The Sun.
London, England, 1850-06-06 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

SOUSE OF COMMONS, June 5.
(Continued from Edition of yesterday.)
tION BILL.
On the question for resuming the adjourned debate on
the second reading of this Bill,
Mr. C. ANSTEY, on behalf of the population of the
United Kingdom, thanked the Hon. Member for Old-
ham for having introduced the Bill, and expressed his
deep regret that a man like the Noble Lord the Mem-
ber for Arundel should have felt himself called upon to
oppose the liberal design which the promoter of the
measure contemplated, namely, conferring the blessings
of education upon the great mass of the people.—(Hear,
bear.) Whatever might be said of the measure, or the
motives of those who had brought it forward, it was the
duty of all parties to discuss the Bill in a calm and dis-
passionate spirit.—(Hear, hear.) It had been said that I
the great question at issue was between Christianity and
Atheism between heaven and hell, but he for
one did not accept that as a correct definition
of the matter in dispute between the promoters of the
Bill and the supporters of the amendment. If, however,
this discussion were really tantamount to a struggle be-
tween heaven and bell, all he could say was that his vote
at least would not be on that side which the Noble Lord
the Member for Arundel had termed heaven.—(Hear and
a laugh.) He had listened with much attention to this
debate, in the vain hope of finding out what the objections
to the measure were. The House would remember that the
speech of the Hon. Member for Oldham, in introducing
the Bill, was at once explanatory of its object and of the
machinery by which it was proposed to carry out that
object; but the objections urged against the Bill did not
seem to him to be quite so clear. An Honourable
Member, who represented the peculiar interests of the
Established Church, had declared that the only
objection be entertained to the Bill related to the
dangers which lurked under it, and not to those that
were apparent.—(Hear, hear.) The Hon. Member was
auspicious of evil because none appeared—(A laugh)—
but when the second reading came, and the Bill was
found to be precisely the same as that which the Hon.
Member for Oldham had described in his introduction,
then the cry was raised that Christianity
was in danger.—(Hear, hear.) He therefore
became naturally anxious to ascertain what
reasons could be urged in favour of that cry, but when
he did ascertain what the objections really were, it
seemed to him they were no objections at
laugh.) It was said that in France the adoption of
the system propounded in this Bill had proved injurious
to the State. while other Honourable Gentlemen who
opposed the Bill, said they did so because it was not in-
tended to make education subservient to religion. Now
those who entertained the latter opinion ought to
be the strenuous supporters of the principle prevailing
in France, for there the education commonly known as
the University of France system. was based entirely
on religion.—(Hear, hear.) These then appeared
to be the objections to the Bill. On the other
hand, what was the object of the measure? Why
it was to establish a system of education which made the
teaching of religion its first principle, but denied the
right of the State to dictate to a parent the peculiar
religious tenets with which he should inoculate
his child. The Honourable Member for Oldham had
used the term education in its popular and vulgar
sense, as synonymous with instruction, but, for his
part, he should prefer the Bill better if " secular in-
struction " were substituted for the term education,
because religious teaching, which some Honourable
Members seemed to think was the true definition
of the term education, was not all that
was necessary to farm the moral and in-
tellectual character of a child.—(Hear, hear.)
The fifth clause enacted that the master and mistress of
every free school should allow the children committed to
their care sufficient time to receive religious instruct: on
under their parents. But there was no provision in the
Bill for giving those poor children religious instruction
under the ministers of religion, under whose teaching
they might desire to be brought up. Instead of the
machinery proposed by this Bill he should have preferred
the mode of governing those free schools laid down in the
report of the society for the establishment of free schools
in Lancaster. If the House meant to separate secular
and religious education, they had better not have two sets
of teachers, as was proposed by the Hon. Member for
Oldham. It was an infringement of civil liberty for the
State to educate at all ; and it was even more objection-
able for the State to teach religion. There were five or
six millions of your people waiting for secular educa-
tion, and at the same time it was confessed that the vo-
luntary system, though aided by Parliamentary grants,
was totally unable to supply the want of the population
in this respect. The National Society was recognised by
the bishops, and recognised the bishops too, so that they
were convertible terms, and yet that society had con-
fessed that there were not sufficient means employed
for the attainment of their object. The voluntary
principle had nothing to do with secular education, and
must be put out of view altogether. All denominations
concurred in drawing a distinction between secular and
religious education, and it was in that distinction that
the point at issue between the supporters and the opposers
of this Bill lay. If they were to throw out the Bill, and
in doing so they would adopt the principles of the op-
position, they would express their concurrence with the
existing state of things, which admitted of no efficient
control over public schools. In Scotland alone, there
were 100,000 Roman Catholics, refugees from Ireland,
who were in need of religious and secular education,
and who could not avail themselves of those schools
or churches which were supported by the State.
By the returns that were already before them it would
seem that in Liverpool alone there were 250,000 children
in want of instruction, but that want could not be sup-
plied solely because the Educational Board of the Privy
Council insisted that all instruction to be given in free
schools should consist entirely of religious teaching.
