The Sun.
London, England, 1850-07-05 00:00:00

park was a double trust of the Sover e'gn—viz., for the
l) 4111 ic, and for the successors of the Sovereign on the
Throne, It was,
therefore, highly desirable that the At-
torney-
General should clear up the legal question on this
Point.

Lord J. RUSSELL id the Hd Leard
Gentleman the Memhsr said
for Newarkon. hadan laid downae a
doctrine which the Hon. Gentleman who had jus.
spokeh should well consider—nrotely, whether will it
not decide a question of law, and whether the Right /lon. Member for the University of Oxford had not
gone too far -when he desired that the 11. use should
come
to no decision on the legal question. The question
before the House was not a question of law; it was
merely a question as to what they should think it
proper to do—to offer advice to the Crown is reference
to the exhibition in connexion with the rights of the
public, or not to offer such advice. That quesion should
be kept clear from all others. If private rights were
infringed upon, and if private parties had chosen to ap-
ply to the courts of law for redress, that House had un-
doubtedly nothing to do with the matter. But such was
not the case. With respect, however, to the q testion to
be decided, he was of opinion that the discussion which
had taken place had been of some use, and that the
subject. Rouse had nearly come to a conclusion on the subject.
he thought he represented the feeling of the House
when he said that no building of any permanency was
desired, that no enormous dome should be erected,
!loci that no injury should be done to the great trees
is the park.—(Hear, hear.) So far the que ;tire
wag Perfectly clear. But he was also of opinion that t
Rouse did not think it necessary to address the Ceo en
on the subject of the exhibition. If this was the case,j.
there were only one or two points on which he (Lord
Russell) felt called upon to address the House. It was
said that the Commission took an arbitrary view of
ithe
cite, and said that if the exhibition was not to be
Yde-park it would not be at all. That was not
"13° The Commissioners, having investigated the
~wuole subject, and examined the most competent wi t-
'esseg• had come to the conclusion early in February
Hyde-park that e
for -ee-park was the fittest and most proper place
the exhibition. This conclusion they made known,
s/1:(3t
ent Only to the people of this country, but on the Con•
"c
—the general public, in short, was informed that
the exhibition was to be held in Hyde-park. Subse-
drquently the Commissioners issued proposals for working
•
swings of plans, on the supposition that Hde-park was
to be the site. Having done all these things, they now
honly said it was too late to make any change f the exhi-
vitiOn was to take place in 1851. They had examined
e,gineers, surveyors, and architects; and the entire
I,`-'°‘naiission were satisfied that the exhibition should be
Zeeld Hyde-park, or it could not be held at ail at the
Question
fixed. The next point to be referred to was the
'tlestion of sacrifice. As his Noble Friend suggested,
there Should he sacrifice somewhere, and he (Lord John
Rare Should he sacrifice somewhere, and he (Lod John
1°ell) certainly admitted that to put the exhibition in
lue.Park might cause some inconvenience to the 60 or
occupants of houses in its vicinity. It migh also in-
"ovenience some riders in Rotten-row, thought in their
sae there could be compensation. Bur, on the other
ohlnde, the sacrifice to the working classes of London
Would be immense, if the exhibition was placed on any
elo,ter site than Hyde-park. Those, for example, who
%lid have in such case to make a journey of six or
seven
miles would lose an entire day; while those who
eete from the country would have a second journey to
f at a cost of money and a sacrifice of time. There-
ore, it was in the interest of the great majority that
exhibition should take place in Hyde•park.—(Hear.)
al the question been brought before the House in
aiZeti, though he did not say that a different desi-
tittle would be arrived at, still there would be
to
ofuld change the site, if that decision was
co
en adverse character- As it was, the change
not Le made. He trusted the House would not divide on the amendment, because he believed that
'co discussion would induce the Commission to make
,every effort possible to accommodate the public as
12-„" as to protect private interests; but he hoped
noose any circumstances that the House would not
bateansent to the motion for the adjournment of the de-
(Hear.)
