The Sun.
London, England, 1851-05-23 00:00:00

eation should be given, but how it should be given? Tne
question they wet-, now considering was, as to the
batty of the plan proposed by the lion. Member for Old-
ham. He had three objections to that Hon. Member's
scheme—first, he had doubts about the expediency of
making education free. Practical men were of opinion
that such a system was not adapted to the wants of the
country, or was likely to tend to produce feelings of in-
dependence among the lower orders. They thought the
Government system was better adapted for the purpose,
especially if the parents of the poorer, hut not the poorst
boys were invited to make small contributions towards
the expenses of education. For his own part he would
gladly see such aid extended to the ragged schools as
would make the education there free of expense; but
he was of opinion that neither the necessities nor the
wants of the lower orders were sufficient to warrant the
adoption of a general system of free education. The
next objection to the next feature of the Hon. Member's
plan was, that he doubted the propriety of calling for
further aid towards educating the people by means of
further rates. He considered if aid were to be given, it
ought to be given in a more equitable form, and the ex-
pense ought to be diffused over all those who were
able to hear it. The objecionable form was by
grant from the Consolidated Fund, according to the
system at present adopted. With reference to the
third feature of the scheme, that secular education only
should be given, he was altogether opposed to the prin•
ciple of such a propositien. He did not see that such a
scheme would give satisfacion in any quarter. He did
not think it would give the Church of England, or any
particular sect, general satisfaction. The Roman Ca-
tholics, they all knew, would receive no satisfaction from
a system of that kind. The mass of the people belonging
to the Church of England or the body of Dissenters
would not be generally satisfied with such a system.
Many Dissenters continued to send their children to
the Church of England schools, for they knew that the
great mass of these schools were not teachers of doc-
trines of a theological character likely to create preju-
dices, but only gave instruction in the Scriptures. He
could not possibly think how such a system of education
as that proposed by the Hon. Member was adapted to
secure the end it professed to have in view. It was,
however, said the system was proposed for the purpose
of doing justice to the poor, and discharging a debt
due to them. But if it was the aim of all who sought
to elevate the poor to implant in their minds the great
first principles of humanity and religion, as the surest
preventive of crime, how could that aim be attained by
the proposed system? If education were confined to
secular subjects—it carried out without religious instruc
tion—he very much doubted whether the tendency of
such a system was to diminish vice and crime. He
doubted whether the system would be either bene-
ficial to the individual or the community. But
it was said by Honourable Gentlemen opposite, " What
we propose is that children shall be educated in the
school, and receive religious instruction elsewhere." But
let that system be carried out, and let all be done that
its advocates wanted, what would be the result? How
long were the children to remain at school? If inquiry
were made, it would be found that parents would not
leave their children at school beyond the ago of 13. All
the education these children received, which was to go-
vern the whole course of their future life was given be-
fore they were 13 years of age. How then could the
proposed resolution be carried out ?—where could these
children get their religious education from? Were these
children to be without instruction in the great moral
principles, and in the duty of worshipping God ? If the
principles in the resolution were carried out, the chil-
dren would receive no instruction in the schools in their
first duty, that of worshipping the Creator. To such a
system he was decidedly opposed. The only argument
of any weight urged in its favour was, that there was a
necessity for it. He did not believe the necessity
existed. He believed the Government plan could be
carried ,out so as to produce general education, provided
two things were furnished, a great deal more money,
and more time. What was wanted in the first instance
were good teachers. Much had been done by Go-
vernment to remedy this want. Several institutions
had been opened for the purpose of providing good
teachers. The institution at Highgate, which furnished
eighty teachers, had worked well, as also had the
system of pupil teachers. He believed, therefore, that
the present system, with some addition to it for pro-
viding free education for the very poor, was well cal-
culated, in time, to affird a prospect of carrying out
the aim of a general system of education for the people.
He must oppose, on principle, the present proposition;
at the same time he, and the House, were obliged to
the Hon. Member for Oldham for bringing forward
the subject, as even its discussion must be productive of
good.
Mr. ADDEHLEY must vote with reluctance OR the
question against those with whom he usually voted—
for he felt he could not conscientiously vote against the
propositions of the Hon. Member for Oldham.—(Hear,
ear.) There was an old proverb—Take care of the
pence, and the pounds would take care of themselves—
the moral of which was susceptible of a wide applica-
tion. If the House took care of the elementary questions,
they would find that the great complicated questions
would take care of themselves. He regretted to differ
from the opinions expressed by the Hon. and Learned
Gentleman, Mr. Walpole, who, in expressing his dislike
to free education, dealt with only a part of the case as
if it were the whole.—(Hear.) The Hon. Member for
Lancashire said he felt anxiety on the question, but would
only consent to support the prop isitions before the House
in the event of no better scheme being put forward. The
question then was, what chance was there of a better
system being carried out, and what would happen to the
country in the meantime?—(Hear.) All were agreed
that religions and secular instruction ought to be com-
bined, and that one should be based on the other. They
were also agreed that the two could not be carried out
without the help of a national rate. But it also appeared
that while secular education could not be carried out ex-

