HC Deb 21 May 1832 vol 12 cc1135-44
Sir Andrew Agnew

presented a Petition against the Ministerial Plan of Education in Ireland, from the Synod of Galloway, and signed on its behalf by John Milroy, the Moderator. The assembly from which this petition had emanated was very large, and the feeling on the subject by those who attended was nearly unanimous. The petitioners expressed the most decided objection to the principles of the plan, or of any similar plan, which excluded from the schools the use of the Bible. He entirely concurred with the prayer of the petition.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

had received a letter from a clergyman who attended the synod from whence this petition had emanated, which declared that, so far from that petition being carried unanimously, as represented by the hon. Baronet, it was only carried by the casting vote of the Moderator. Although he was anxious not to say anything likely to provoke a discussion, yet he could not allow the petition to be received without expressing his conviction, that the opinion expressed in it as to the principles of the system proposed by Government, was founded on an entire mistake, as were many of the speeches of hon. Members on the same subject. The petition stated, that, by the proposed system, only certain portions of the Scriptures would be allowed to be used. That was a mistake: for there was to be a general system, to embrace a moral, a literary, and a classical education; and in addition to that, there was to be separate religious instruction for children of the different religious persuasions: two days in the week were to be set apart for this purpose, when the Protestant instructor might put into the hands of the Protestant youths the whole of the Bible. The object was not to take the Bible out of the hands of the Protestant, but to prevent the Protestant from having anything to do with the religious instruction of the Catholic, or the Catholic with the Protestant. Only such portions of the Scriptures were allowed to be introduced into the general plan as should be approved of by the General Board, so that, under the plea of instruction, nothing should be introduced to which the clergymen of the different persuasions could object. By attending to this point, a collision of opinions and feelings would be prevented, and the good work of a joint instruction carried on. But as to the objection, that portions only of Scripture were introduced into the general instruction of youth, he was at a loss to imagine how this could be said to act prejudicially against Protestant interests, when, independent of the two days in the week set apart for the purpose of exclusive instruction, there was nothing to prevent it from being extended to the Protestant children on every day in the week, except only during the period set apart for public instruction. If he could for one moment think that this joint system of instruction would in the slightest degree interfere with Protestant children, by instilling Catholic principles into their minds, he should be one of the first to object to the measure; but his conviction was decidedly the contrary, and he thought the benevolent views of Government could not be carried into effect by any other plan; for if the Bible were allowed to be introduced generally among the children of the schools, compelling those of the Catholics to join with the rest, it would act indirectly on these as a system of exclusion, while the object of the Ministerial plan was, to bring the Protestant and Catholic children together, in order that both might partake of its benefits. He was convinced that, so far from violating the religious feelings of the Protestants of Ireland, it would have a directly contrary tendency. He was as fully persuaded as any hon. Member of the great blessings which had been bestowed on Scotland, since the Reformation, by all classes studying the Scriptures; but there was a great difference between the religion and habits of the people of that country and those of Ireland.

Mr. O'Connell

deprecated every attempt to interfere with the religious education of Catholic children. Let Protestants educate their own children as they chose, and all that Catholics asked was, to be allowed the same privilege. The grossest oppression had been practised in compelling Catholic parents, under the penalty of starvation, to send their children to the Kildare-street schools, and against this system he had loudly protested. In the new system the Bible was not used as a class-book for four days in the week, and this was the only restriction imposed, as on Fridays and Saturdays Protestant children were to have the Scriptures, and if they did not then read them it would be the fault of the Protestant instructors. A great deal of cant and hypocrisy had been bestowed on this subject out of that House, one half of which must be attributed to the plans originating with a reforming Ministry, a similar plan having been previously approved of, even by many of the clergy of the Established Church. Some persons rejoiced that the poor Irish peasant was exposed to the risk of excommunication; but he pitied the man who could rejoice at the idea of these miserable beings having only a choice of evils, either quarrelling with their priests, or suffering starvation by quarrelling with their landlords. He was extremely sorry to see the intelligent people of Scotland led astray upon this subject. They had a right to establish a system of education suitable to their own religious opinions; but that system was not necessarily suitable for Ireland. Indeed, it was very unsuitable, and the Scotch had no right to force a system upon Ireland at variance with their religion and habits. The Irish might be wrong, but they sincerely believed that it was not advisable to allow children the unrestricted use of the Bible. They thought it introduced a familiarity inconsistent with the respect due to the sacred volume. Such were their opinions, and, whether they were correct or incorrect, they had a right to be consulted in the education of their children, and he would put it to the hon. Members for Scotland, whether they would allow the clergy of another creed to interfere with their clergymen, and prevent them teaching the children of Scotland according to their own creed and method.

