The Sun.
London, England, 1857-02-19 00:00:00

seemed to him (Mr. Cowper) to be the mostimportant one;
for if .11 that was a-ked by the secular party was that no
distinctive religious formulary should be taught to the
children of those parents who objected to it, that was no
more than was conctantiy done in national schools, the di-
rectors of many of which allowed children whose par,nts
obj,cted to their being present to absent themselves during
the time set apart for the teaching of religi,us formularies.
The principle which was contained in the bill introduced
by the right hon. member forManohester (lir. M. Gibson),
and which was advocated by the secular party, was that no
distinctive doctrine should be taught to the children by the
schoolmaster. That was a principle to which the denomi-
national party in this country was not prepared to accede,
and therefore if it formed part of this compromise the right
hon. baronet would meet with a very formidable opposition
from that party. To deprive the schoolmaster of the right
of giving any doctrinal instruction wasto say that he should
only give to his pupils a certain amount of information
upon secular subjects, but should not appeal to their con-
sciences, should not give them moral or spiritual training,
should be altogether silent upon everything which related
to their higher faculties, and should not teach them the
grand sanctions of all moral obligations. In the bill to
which he had referred, however, it was said that, although
the schoolmaster was not to teach doctrinal religion, he was
to inculcate truthfulness, morality, and the other virtues.
It was assumed by those who prepared that bill that it
was perfectly easy to inculcate all the cardinal virtues,
without teaching doctrinal religion. From that position
he (Mr. Cowper) entirely dissented. How could the
master teach a child his duty to himself without a
reference to the self-denying principles and examples of
Christianity ; his duty to his neighbour, without teaching
him something of Christian love; or his duty to the Al-
mighty, without speaking to him of the covenant under
which he is placed, and his relationship as the child of a
, heavenly Father? To say that the schoolmaster should not
' teach doctrinal religion might amount to saying that he
should teach no morality, and that he should not inculcate
the conscientious duty of acting rightly. If, however, it
were only intended to prohibit the schoolmaster from teach-
ing certain formularies, then he (Mr. Cowper) had no objec-
tion to the arrangement. The right hon. baronet had re-
ferred to the faulty manner in which the Catechism had
been taught in certain schools inspected by the Rev. Mr.
Brookfield; but it seemed to him (Mr. Cowper) that this
did not go so much against the teaching of the Catechism
altogether as against the mode in which it was taught; and
he was afraid that the teaching of it only at a particular
hour, instead of allowing it to be enclosed and enveloped,
as it were, in the ordinary teaching of the schoolmaster,
would have a direct tendency to encourage its being taught
in a perfunctory and ill-arranged manner—being learned
by rote, and not being understood. Upon this point, how-
ever, and upon others connected with the arrangement
mentioned by the right hon. baronet, he would not now
pronounce an opinion, because the house was not TlM-
ciently informed upon the subject. To the other principles
stated by the right hon. baronet he thought that no rea-
sonable objection could be taken. Whatever might be
the objections to proceeding by a vpluntary and local ar-
rangement, yet at present this was the only way in which
we could proceed. It was pretty clear that no system of
national education to be supported by rite could be
adopted so as to be comulsory upon the whole country,
but it was quite possible that certain parts of the country
--such, for instance, as the city of Manchester, which was
most anxious to be allowed to rate itself— (" No, no," from
Mr. Hadfield)—might gladly adopt some such system as
that now proposed. There was also great use in dealing
separately with towns and rural districts, as there
was always a difference in the circumstances of those two
classes of places, which rendered it essential that there
should be distinctions made in the mode in which they were
dealt with. The right hon. baronet had quoted as prece-
dents two cases of successful permissive legislation. Per-
haps he (Mr. Cowper) might be allowed to add to these the
Public Health Act, which had now been adopted very ex-
tensively throughout the country, and under which many
large towns had obtained advantages which they would
have rejected and repudiated had it been sought to force
the measure upon the whole country at first. He was glad
that the school committee to be elected by the ratepayers
was to have no power to interfere with the management of
existing schools, because such a provision would preserve
the great advantages of the present system, the voluntary
management of particular schools with aid from the gene-
ral funds in the country, and would add such further as-
sistance as could be given by a local central authority. As
regarded the help to be given to schools from local rates,
he thought that any one who had witnessed the great diffi-
culty experienced by the friends of education in raising the
funds necessary for the support of schools must feel that
such assistance would be a great benefit to them, especially
the clergymen, who were now constantly obliged to provide
from their poor pittances funds for the support of schools
which they did not like to see neglected. If the arrange-
ments proposed by the right hon. baronet for establishing a
system of local permissive rating wen# agreed to, the bene-
volent persons who were now bearing the burden of sup-
porting the schools of this country would be relieved from
the necessity of attending to the wants of children under 11
or 12 years of age, and would be able to devote their atten-
tion to those young men and women who, having left the
primary schools, needed help to enable them to pursue their
studies in the evening, and we should then make some real
advance in the education of the people. ( Hear.) He could
not at present commit the Government to the adoption of
any particular course in regard to this measure : but he
should offer no opposition to its introduction. (Hear.)