cept by a national rate, religious education could not be
carried out by a national rate. So, therefore, as one-
half was impossible, the Hon. and Learned Member set
his face against the whole. He would, however, show
the House that while one part could be carried out by a
national rate, the other part could be carried out by a
voluntary aid. The proposition of the Hon. Member for
Oldham could not be controverted, that the present sys-
tem of education was deficient in this material respect—
that it failed to point out to the poor how they were to
find their own subsistence. Now, as crime proceeded
frequently from want of employment, education would
fail to prevent crime. If, tor instance, the poor knew
geography, that would enable them to understand the
advantages of colonial emigration, and, as in America,
our colonies would soon have their back settlements.
The Hon. Member referred to the standard of educa-
tion as beiag of an improving character. He thought
the standard of education was ♦astly too high; it was
vastly higher than was required. And he considered
that the prima of the Privy Council went to a higher
class than was expedient or proper. The money,
therefore, that was spent by the Privy Council was
lavished on a class for which it was never intended, and

who ought not to receive a farthing of it. The gigantic
plan of the Privy Council could not be carried out, and
debts had been incurred which could not be liquidated.

There was, therefore, no hope to be derived from that

quarter. But while they were discussing the question,
an efficient national education was going on which was
only accessible to two classes—the prisoner and the
pauper.—(Hear.) The education given to prisoners
was elaborate and perfect—in Parkhurst Bridewell, and
other prisons for the reformation of juvenile offenders
the education was good. In the workhouses also, the
education there was vastly superior to that given by the
poorer classes to their children. Here was a national
system of religious and secular education at the expense
of the country, and the only question was, whether that
system should be extended to the poor outside the work-
houses and prisons. It might be said that this system
mixed up religious instruction with education; but would
they consent to open the doors of such places to the
honest poor outside. He confessed he was dissatisfied at
seeing the poor debarred from the advantages in those
places. He approved of a national rate for general
education, and he thought it was highly creditable to
the county of Lancaster that it should have been the
first to come forward with a petition to Parliament to
tax them for purposes of national education. He had
the authority of a distinguished traveller for stating,
that no one could visit America without seeing the great
superiority of the Americans over this country in point
of education. Ho had heard only two serious objections
to the propositions; first, that, if adopted, they would
supersede the present schools. But that objection was
of no force, for if the present schools were inefficient, it
would be an advantage to supersede them. The second
objection was, that it was impossible to separate secular
and religious instruction, That was a mere play upon
words. We acted upon the principle every day
of
lives in the education of our children. We sh
the two could be separated without mischief. The ad-
vantages of the Honourable Gentleman's proposition
would be plain and obvious. The necessities of the case
were also obvious; and be therefore approvedof
Subject
which would compel the people to take an interesta planin
their own schools.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL thought no
could be more important than that of how they could
best educate that young and numerous class now in want
of education. Still he must say that he had never heard
in the same debate so many errors and fallacies as there
were to be found in the speeches of the Hon. Member
who proposed this motion, and in the speeches of those
effect of the
who followed him.—(Hear.) The real e
mea-
sure proposed would be to shut up the religious schools
in the country, and compel those who now supported them
to contribute to schools that they abhorred.—(Hear.)
It was assumed by those who supported the proposition
of the Honourable Member, that nothing had been done
hitherto on the subject of education. This was not the
fact. For 27 years before the Government grant for
education the Church of England had 550,000 children
in its schools; and in the nine years that had succeeded
the Government grant they had added to the 550,000
children no less than 400 000. Previous to the Govern-
ment grant the annual subscriptions were 3,0001, and
since the Government grant their annual subscriptions
had increased to 20,0001. As a proof that the people of
England were not unanimous in favour of what was

called mere " secular" education, he referred to what
had occurred in Manchester, where, after a long
discussion the word " secular" was omitted from
the name of a society established for promot-
ing education. In Manchester, also. a committee
bad been formed, consisting of all classes of
politicians, from the highest Tory to the lowest Radical,
and of ministers of every creed, until lately, when it was
abandoned by the Roman Catholic priests, although not
by the Roman Catholic laity—and that committee pro-
posed to avail itself of all the schools already in existence
to contribute to the maintenance of schools approved of
by the Government Insptctor of Education. Now, he
asked, if two schools were established, giving secular
education in each, and in each, too, the religious educa-
tion fitted for the children in that school, would not that
be a perfect system of education?—(Hear, hear) The
whole matter, as put forward by the Ron. Member for

