The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-24 00:00:00

NINO, JUNE 24, 1856.

The noble lord had more than once put on paper his sen-
timents respecting national education, and in those sen-
timents he entirely concurred. (Hear.) At the last
meeting of the British and Foreign School Society the
noble lord said that the exclusion of the Bible amounted
to a denial of Christianity. (Hear.). He (Mr. Napier)
had always considered the principle of the national sys-
tem wrong, for it was seeking to establish an itnpossi-
bitty. There was a great antagonism between the two
Churches, and to bring them together and reconcile the
two principles was impossible. Education could be
feunded oily on two principles—religious truth or reli-
gious liberty. But in Ireland :the advocates of the us-
ttm were afraid of religious liberty and ashamed of reli-
zious truth. (Hear.) He admitted that the National
Society had done a great deal to elevate education. But
that was not the question. If the system was a good
one, let it be modified and improved and extended.
Was it true that under the present system the State pro-
vided for the conscience of the parents ? If a Roman
Catholic parent wished his child to be taught the Scrip-
ture, did the State provide that he might be sent to the
Roman Catholic school for that purpose ? Such was
undoubtedly not the case, for power was given to the
Raman Catholic managers of schools to exclude the
Scriptures. Was that the intention of Lord Derby when
he introduced the system ? Undoubtedly not. His in-
tention was to give freedom. The vested plan was a
failure, and the noneveated plan was established. It had
been said by the hon. member for Newry that the
Scriptures ought to be the basis of education. That
was- unquestionably true. Now, let them take a Pro-
testant school. They might have the Scriptures read
in that school, but if tl ere was a single Roman Catholic
child in the school, he might be made ues of to ob-
struct the religious instruction, and the Scriptures could
not be referred to during the time of general instruction.
Again there were frequent cases in which Roman Ca-
tholic parents wished their children to read the Scrip-
tures, and to which the priests objected. In such cases
were any preparations made for protecting the consciences
of the parent's ? Or, again, wa4the Protestant patron to
be compelled to co-operate with the Roman Catholic
priest ? It came, in fact, to this, that by the system as
at present worked the whole power was placed in the
hands of the priest, and the Protestant patron was made
to assist. He (Mr. Napier) felt that the cause of edu-
cation was at present in a most critical state, and he the
more regretted this, because he felt that there never was
a nobler opportunity for the satisfactory settlement of
this most difficult question. There was a large portion
of the people of Ireland, clergy and laity, who would go
almost any length, or make almost any sacrifice to settle
at once and for ever this question. It was not their
desire to subvert or disturb the national system, if na-
tional system it could be called that excluded the whole
Protestant community from its advantages. (Hear.)
The noble lord (Lord J. Russell) had quoted the opi-
nions of Lord Derby on the question, but Lord Derby
was an older and a wiser man now than when he gave
in his adhesion to the system. If anything could be de•
vised by means of which the Protestants could be in-
cluded in the advantage of the Government grants the
Government would have them as allies, otherwise they
might depend upon it they would have them as enemies,
for the present system struck at the root of all they held
most sacred. (Hear.)
Mr. eIORSMAN said he had listened to the speech of
th right honourable gentleman who had just sat down,
aid found it impossible to ascertain what he affirmed.
(B.ear, hear, and laughter.) He could not gather from
ei.eat he had said whether he approved of or objected to
the resolution whch had been moved by the hunourable
gentleman the member for Louth. The right hon. gentle-
man the member fur the University of Cambridge (Mr.
Walpole) stated the otlier night, when addressing the
house ueen the question, that he was not hostile to the
n lend system of education, a statement which was of a
art2ais character, when be Caine down to the house
avowe ity representing a party which had shown the
greatest hostility to the national system. Surely the
right hon. gentleman would not deny that he came for-
ward as the representative of the Church Education
Seziety, and by what argumentation or sophistry he
could show th it his address the other night was consis-
tent with the resolution !slaved that evening by the hon.
member for Louth, he (Mr. Horst-nee) was totally at a
loss to conceive. The Bishop of Ossory, who had been
quoted, distinctly stated that the two systems were in
direct antagonism to each other. (Hear.) To that issue
he (Mr. foreman) was prepared to come that night, for
the case was really between the Church Education So-
ciety, which made die reading of the Bible compulsory,
and the national system, which protected freedom of
conscience. It had been stated over and over again that
night that it was not intended by the right bon. gentle.
man opp ,site and his friends to subvert or disturb the na-
tional system, but the result of the motion which was
carried the other night would be to endow exclusive Pro-
testant schools ; and t hese schools, baying the patronage
of the great landowners and the clergy, would draw the
children of other slenominations within their walls.
The Roman Catholics would establish rival schools, and
not having the same resources, would resort to agitation