Mr. E. BALL complimented the right hon. baronet (Sir
J. Pakington) upon hie industry and perseverance, but ex-
pressed his opinion that a system of education to be na-
tional must be religious. He therefore regretted that the
right hon. baronet bad introduced a bill which, to a great
extent, excluded religious teaching, and had accepted the
secular, which on former occasions he had himself repu-
diated and rejected. (Hear, hoar.)
Lord R. CECIL said that this was an attempt to get in
the thin edge of the wedge, which was sought to be intro-
duced by the resolutions of the noble lord the member for
the city of London (Lord J. Russell), which were so sig-
nally defeated. The instancing of the police bill, which had
just been changed from a permissive to a compulsory mea-
sure, was a clear intimation of what was the ultimate in-
tention of the light hon. baronet, and showed that the
only advantage over the rural districts which ho designed
for the towns was that of being eaten first. Having caught
the towns, he fully intended to catch the rural districts,
which he said required such a measure still more. In his
representation of the several parties into which the friends
of education wore divided, the right bon. baronet had en-
tirely forgotten the adherents to the Privy Council system.
His (Lord Robert Cecil's) objection to this measure was
that its supporters were too hasty, that they were in too
groat a hurry, and would not allow the existing system to
be sufficiently tried. That system had been in existence
only tan years; we had had no census for six years, and
we had therefore actual information as to the result
of 'only four years of its oreration. It was hasty
and unjust to condemn a system on such slender evi-
dence as this. The right honourable gentleman had, it
seemed, for the first time discovered that the secu-
larists wore not anxious to prevent children receiving
religious instruction in the course of their education. If
he ever entertained the belief that the supporters of the
secular scheme had such anxiety, he must have enter-
tained it alone in that house, for no one else could ever be-
lieve that persons of sense, persons knowing the feeling] of
the people of this country, would seek to exclude religion
from education. He had found that they sought merely
to exclude religion from the domain of the schoolmaster,
because he taught it inefficiently, and he cited the report I
of the Rev. Mr. Brookfield, who said that we ought to pro- 1
vide more efficient instruments for ti aching religion; but I
did this bill provide them ? The right hon. baronet had
regaled the house with figures showing the frightful igno-
rance and deetitution in which the juvenile population of
our large towns were plunged; but would he tell thorn
that the home; of these children would furnish them with
more efficient religious teaching than that now given by
the eohoolmaieer, and to which he sought to put an end 9
He had said that the money of the ratepayers was not to be.
applied to the support of doctrinal teaching, but he had at
the same time said that it was to be applied in aid of ex-
isting schools. Would he tell the house how many schools
there wore in the country in which doctrinal religion was
not taught ? It was of no use urging other objections,
because the right hon. baronet had given notice that he
did not intend to be convinced—(a latigh)—and he (Lord
Robert Cecil) would therefore confine himself to the ex-
pression of his opinion that in exact proportion as you
raised money by a rate in that exact proportion would
subscriptions fall off. In support of this position he ap-
pealed to the experience of any hon. members who had
during the last few years been engaged in promoting the
establishment of reformatories. He bad heard of cases,
and no doubt there ware numbers of instances, in which
persons hal promised to saLscribe to the erection of
reformatories by means of private funds, but with-
drew their subscriptions as soon as they heard that" the
Government was going to contribute. It had been tried in
a hundred cases and had always failed. You never would
get both voluntary subscriptions and Government aid for
the same object and within the same limits. (Hear.)