Oldham, rested upon false principles. The whole mo-
tion rasnal on at error in principle, as well as in fact;
for the Hon. Metnb r said he would erect the great
fabric of national prosperity on the solid basis of ria •
tional intellect. Now, he did not consider that as the
only solid basis. Man was a moral, an intellectual, and
a spiritual being, and they must educate all those
powers which it had p!essed Heaven to bestow up in
him. All must be educated, and one of them, and that
the most important cf all, must not • be neglected, as it
would he by a merely secular education.—(Hear, hear.)
He said that the exertions of the clergy of England
for the last ten years on this subject had been most cre-
ditable to them; and so far as instruction went, the only
question was whether they were not in their schools tit)
highly instructing the children for their after occupa-
tions in life. But then it wzs said that in the Irish uni-
versities a secular education alone was to be given; but
then those who made such an objection ought to recol-
lect that these universities were intended for those whose
minds were already formed, but in the schools the minds
of children had to be firmed. As to education in Ame-
rica, which had been referred to, he believed there was
a great diversity of opinion amongst the different states.
Religion was riot, he believed, excluded from most of the
schools. And then as to cii ne disappearing with educa-
tion, facts did not prove it to have done so. When edu-
cation in America was alluded to, he could not but point
to Louisiana, where the penalty of death was at one
time infl ced fir teaching a black child to read or write.
He believed the penalty was not now so severe. As to
religion being taught by parents at home, he
pointed to the state of the manufacturing dis-
tricts to show that part nts were nut in a con-
dition to impart it, end that the clergy were
too few, in proportion to the population, to devote them-
selves to the task of teaching the children of the poor.
As to religion not being taught with the multiplica-
tion table, he admitted that such might be the case, but
religion could well be mixed up with lessons in geogra-
phy and astronomy. And then as to history—let them
look to the difference between a Catholic history of the
reign of Queen Mary and a Protestant history of the
reign of. Queen E iztbeth, A member of the Spanish
Cortes told him that he had been some time in Englaud
before he found out his mistake in thinking that Queen
Mary was the most popular of British Sovereigns. Such
was the different manner in which history might be
taught.—(Hear.) He wished to see our national pros-
perity founded not only on intellectual advancement,
much as he prized it, but on that which was the only sure
basis—that of morality and religion.—(Cneers.)
Mr. COBDEN said any one who had listened to the
speech of his Hon. and Learned Friend would have
thought that the motion of the Hon. Member fur Old-
ham was not a proposition tor 'noting a larger sum of
money to supply a defect of education, the existence of
which all were ready to admit, but that he had some
plan by which he Proposed to withdraw the funds already
applied to the instruction of the people in religion.
One would suppose that his Honourable Friend actually
intended to abolish the National Church, and with-
draw the 5,000,0001. or 6,000,0001. now considered to be
the endowment of that Church, and that the moment he
should succeed in carrying his motion all the present
voluntary contributions of the Dissenting bodies would
instantly be withdrawn. The Secretary of State fur
Home Affairs admitted that the present system had
proved a failure; but grounded his opposition to the
present motion upon the circumstance that some gentle-
men had come from Manchester, and called on him, and
had communicated to him a new local system, which he
believed would succeed. If they wished to see whether
the present system bad faiLd, they had only to luck to
the amount of money voted, which had remained for the
last few years at 125,000/, notwithstanding the increase

in the population. What, then, did the Government tall
back upon? The local system of Manchester, which
had already failed, in the same way as the Government
plan, from the religious difficulty. The gentlemen who

. .
came to town and waited upon the Right Hon. Baronet
had done him the honour also of a visit. They. told him
as they told the Right Hon. Baronet, that they had the
concurrence of all the religious sects, both Roman
Catholics and Dissenters; but he had received a
letter from them, after their return to Man-
chester, in which they regretted to inform him that 'lB,
or, if he recollected aright, virtually the whole body of
the Roman Catholic clergy had seceded from that ,plau of
education; and why? Simply because the committee
which mat in Alanchester made it a fundamental principle
of their system that in all schools supported by public
rates in Manchester the authorised version of the Bible
should be read.—(Hear, hear.) How was it possible for
such a plan to succeed in such places as Manchester and
Salford, where there wero at least 100,000 Boman Catho-
lics, the poorest of the population, whom it would be the
most dangerous to leave in ignorance? They were in the
same dilemma at Manchester as in that House; but he
maintained that the little education they did get was got
surreptitiously by means of the Committee of the Privy
Council, and not by a vote of that House; and a cheat
was, in point of fact, practised upon themselves and the
country.—(Hear, hear.) There was a fundamental eva-
sion and fallacy about the whole of the education vote.
When they talked so much of religious teaching in this
country, he asked them whether they voted the
125,0001. fur educatio❑ or religious teaching? Because he
had always understood that it was not a vote fur reli-
gious instruction. Could they vote it in the House for
religious teaching if they openly avowed it? No, it
could not be done; it had not been done for many years,
and never would be done again. The Hon. and Learned
Solicitor-General had talked as if there were some
great conspiracy to deprive the country of its religious
faith, and in,titute schools for teaching infidelity. What
he maintained was, that provision was already made for
religious training, on which twice as much was spent as
in any other country in the world, and he challenged
any one to controvert it. .11. w, then, could it be said
that be sought to exclude religion from education? They
hail been taunted also with the use of the word secular;

