HC Deb 15 July 1861 vol 164 cc883-903
MR. BUTT

said, he rose to move, as an Amendment to the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, the following Resolution:— That, in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient, in distributing the Grant for the purpose of Irish Education, to enforce the rule of refusing aid to all schools in which religious teaching is made a part of the general instruction of the School. His object was to raise the question, in which the people of Ireland felt a deep interest, namely, whether in the education in Ireland aided by grants from the State they should not enjoy the same freedom for religious instruction, whether Protestant or Roman Catholic, which existed in England. The sum they were now asked for on account of Irish education was no less than £285,000 and the more liberal the House was in voting money for that purpose, the more necessary it was that Irish Members should take care that it was applied in the way intended by Parliament.

MR. SPEAKER

said, it was a rule of the House that a Vote could not be discussed when the House was not in Committee of Supply.

MR. BUTT

said, he did not wish to discuss the amount of the Vote; but in discussing the general system of Irish national education he was entitled to say that a very large sum of money was asked for carrying out that system. The grant had grown up from £30,000 a year to nearly £300,000, and under the system a sort of educational corporation had arisen, which did many things not originally intended to be done. He did not mean to deny that much good had been accomplished in Ireland by the grant for popular education. It had, undoubtedly, given education to a number of the people who without it would not have received that education. But to understand the precise nature of the good which had been done it was necessary to recur to the past history of education in Ireland. Immediately after the Revolution the Roman Catholic people of Ireland were prohibited by law from education. It was not merely that no assistance was given to them, but it was made felony for a Roman Catholic priest to instruct his people, or for a Roman Catholic schoolmaster to teach the youth of his faith. Before the Union the Irish Parliament granted money liberally for education, but it was voted exclusively for Protestant education, and for the purpose of converting the Irish Roman Catholics to Protestantism. It failed entirely in that object, and Protestantism rather fell away than was increased by the course taken. The next step was the adoption of the Kildare Street system, under which grants were made to schools—Roman Catholics as well as Protestant—provided that the Scriptures were read in the schools. In Catholic schools the Douay version was used, and, at first, the Roman Catholics were supporters of the system; but they subsequently became very much opposed to it, and in 1831 the Earl of Derby, then Chief Secretary of Ireland, instituted the present system. For some time the Roman Catholics received the education given under it without objection; but almost all the rules originally laid down by the Earl of Derby had been departed from, and a new system had grown up, to which both the Protestant and Roman Catholic populations objected. The objections of the Roman Catholics had been stated by their bishops, and they were, in fact, that a system was required of which religion should be a part. The Protestant part of the population also objected to the plan, and in April last one of the most influential meetings ever held in Dublin took place of the Church Education Society, at which the present system was objected to, and a new one asked for which should command the confidence of all classes of Her Majesty's subjects. The system required was that which prevailed in England. It had been said, and, perhaps, would be said again, that the existing system had a hold on the hearts and affections of the Irish people. Well, he believed anything that gave the Irish people education would have a hold upon them. But he asked the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, if he could find a single Irish Member who would rise in his place and say that his constituents approved of the present system? Then, if that were so, to persevere in the system was to go on enforcing a rule against the wishes of the whole Irish population, and maintaining it in defiance of the whole people. What was the object of this? Was it that the Government wished to be the guardians of the faith of Roman Catholics? The bishops and clergy of that faith told them that they did not require it. Would the Government say they wished to guard the faith of Protestants? The Protestant clergy said they did not require it, and asked for another system. It might, indeed, be advanced by those who held the contrary opinion that the number of the schools in connection with the system had been increased, but he would remind hon. Members that the Kildare Street Society, when undoubtedly proceeding in opposition to the wishes of the great majority of the people of Ireland, made the same boast. Again, he would probably be told that the system promoted combined education. Of all the delusions that were ever attempted to be palmed off upon the public that was the greatest. In proof of that statement he might refer to the return which he had obtained, giving the proportion of Roman Catholics and Protestants in the schools supported by Government grants. It appeared that there were a large number of schools in which there was but one solitary Roman Catholic on the books, with from 100 to 300 Protestants; and, on the other hand, 300 to 400 Roman Catholics and only a solitary Protestant on the books. And yet it had been represented that in 3,000 schools, comprising 300,000 children, united education was being imparted. In the return 478 schools were put down as giving an united education simply on the ground that one solitary member of the minority appeared on the books; 283 because there were two; and 286 because there were three. He might also point out the fact, that although the principle of inducing the members of the different religious persuasions to act conjointly as patrons to the schools was sought at the outset to be fostered, the efforts made in that direction had not been attended with success. Now that these facts had been revealed no one would venture to say that there existed anything like united education in Ireland under the system; and he asked why, under the circumstances, it should be considered necessary to impose any restriction upon religious instruction? In England there was no rule imposing such a restriction. A Roman Catholic in England could send his children to a school where they would be brought up under the superintendence of his own clergy. It was not so in Ireland. The national peculiarity of the Irish people of all persuasions was that a feeling of piety mingled itself with all their transactions. A reverence for religion prevailed in their outward demeanour to an extent unknown in other countries. Yet it was to the Irish people that they applied a rule which excluded from Government aid all schools which made religion a part of their education. Experience showed that it was vain to set ourselves against the feelings of the nation. The Irish heart burnt for freedom of religious instruction, and by granting that boon they would increase the advantage of the national system, extend education to a class which now refused it, make it more beneficial to those who received it, and strengthen the ties which bound the Irish people to the British Parliament and the British Crown.