Mr. COBDEN—The objection urged by the noble lord
who has just spoken has rather surprised me. He accused
the right hon. Bart. (Sir J. Pakington) of haste. Now, I
think it is more than 20 years since this question of educe
tier was launched in this house. I have witnessed the die.

cussion of many knotty subjects in this country, and 12;vo
been a party to some, and have always been accustomed to
consider that seven years is about the natural duration of
any agitation or any great movement for effecting an im-
portant political change. This measure of education has
to my knowledge had three seven years of discussion is

this house, and therefore I think that, whatever other
fault may be laid to tho charge of the right hon. baronet

opposite, he ought not to be accused of haste or precipi-
tancy. I do not now intend to go into the details of a bill
which is not before us, but I have always been prepared
for the difficulty which has already been thrown in our way
—the question of religious teaching. The noble lord who
has just spoken asked whether it was intended that the
rate should be applied to pay fur doctrinal teaching. I
answer, " No ; that is not contemplated." (Hear.) The
essential difference between this bill and others which have
been brotuogthe ta
ci th
roe
ihgiiso
nhousehiesithr at
nwshcihl ao
oi s et
advoee n eont °pmr di-
nations-
pose to raise a rate to pay for that teaching ; and it at the
same time stipulates that parties having schools in connexion
with churches or chapels shall set apart a particular time
when their own doctrinal religious instruction shall begiven,
an 1 during that time they shall not be subject to theinspection
of the inspectors, nor shall children who are not of the reli-
gious denomination to which the school belongs be required
to attend. Well, surely there is nothing so difficult about
this that it cannot be accomplished, if we are in earnest
and wish to accomplish it.. It is not a question of prin-
ciple, bat merely a question between 9 o'clock in the morn-
ing and some other hour. If I am to be told that it is not
possible to set apart a particular portion of the day when
the Catechism can be taught, it must be equally impossible
to set apart a particular hour for the teaching of geography,
arithmetic, history, or any other subject; yet it is essen-
tial to the well-ordering of a school that you should have a
time for each subject, that the times should be defined Dy
the master, and that one study should not run into another.
Surely, if doctrinal religious teaching be of that importance
which those who object to the right hon. baronet's bill
attach to it, you yourselves will say that it is of so much
moment that a time should be named when such instill 3-
tion should be given. It is done already. When this
subject comes to be fully discussed it will be found that
your national schools have already adopted this plan; that
many national schools are now receiving children of all
denominations, with the understandin4 that they aro not
to be taught the Catechism. And how are you to carry
out that in good faith, unless you have a particular time
when the Catechism is taught ? Then see how the middle
classes overcome the difficulty. In the city of London
you will find a school kept by that excellent man Dr. Mor-
timer, who will tell you that he has Jews, Roman Catho-
lics, and every denomination of children. If you ask him
how he gets over this difficulty, he will tell you what every
man who is worthy to be at the head of a school will tell
you, that he has forms of prayer—which he, will show you
—which are read by the children; and that when this is
over he directs their attention to iirench, to German, to

mathematics, or to classics, but that he does not, nor would
any other man of sense, yen one study into another, and
Newt in the minds of his pupils things which are en-
tirely unconnected with each other. There is really no
difficulty, and the r seson why I am so glad that the right
hon. baronet has brought in a. permissive bill is this, that
when the matter comes to be put to a practical test, when
you have one municipality which does itself the honour to
lay a rate in the cause of education, you will find that all
this religious difficulty will vanish—(hear, hear)—and that
we have been amusing, or rather terrifying ourselves for 20
years with a mere bugbear. (Hear, hear.) There is no
practical difficulty iu the matter. In the Bluecoat School
you have from 300 to 500 boys, but you have no difficulty
about this religious question. There are also in different
parts of the country many proprietary schools. There is
the celebrated school at Birmingham, of which the present
Bishop of Manchester was head master, and it is his boast
that no one was ever excluded on account of his religious
opinions. The Bishop of Manchester gives his sanction and
approval to this measure. He was head master of this
Birmingham school, in which there were 1,200 or 1,300
keys. He had children of all denomination, but he did
not attempt to proselytise them and turn them from the
faith to which they belonged to his own. There is really
no difficulty about this question if we set honestly to work ;
and I do sincerely hope that at this day, in the year 1857,
we shall not lay ourselves open to the reproach which was
made by Sir Samuel Romilly in his diary some 30 years ago.