Colonel Lindsay

thought the hon. and learned member for Kerry ought not to have introduced topics into his speech which, from their irritating nature, must necessarily beget angry discussion. He assured the hon. and learned Member, that party feeling was not the source of the opposition which prevailed in Scotland to the Ministerial plan of education for Ireland. The hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright was wrong in charging the parties who had forwarded these petitions with ignorance. The subject had been discussed in several Synods, and they had not come to a hasty or rash conclusion on the question. They had directed their attention particularly to the point alluded to by the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright, and, in their opinion, the Scriptures were improperly excluded. It was said, that Protestant children would have the unlimited use of the Bible on certain days, for which a provision was made; but, then, the teachers might be Protestants, or they might be Catholics, and against this no sufficient provision was made. The fundamental principle of Protestantism was, that all the Scriptures should be read, and, therefore, the Synods were right in their prayer that the Scriptures should not be given to the children of these schools in a mutilated form. He would appeal to the hon. Members from Scotland, whether it had not been understood to have been the invariable practice, since the time of the Reformation, to educate the children of that country from their infancy by reading in the Holy Scriptures, and whether, if there were anything superior in the intellectual condition of the Scotch, it was not to be attributed to the keeping up this system of instruction—that of training up their children, from their earliest years, in the reading of the Scriptures: and seeing the good effects which had followed that system, it was not to be wondered at that they had such an attachment to it, and expressed themselves in their petitions so strongly in its favour.

Mr. James Johnstone

must deny, that the principles of the plan, as the hon. and learned member for Kirkcudbright had said, were mistaken in Scotland. His countrymen had had an opportunity of examining the measure, and had arrived at the conclusion, that it was calculated to injure the interests of Protestant children in Ireland. The parties who had forwarded these petitions had not been in the slightest degree influenced by political motives; and the hon. and learned member for Kerry had been equally mistaken when he said, that the intelligence of the Scotch people had been led astray on this subject; their reputation for intelligence stood on too high ground to be affected by such observations. The hon. and learned Member had asked, if the Irish were to interfere with the system of the education of the Scotch, how would it be liked? Such interference in Scotland would make very little progress. It was from feeling the benefits of their system that the Scotch were so anxious to extend it to others; and he should be sorry that, knowing its good effects, any of his countrymen should be found opposing these petitions. They considered it the duty of a Protestant Government to support a system which would not interfere with the fundamental principle on which Protestantism was founded—the reading, unmutilated, the Holy Scriptures. This was a most important petition, and would, he trusted, be received by the House with that respect which was due to the reverend body from whence it emanated.

