HC Deb 23 July 1832 vol 14 cc657-69
Mr. Spring Rice

moved that a sum of 37,500l. be granted in aid of the funds to be appropriated to the new system of education in Ireland.

Mr. James E. Gordon

, after eulogising the conduct pursued by those who hitherto had the direction of Irish education, contended that no plan could succeed which did not take the Scriptures as its basis. They might succeed in making the people more intellectual, but, without the Scriptures, they could not make them more moral. They might give the Irish such an extent of information as would enable them to pen Rock notices or Terry Alt letters, but they could not make them useful, moral, and respectable members of the community. Another objection which he had to the proposition was, that Government were introducing this new system of education, not where there was no system of education before (in which case it would have been meritorious), but where there was already a system of education which had flourished to an extent unprecedented in the history of any country. But it had been said, that the Protestant schools were obnoxious to the great majority of the people of Ireland. That was not the case. To the Catholic priesthood they were certainly obnoxious; but he had yet to learn why Parliament was to consult the wishes or succumb to the will of the Catholic priesthood of any country. It was bad policy to interfere with these schools. Adverting to the application which had been made to the Board of Commissioners in Dublin for the new schools, he observed that twenty-nine of those applications were stated to be from persons professing to be Protestant clergymen of the Establishment. The moment that he read this statement, he knew it to be unfounded; and, accordingly, he ascertained on investigation, that of the twenty-nine, fourteen were indisputably Arians, Socinians, and other dissenters, wholly unconnected with the Church Establishment, and that there was every reason to believe, that of the remaining fifteen, not half were Protestant clergymen of the Establishment. It thus appeared, that of the 1,400 Protestant clergymen of the Established Church in Ireland, to the appeal which had been made to them (sanctioned too as that appeal had been by the Metropolitan Archbishop, who was a member of the Board of Commissioners), not fifteen had responded. The new schools were conducted in such a way as to make it very unlikely that they could be attended by Protestant children, although they received the assistance of a Protestant Government. The new plan was founded on the declaration that the preceding system had been exclusive in its character; but it was impossible that any system could be more exclusive than that introduced by his Majesty's Government. So exclusive was it, that of 10,000 Protestant children, not 100 attended. He held in his hand a sheet of the Commandments as prepared for these schools. Some of them were taken from the Roman Catholic Bible, some from the Protestant Bible, and some were compounded of the two. For the Protestant commandment, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image," was substituted the Catholic commandment, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven thing;" the word "thing" being substituted for the word "image," because the latter militated against the practice of the Catholics. Yet this was the commandment which the Protestant children were to have. Again, to one of the Scriptural texts a Catholic note was attached, declaring that it was the Virgin Mary who crushed the serpent's head, and thus ascribing to the Virgin that power and authority which the Roman Catholics attributed to her, but which the Protestants denied her. And this, also, was to be put into the hands of Protestant children. If any one truth were more clear than another, it was that such concessions, and such a system would be the wreck of the Protestant Establishment. Adverting to the numerous petitions which had been presented on the subject, the hon. Gentleman contrasted those which proceeded from Roman Catholics, Unitarians, Political Unions, &c. with those which proceeded from well-educated members of the Establishment, and dwelt upon the superior weight which the latter ought to have with the House. For all these reasons, he must decidedly oppose the grant.

Mr. Andrew Johnston

hoped the prayer of the Petition of the General Assembly of Scotland—namely, "that full liberty should be secured to the Protestant children to read the whole of the Bible without note or comment"—would be attended to. If the right hon. Gentleman would state that such was the intention of his Majesty's Government, he would withdraw his opposition to the grant.

Mr. Stanley

said, the scheme as originally laid down did not prohibit the establishment of a Bible class in every school, if it were desired by the Protestants in attendance. It would be the duty of Protestant ministers to attend to that; but if Government were to insist upon having a Bible class in every school, they would be insisting on a regulation that could not be complied with in many cases, and which would be evaded in others. This was precisely the case with the Kildare-street society. They insisted upon that which drove away the Catholics from the schools by the very name of it, at the same time that evasions were resorted to in many instances, which had the effect of leaving the Protestants without substantial religious instruction. In framing a system of education, it was necessary to look to the circumstances of the country for which it was designed, and a scheme which might perhaps be applicable to England or Scotland, would not succeed in Ireland. In England or Scotland we might possibly insist on the formation of Bible classes in the schools with advantage; but in Ireland such a proposition would drive away the poorest and most ignorant of the people. He denied that the framers of the Government plan of education were averse from, or indifferent to, Scriptural instruction; the schools were not intended to do away with Scriptural education, but to give as much of it as it was possible to prevail upon the people to receive.