When speaking of the discussions concerning education in
this house, he wrote—"l am afraid that people are not in
earnest about education ; that they are afraid of the tax
that would be imposed upon them to educate the people."
We have come to a time when we are all in earnest, all
wishing for a better system. If so, Ido not think we shall
have any difficulty in carrying out some plan, and I don't
think there has been any scheme submitted to the house
more likely to meet with general acquiescence than that
which the right hon. baronet bee proposed. Ido not in-
tend now to go into details, but I thought it necessary to
allude to the religious difficulty, which has been thrown
in our faces so long that it is high time that we should in
some locality put to the test this groat bugbear, which I
apprehend will instantly vanish, and we shall then find
that we have been alarming ourselves with a shad rw.
Mr. HENLEY—Sir, I am quite ready to concede at the
outset that the discussion of questions of this kind does
good, and leads eventually to the discovery of the truth ;
but I disagree with my right hon. friend as to the effect of
the decision which the house came to on his scheme last
year. It is taking a very narrow view of that decision to
say that it was based on the simple fact that the measure
was intended to be general and compulsory in its operation.
The bill of my right bon. friend both last year and the
year preceding was objectionable, because it would have
completely sapped, and ultimately done away with, the
existing system of education ; and that was the ground on
which the house rejected it. The hon. gentleman who
spoke last told us that the religious difficulty is a bugbear,
and that no man of common sense has any trouble in over-
coming it. Every man has a perfect right to hold his own
opinions, but the assumption of the hon. member unques-
tionably implies that some three- fourths of the people of
this country are destitute of common sense. A great
many parsons, quite as earnest in the cause of education
as the hon. gentleman have applied their minds for many
years to this subject, without discovering religious educa-
tion to be a bugbear.
Mr. COBDBN—The right hon. gentleman must excuse
me. I attach as much importance to religious education
as he does. I say the bugbear is—not religious instruction,
but—the diffieulty of separating doctrinal from secular in-
struction.
Mr. HENLEY—I thank the hon. gentleman for his cor-
rection, because I am the last person who would fix upon
another man the result of my own misapprehension; but he
must allow me to say that the religious teaching which is
confined to half-an-hour or an hour per day, and is im-
parted simply as you would teach French, German, and
mathematics, or as you would give any other lesson, is not
a teaching likely to reach the hearts of children, but will
prove wholly barren and inoperative. Religion must be
diffused over the whole surface of their training, or it can
never be useful in regulating their conduct. Hence arises
the difficulty when the matter comes to be fairly worked
out. This point was well touched upon ty the right hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. Cowper), who said that if this hie-
portantlaranch of instruction could be limited to half an hour
each day it might easily
be dealt with, but that when you
come to teach the child his rule of life doctrinal religion
meets you at every turn and constitutes your real difficulty.
As far as I gathered from my right hon. friend's statement
he makes'no provision whatever for new schools. How then
is the deficiency to be supplied? All that his scheme does is
this—there being a certain number of schools now in ex-
istence, the greatest proportiovi of which are attached to
some religious denomination or another, it is proposed that
you should all the funds of these schools by a rate. This
is what my right hon. friend, in very gentle language calls
a local contribution. (A laugh.) Why, we have local
contributions now, only they happen to be voluntary, and
ere not exacted by the tax-collector. My right hon. friend
putting his case with great skill, said, " I am forlocal con-
tributions and local management." Well, so am I for
local contributions and local management ; but I am also
for religious freedom. How does my right hon. friend
deal with that point ? There are numerous schools in the
country, each affiliated to some religious community, at
whose cost, either entirely or in the main, they hare
been built and supported ; and what has been the great
incentive to the public to devote its money, and, what
is a thousand times more valuable, its time, for the or-
ganisation of the vast machinery now at work? Un-
doubtedly, the mainspring of it all has been the
desire to give a religious educa`ion to the children of their
neighbours. (Hear.) In this state of things my right hon.