An
IforeouttennE MEMBER asked whether the park
Wonld leg opened during the whole time to public con-
learauces
Would give
J. RUSSELL said, no doubt the Commissioners
ou.ld give every facility.
ec,Sir 11 HALL would, after what had Passed, consent
;itiadra a his motion.—(Cries of ' Oh.")
el, he FAKER put the question whether the amend.
urri__pet should be wi hdrawn—(Cries of" Oh ")—and then
red the gaTHlleries to be ceared.
eek;ol oriel SIBORP said l
hewould divide the House
Thea great humbug.—(Laughter.)
Rouse then divided, ashen there appeared—
For Sir 13. Hall's amendment... ... 47
Against it
... 166
•• • ••• •••
The Majority against it —ll9
• •••
Sibtho rp' "ottse immediately afterwards•• divided upon Col.
s amendment, when there appeared—
For the amendment ••• 46 Against it 166
Majority against it ... •-• —l2O
EDUCATION. °Fore motion for bringing up the resolution on the
rote m education,
aerer;‘ MILES objected to a question of so much import-
IsCeine, brought on at that late hour.
hoer e eIIANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said the
teoli was not so late (half-past ten o'clock), and if the
the aa
Objected to proceeding with business at that hour
Would never be able to get on.
meat h ''''''4l,ll.lC thought the conduct of the Govern-
tion. '4l,rdly fair, considering the importance of the ques-
kernh 'lt that advanced period of the night many Hon.
had left
Who were likely to take part in the discussion
be be the Rouse under the impression that it would not
koußht 0
r. kr •
rose te 'LES, amidst cries of "Go on," "Adjourn,"
Present some petitions against the grant, when
Conl be. e • MANNERS rose to protest against the ques-
the House brought forward at that hour. It was taking
Lord
by surprise.
a
that ee, • RUSSELL did not think it unreasonable at
bleu gored period of the session to ask to have the
Ae.Ztroeeeded with at balf-past ten o'clock.
fair stasee,Ae °STONE did not think that was exactly a
there we—`et Of the case. The question was whether
Would e 0,,, general understanding that the measure
Whileicshenlire-le:Linedat that hour. There was a question
to put to the Right Hon. Gentleman
the Sy" "all' for the Home Department, with respect to
tiel adopted at the training school at Kneller-
that , a did not find it laid down that candidates at
()FlCoosa for the office of schoolmasters. even in those
ies:l4.l which they were to be members of the Church
hir,ol)4tl:l,ll.g.tilaenedesswaro
juild be examined on any subject which
Y identify them with the Church. Per-
t) givtehehiluitigcht Hon. Gentleman would be good enough
Sir G. Gluroo explanation upon that point?
GREY said that those candidates who were
illseeereorts of the Church of England would be under the
theeel endence of the Principal'
further who would examine
the formularies of the Church. But he had
Right tto) observe, that the schoolmasters to whom the
Workhousesl3. Gentleman referred would be appointed. for
With th and prisons, and would not be identified
echo , Church of England in the same manner as the
410.1111 asters iu the national schools.
srkte_ r a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
thatu.r. CHANCELLOR, of the EXCHEQUER said
Was e course which he was taking on that occasion
PFEeiselysa ot the course of which he had given notice,
to if, hoped that no further objection would be made
a2rW.
then ' W. AtILES, who spoke in a very indistinct tone,
the
tiola,yoceeded to address the House on the subject of
gio fences at present prevailing between the Educe-
enittee of the Privy Council and the National
ethic The Hon. Gentleman said that the system to
iu Zu he wished to call their attention had commenced
posed year 1833, when the late Lord Spencer had pro-
s grant of 30,0001. for the purpose of education.