Mr. Macnamara

questioned the accuracy of the information of the hon. member for Dundalk, and could state from his own knowledge that the return relative to a school in Clare was incorrect, the name of the party referred to being a forgery.

Mr. James E. Gordon

defended the accuracy of his statement. It could not be expected that he should be acquainted with the handwriting of every schoolmaster in Ireland; nevertheless, he believed that the signature of the honest man in question was authentic.

Mr. Macnamara

said, it was not the name of an honest man, but of an honest woman, and he repeated that the signature was a forgery.

Mr. O'Ferrall

accused the hon. member for Dundalk of misrepresenting the tenets of Roman Catholics in order to induce individuals to vote in a particular way. This was not the first time that the hon. Gentleman had misrepresented the Roman Catholics; he had followed a similar course in former speeches, and had unsuccessfully attempted to show that improper books were used in Catholic schools, under the sanction of the Roman Catholic clergy. In making that particular charge, the hon. Gentleman had merely followed the footsteps of the late member for Drogheda, and with precisely the same result. In each instance, the imputation was satisfactorily rebutted. He did not think it worth while to follow the hon. Member through his statements and opinions, with a view to refute that to which nobody attached the slightest importance. On a former occasion the hon. Gentleman made some assertions with respect to the College of Maynooth, which he (Mr. O'Ferrall) had been blamed for not answering; but if people in Ireland knew the degree of weight which attached to the hon. Member's observations in that House, they would scarcely find fault with any person for passing them by in silence.

Mr. Goulburn

defended the conduct of his hon. friend, and said, that if a comparison was to be instituted between his hon. friend the member for Dundalk, and the hon. Member who had just sat down, his hon. friend the member for Dundalk, would not, in sincerity, in ability, or in conduct, be found inferior to the hon. member for Kildare. He objected to the vote because it went to the support of a system of education which was injurious to the welfare of the community of that Protestant country, The question was, by this vote, to be put on a new footing. It was true that the Legislature had heretofore granted money to Ireland for the purposes of education, but of; that education religion had always been a fundamental principle. There had been a compromise both on the part of the Protestants and the Roman Catholics, and it had succeeded well. But, even if the old system were to be abandoned, that was no reason the proposed one should be adopted. It was a great and a most objectionable change. The Protestant was called upon to sacrifice what had been hitherto regarded as a most important and indeed fundamental principle, and the Roman Catholic was to surrender nothing. Parliament had laid it down that religion should be the basis of public education, and yet, in the plan now brought forward, that grand principle was abandoned. He contended that the plan proposed, instead of smoothing difficulties, and wearing out by degrees opposition, would mark still more distinctly the true professions of the two religions, and perpetuate their conflicting opinions. He was decidedly of opinion, therefore, that the present system was at variance with the original design of grants to Ireland for the purposes of education. Nor were these the only objections; the Protestants of Ireland could not avail themselves of the schools to be established. The ornamental was put before the essential, and such a structure must ever prove unstable. He apprehended the worst consequences from the measure; and he implored the Committee to consider well before it decided in favour of it. If public education was not based on religion, it might make good leaders of Political Unions, good agitators, but it would not make good subjects, or happy men. If the Word of God was to be neglected, there was an end of all the blessed effects which were generally attributed to education.