friend interposes. " True," he says, " you have got your
schools and your schoolmasters ; true, you are making no
complaints; but I think you have EA enough money. I
must levy a rate and pay you a certain sum from it for
every child that comes under your training." The schools,
however, having been established on the express condition
that the scholars are to have religious instruction, my right
hon friend says, "I will give you money to take a number
of children who shall receive no religious instruction at
all." That is the principle of his scheme. Let us see how
it would work. Suppose a Presbyterian school to be set
up iu a locality where many Roman Catholic children re-
side. The Presbyterian schoolmaster is to be compelled—
on the principle of religious freedgm, forsooth !—to admit
any number of these Roman Catholic children for whom
there is room in his school, and to teach them everything,
else, but not a word of religion. What is that but ignor-
ing religion altogether, under the specious guise of religi-
ous freedom, and doing palpable violence to the consciences
of the mon who, in order to give instruction, set on foot
almost your present machinery, and who are nevertheless
to have pupils thrust upon them (in place of those whom
they now teach) of whose education religion is to form no
part? True, my right hon, friend says he is for religious
instruction, but the supporters of the secular system hold
that the school is not the place for teaching religion.
Sir J. PAKINGTON—I do not say so.
Mr. HENLEY—I am aware that my right hon. friend
does not say this, bat his new allies do. Ho differs in
opinion from them, but then he proposes a scheme that
will do exactly what they say. (Laughter.) The house
must not run away with the notion that this bill is only
permissive. Permissive for what ? —that is the question.
Is it under the vote of a narrow majority, obtained in a
canvass you don't know how, to permit a system to be set
up for giving any instruction except religious? If so,
where there are 100 people in a place, and 51 of them are
a
favourable to such a proposal, the remaining 49 being
stgia•oinngstly opposed to it, this large minority will be taxed,
their consciences,
ces, to teach anything in the world
except our duty to God and man. (" Oh," and " Hear.")
I cannot believe that the people of this country will ever
be content with such a state of things; and in so grave a
matter 1 for one doubt whether they ought to bo allowed
to establish it. I know it is said that unless persons pos-
sess a great deal of secular knowledge your labour in
attempting to give them religious instruction is thrown
away. (Cries of " Hear, hear," in which Sir J. Peking-
ton was understood to join.) My right hon. friend cheers
that statement, lam sorry to hear him cheer it. All I
can say is that I differ from that opinion as much as light
differs from darkness. I do not believe that the most
ignorant man who over drew the breath of heaven was not
amenable to the truths of Christianity. (Cheers.) Those
who have bad the most extensive experience on this point
will tell you that the best examples of a truly Christian
spirit are often furnished by the most illiterate of our fel-
low creatures. The Divine message of mercy to man is so
wonderfully adapted to the wants of man that while the
humblest peasant can understand and receive its gracious
accents, the highly intellectual and most cultivated of our
race will esteem it their greatest privilege to submit them-
selves to its lessons of humility. (Hear, hear.) If you
assert that our duty to God and man is to be sought only
through the intellect, you have only
arrived, as the result
of seven years of discussion, at what you might easily have
seen from the beginning was the radical difference between
us. I say that you must invert the process. You must first
teach our duty to God and man, and as a consequence, of
that teaching induce people to cultivate their intellects ac-
cording as their means and opportunities enable them. I
hold, then, that you never will teach the young their duty
to God or man if you attempt to do it through the intel-
lect. Stich an attempt strikes at the root of the whole reli-
gious teaching of this country ; and I trust, that when my
right hon. friend's bill is before us it will not be found to
be based on so pernicious a principle. If, however, it is
otherwise, I can only promise him to give him my warmest
opposition. There is an essential difference of opinion on
this subject between two parties in this house; but I am
not sorry that this discussion has been raised, because I
believe it will elucidate the truth. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL—I am glad, sir, that the right hon.
gentleman the member for Droitwich has again brought the
question of national education before the attention of this
house. I cannot but admit—although I do it reluctantly—
that the bast, or at least the moat prudent, course is to
make the bill merely permissive and local. At the same time
I have no wish now, any more than on any former occasion,
to conceal my individual opinion that it is the duty of this
country to render national education compulsory and pe-
remptory. Yet I am quite aware that that lathe view taken
by this house, and that such difference sof opinion prevails,
among the public that it would be utterly impossible at
present to obtain a general assent to any plan founded on
such a principle. I think, hO-wever, that the right hon-
ourable gentleman does well in endeavouring to take a step
in advance with the view of giving an impetus to this great
question. lam afraid, indeed, that the prospect before
us, partially opened though it is, is not quite so en-
couraging as the right hon. gentleman seems to imagine;
and that local and permissive as this measure is and con -
fined to promoting the success of the existing schools
though it appears to be, still it is liable to misconceptions
and misrepresentations, producing unfavourable opinions,
which always impede the progress of a measure cf this
kind. The right hon. gnntleman in some degree represent-
ing as ho does the sentiments of others, seems tome rather
to
th , rates are not to go towards religious instruction. What
place a bar in the way of his own bill when he says that
is intended is that they shall be applied in aid of schools
belonging to different religions denominations, in which,
under the present system, doctrinal instruction is given.
