

The House divided and the result was—Ayes, 102 ;
noes, 158. There was great cheering on the declaration of
the voting being made by the occupants of the benches
below the gangway.
MUNICIPAL FRANCHISE IN IRELAND.

Mr. W. JOHNSTON obtained leave to bring in a bill to
alter and amend the law relating, to the municipal fran-
chise in Ireland reserving his statement until the second

reading.

LATE SITTINGS.

Two motions were submitted to the House for considera-
tion, having in view the curtailment of the period of sitting.
Mr. GILPIN, who was very eloquent on the pernicious
effects which protracted business had upon public men,
proposed that business should not be taken after 12
o'clock, and Mr. COLLINS, by way of amendment, moved
that one be substituted for two o'clock. Mr. GLADSTONE,
during the discussion, said he was more sensible of the
difficulty than of any method of solution, but Mr. GREENE
seemed to find an easy solution. He suggested that
shorter speeches should be made, that some reduction
should be put upon legislation, and that it should be real
and not sham.. It seemed to him that nothing that is
is right.
On a division Mr. Gilpin's motion was lost. Although
Mr. Gladstone had stated, in the course of the discussion,
that he would endeavour not to proceed with any proposal
which might meet with opposition, Mr. Collins persisted
in going to a division, when he was defeated.
Several orders of the day were disposed of, and the
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past one o'clock.