He concurred in the principles of the Church of Scot-
land, but he differed with them in the mode by which
they proposed to carry them out. The m schinery
by which the principles would be put in opera-
tion would have the effect of making the Church
of Scotland the be-all of education, an evil which the
plan contained in this Bill would avoid. He supported
the principle of the Bill most heartily, but let it not be
ttnderstood that in making this statement, he pledged
'himself to all its details.—(Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND thought the speech of the
Hon. Member for Oldham in introducing this Bill had
been received somewhat harshly on both sides of the
House, for certainly if there was a question upon which
Honourable Members appeared to be more unani-
mous than another, it was that the State ought
to undertake the education of the people.—(llear, hear.)
Now, when this subject was last before the House he
ventured to remark that there was a sad confusion pre-
vailing in the minds of Hon. Members as to the mean-
ing of the words education and instruction. It
was indeed remarkable that even the Honour-
able and Learned Member for Sheffield, who
was generally pretty correct in his appli-
cation of terms, the other evening used the words
education and instruction in one and the same sense.—
(Hear, hear.) It seemed, however, that in dealing with
this question all agreed upon the substantive, but dis-
agreed about the adjective.—(Hear, and a laugh.) All
were for education of some sort, but some
want secular—some biblical—some religious—some
scriptural—in fact, all sorts of education, but still state
education they would have.—(Hear, hear.) Now he held
that state education was an impossibility.—(Cheers.)
No two things could be more distinct or unlike
each other than education and instruction.—
(Hear, hear.) Instruction was putting something
into a person, education was drawing something
out of him.—(A laugh.) Instruction and education
was divided into two classes, scientific and historical;
now the necessary tendency of scientific education was
to make sceptics.—(A laugh.) In science nothing was
taken for certain: the anatomist, in lecturing to his
pupils upon tendons, joints, and sinews, invariably
told them that they must take nothing upon
trust, and so it was with every other science;
but in historical researches the case was different.—
(Rear.) There you must trust entirely to the asser-
tions of others. It was too late to raise the question
whether or no Hannibal ever lived; they must depend for
that not uponir experiment, but upon the assertion of
others.—
(a h”itr.)couNldo onlyno be modified.—(Hear.)
made in history,
But education wasilu
e;e matter wholly different.—(Hear.)
It was said in a
book on the subject, that " the
mere
preponderance of
v intellect, unaccompanied with a
corresponding amount of
liveliness of the moral affec-
tions, would ever tend to boldness in religious matters,
and ultimately to semethinworae still." Learning
was after all not an unmixed
learn-
ing, they induced a boy's irritgaobihty(?d? By
in-
creased his sense of Buff,rl •n , , they
but the
him no increased means of hap
pine
hear, and a laugh.) Nor did they e
for there was no connexion whatever between intellec-
tual power and moral elevation. But education was
a thing wholly different. Education was that which was
carried on by the drawing forth of that which was good,
l)ainteu sh' (Hear,
r:
morals,
gave
o
g
and the non-drawing forth of that which was evil. It was
a work which could be carried on only by the parents when
the children were young, for it was not sufficient merely
to tell people what they ought to do, and what they
should not do; they must have the power of the Church
to convey the power to do that which was right; and they
were day by day disturbing that Church, and endeavour-
ing to substitute the system of universal instruction in
was u
of the performance of moral and religious duty. It
wholly fallacious; it was the love of the mother, and not
the learning of the mother, which educated the infant;
and it was the pastorship and the love of the Church,
and not its theology or its teaching, that would ever
makelsr religious and moral men.—(Hear.)
Mr
PAGE WOOD had always taken a very deep in-
• terest. in this question, as one in which our prosperity
and happiness
happiness were involved. The Hon. Member op-
posite
(Mr. Anstey) had described the National Society
in a great
as beingmeasure effete. Feeling se he (Mr.
P. Wood) did, that religion was the bendmaid of educa-
tion, ho would proceed.
Ile todemossalsg.g at by argument
rather than by teelin
go
ilitli!tethet "althoughdi'claim"d
he was
glad the Hon. Member whop, this n . lone abroad on education. yet
w
some of the erroneous net'
at the close of his speech he
read aereport of a society
of these of working men, in which many
erroneous no-
tions were propounded. He (Mr. Paget Wood) knew
enough of working men to know that reportwt asnot
written by a working man, for the very first
sen-
tence of that document made reference
" plastic minds" and " the nascent judgments" of
the
e
of child-
ren.—(Hear, hear.) Now, no working man ever used
language like that.—(Hear, hear.) Men's minds were
variously informed; and he doubted if any
hman had
ever been happy enough to see truth
un-
adulterated with error; but there were mediumsolly
ously coloured through which truth was conveyed._vari-
To begin at the beginning', with the darkness. What
education was there then separated from religious tinsti-
tutions ? He, like many other Hon. Members, had a
debt of gratitude to perform; he had had the advantage
of receiving an education in the oldest religious feutida.