Sir J. PAYINGTON—My expression was, "not directly
applied."
Lord J. RUSSELL—I do not quite see the value of that
distinction. The rate will go in aid of a national school—
say, in Birmingham or elsewhere, and that school will con-
tinue to give doctrinal instruction in precisely the same
manner as it is hitherto done—that is to say, the Bible will
be read, the Catechism taught, and the great truths of
Christianity impressed on the pupils exactly as is the case
now. Therefore there is no room whatever for the ques-
tion just raised by the right hon. gentleman (Mr. Henley)
—vie., whether religion should be taught by the intellect,
or whether the heart is to be reached at once ; because
that religious instruction is still to be continued with
which that right hon. gentleman himself and also the no-
ble lord (Lord It. Cecil) are perfectly srtisfied. The only
question regarding the application of the rate is that the
money will not be directly and
professedly given for the

purposes of that doctrinal instruction ; that that in-
struction will be imparted at certain fixed hours, which will
be duly notified ; and that children may be admitted who
do not accept it, and who will be absent during the time
that it is given. But, then, it is not a correct description
of the scheme to sae that the rates will not go in aid of
doctrinal teaching;. They will support the school ; east the
school will still remain a nations' or a denoruinetional
school, as the case may be, in which religious instruction
will be given exactly as heretofore. I have heard of a pro-
position, emanating, I believe, from a section of the volun- j
tary party in Scotland, to the effect that, while consenting
to give religious instruction in the public schools, there
should be a separate payment for that instruction. This
appears to me a very objectionable proposal, but I don't
understand it to form any part of the right hen. gentleman's-
scheme. Therefore notwithstanding all the ohjections urged ,
to his plan, the right hon. gentleman does propose thatthis
rate should form an additional fund for schools in which
religious instruction is given, and given, too, not according
to a mode of which some hon. members disapprove, al-
though I do not—viz., by the teaching of the Bible only.
but according to the form now adopted in the national and
many other schools. This being so, it does not appear to me
that the right hon. gentleman has made any such dangerous
concession to the secular party as the last speaker seems to
suppose. On the contrary, that has itself made an import-
ant concession—namely, that the religious teaching of the
schools shall be supported from the rates, provided only that
religious liberty is not infringed by compelling those of the
pupils to attend such instruction whose parents dissent from
it, and that it is given at certain fixed hours, to be duly
notified. The right hon. gentleman elsewhere stated fairly
the opinion of the secular party when he said that they
hold that the children ought to be religiously brought up,
but that the schoolmaster is not the person nor the school i
the place for doing so. My view, agreeing with that of the
right hon. gentleman ie, on the other hand, that the
school is the place and thel schoolmaster the person. (Hear.)
At the same time, if you support a school by rates—if you
require that people not.of one, but of many different de-
nominations, be they Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, or
Jews, shall contribute towards the maintenance of that
school—you cannot after that well insist that only a
particular kind of doctrinal instruction shall be given
or that the children of those who do not receive that
instruction shall be excluded from the school. Thus
far I think the bill of the right hon. gentleman accords
with the principle of religious liberty. I don't quite un-
derstand v-hether or not he proposes to assist by a rate a
school in which the secular principle is followed, and no
religious instruction given. (Hear.) Such a provision, if
it formed part of the measure, might create considerable
difficulty. It has ha Ino place in any scheme which either
the right hon. gentleman or I have ventured to propose to
the house. We shall, however, be Letter able to judge of
this bill when we have had an opportunity of carefully
examining its various clauses ; and I can only trust that
until that time no hon. gentlemen will raise a prejudice
against a scheme intended by its author as a concession to
objections which he does not himself feel, but by conciliat-
ing which he hopes to be able to take a step towards the
attainment of a proper system of national education. For
my own part I heartily wish the right hon. gentleman
every success, and sincerely trust he may be able to obviate
the objections to which his scheme is liable. (Hear.)