to counterbalance the wealth that was brought to bear
on the other side. Now he would ask the right hon.
gentleman whether, while he was willing t give the
grants to exclusive Protestant schools, he would give
them to exclusive Catholic schools I If so, grants would
be given to 3,000 Catholic schools and universities. They
would not want Maynooth any longer, for they would
have 3,000 Maynooths, whose claims would be annually
discussed in that house. lie was quite sure the hon.
member for North War vickshire (Mr. Spooner), who he
was glad to see bad just been aroused from his slumbers
by the formidable announcement that had fallen upon
his ears—(laughter)—had no conception what was the
extent to which le and his party would be led if these
concessions were-made. The hon. inembet• thought he
had nearly demolished one Maynooth on a former occa-
sion—what would he do when he saw 3,000 more May-
nooths rising up before him ? (Hear, and laughter )
The Roman Catholics were five-sixths of the population
of Ireland, and consequently they would have fire-
sixths of the whole number of the grants. The fact ens
it was intended by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Wal-
pole) and his friends to establish in Ireland the denoini-
national system, which they had in England, ingead of
the national system, which they had in Ireland. In Eng
land these denominational grants were given to protect
the rights of conscience—ain Ireland they were asking for
tnern to assail the religious liberty of others. (Cneers.)
The questions at issue between them were four. 1. It
was asked that religion should be the basis of education
--that was granted on all sides of the house. Bet what
religion ? Religion was a great phrase. Was it to be
the religion of the Church into which the child had been
baptised, or of the patron into whose school he went ?
That was the first question, and he held that those who
felt that the religion upon which education was based
should be that of the Church into which the child hid
been baptised, should vote for the maintenance of the
national system. 2. Then there was the question whe-
ther a system of proselytism should be adopted. Those
who thought it should, would have no difficulty in sup-
porting the Church Education Society ; but those who
maintained that there should be freedom of cotscience
would support the national system. 3. For whom was
this system established in Ireland ? It was admitted
that the laity and clergy belonging to the Presbyterian
and Roman Catholic bodies were in favour of the sys-
tem, and he had nut heard one word to show that the
po it population were not in favour of it. The only op-
ponents to it were the cLrgy of the Estehliehed Church
in Ireland. 4. Were they to have in Ireland an Engli-h
or an Irish system ? Whatever might have been the
theories or the expectations entertained in reference to
the national system in 1831, the argument in favour of
the system now was its perfect success. (Hear, hear.)
It had been adopted by the maj Tity—it had been looked
upon as a blessing—and its subverdon or disturbacce
would be regarded as a curse. The resolution prepo ed
by the hon. gentleman the member for Louth affirmed
that it was a sound principle, and that it had been suc-
cessfully carried out. It appeared that both sides of the
house were prepared to affirm that principle. It had
proved a blessing to the Irish people, and the Legislature
after 25 years' experience were determined to stand by it
when not even the members for the Universities bad not a
word to say against. A gold deal hal been said about
reading the Bible. That reminded him of a solemn warning
ny a celebrated English prelate in the House of Lords on
the occasion of the last discassion in which he took part
in that assembly, and with those words he would con-
clude his remarks. The right rev. prelate said, "If we
cannot compel the Roman Catholics to read the Bible,
let us show by our conduct that we have read the Bible,
let us show it by our charity, let us show it by a spirit
of conciliation, let us show it by our Protestant Chris-
tianity, let us show that we practise its preceipts, and
with these data let sus bald out the right hand of bro-
therhood to the Roman Catholics, and depend upon it
they will accept it." (Loud cheers.)
Mr. P. O'BRIEN thought it would have been well if
the members for the Univtrsity of Dublin had turned
their attention to the course of education pursued in that
institution. He held the degree of Master of Arts in the
University of Dublin, and he had never been called upon
to attend any dogmatic teaching, and never been obliged
to read the Bible. (Laughter.) Was not that the godless
system the members for the University condemned, and
yet in their own case they said nothing about it ? (Hear.)
It had been said, in defence of the clergy, that they were
obliged to teach the Scriptures to their people ; but thst
was not the case, and their only object was to divert the
funds they ought to apply to the education of their own
flocks to the establishment of missionary colleges arid
proselytising arrangements in different parts of Ireland.
At present Roman Catholics were taxed that a system of
proselytism might be applied to their own children. Had
any attempt been made by any member of the house who
had occupied a position in connection with any Govern-
ment to explain to the house the real meaning of the reso-
lution rib w before the house ? He did not want to see any
Jesuitical move in connection with this subject, but tailed
upon the house to express a clear, decided, and unequivo-
cal opinion on the subject of the present system of Na-
tional Education in Ireland. (Hear.)