Mr. Spring Rice

thought the right hon. Gentleman opposite had argued the question in a very temperate and proper tone. He admitted the principles which the right hon. Gentleman avowed; but, on those same principles, he came to a very different conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman contended for the propriety of founding all education on a religious basis; but the House must not, therefore, suffer itself to be deceived into a belief that this was the real question at issue before it, for the propriety of that was admitted by all parties. He was very glad that the tone of the opponents of the system had so much changed, for on no question that had been brought before Parliament, had facts been more grossly perverted, or arguments more strangely exaggerated than on the present question. They heard nothing now of the mutilations of the Scriptures, which used to form so favourite and prominent a topic in the speeches of hon. Gentlemen opposite. It had been said, that the Protestants of Ireland had declared against the system; but he could not attach much weight to the opinions of the Protestants of Ireland, excited as they had been by the most wicked perversion of facts, and when Ireland had so recently been turned into a political arena, apparently for the purpose of raising bad blood between Protestants and Catholics, and fighting the battle of Reform over again. He then referred to a meeting which had lately taken place in Ireland, in the county of Down, at which a noble Lord, for whose private character he professed great respect [Lord Roden was, we believe, the nobleman alluded to] addressed the meeting, and told them that their children were to be bereft of the Word of God; that his Majesty's Ministers denied the Word of God to the people; and it was stated, that at that moment several persons in the multitude held their Bibles up in the air, and declared they would keep them in spite of the Ministers. Could there be a more flagrant imposition on the people of Ireland than such a statement? Here were the Ministers; let any Gentleman come forward and make such a charge if he could sustain it. The hon. member for Dundalk (Mr. James E. Gordon) had said, the old system worked well, and spoke of the numbers instructed at these schools. But it was proved in evidence before the Commissioners of Inquiry, that children were sent from one school to another at the time of inspection, and thus the numbers were materially magnified. He denied that it worked well; for it had produced much of the bad blood which existed in Ireland between Protestants and Catholics. The right hon. Gentleman then showed in detail that the extracts read in the schools during the four days allotted to literary instruction, and the time allotted exclusively to religious instruction, afforded to the pupils as much religious knowledge as could fairly be communicated by any system of education. The Government had thought proper to adopt some of the suggestions of Mr. Leslie Foster, which he thought would be pro- ductive of great advantage. He understood attempts were making to revive the Kildare-street Society. If Gentlemen chose to do this from their private resources, there could be no objection; and he admitted that some good had resulted from the exertions of that Society, more particularly in the north of Ireland.

Colonel Perceval

denied, that in the schools of the Hibernian Society or the Baptist Society, of both of which he was a member, it was made a requisite in candidates for the office of master that they should belong to the Protestant religion. Cæteris paribus, individuals of the Roman Catholic persuasion were invariably preferred.

Sir Robert Inglis

would endeavour to follow the tone and temper of his right hon. friend, the Secretary of the Treasury, which best became the grave and momentous subject before the Committee; nor did he feel any inclination to deviate from it, except with reference to the attack made upon his hon. and gallant friend, the member for Dundalk, by the hon. member for the county of Kildare, whose cool and self-complacent assumption of superiority was unwarranted by any difference in their station, in their talents, or in their character, in or out of that house. Dismissing this subject, because the question ought to be discussed on higher than personal grounds, and without any feeling of personal hostility, he must express his dissent from his right hon. friend's doctrines even in the first principle which he laid down as the rule of debate on this subject. He said that quotations from Scripture ought not to be introduced. Now if it were admitted that on every subject of secular policy, the question ought to be decided by the spirit of the Gospel, he thought, that on a subject directly connected with the education of the people as a religious duty, the direct authority and very words of Scripture might fairly be quoted. He differed, however, from his right hon. friend still more in the practical view of the measure before them. He objected to the Government plan of education upon general grounds applicable alike to this and to any