but he knew not how otherwise to express the necessity'
for supplying instruction in reading and writing, and
teaching men to know something of their own nature,
and training them in habits of thought. He never was
opposed to the Bible or any other religious book being
read in schools, provided all were agreed upon the sub-
ject; but what he did oppose was the levying of rates or
pa3ing money out of a public fund, and then putting a
veto on a portion of their feliow-citizens, because if their
children went to school, they would learn something to
which their parents could nut consent. But he had no
desire practically to exclude the Bible. He bad no
hesitation in avowing that his system was the system of
the Massachusets common schools. He would not go
with the Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General to Louisi-
ana, or to Georgia, or South Carolina. Massachusets
was an old settled county, not a thinly peopled, fertile
district, but one from which there was a vast emigra-
tion to other countries, the popalation being of
our own race, and very much of our own habits. Why
not adopt the same plan in England ? They had just
now placed themselv.s in competition with tne whole
world, and if a Manchester man saw some wonderful
piece of machinery from the United States in the great
receptacle- of the productions of the world, he would say,
what has been done at Boston may be done at Manches
ter. It was said that the eff ct of this motion would
make them an irreligious people. He would meet them
on that ground. He had been to Massachusets, and
testing the religious feelings of its inhabitants by the

nnmber of churches, the attendance of the people on
religious worship, their support of religious teachers
and Sunday schools, their observance ot the Sabbath,
or the respect paid by them to their religious teachers,
he challenged them to compare England with Massa-
chusets.—(lr nical cheers.) Bat was the reading of the
Bible prohibited ? He would venture to say that there
was probably not one out of a hundred schools there
where the Bible was not read.—(Hear.) But his Hon.
Friend the Member for Oldham had no objection to a
parish using the Bible if it chose, as well as any other
book. Wh, then, could not England imitate Massachu-
sets, which, in its earlier days, when the pilgrim fathers
came from England, practised as much intolerance
as they left behind them? In ninety-nine out of a hun-
dred parishes in England he behaved no one would
object to the reading of the Bible without note or com-
ment. He believed the people of Massachusets to be as
superior in intelligence to the people ot Kent as the peo-
ple of Kent were to the people of Naples.—(lronical
cheers.) Why could nut this system be introduced into
England ? Was it because of the Established Church ?
Surely an Established Church, with a very rich endow-
ment, which supported clergymen for every pariah,
must be supposed to aff ird the means of religious educa-
tion gratis to the great mass of the people. It was urged
that the proposed plan would supersede the existing

. -
school-rooms, but there was no reason why tkey shuuki
not be made available for carrying that plan into execu-
tion. Education was greatly needed in the agricultural
districts, and though he did not for a moment wish to
fatten on the clergy of the Established Church the re-

sponsibility of the prevailing ignorance, still they were
interested in the promotion of secular education, for he
could hardly understand how one, could be a Protestant
without knowing how to read. lie knew many districts in
which the clergymen of the Established Church had un-
dertaken more tha❑ anybody else in the cause of educa-
tion, and 13,. knew the difficulties with which they had
to contend in obtaining the necessary support in some
rural parishes where three-fourths of the land was owned
by absentees. lie believed it would be found that the

majority of theacres in the rural parishes were, On an
see
a average, owned by absentee proprietors. He wanted to
plan established by which, for the purposes of se-
cular education, the parish should be able to rate the
property.—
(Hear, hear.) 80/. or 1001. so laid out would
do more
tosumsavlaid out in any other way. He had no-
thin;; a parish from poor-rates and crime than
tone whit the same
'
thing more to say
than to express his great gratifiemion
at the altered te
the discussion of this question
had now assumed,
:and he was thankful to
all
was no subject on shir he felt so tolerant as ou this,
pared with last year. There
who
cause of education—to whatever religion or party they
attempted to assist in the
might belong—because he '"v the difficulties in the way
elementsg
a tap'
hitherto hewirntge to those religious
thwarted their en-
deavours; and perhaps the re
more was to be feared from that cause wtahsana theLim present.stillhop epbdoewthetirbi:eil
as
He still hoped, hower, r, that they w 55304410
of religious
aatfartas.cition the
meet on this neutral ground, out of
the
strife and interests, for by nu other
poor of this country ever be eclueated.—(aps,."\uld the
Sir R. H. INGLIS acknowledged with
moderation of the Hon. Member's tone; and
he unhappily had been in the country, be
Member would excuse him for saying that he wished he
hal never been more powerful than in the argument he
had used that evening. He rose to support the proposi_
tion of the Hon. Member for Oldham, but instead of
supporting him be had in fact proposed that the Bible
should be reed.—(hear, bear.) He added that he knew
his Hon. Friend the Member for Oldham was not the
Member to object to that, and touched him affectionately
on the shoulder in expectation of assent. Was that as-
sent given? Nu; the Hon. Member for Oldham looked
as immoveable as at that moment.—(Laughter.) He
knew that the lion. Member for the West, Riding
, ~,,I. ,1-;.L.,., V.