Mr. GROGAN said he felt the awkwardness of the
position in which the house was placed, and regretted
that some honourable member who had preceded h'm
had not endeavoured to explain clearly and definitely
what it was that htr Mjesty's Government really
thought of the present resolution. He wished distilled),
to understand whether her Majesty's Government held
it as th,tir opinion that the Protest-tuts in Ireland ought
not to receive in that country the same amount of as-
sistance in education which was given in this country to
the children of persons of all religious persuasions. In
order to bring this matter to an issue, he should pro-
pose the following resolution :--" But that, consistently
with those principles, it is the opinion of this house that
no schools should be disentitled to receive aid from the
funds of the board, because the rules of such schools re-
quire a portion of Scripture to be read each day by
every child, as a portion of the education of such
eel ools."

Mr. G. A. HAMILTON regretted that some mem-
ber of her Majesty's Goverment had not held out the
prospect of this subject boipg cassideral the pooh

with a view of adopting some modification in the national 1
system of Ireland, without interfering with the great
principles which it recognised. He should have heard
such an intimation with great pleasure. He contended
that the Church Education Society wai not a proselytis-
ing body, and challenged the hon. member who had
brought such charges against that society to bring fur-
ward any fact which would substantiate his imputation.
Neither was it intended by those who had brought for-
ward theoiiginal motion to violate in any degree the
rights of conscience. He should feel it his duty to give
his support to the amendment of the • hon. member for
Dublin.

Lord BERNARD moved the adj,urnment of the de-
bate.

Lord PALMERSTON hoped the house would come
to a decision on the subject, as the question had been
already fully argued.
Mr. I. BUTT trusted the house would sanction the
adjournment of the debate, as the important question
raised by the resolution required a large amount of dis-
cussion. He appealed in the spirit of fide play to the
house t. consent to the adj.mrnment.
The house divided, when tho numbers were--
For-the adjournment 5.0
Against
Majority -281
Mr. VANCE then moved (at a quarter past 12) the
adjournment of the house. (Oh, oh.)
Mr. NE WDEGATE supported the motion. He hoped
they would have no more surprises ; and it was evident
that many hon. gentlemen had gone away under the im-
pression that no such issue as that which had lately been
debated would have been raised.