system of education. He thought that no comprehensive scheme of education could be framed for Protestants and for Roman Catholics together, which the nation ought to adopt. Independently of any reasoning on the subject, he had the testimony of several prelates of the Church of Rome, as well as of the Established Church. He would begin with the greatest. Archbishop Magee said, "The one comprehensive scheme of education, I think, under the existing circumstances, to be quite impracticable. The principle upon which I go is this. I am of opinion that so much of what is vital to education is necessarily compromised, in order that there should be a common system, that I would hardly give the name of education to the result." Now, what say the Roman Catholic prelates? In their famous petition to the House of Commons in 1824, they say that schools whereof the master professes a different religion, cannot be resorted to by the children of Roman Catholics; thus requiring from Protestants universally the concession that the schoolmaster must be a Roman Catholic. Then, as to the use of the Scriptures, what says the Roman Catholic primate. Dr. Curtis, in the ninth report?" Any thing read before Catholic children, that is, any thing read to Protestants, in a mixed school, must be taken from the Catholic version." Again: "The conformity must be not only a conformity with the Vulgate, but a conformity with that translation which we have adopted." Dr. Kelly says, "the whole translation shall be in conformity to the Vulgate." Where was the concession here? What was the hope here of recommending a system of united education to the Protestant people of this country? Not only must the schoolmaster be Roman Catholic; not only must the version of Scriptures he Roman Catholic for their own children, but any thing read to other children in their presence must be from the same Roman Catholic version. The right hon. Secretary to the Treasury congratulated the Committee that he had heard no more about the mutilation of the Scriptures, or the exclusion of the Scriptures. Let him be assured that these charges, though in the multitude of objections not formerly repeated, were not abandoned, but were held now by him (Sir R. Inglis) as strongly as ever. His right hon. friend, however, produced in triumph his book of Bible extracts, in proof that the Scriptures formed a part of the general literary instruction under the new system. Now, in the first instance, the doctrines of the Gospel derive their authority from being found in the Word of God, and its moral precepts must not be extracted like maxims of Epictetus, and left to find their own way into the world, as a question whether they may or may not be binding. Children should be taught, in the first instance, the binding obligation of the Bible itself. In the next place, the very principle of selection is one, all the advantage of which is necessarily on the side of the Roman Catholics. A Protestant can gain nothing by the substitution of a selection for the entire volume; a Roman Catholic may gain everything. The Bible and the Bible only, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, constitutes, in the memorable words of Chilling-worth, the religion of Protestants, as distinguished from that of the church of Rome. But it had been sometimes said, the present plan was no more than the adoption of a recommendation of the Commissioners of Irish Education in their famous report drawn up and published many years ago. The answer is, that, admitting the scheme to be the same, yet, in the one case, it was an experiment in addition to every existing institution; in the other, it is an experiment in substitution. Every existing institution of education for the poor is to be destroyed, so far as Government patronage is concerned, and instruction in Popery is now for the first time, since the time of Queen Mary, to be provided by the State. [Mr. Spring Rice said across the table, "Maynooth."] He, (Sir Robert Inglis,) was too well aware of this; and had often expressed his opinion on the subject. It was a direct, but it was an insulated act for instructing people in the doctrines of the Church of Rome. The present system is co-extensive with the realm of Ireland. But, on the subject of Maynooth, he felt, as he formerly said, that the opinion of the best and greatest Minister of latter times, Mr. Percival, was no longer applicable to the continuance of the grant. Mr. Percival held that Maynooth was a legacy bequeathed by the Irish Parliament to the Imperial Legislature, and that we could not alter it; but when it appeared, by a return now on the table, and in his hand, that almost every other institution bequeathed in like manner to the nation at the time of the Union, was curtailed or suppressed, there was no longer the ground alleged for maintaining Maynooth. This however, was not the immediate subject of debate. Believing that it was the duty of this country to give to the people the best religious education in their power, and believing that this object was not attained by the Government plan, he gave it his most decided opposition.