grant had been distributed by the Treasury be-
ja'?n the National Society and the British and Foreign
„ Society without any conditions which could exc'te the
ti.'`.4.usY or the disapprobation of either of those socie-
C_ But, in the leer 1839, those famous Orders in
n3"ee`inc.isleh.adlbeen. issued on the subject of normal and
etrt.,,°ol hoo s which had since given rise to so much dis-
th7L n• Shortly after the appearance of those orders
Archbishop of Canterbury had moved in the
Rout'4,_, Of Lords a resolution condemning them;
4'll. tiles iesolution had been carried by a majority of
the year what he might call the concordat
had beenn
. Entered_ into between the National Society and
the Committee of the Privy Council, roviding at once
For the connexion of the Schools with the Established
Church, and for a Government ins
et of them. But
et the same time, a suspicion lurked amen the foil' lidera'
of Church schools that the Committee ofgPrivy Council
Were taking too much upon themselves, and that they
Were
endeavouring to force improper conditions on the
Lefferent schools. He should next pass to the
18e
year
-6. Immediately after the accession of the Year
Government to power a great excitement had prevailed
; the Council Office, and minute after minute had been
ets
tied. Eventually, in the year 1847, the minutes with ''aPect to the mananement of schools had been made
teltiltPeulserY• Now, it was to the compulsory clauses
of" a mainly objected. It appeared that the managers
ti certain schools had refused to comply with the conch-
sitea which had been so laid down. He merely. asked.h
sect Government to interfere as little as possible with
merely
or toed in matters of education. He wished them
to re,!Y rely upon the fundamental principles, and
their w' the managers of those schools so to conduct
thErrt,euools that the education to be communicated,_
Prielerlielight be in accordance with the tenets and
Dupe's of the respective churches to which the
ello: belonged. One of the petitions which he had the
spectarhito present, and which was numerously and re-
signed, after complaining of many of these
Ituelie:'eetices to which he referred, alluded to the
of clar:-"all establishment, which it declared to be full
eorntoger to the teaching of the pupil, and was the
they had went of a system latitudinarianism, When
they f'°
,otetnined the schoolmasters of their unions
ligiueseuiurie that. but little attention had been paid to re-
eity hatt titruction, that the highest knowledge in divi-
Itnensied was therein required was a good Biblical
l'eleteinege and the knowledge of the geography of
ti • %I hat did they find in a minute to which
/an, ecouraie,
studen Fiend alluded relative to Knel:er-hall?
tottle to student
was required to learn any religious for-
mtion; , which he had a conscientious objet-
eat and this .
eaters as in a school where school-
Pauprr erde tra.ined entirely for the administration
cationof e ucation in workhouses, and criminal edu-
The Youth in • ' . .
there
eseeeei, prison• There was no examination in
in the
.ordinances, or the prayer-book;.
ectiee , 'acts nothing whatever to show the dis-
khool wereh ter fasters e Church of England. These
I tin Of their bound upon :he expiration of the
that
urraPerenticeship to uervo in these schools
stikileoilsizeuituieation years• He
eat a, a seven
could
er nslhbuctirtchuimnk
produce
the worst results. S2nce the ques-

tion had been discussed in the other House of Parlia-
ment it had taken a different turn. Although a Com-
mittee had been denied to the Noble Lord who made the
motion in the other House, yet the Noble Lord the Presi-
dent of the Council sested that the time had c ime when
he thought an ireleiry was necessary, and he only ob-
jeced to it then because it woull be impossible to come
to a conclusion on the subject befute the end of the
p-esent session of Parliament. As he (Mr. Miles) un-
derstood there would be no objection to an inquiry in
the next year, as the petitioners stated the applicants
were unable, from conscientieus scruples, to participate
in those a lvanteges which it was evidently intended by
the Legislature they should enjoy—after the decision
that bad been arrived at in another place, he did not
think it neepasary to submit a motion upon the subject.
Sir G. GREY said that the Hon. Member's impres-
sions as to what took place elsewh-re were quite correct.
The Hon. Member hal confined his objections principally
to two—namely, !he management clauses and the esta-
blishment of Moeller House. As to the first, it was the
duty of the eievernment to have ample security fit the
due man:tgement, of all the school; entrusted to their
charge. At the same time, they did not feel thetiase.lves
at liberty to interfere in any way with the religious ie.
strut ion communicaael, nor in any respect wide the
p ineiples which regulated the Church schools. The
lion. Member was in error as to sum of his st atemsnts.