Mr. GROGAN appealed to the noble viscount to con-
sent to the adjournment of the debate, the greater part
of the evening having been wasted in a useless debate
upon an unintelligible issue. He hoped those hon. gen-
tlemen who had notices on the paper fur this day would
give way to him. (Laughter.)
Mr. GEORGE said the resolution of the hon. member
for Louth was conceived so mush in the spirit of Loyola
that it was impossible to agree upon the sense in which
it was to be taken. He would appeal to the house how
much hon. members were now wiser with regard to the
intentions of the Government than they were before ?
(Hear.) He would now, therefore, although it was much
past the eleventh hour—(laughter)—ask the noble lord
to state the sense in which they rejected the motion.
Viscount PALIVIERSTON Undoubtedly, sir, for
those who wish the debate to be prolonged, the motion
for the adjournment of the house seems not to be quite
the best mode of accomplishing their object, for of course
the result would be that the motion would be dropped.
The hon. gentleman says he is not much wiser for the
speeches he has heard. I don't know whether we should
be much wiser for those that are in reserve—(laughter)
—but I really do hope the house will go to a division.
(Cheers.) I ain asked in what sense her Majesty's Go-
vernment understand the resolution ? The sense in
which we understand the resolution is that, if carried, it
would express the opinion of the house—an opinion
upon which her Majesty's Government would act—that
no change should be made--(great cheering)—no change
in' the regulations and practice in regard to public
grants for education in Ireland. I must say, ear, that
considering the great importance of this subject, the
deep interest which is felt in it, the great mischief that
would arise from re-opening those religious disputes
which have so happily been closed, I think that a una-
nimous vote of the house upon the resolution moved by
my hon. friend, an,'. I must add so honourably men-
tioned by the right hon. gentleman (Mi. Walpole),
would be a wiser termination than any which would be
come to even after the speeches which we are called
upon to adjourn in order that we may bear. (Laughter.)
Every one must have made up his mind before now.
The question is not a new one, and I venture to say
there is not a man in the house who,e opinion would be
influenced by anything he might say. (Laughter.) I
there-fore call upon the house to determine whether .he
system of education in Ireland —the mixed system of
education—which has conferred such great benefit on
that country, and which, if persevered in, will confer
still greater—whether that system, I say, should con-
tinue or be put an end to—•whether religious peace is to
be established in Ireland, or whether religious war is to
be declared. These, sir, are the questions upon which
this house has to vote, and upon which I press for an
immediate decision. (Loud cheers.)
Mr. NAPIER had been prepared to move an amend-
ment, but he had'declioed doing so in consequeece of the
manner in which the speech of his right hon. friend (Mr
Walpole) had been received ; and the result was that a
great many hon. gentlemen who would have supported
that amendment had left the house.
Mr. LABOUCHERE said the right bon. and learned
gentleman was in the house when he spuks, and he
would appeal to the house whether he did not explicitly
state that the Government accepted the resolution as a
distinct reversal of the vote on a previous night ? He
felt that the Government would be deeply guilty if they
had taken any ambiguous course, and he should attach
no value to the motion it it was to go out to Ireland as
anything but an expression of the determination of Par-
liament to maintain the national system of education.
(Lend cheers.)
Mr. DISRAELI intended to vote for the motion, but
he protested against being supposed to accept the Go-
vernment interpretation of it. Every hon. gentleman
was master of the sense which he put upon any resolu•
tion for which he voted. He approved of the national
system, and be should never have voted with his right
hon. friend if he had thought that the address agreed to
previously was inconsistent with the fundamental prin-
.

eiples of that system.
111. BUTT said the right hon. gentleman the member
for the University of Cambridge sad accepted the reso-
lution in a totally different sense from that now put on
it by the noble lord and by the Secretary of State for
the COlonies. A great number of gentlemen had stated
that they perfectly understood the point in dispute, but
they had not as yet been able to bring it to au issue.
Those who thought with him believed that it they gave
aid to a school in which all the children were required to
read a portion of the Scriptures they did not violate any
fundamental principle. Hon. gentlemen opposite thought
otherwise, and the issue had been fairly raised between
them by the amendment of the hon. member for Dublin.
The noble lord now said the principle of the resolution
was, that no change should be made ; but the resolution

itself spoke of change. If the noble lord now insisted
on a division, t)e house would be taken by surprise.
(" Hear," and "No, no.") From the statement of the
hon. member fur Warwickshire, it was evident that many
members had left the house under the impression that
no division would take place. If a division was forced
on the hou,e, those who thought with num must divide,
notwithstanding the disadvantages under which they
were placed ; but a decision come to under such circum-
stances would go forth without authority, and come back
without respect. (Hear, hear.)
The house then divided—
For the adj ,urnment
Against it
Majority

39
328
.. -289

The SPEAKER then put the main question and the
amendment, on which the house divided, with the fol-
lowing result--

For the amendment 95
Against it
Majority
The original resolution was then put and agreed to
without a division.

The result wad received with cheers from both sides
of the house.