MR. MACEVOY

seconded the Motion.

Amendment proposed, 'To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'in the opinion of this House, it is inexpedient in distributing the Grant for the purposes of Irish Education to enforce the rule of refusing aid to all Schools in which religious teaching is made a part of the general instruction of the School,' —instead thereof.

MR. LEFROY

said, he was induced to take a part in this discussion more in consequence of the tone of triumph in which his right hon. Friend the Secretary for Ireland had lately proposed the grant for the National Board, than from anything in the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal. The hon. Member had stated many facts which could not be denied, whilst the observations with which he brought them before the House led to inferences in which he (Mr. Lefroy) could by no means concur. It would not now be necessary to discuss the several topics in that speech, as the hon. and learned Member said he did not propose to take a division, but only to express his views for future consideration. With respect to the success of the National System in Ireland, which he must say had been so extravagantly extolled in a late debate by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland, though it could not be denied that a certain degree of benefit had been conferred by the distribution of so large an annual grant, yet he maintained (on evidence that was produced on the Motion of the hon. Member for Youghal) that the advantages were small in proportion to the sum expended, whilst the Church Education Society, on a small voluntary grant, effected much more in proportion, and carried on united education to a much greater extent. He (Mr. Lefroy), therefore, maintained that this society was entitled to a share of a grant that was called a National one. He could not but feel how much the opinion, even in this House, respecting the usefulness of the National System must have changed, when he recollected that, on one occasion, when he expressed a doubt as to the benefit of that system he was violently attacked in succession by three right hon. Gentlemen, who had filled the office of Secretary of Ireland under different Governments, each contradicting his statement, and advocating the system. He would be curious to know how many independent Members of the House would this evening maintain the opinions of these right hon. Gentlemen? Since then the constitution of the Board which presided over its working had been greatly altered, and the religious books which had at that time been used in the schools had been discontinued. The result was that the members of the Board, who had enjoyed the confidence of the country—he would not say of the Protestants merely, but of the country generally—had felt it their duty to retire from their offices. Dr. Whately, the Archbishop of Dublin, had so retired because, as he himself declared, the principles on which the system was founded had been abandoned; because books, such as the Evidences of Christianity, and books of religious poetry which had received the approval of the Roman Catholic Archbishop Murray, had been withdrawn from the schools; and because, in a school in which there were ninety-nine Protestant boys and only one Roman Catholic, if that Roman Catholic boy objected to the reading of a particular book that book could no longer be used. Lord Justice Blackburn and Mr. Baron Greene had also retired from the Board for similar reasons. He should confess, however, that he did not wish to see the Educational Board wholly destroyed in Ireland. They should have the National Education in that country administered through a Board, or else they should imitate the system which was adopted in England. In Ireland, where money was granted for the promotion of education, without any local subscriptions, a Board was, he believed, the fittest body for presiding over the employment of the fund. The English system was denominational, and the sums given by the State were in proportion to the sums raised by private subscriptions; and under such a system books which taught particular creeds were used in the schools. He believed that such a practice would work most unfavourably for the Protestants in the south of Ireland, where a large majority of the population were Roman Catholics. Besides, he feared if the public grants were to bear any proportion to the amount of the local contributions the great work of popular education would be neglected in many of the poorer Irish districts. He could, however, assure the Government that the changes which had been recently introduced into the working of the system in Ireland had wholly deprived it of the confidence of the great mass of the Protestants of that country. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in presiding upon a recent occasion over a meeting of the British and Foreign School Society, expressed his belief that the best education for this country was a Scriptural education; and the late Dr. Chalmers, as also William Allen Gurney and Lord Brougham, had strenuously advocated the necessity of placing the Word of God in the front of all our teaching. He (Mr. Lefroy) honoured those opinions as worthy of a great and enlightened British statesman, and asked the noble Lord to extend them to Ireland, where the authority of the Scriptures was equally acknowledged. He should not think of stopping the grant, but he would never cease to press on the House and the Government the importance of the Bible being made the foundation of all teaching. He thanked the House for the patience with which they had listened to him.