Sir Edmund Hayes

said, the conduct of Lord Roden, which had been alluded to, had been most patriotic, and the charges which had been made against the noble Lord, in the course of the debate, by per- sons whom he was sure would not dare open their lips in accusation in his presence were most unfounded and illiberal. The language used by that noble Lord at the meeting in the north of Ireland he (Sir E. Hayes) had no hesitation in adopting; indeed he was sure that the noble Lord's words would, if necessary, be adopted by almost every respectable person in the district which he had the honour to represent, for they were words of a known well-wisher and supporter of the Protestant institutions of his country. With regard to the question before the House, he was sure the system must fail, for the Protestants of Ireland would never consent to have a book of extracts put into their hands when it was in their power to have the word of their God whole and unmutilated.

Mr. Wyse

said, the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his surprise at the different state of education in England and Ireland, and wondered why lavish grants should be made for education in the latter country whilst none were required for that purpose in England. Did he not know the history of Ireland? Was he not aware that, subsequent to the Reformation, papal laws were passed making it a crime to educate Roman Catholics? Did he not remember the statutes which forbad a Catholic to teach under the penalty of 12l., and which prevented a Catholic father from educating his child at home? Was it surprising that the country should be driven into a state of barbarism under such laws? At length the Protestant Church, finding it necessary to cultivate the public mind, instituted a system of education, under the patronage of Government, which was chiefly intended for the purpose of proselytism. There would be no occasion for grants of money for the purpose of education in Ireland, if the clergy of that country would fulfil the sacred obligations of the oath they took on being inducted into their livings. The celebrated Statute of Henry 8th declared that every clergyman, on accepting a living, should establish and maintain a school for the teaching of English. If the incumbent should neglect to do so he was to be fined, for the first offence, 6s. 8d.; for the second, 20s.; and, upon the commission of the third, his living was to be declared vacant. But how had the Protestant clergy fulfilled their duty in this respect? By the returns it appeared that, in 1788, the number of benefices in Ireland was 828, and the number of schools maintained by Protestant clergymen 361. Some hon. Members seemed to think the plan of education proposed by Government to be hostile to the institutions of the country, and opposed to Christian feeling. If these Gentlemen would read history, they would find that the same system had been acted upon in other countries with eminent success: in the United States of America, for instance, where it could not be denied that the people were as anxious for the propagation of the Gospel as in any other nation of the world. It had also been tried in Silesia, in Wirtemburg, in Bavaria, and in some parts of Hesse, where, after some of the bickerings occasioned by its establishment had subsided, the two sects, who were before in a state of open hostility with each other, had become united in harmony, and exhibited an example to the rest of Europe. In 1788, a report was presented to the Irish Parliament by the then Secretary of State, in which he stated his opinion that the children of Roman Catholics and Protestants should be admitted indiscriminately into schools, and that the clergy of each persuasion should instruct them separately in the principles of religion: he added, that he was informed that this system had been practised with great success at St. Andrew's, Dublin. At that period Protestant ascendancy was in a most flourishing state; thus the system now proposed was not a new one. It appeared from the returns, that the number of Catholic children attending the schools in Ireland, under this system, was greater than that of the Protestants. This could not be a matter of surprise when it was recollected that the poorer class of people in Ireland were almost exclusively Catholics. A better mode of cultivating the intellectual powers of the Irish people could not be devised than the plan adopted by Government, and he hoped the time would soon arrive when Ireland would not only be distinguished for literary superiority among the nations of Europe, but would bear a comparison with any country for moral excellence, without which intellectual powers were an evil. The Catholics asked no increase of their power or numbers—no ascendancy. He would not suffer ascendancy of any kind, any more than he would the infliction of a wrong, and, least of all, would he suffer Catholic ascendancy; but every man who contributed to the maintaining the State should receive some benefit from it. The money levied by the State was not exclusively Protestant or Catholic money, but the money of both communities. When the hon. member for the University of Oxford said, that a distinction ought to be made between Catholic and Protestant Establishments, the Catholics might, in return, say—"We will not consent that a shilling of the Irish revenue shall be devoted to Protestant purposes." But he did not concur in that sentiment; the public funds belonged to the nation at large, and ought to return to the nation at large; and whatever might be written in pamphlets—whatever might be said in speeches—Ireland would never be satisfied till all grants be made upon this general principle.

Mr. Lefroy

denied, that the Kildare-street Society was ever at any time connected with any of the Societies which had been termed by more than one hon. Member as proselytising associations. The Kildare-street Society depended on the subscriptions of its own friends, and always refused to join any proselytising Society whatsoever The only foundation for the allegation was, that a certain number of schools in Ireland were aided by several Societies, of which in most cases the Kildare-street was one. The hon. and learned Member warmly eulogized the character of the Earl of Roden, who had been accused of endeavouring to delude the people of Ireland as to the objects and principles of the system of education in a speech at a public meeting in the north of Ireland. Every word of the address adopted on that occasion he (Mr. Lefroy) was ready, in the most deliberate manner, to repeat and disseminate as his own individual opinion. With regard to the question before the House, it was one on which his (Mr. Lefroy's) opinion had been often expressed. The system lately introduced was not based on the Scriptures, and, as a conscientious upholder of the Protestant religion, he felt bound to give it his utmost opposition. It was impossible to deny that there could be no true system of Protestant instruction which did not take as its groundwork the whole and unmutilated Book of God. He would refer the House to the Bible itself upon this point; but he begged their attention to the declaration of seventeen members of the Protestant Bench in Ireland, and the body of the Presbyterian Synod of Ulster, to that effect. It was said, that the principles of the Kildare-street Society drove from their schools the Roman Catholics. But what was the fact? At the period when the new system of education in Ireland was introduced it was notorious that the schools were for the most part filled with Roman Catholic children. But, supposing even the existence of such an abuse had induced Government to alter the system, was it fair or just to transfer the abuse to the Protestant community? That was the fact. His Majesty's Government, while remedying an abuse, flew into the opposite extreme, and the new system was such that no Protestant could participate in its proceedings. The hon. and learned Member concluded, by repeating his determination to oppose the grant to the utmost.

Colonel Sibthorp

opposed the grant.

The Committee divided:—Ayes 68; Noes 17—Majority 51.

List of the NOES.
Encombe, Lord Perceval, Colonel
Gordon, J. E. Rose, Sir G.
Goulburn, Rt. Hon. H. Ross, H.
Hodgson, T. Ryder, Hon. G.
Holmes, W. Sandon, Lord
Inglis, Sir R. H. Sibthorp, Colonel
Lefroy, Dr. Thos. Young, J.
Lefroy, A. TELLER.
Peel, W. Y.
Perceval, S. Hayes, Sir E.

A sum of 11,161l. was voted to defray the grant to Maynooth College, upon an understanding that the vote should be discussed upon the bringing up of the Report.

House resumed.