Sir Robert Bateson

said, the hon. member for Kirkcudbright had commenced his observations by saying, that those who opposed this measure were all in the dark as to the main principle of the measure introduced by Government. Did that hon. Member mean to say, that the Synod of Ulster, and other parts of Ireland, were such a set of blockheads that they did not understand the nature of the system proposed by Government, and that they were so ignorant as to render it necessary that they should be enlightened by the superior wisdom of that hon. Member? He must tell that hon. Member that, notwithstanding his explanation, he had thrown no new light on a subject so well understood. The hon. and learned member for Kerry had also said, that the opposition which had been raised against this Government measure was founded in cant and hypocrisy, and a political feeling. He would take it upon himself, however, to deny positively and most indignantly that such motives had, in the slightest degree, influenced the opponents of the measure. He was waiting for an opportunity of presenting a similar petition, which was signed by many Whigs, as well as Tories. The opinions of these petitioners were founded in truth; and, therefore, the opposition to the measure would daily increase in strength, and would never rest until it succeeded. The system of the Kildare-street Society was one in which all religious persuasions were brought together without interference on the score of religion—it was working well; but was now to be extinguished by an exclusive system. With respect to Irish landlords interfering with their tenantry in the way described by the hon. and learned member for Kerry, he threw that imputation back with all the scorn it so well deserved; and he defied the hon. and learned Member to produce a single case in support of his imputation. It appeared to be the fashion of the present day to excite mob-hostility against the gentry of the country. It was a system which had been acted on out of doors, and appeared, on the resent occasion, to be acted on within doors: he deprecated these observations, which tended to dissever the ties of society. The landlords in the north of Ireland were well disposed and charitable, and had the interests of their tenantry at heart quite a much as the hon. and learned member for Kerry, or any of those who supported his opinions.

Mr. Keith Douglas

asserted most confidently, that this subject had been taken up by the clergy of Scotland with the purest spirit and feeling as to the measure itself. No men in this kingdom were actuated less by political feelings on all occasions than they; and his hon. friend, the member for Kirkcudbright, must, he was sure, be misled. The sentiments of the clergy of Scotland were felt and expressed on these simple grounds; that they, from the sanctity of their office, and being appointed to superintend education in Scotland, had felt it their duty to come forward on this occasion, because they considered the principles introduced by Government, in the proposed system of education for Ireland, in decided opposition to the principles they, as Protestants, thought it essential to support. It was, therefore, wrong to attribute the opposition of the Scotch clergy to political feelings.

Mr. Cutlar Fergusson

assured the hon. Member, that he had not charged the clergy of Scotland with doing anything on the grounds of hypocrisy and cant, as attributed to them in the observations made by the hon. member for Kerry; nor had he presumed to say, that he had thrown a new light upon the subject. He had simply said, that the question was not properly understood, and that persons were wrong who said, that only a portion of the Scriptures was allowed to be read. He believed that the opposition of the Scottish clergy arose from sincere piety, and it was not his intention to cast any reflection on that reverend body, for whom he entertained as sincere a respect as the hon. Baronet.

Mr. Shaw

should not have risen but for the hon. member for Kirkcudbright, who had a second time made the same erroneous statement with reference to the real objections to the proposed plan of education. Because he himself had misconceived the grounds of opposition to it, he imagined that those who opposed the system laboured under misconception. No person could be so absurd as to suppose that the Government meant to deprive Protestant children of the power of reading the Bible out of the schools, although they might be indifferent to the subject; but what the opponents of the measure protested against was, that the Bible, in its simple and entire form, was excluded from the schools properly so called, that was to say, when the children were assembled in them for the purposes of national education; and that extracts made by this new motley Board, were to be substituted for the whole Bible. The hon. member for Kerry was mistaken in saying that the heads of the Established Church had agreed to such a plan as this. They did not object, nor did he, to extracts from Scripture, properly made use of; but they never countenanced the idea of their superseding the use of the whole Scripture; and, so far from the former system having led to discord, and failed, as stated by the hon. Member opposite, he verily believed, that it was because it proceeded so har- moniously and successfully, that the Government raised an antagonist system to it, at the dictation of that irresponsible power which had for some time governed the Government of Ireland.