would not exclude the Bible from any school under his
control, but wai it fit that they should adopt a proposi-
ton which would practically exclude it, together with
the catechism, and all religious instruction?—(Hear,
hear.) lie would not repeat the arguments used by the
Hon. and Learned Solicitor-General, for no man could
follow him on such a subject without great disadvantage.
A speech more philosophicel, or more tilled with religion
and pract cit good sense, he had not beard in that
House; and he congratulated the Government en having
such a cause so defended by one of their chief officers.
He did not regard mere knowledge in itself as a benefit,
but rather tie an unmixed evil when unsanctffied by the
blessing of God. The question was not new either to
the House or the country. A few years ago attention
was called to the subject, and what had been the success
of the two different parties competing for public favour?
The Earl of Harrowby, when a Member of that House,
took the lead in the agitation, for the purpose of calling
public atteetien to tho want of Christian education, and
a larger cum was raised by voluntary subscription than
had been collected, he believed, for any other purpose.
What had the Dissenters done? It was only the other
day that he saw it seated that they numbered one-half
of the populatien of England. The assertion was ludi-
crous, met scarcely required comment, but assuming that
they amounted to a fifth part, had they supplied a fifth
part of the sum raised by general subscription for edu-
cation? They had not. But the proposition of the Hon.
Member for Oldham was that the nation as a nation
should repudiate religion as the foundation of educatiois.
—(Haar, hear) And if the lion. Member in his reply
should tell him that it would not be excluded from the
general teaching of the country, he answered, no thanks
to him, for he was doing what he could to exclude it.—
( Hear, hear.) So far as his motion was concerned, so
far did he exclude it from the national system. He gave
the Hon. Member for the West Riding credit, from his
own personal knowledge of him, for not wishing to
be a party to support such a proposition; but that was
not the question. He did, in fact support it by voting
in favour of a proposition that a nation ought to edu-
cate all its subjects without reference to religion. As
the Hon. and Learned Solicitor• General said, the people
were called on in addition to all their voluntary sub.
scriptious, which were greater than those of any other
country in the world, to support a rata, the object of
which they abhorred. Was that language too strong?
Was it too strong to compel a Christian parent to edu-
cate his own children, or the children of his neighbours,
with au utter absence of all those hopes and lessons of
wisdom which the Bible could give, and leave them to
chance—aye, chance—for instruction in that which alone
rendered knowledge precious and life valuable? If they
compelled a parish to support a system which the major
part of the inhabitance abominated, were they not
doing that which, as far as in them lay, would bring
up a generation of infidels? He regretted that his
Right Hon. Friend and Colleague (Mr. Gladstone)
was not then present in the House ; and he
was authorised by his Right Hon. Friend the Mem.
ber for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Goulburn)
to express his regret that he also was absent; but he
(Sir R. Inglis) felt that the sentiments of both his Right
Hon. Friends had been so fully and completely ex-
pressed in this House upon the subject, that it would be
well understood that nothing but unavoidable absence
had prevented them from making their statements to the
House on this occasion. The Hon. Member for the
West Riding (Mr. Cobden) had asked them what a
stranger was likely to think who had entered that House
for a first time, and listened to the debate of that night.
But he (Sir R Inglis) would ask, could the stranger
have supposed it possible that this question having no
longer ago than the 7th of Juno last been discussed and
decided by a majority of 287 against 58 for the proposal
of the Honourable Member tor Oldham, they would so
soon have had it again brought before them? And let
the House hear this in mind, that what the Honourable
Member then desired to engage the House to recog-
nize and admit was in the shape of a Bill, on which,
even if the second' reading had been agreed to, the
House might have had some locus penitentice on the fu-
ture stages; but - they had now to deal with a re-
solution which contained the very essence of that Bill,
and committed the House to the whole principle, and he
did trust that there would be such a majority recorded
against it that they would not again hear of the subject
another year. The Hon. Member for the West Riding
had alluded to the Irish colleges, in which he said the
principle of the Member for Oldham's plan was embo-
died and in practical operation. Upon that subject he
(Sir R. Inglis) saw no reason to alter the views he once
expressed; but if he believed it to be an evil in the case
of Ireland, it was not the fact of its having been adopted
in Ireland that wonld iustify him in giving his consent
to its adoption in England. On the contrary, in exact
proportion as he saw encouragement given to it else-
where, in that exact proportion was he bound to resist
its introduction here.—(Hear.) With the deep convic-
tion on hie mind that the proposition—plausible to some
minds, but little adapted to catch the feelings or the
principles of the great body of the people of England—
was itself of a most deleterious character, he did trust
that the House would reject it now as they did last year;
and that if it were again brought forward it would
again be rejected by such majorities as to prove that the
principle of this House was at least Christian and reli.
gious, and that they would not sanction any plan o
education which was not founded on the love and fear o