Tae constitution of many of the Church schools was
con iidered to be most effective. It wis !bought essential
by the. Committee of Council in 1845 to take security
against the defective c mstituti in of maey of thoie
schools. They prepsred a report which they submitted
to the National S )ciety. A correspondence subsequently
took place on the subject bstween the National Com-
mittee, the National Society, and the Committee of
Council of Education. The Committee of Council hal
shown every disposition to me. t all the objections that
had been urged to the details of those management
clauses. They, however, felt it essential that the two
elements should be combined, and that the laity
should act together with the clergy in the management
of there schools. At the same time they felt no appre-
hension whatever as to any infringement of the rights of
the clergy to the exclusive charge of the religious edu-
cation in these schools. He believed that the Committee
cif Council were sup footed so far by a large body of the
clergy who did not approve of the views of the Com-
mittee of the National Society. He wished to ask the
Hon. Member whether he apprehended the mixture of
the laity with the clergy to be dangerous to religion.
He thought that the opinions entertained by a large
portion of the members connected with the National So-
ciety upon this subject were somewhat extravagant. The
House should be aware that if the views of those oppo-
nents t r the system were adopt el they would be alto-
gether destructive to any wide-spread system of educa-
tion, for the encouragement of which the Parliamentary
grant hal been obtained. The test required by the
Committee of the National Society, and which was at
once assented to by the Committee of Council, was, that
this education should be placed under the management
of members of the Church of England. In regard to
Moeller-hall, be could not concur In the apprehensions
expressed by the petitioners. It must be remembered
that this establishment was, after all, but a normal school
for the education of two classes of schoolmasters—the
one class for prisons, the other for workhouses. These
schoolmaster; had not been exclusively taken from mem-
bers of the Church of England. In regard to prisons,
for some years past they had experienced a difficulty in
finding schoolmasters; they, however, at length suc-
ceeded in getting them from Glasgow and other places
in Scotland, and these were now exercising their avoca-
tions in prisons in this country. These persons had
never been brought up in the principles of the Church
of England. The same might be said in regard to the
schoolmasters for the workhouses. It never was made a
general rule that these should be members of the
Church of England; he therefore thought that the ob-
jections urged by the petitioners against this system
were treat untenable.
Lord J. MANNERS hepel the House would allow
him to refer to one or two points of that question chro-
nologically. In 1839 there had been a discussion be-
tween the Church schools and the Committee of Privy
Council. In 1840 there had been a concordah It was
not until 1847, when those clauses were rendered com-
pulsory on the schools in connexion with the Church,
that any dissatisfaction had prevailed. In the spring of
1847 the, Ministers had proposed a great extension of the
educational system of this country. That extension had
been strongly resisted; and if they had not been staunchly
supported in that House by Churchmen they could not
have carried out their proposition. There had been no
intimation then that a compulsory enactment was to take
place. Yet rumours having gone: abroad that soms
such thing was in contemplation, be had on: the 12th
of July in that year of 1847 put a question to the Noble
Lord at the head of the Government on the subject.
The answer he had received had been to the effect that

the assurance given to the late Primate of England
would not be departed from. Yet it had been afterwards
found that the minute of the Privy Council, by which
those rules were to be made compulsory, bore date the
28th of June, 1847. He would ask what good it could
be for the cause of civil and religious liberty that a lay-
ma❑ or a clergyman either should keep certain clauses
for the government of their respective schools.—(Hear.)
But the Right Honourable Gentleman said a great
number of the c!ergy aeproved of those clauses. Now
he did not object to that; bet what he did object to was
this, that the same liberty was not given to those who
did not approve of the clain.ec a 3 to those who did.—
(Hear.) It was said they might or might not take the
money. Was the great question of education to be met
in that way?—(Hear.) The petitioners in the present
case did not pray for the abolition of the Committee of
Council, all they asked was that they should not inter-
fere with the religious education of the people of this
country. lie would put it to the Liberal Members of
that House whether it was an unreasonable demand
which he made on behalf of those for whom he pleaded,
that they should have freedom of instruction. They
could not long successfully refuse such a requisition. He
only asked them on the other side for that which they
asked for themselves, and which they had always main-
tained as th it just rights.—(Hear )
Mr. ADDERLEY said it would seem from what the
Right Hon. Baronet the S. cretary of State for the Home
Department had said, that the Church would wish to
arrogate to it.elf the right of educating the people. He
did not think that such was the feeling which prevailed.
He thought it was very unjust that, if they wished for
their own system of management, they should be de-
prived of any share in the public grant.