Mr. IL.4.DFIELD regretted that the right hon. gentle-
man (Sir J. Pakington), in his review of the educational
condition of this country, had omitted to notice the
2,500,000 children now regularly receiving instruction,
under upwards of 300,000 teachers, in the Sunday schools
of this country. The right hon. gentleman had hitherto
identified his advocacy of education with a section of the
clergy of the Established Church, but he now suddenly
turned round and threw himself into the urine of the secu-
lar party, whose views he sought to embody in his scheme.
He lately went down to Manchester to hold a conference
with the leaders of that party, and in a two hours' inter-
view with them he professed to have settled this great ques-
tion off hand for the whole world. How powerful must
the spell of the right hon. gentleman's genius be when with
a single wave of his wand he could set at rest the vexed
question that had so long agitated the country.
Sir .f. PAKINGTON_I never said that.
Mr. HADFIELD hal not heard the statement himself;
his only authority for it was the newspaper reports. This
bill would stir up and perpetuate a greater amount of secta-
rian bitterness from one end of the country to the other
than had ever been produced by the agitation about Church
rates or Maynooth. The Roman Catholics would not send
their children to the Protestant schools, and the conse-
quence would be that the Roman Catholic schools would
also have to be supported from the proposed rates. The
hon. member for North Warwickshire (Mr. Spooner) vehe-
mently condemned the vote of 20,000/. a-year frcm the
public funds for the College of Maynooth; but what would
he say to a measure like this, which would probably saddle
the people with taxation to the extent of several hundreds
of thousands per annum for the support of a religion often
described by the hon. gentleman in terms which he (Mr.
Hadfield) would not venture to repeat ? The sacred prin-
ciples of religion were made the football of parties in that
house who ought to set the people an example of respect
for them. He was confident that this bill would be unpo-
pular with the country, and would share, as it deserved to
do, the fate of its unlucky predecessors.
Mr. W. EWART said that the state of education in our
rural districts was positively disgraceful, and that until
the education of the female population of the humblest
ranks of life was better attended to, instead of being, as
at present, grossly neglected, it was vain to expect the
home training of the young to be what it ought to be. The
true system of national education was the voluntary sys-
tem, but that would be best conducted by means of a
rate. If a rate could only be imposed, as in the
case of the Libraries Act, by the declared will of the
majority, was not that essentially a voluntary species of
taxation ? Religious training was, no doubt, the highest
of all educatien, but then religious instruction was per-
fectly compatible with religious freedom. This bill sanc-
tioned doctrinal teaching where it now prevailed, and did
not impose the .secular .system where it did not exist.
If the right hon. gentleman would introduce a clause
providing that, while the religious teaching should be free,
the conductors of a school should nevertheless see that no
child was left without religious instruction of one kind or
another, religious freedom would thereby be maintained
inviolate, and religious instruction at the same time ex-
tended. It was quite right to make this a permissive bill
only, and it was to be hoped that when the good effects of
the system had been shown in one or two instances it
would be adopted generally throughout the country.
Under the Factory Act a certificate of attendance at
school must be produced before they could be employed,
and he was in favour of extending this principle to agri-
cultural labour as well. A crisis had now arrived in the
educational question, and it behoved all parties to unite to
solve it in a conciliatory spirit, for unless some system of
national education were adopted there was but little hope
of preserving our prosperity or of bettering the condition
of the people.
Sir J. PAKINGTON, in reply, protested against Lord
Robert Cecil's version of what he had said. The objection
of Mr. Henley that the measure made no provision for new
schools was quite correct. The bill had been advisedly
drawn in that form, because it had been far more difficult
to keep than to establish schools. (Hear, hear.) He knew
a case in which a very good school-house had been built,
but which had never been opened, because sufficient funds
could not be obtained. (Hear, hear.) He perfectly agreed
with all the right hon. gentleman had said with reference
to the fitness of ignorant men to receive the gospel, but at
the same time the concurrent testimony of all clergymen
was to the effect that the ignorance of the population was
tte greatest difficulty with which they had to contend.
(Hear, hear.)