God, our Creator end our Redeemer.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. S. HERBERT protested against persons arguing
this question, and appealing to the amount of ignorance
and vice that we had to repress, as th ,ugh they alone
were the persons who objected to ignorance and de-
tested vice—that there particular system was, on that
question, the only system which he ought to.adopt, and
that, if we did not adopt it, we were conniving at the
continuance of that ignorance and vice.—(Hear, hear.)
There was no question that the system of education in
this country must be religious as well as secular; and
he believed if the Bible were excluded trom schools we
should not be able to get children to attend them.—
(Hear, hear.) In this country, too, it was his firm be-
lief that no educational system could be successful which
was not founded up ea the full development of the sys-
tem of each religious denomination. He himselt was a
Churchman, but he did not for one moment undervalue
the labours of the dissenting bodies. He knew how
much we were indebted to them—(Hear)—he rejoiced
to witness their activity in this field; and he hoped the
differences which had hitherto existed between the Privy
Council and some of the educational societies in England
would soon be put an end to. Very many of those dif-
ferences had arisen upon points respecting which agree-
ment was more easy than might be imagined; and he be-
lieved that everything the Committee of Privy Council had
urged and desiredto be adopted, they might have obtained
by "recommendation," though they had failed when they
insisted upon stipulations. In fact, it was contrary to
our habits of selt-government, and an invasion of our
municipal and parochial system, to have particular stipu-
lations entorced from a central board, though we were
willing to take them from experience, and on the high
character of the gentlemen composing the Committee, if
they came to us as simple "recommendations.—(Hear,
hear.) In the present day there were very numerous
bodies of Irtetina,n in our large towns, the majority of
whom were Roman Catholic 4; and even if it were for
no other reason than this, he did hope the Government
would apply themselves to the discovery of some method
of increasing religious instruction which might be sup-
ported without doing violence to the religious feelings of
the people. The lion. Member for Oldham had stated
that religious instruction would be supplied from other
sources than the schoolmaster. And that was the case
undoubtedly with the rich, but it was not so with the
poor, for whatever education was to be had by the child
of the poor man must be given him at the schocl, and
the school only; and if we forbade religious educatio❑
at school we practically debarred him from all education
whatever. In conclusion the Right Hon. Gentleman
said that he did not think the plan of the Hon. Member
for Oldham was one which the people of this country
would accept. A Divine authority had said, " Suffer
little children to come unto me;" but by this proposition
they said practically, " Suffer them not to come unto
We." He should, therefore, vote against the motion.
Mr. L. HEY WORTH said he was persuaded that the
voluntary principle would ultimately succeed in giving
the people all the education that was needed, and in the
best shape in which it could be given. And thinking the
system proposed by the Hon. Member for Oldham a most

vicious system, he should decidedly vote against the
motion.

Mr. FOX, in reply, said that when he took into ac-
count the principle with which Sir H. Inglis had started,
that knowledge was an evil, he ceased to be surprised at
what would otherwise have been the astounding misap-
prehension at which the Hon. Baronet had arrived as to
the opinions he (Mr. Fox) entertained, and the principles
he advocated. Ile trusted the Hon. Baronet was singular,
or nearly so, in that opinion, for he believed that we
could not engage in the pursuit of any study, nor could
any science be unfolded to the mind, without a religious
tendency.—(Hear, hear.) He had always understood
that it was the business of the ministers of religion to
see after the religious education of the children of
their flocks. From all the information he had re-

ceived on the subject of the National Schoo1; in
Ireland, he was led to believe that the children in those

schools were remarkable for the clearness and extent of
their religious knowledge. And yet the reading of the
Scripture extracts even wai not a matter of obligation
in them. He thought, therefore, that he was justified
in referring to the state of the Irish National Education
schools ass convincing argument in favour of the propo-
sition he had submitted to the House. It was said that

was a measure to exclude religion; but it might as well
be said that it was a measure to exclude the sun. The

people of this country were essentially a religious peo-
ple; and he had no apprehension but that religion would
be taught t those who might receive any education
whatever. He would develope the religious propensities
of children; but he would not do that by the same
agency by which ho would impart to them other
branches of instruction, because that agency was not

available for that purpose.
The House then divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion
Against it .•• ..• ... 139
Majority against the motion ... --90
THE HOP DUTY.
Mr. HODGES rose to ask for leave to bring in a
Bill for a reduction of the Excise duty on hops. The
_ .

emonnt of the duty at present was 2d. per lb, with en
addition 01 5 per cent ; and be proposed to reduce it to
Id. per lb. Ile alio proposed that the duty at present
owing should be paid to the full amount. Formerly hops
had nut been cultivated in this country, but had been
imported from Flanders. They had subsequently been
Planted here with considerable success. In the year
1711 a duty of Id. per lb. was first laid on English hops,
d ifieuand a duty of 3d. per lb on foreign hops. In the year
1804 Mr. Pitt had doubled the duty on English hops,
and
hadfaltty the same time very considerably increased
the duty on foreign hops. From the year 1819, when
the
down to the perfa t paying
flint hee,
the Government dhuatdy cgoomn
emoenn ciend.
creasing, and the profits of the farmer had gono on di-
milaishiug to suoh an eaten; that i$ Wad il2ll3(Mible lot