After a few words from Mr. PLUMXTRE,
Mr. P. WOOD said he did not think the Right Hon.
Baronet had treated the National Society fairly in refer-
ring to the memorial to which he had alluded. That me-
morial would give rise to the impression that the great
majority of the Churchmen were not in favour of granting
any money to the Dissenters. Such was not the case.
The public money was taken from all classes, and for
matters of education they were bound to distribute it
equally amongst all classes. It was not fair to
read to the House, as the general opinion of
the body, a memorial which had only emanated
from a few. Neither was that the opinion of the
National Society. There was no objection on the
part of that society to lay interference; but they were
of opinion that perfect freedom should be allowed to all
parties. They hal no objection to the clauses, but they
asked that others should be permitted to adopt them or
not, just as they pleased. But the great difficulty had
ari-en from the fact of the Committee of Privy Council
having come to the resolution to oblige every one to
adopt these resolutions; otherwise they were not to get
a grant for their schools. That was what the Natiot al
Society objected to; they could not agree to the clauses
having been made compulsory. A great constitutional
question was involved in that discussion. They were
paying large sums of money every year into the hands
of Government, and they would be larger still, and the
Council could come to a decision, from which there was no
appeal, as to the administration of those funds. It was not
wise in such a case to lay down pedantic clauses. The
Committee had now pupil-teachers and certified masters,
and he hoped to see such in most of their schools. Those
who contributed oae-third of the funds claimed to have
the entire management of everything. That was what
would not be submitted to.

Lord J. RUSSELL thought that the Honourable and
Learned Gentleman had not fairly represented the Privy
Council when he said that they undertook to regulate
everything. They had come to an agreement in 1840
with the archbishops and bishops, by which their grants
were to be regulated. The inspectors were to be named
in conjunction with the archbishops, and they were not
to exercise their office without the consent of the bishops;
their reports were to be sent to the bishops. The objec-
tion made to the Privy Council was not such as the Hon.
and Learned Gentleman had stated it; but it was to the
interference of the Privy Council in any way—it was
maintained that any person who applied for a grant was
not to be bound by any claims whatever. In schools that
belong' d to the Church of England, the religious educe
tion was under the clergy and the bishop, and the bishop
might exclude any books on religion of which he did not
tapprove, or he might object to the master or mistress on
hear.)haro of unsound religious teaching.—(Hear,
He then came to the uestion of secular teach-
inl4. The Committee consistedq of laymen and clergy-
men,sec and a difference arose. If a difference arose as to
tiler teaching,
st then it ;as said the' appeal should be
to the bisho Such a regulation the Committee
thought did not tendne to the r fficient management of the
schools. The privy Council desired to tea laymen united
with clergy me non
it was insisted ht.:h question of education; but when
school, then the to
Coun7l purely religious teaching in a
declared that the parties desi-
rous to establish such t a
school must provide for it ex-
clusively out of their own
made
funds. It was his opinion
that the Privy Council
no unreasonable proposi-
tions; and so he thought it
would be shown when an
inquiry took place into this subject
next year. Ho be-
lieved great good had been done by the
the sake of the Church f E,gland itselr,
h ants; and for
well that this system of education sh uld be ete thought it
iTtinuedi
Mr. R. PALMER thought it was well question
should now bo distinctly
understood. Fears were ex-
cited by what was now going on. He believed the It
man Catholics and Dissent, rs were as much interested
in this Tr stion as the membors of the Church of Eng.
land. It was a que7om of liberty—the power of pa-
ties teaching the children under their cete in that way
in which their religious convictions might be secure.
Choy should take care to do nothing which would. pre-
vent or impede the voluntary efforts for education in this
country. 'They should do nothing to nit-I.:ere. with
schools especially intended for religions education.—
(Hear.) They ought not to exclude schools that were
under clerical management, To do this was, in his opt-
nion, in the highest degree impolitic. They forced the
National Society to open subscriptions for establtshiog
clerical schools. The true rule was not to be exclusive.
Mr. W. J. FOX coincided in so much in what the
Hon. Member who had last spoken, that it would save
him from saying much on this questioe. He thought
that freedom of action should he given to all labouring
to promote education. The best mode of administering