Mr. O'Connell

I am much pleased that the hon. member for Dublin has at last admitted, that the Protestants of Ireland are not excluded from the use of the Scriptures, as has been repeatedly asserted by the opponents of the present system. But the sole objection of the hon. Gentleman appears to be, that the Catholic children are not obliged to submit to a system which is not sanctioned by the teachers of their religion. Why, this is the same old species of domination which has been so long exercised over the people of Ireland by the faction to which he belongs—a power which God or nature never intended they should possess, and which they never shall exercise again in Ireland. The hon. member for Londonderry, in the course of his violent harangue, thought proper to indulge in animadversions upon me of a very unwarrantable character. The hon. Gentleman is perfectly welcome to abuse me; his censure is much more pleasing to me than his praise, because I should at once begin to suspect the integrity of my own conduct, if I should, by any chance, have the misfortune to be encumbered with the hon. Member's commendations. The hon. Member has talked of the synod of Ulster, and he asked, are they to be considered as a parcel of blockheads, incapable of forming an opinion upon the subject of Irish education. I will tell the hon. member for Londonderry, that the Catholic clergy of Ireland are just as capable of forming an opinion upon what system of education is best suited to their own flocks as the synod of Ulster can possibly be; and, notwithstanding the assertion which has been made, I again deny the right of those gentlemen to dictate any system of education which is opposed to the feelings and the consciences of the people. But the fact is, a large body of the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland are favourable to the Government plan of education. In proof of this, it is only necessary for me to refer to the petition recently presented to this House, in favour of the Government plan of education, from the seceding synod of Ulster; a most respectable, moral, and intelligent class of Christians; and surely the opinions of this society are entitled to respect and con- sideration? The hon. Gentleman has thought proper to state that I have charged the landlords of the north of Ireland with arbitrary and oppressive conduct. I have made no such charge against the landlords of Ireland as a body. But there are instances of individual landlords who have been guilty of grievous oppression, and I am ready to prove what I assert. The case of Mr. Synge alone, is quite enough to justify all I have said. That gentleman turned out eleven families to starve in one day, because the parents refused to send their children to his schools; and it has been stated by my hon. friend, the member for Clare, in this House, that Mr. Synge's conduct was the origin of the disturbance which has taken place in that county. One important fact has, however, been elicited in the course of this discussion, which is to be found in the speech of the hon. member for Dublin, namely, that the new system of education does not exclude the Protestants of Ireland from the reading of the Scriptures. The hon. Member distinctly admitted, that the Protestant children have two days in each week allotted them for the reading of the Scriptures, whole and unmutilated. This is a fact which cannot be denied. The Protestant children have two days in the week for the perusal of the entire Scriptures, and selected portions are read every other day in the school; but, notwithstanding all this, it has been stated in petitions to this House, over and over again, and repeated by hon. Members, that by the plan of education brought forward by his Majesty's Ministers, the Protestant children are excluded from scriptural education. I must again repeat, what I have often before stated, that never was there a subject in which so much cant and hypocrisy were mixed up, as in the very question which forms the subject of this evening's discussion.

Mr. James E. Gordon

felt, that he should not be acting as an honest man, or doing his duty towards an absent and a calumniated friend, if he did not state to the House some facts, in answer to the aspersions which the hon. and learned Member had cast upon Mr. Synge. The hon. and learned Member said, that the conduct of Mr. Synge was the cause of the disturbances in Clare. He had lately had occasion to contradict the same assertion. He did not wish to deal in recrimination, or he could easily state who was the original cause of the disturbances in Clare. Mr. Synge, a most respectable individual, possessing considerable landed property, felt it his duty, as a Protestant, to promote the education of the children on his estate. The parents were most anxious that their children should attend his schools, but the Roman Catholic priesthood denounced those schools, and compelled the people to withdraw their offspring from those places of instruction. It was perfectly true, that Mr. Synge ejected some families for not sending their children to school; but, so far from turning them out to beggary, he provided for them, and rendered their situation more comfortable than it was before. This humane individual was fired at, and several balls lodged in his body. The cause of this murderous attack was the atrocious conduct of a stipendiary priest, who stood up in his chapel, and denounced Mr. Synge as a kidnapper for the devil. This was sufficient to point him out as an object upon which the assassin's weapon was to be employed. The influence of the priesthood was at that moment directing the assassin's knife, and sending hundreds of persons to a premature grave.

Petition to be printed.

Back to