him any longer to meet the demand. He, therefore,
moved for leave to bring in a Bill which would put an
end to that system of credit which even the Commis-
sioners of Excise, in their 16th report, had condemned.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER could
not, consistently with his duty to the public, agree to
the motion of the Hon. Gentleman, though he admitted
it was less objectionable than many proposals on the
same subject which had been brought under his notice.
It did not propose to put again into the pockets of the
hop-growers the duty they had already received; and he
admitted also that the system of extended credit given
to the hopgrowers at their own request was a most fatal
gift. But it was not the way to put an end to that sys-
tem to bring in this Bill. It had been contended that
when the protective duty was reduced, the home duty
was not also reduced; but the protective duty was in
effect a prohibitory duty, as shown by the result; for
last year the consumption of home-grown hops amounted
to 42,000,0001bs , while that of foreign hops was only
250 000 lbs. If the proposed measure was to reduce the
foreign as well as the home duty in favour of the con-
sumer, there might be some argument adduced in sup-
port of it; but the Honourable Gentleman proposed to
exclude the foreign competition, and thus throw an
additional burden on the consumer. He admitted there
were exceptions in which the producer paid the duty;
but they had 'Yen created by the producers themselves.
They had brought into cultivation for the growth:of hops
land that was not fit for it; but yet, since 1830 (with
laBv4e7r
a)
gthe p
produce
eh
from
mb e elnB4r3e gt
au
1845 a r ly paid
s
ethaechexyceeapr.tionTohte
30,000,0001b5., and the price was very high-120s. per
cwt.; in 1845 it was 150 s. per cwt.; but in 1846, 1847,
and 1848 they increased the growth to 47,000,0001b5.,
and the overage price fell to 755. per cwt. That was
before foreign hops were imported, and it arose from
the excessive production of inferior hops. In the next
year the price rose again, but then the produce in that
year (1849) was but 16,000,0001135., while last year the
produce was increased to 48,000,0001b5., and the price
again fell. They were thus the cause of the evil them-
selves. In 1848 he had received such representations of
the distress of the growers that he put off the payment
of the duty, and in 1849 a deputation of influential peo-
sons waited on him, and represented that the country
would be ruined if the payment of the duty was en-
forced; but he was hard-hearted enough to refuse ac-
quiescence in their demand, and the duty, amounting to
200,0001., was paid, with the exception of 8,0001., within
a month or two of the collection being made. After such
instances as that, the Hon. Gentleman must not be sur-
prised if he did not place very strong reliance on those
statements of distress. The surplus in the revenue
which he counted on for next year would only amount
to 250,0001., which would be swallowed up by the re-
duction of the hop duty; and for that reason, as well
as the others he had adduced, he hoped the House
would support him in rejecting the motion of the Hon.
Gentleman.
Mr. A. B. HOPE said it appeared that the fact of a
certain number of men having paid their hop duty was
treated as a good joke by the Chancellor of the Ex-
chequer. They were taunted with having made a great
many propositions on that subject, but why did not
something of the sort emanate from the Chancellor's
bench? It was also said that the hop-growers uttered
more complaints than any other class; but it should be
remembered that no crop was more subject to vicissitudes
and the unfavourable influences of wind and weather than
that delicate plant.
Mr. BASS said he had stated on a former occasion,
irffied-
ah an td
esubject
hw
theas u
hn
od
pe
gdr ieswc ue sr s iaotn , t
itmh aets theb
oda
cwnhl teine s t
were neither caused by the duties nor foreign importa-
tion, but the fluctuations in the amount of produce. In
1837, the number of acres under hops had been 56,000,
while in 1843 they had diminished to 43,000. In
1847 they were 52,000, and in 1850 had again fallen
to 43,000 acres. With respect to the duty, there was
no article on which the consumer paid so little, in pro-
portion to the amount paid by the producer, as in the
case of hops.
Sir E. FILMER felt it to be his duty, as Member
for West Kent, to support the motion of his Hon. Friend.
He would defy the Chancellor of the Exchequer to find
one tenant in the weald of Kent who had not for the
last two years paid his rent out of his capital, and not
his profits.
Mr. FULLER also supported the motion.
Colonel SIBTHORP was always an humble but per•
severing supporter of any proposition for the relief of
the agricultural interests; but when he saw Hon. Mem-
bers giving their votes in favour of a Government which
opposed every suggestion for that purpose, he could not
reconcile himself to vote in favour of a partial measure
introduced by such Hon. Members. If his Hon.
Friend opposite was to disengage himself from his pre-
sent company noscitur a sociis—(Laughter) and
bring forward a general measure for the relief of all
classes, he should have his support, bat not otherwise.
Mr. FREWEN expressed his regret that his Hon.
Friend the Member for West Kent did not support the
motion relating to agricultural distress which had been
before the House. He thought there was no part of
the kingdom in which so much distress existed as in the
hop districts. There was no tax so unjust as that, and
it was the only one which remained unrepealed since the
war. He had his doubts as to the accuracy of theprices
stated by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of hops du-
ring former years. He did not know upon what au-
thority the Right Hon. Gentleman had made his state-
ment. One house in the borough might tell one thing,
and another another thing; but a good deal depended
upon the quality of the hops taken. Even in one year
the hops grown in one part of the country brought a
much higher price than those grown in another. He
had heard of so much as 6/. 10s. being paid in Sussex,
bat the average price was only 31. 7s. The planters in
the weald of Kent must have lost at least 1/. per acre on
an average. One great claim which the hop planters
had on Government for a reduction of duty was founded
upon the precarious nature of the crop. Wheu the hop
growers got the lowest price for their hops, they had the
highest amount of duty to pay; and he therefore hoped
that the Government would take the case into their ear-
liest consideration. He (Mr. Fre wen) doubted if a
single landowner received, in the rape of Hastings, one
quarter of his rental for 1850.