Leave was then glean to bring in the bill, Mr. Disraeli
and Lord Stanley being associated with the right hon.
gentleman for the purpose of preparing it.
ENCUMBERED ESTATES COURT (IRELAND).
Mr. WHITESIDE moved for returns of any csmmu-
nications addressed to the commissioners for the sale of
encumbered estates in Ireland, or to any of them, relating
to the removal of Baron Richards from the office of chief
commissioner, and of the dates of said communica-
tions, if any ; of the order or communication addressed to
Baron Richards, containing his removal from said court,
and of the date of same ; and, of ale, order or warrant for
the appointment of a third commissioner since the removal
of Bacot; Richards. The hon. and learned gentleman said
that much interest was created on the other aid, of the
Channel by a paragraph which recently appeared in the
public papers, announcing the fact that A certain eminent
lawyer had been appointed to the office lately held by
Baron Richards in the Encumbered Estates Court, at a sa-
lary of 3,000/. a year. It would be recollected that a com-
mission had been issued about two years ago for the pur-
pose of investigating the true state of things in the En:
cumbered Estates Court. That commission recommended
that the business of that court, and its arrears, should be
handed over to the Court of Chancery. A committee was
subsequently appointed, composed of some of the most
eminent men in that house, to consider the matter. It was
stated in that committee, of which the Attorney-General
wan the chairman, that the two Vice-Chancellors could
transact all the business of Chancery done by the four
masters, as well as all the business of the Encumbered
Estates Court with its arrears. The amount of those ar-
rears, however, was never stated, nor was it over thought
necessary to summon over Baron Richards to inform them
of it. It was understood that Baron Richards should be
restored to his place in the Exchequer, and. that the re-
maining commissioners should transact all the business of
the court. No communication was ever made to Dr. Long-
field or Mr. Hargraves of the intentions of the Govern-
ment, in order that they might make arrangements for the
disposal of the business in the absence of Baron Richards.
They, as well as the public generally, only discovered the
fact on finding a notice one morning on the door of the
court that Baron Richards was removed. What was the
discovery then lea le as to the arrears in the learned
baron's court ? It appeared that there were 700 peti-
tions in his office, 500 abstracts of titles lying unread,
and which should be read before any of the estates
relating to them could be put up for sale, and 20) ache-
dales were unsettled which should be settled before a far-
thing of money could be paid in respect to them. The bill
brought in by the Government was one to create two vice-
chancellors, with all their staff, who were to transact all
the bushiest; of the Court of Chancery ; and, according to
report, it appeared that a third commissioner was to be
appointed. He trusted that the house would not suffer a
now place to be created until they knew the whole facts.
The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by making his
motion.

Colonel DUNNE leconded the motion.
Mr. HORSMAN said that the hon. and learned gentle-
man had evidently founded his statements upon a news-
paper report, without taking the pains of ascertaining the
accuracy of them by putting a simple question across the
table. Although the hon. and learned gentleman had now
thought proper to speak in terms of praise of the two corn-
missionen, they have had on former occasions reasons to
complain of the charges which he had brought against
them. The commissioners had performed their duties
faithfully, zealously, ably, and beneficially to the
country as well as to the Government, and the
Government were desirous of giving them every
assistance in their power. As to the arrears in
Baron Richard's office, it appeared to him (Mr. Horsman)
that all the returns rola.' ing to them had been laid before
Parliament. Why, the First Minister of the Crown, in
answerto complaints made against the Encumbered Est Ates
Court, had long ago stated that Baron Richards would be
removed from that court to the seat which he had before
occupied in the Court of Exchequer. Why, the hon. and
learned gentleman himself had frequently complained of the
way business was transacted by the three commissioners,
and stated that two were amply sufficient for the discharge
of the duties. The Attoinay-General had refused to give
any pledge that a third commissioner would not be ap-
pointed. It appeared that his right hon. and learned friend
was entirely in the right, and the hon. and learned
gentleman opposite, as was not unusual with him, entirely
in the wrong. The right hon. gentleman (Mr. Rorsman
was proceeding with his observations, when he was sud_
denly interrupted by
The SPEAKER, who intimated that it was a quarter to
six o'clock, and the discussion was then suspended.
NATIONAL GALLERY OF ART.
Mr VERNON moved for a copy of any correspondence