Mr. COBDEN could not understand the tactics of
the hop-growers and their advisers in this [natter. They
called for a reduction of taxes, and they opposed a revi-
sion of taxation. The hop duty brought in only
300.000/. a year, and yet a little army of tax-gatherers
were employed to collect it. Such a thing was not
know except;in Turkey. The fact was, that some great
brewers did not wish to have the tax repealed. If the
hop-growers of Kent and; Sussex were resolved to get
rid of it, they should demand its total abolition, and not
make two bites of a cherry.
Mr. PLUMPTRE said the penny a pound reduction
would be a great relief to the growers ; as an East Kent
grower he was prepared to accept it.
Mr. HODGES replied.
Tho House then divided, when there appeared--
For the motion... 27
... —6l
Against it ..
Majority • .•• •.. 83
Mr. HUME postponed his notice respecting Raja
Brooke to June 5.

Mr. HUME then moved for a copy of the Order in
oailstshioeorn
Council, or letter from the Treasury, sanctioning the
alterations lately made in Kensington-gardans by the
Capomplmiclastsiioonnemrsadoef
First Commissioner of the Woods and Forests; and also
for horsemen to
ride in Kensington-gardens.
Lord SEYMOUR said there was no Order in Conn-
::(1: to the
Woodsr. 4r extract
the e:
Forests
sranyetsasfuomrr ye mpoeorrrt
permission
cil on the subject, therefore the Government could not
The pleasure of her
produce it. ' Majesty was made
known, and the prdens were thrown open.
Mr. HUME said it required an order from the Trea-
sury.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
Hon. Gentleman was mistaken.
Mr. COBDEN was quite sure if it had been known
six months ago that there would be no more enjoyment
for equestrians in the Park than now existed, he did not
think any inroad would be made upon Kensington-gar-
dens. The Exhibition had realised the expectations of

every one.
1 Colonel SIBTHORP denied that it had. Oa the
contrary, the tradesmen of the metropolis had been
grossly insulted, and a gross wrong practised on them.
In these days everything was sacrificed to new notions.
The Honourable Member for the West Riding was the
poor man's friend. The Lord deliver tte poor from
such friends. Liberty, property, and everything was
trampled under foot for the purpose of obtaining popu-
larity. He (Colonel Sibthorp) had never looked upon
that ' building, the Exhibition, and never would do.
England had patronised the foreigner, and condemned
her own people. The fools stepped in and stepped out
of the building to see trumpery and trash, and omitted
to pay their tradesmen's bills. It was a desecration of
their religion. Nobody bad a higher respect than he had
for the most Reverend Prelate at the head of the Church
of England; but he must say that he regretted to see the
part which that most Reverend Prelate had taken in the
opening of the Exhibition. He was not ashamed to say
and,
that he (Colonel Sibthorp) had done everything in
his,
power to check the Exhibition, which he believed would
prove a great curse to this country i . n a moral, social
what was of more importance, in a religious point

of view.
Lord C. HAMILTON differed from the Hon. Mem-
ber for the West Riding when he said that the Exhibi-
tion had realised all the expectations entertained of it,
for he felt that the great object they all had in view
was still to be attained—he meant such arrangerients as
should facilitate the admission of the multitudes who had
hitherto been debarred visiting it by the high prices of

admission.
Mr. L A BOITCFIERE assured the Neble Lord that the
point to which he referred had not escaped the attention
of the Commissioners. That very morning thfi Com-

missioners, in conjuction with representatives from the
differentcon-
sidering
thebeet
railwayes companies,
means
of affording
had been
toh
t e
engaged in
multitudes
the opportunity of visiting the Exhibition withuti..
convenience and without danger to the public pepe. He
would not eater into a contest with the Hon. and Gallant
Member for Lincoln as to the merits of the Exhibition.
For his own part he believed it would prove not only a
source of national pleasure to the people of this country,
but of great benefit throughout the civilisod world,
Mr. LUSIIINGTON said that he had been requested
by s.,me of his constituents at Kensington to state their
dissatisfaction and disgust at the admission of equestrians
into Kensington-gardens.
The motion was then withdrawn.
.. ,TAE KAFIR WAR.
In answer to Mr. HUME, who had a motion for a
copy of the dispatch stating the estimate of the expenses
of the Kafir war.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER paid, as
a matter of course, some uncertainty attended any pre-
sent estimate. The report of commissariat officers esti-
mated-the expense at 400,000/ if the war continued for
six mouths; but as he hoped it would not last se bog,