MR. MACEVOY

said, that the question under consideration was one of great importance, and he regretted that the hon. and learned Gentleman had not brought it forward at an earlier period of the Session when there would have been a better opportunity for discussion, and obtaining the real opinions of hon. Member upon it. The noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had admitted that a Ministry which, as regarded England, inscribed "Education without religion" upon its banners would not have a long duration. It was a matter of regret that the Irish Members were not sufficiently powerful in that House to compel the adoption of that system of education in Ireland which the noble Lord knew was the only one that would be tolerated in England. It was clear from their Report that the Commissioners who had so ably conducted an inquiry into education in England, were opposed throughout to the mixed system as it existed in Ireland. It was impossible to read one page of their Report without finding it stated that nothing but the denominational system could secure a religious education. That was stated with regard to England, and why should a different system be forced on Ireland? Now, what was the actual case with regard to the national schools in Ireland? They professed to afford combined literary and separate religious instruction; but would the House believe that the way that was done in the case of 3,500 schools, or three-fourths of the whole that received aid from the State, was by making it optional with the patrons of the schools whether there should be any religious instruction whatever given in them. Then, with regard to the remaining 1,688 schools, which were vested in the Commissioners, one of the rules stated that in the event of any child objecting to religious instruction being given during school hours, the Commissioners retained the power of saying whether or not religious instruction should be given. So that, in point of fact, there was no religious instruction necessarily given in those schools at all. There were 91,742 Protestant and Dissenting children in the national schools, of whom 83,742 were in the province of Ulster alone. That left 8,000 Protestant and Dissenting children to represent the mixed system in the other three provinces. Those 8,000 children were divided among 3,541 schools, which would give two and a half of those children to each school, and, as the attendance was only one-third of the number nominally on the roll, there was in reality less than one child to represent the mixed system in those provinces. Was it not preposterous, therefore, to maintain that the system was a success? Why the system was tolerated at all in Ireland was owing to the fact that the majority of the Catholics were the poorest portion of the population; therefore, to expect to establish a national system on the voluntary principle would be to expect an impossibility. It was not true, however, to say that voluntary efforts were wholly wanting. He had moved for a return, which, for some reason, was not given, of the money which had been voluntarily subscribed for educational purposes, his object being to show that it was entirely unfair and untrue to state that, whereas in England popular education was mainly supported by voluntary subscriptions, in Ireland it was entirely a matter of State aid. Three-fourths of the schools, or, as he believed, a greater proportion, had been built by the people themselves, while the State had not contributed a farthing; but in England vast sums were given to aid in the building of schools. But if the mixed system could be objected to on the grounds which he had stated, how much greater objection must there be to the model schools? The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) said the other night that it was understood in 1834, when these model schools were first suggested, that there should be twenty-six of them —one in each of the twenty-six districts into which Ireland was divided for educational purposes. But the schools had not been built in accordance with that understanding, some of them having been built close together. But if it were objectionable that children should be brought up in schools where all religions were mixed, the principle was still more objectionable in the case of those training schools where the persons were to be instructed who were to educate the rising generation. The Commissioners stated that religious differences bore more on the education of the teachers that on that of the children. There was a feeling in Ireland that it was perfectly useless to bring forward such matters, that Parliament was not disposed to extend the same consideration to the feelings and prejudices—if they would have it so—of the people of Ireland as to those of the English people. It was very unfortunate that such a thing should be constantly told to the people; but it would be still more unfortunate if the course which Parliament took should be such as could lead to no other possible conclusion. He hoped the opinions of the Government on the subject would not be long sanctioned by Parliament. He thought they had been deceived, and he was certain the more the subject was discussed the more clearly it was shown that it was impossible to combine literary and religious education in Ireland. He would conclude by expressing a hope that at no distant date Parliament would give such a declaration on this subject as would be in accordance with the feelings, not only of the Roman Catholics of Ireland, but also of their Protestant fellow subjects.

MR. CARDWELL

said, he would not enter upon a long argument with his hon. and learned Friend, who would, he trusted, not take the sense of the House on the Motion, but allow it to go into Committee of Supply. The hon. Member for the University (Mr. Lefroy) was an original member of the Church Education Society, and he desired to establish a claim on the part of that society to participate in the grants. But was the hon. Member prepared to concede the same claim to all other societies which could establish the same Parliamentary grounds, and which refused to recognize the infallibility of his opinion? If so, there was no alternative but a denominational system for Ireland. Did he, on the other hand, mean to say that the general principle of education in Ireland was to be analogous to that of the Irish Boards, but with one exception—namely, that the most wealthy religious body, with the smallest number of poor to educate, should benefit as against the poorest community, who had the largest proportion of children to educate? If the hon. Gentleman did not contend for the denominational system he had put himself out of court on the present occasion. The real truth was, that at the beginning of this century a Committee was appointed composed of dignitaries of the Establishment and men of the first consideration in Ireland, who recommended the application of this denominational principle. For a time that experiment was tried, but with so little success that in 1824 a very small proportion of children, and especially of Roman Catholic children, were under instruction, and a new Commission was appointed to inquire into the causes of that disappointment. That Commission made a Report, and in 1828, and again in 1830, seriously recommended to Parliament the adoption of their recommendations. In 1831 those recommendations were embodied in the memorable letter of the Earl of Derby, which was the foundation of the present system of education in Ireland. It had been stated that the education given in these schools was a secular education, and the Motion implied that religion was excluded from the common education of the school. That, however, was erroneous, for any one who would go into the schools, or read the popular works published by the Board, would know that that which was professed by the Earl of Derby at the beginning, and by Archbishop Murray and his colleagues in the earliest Report of the Board, was the principle of the system—namely, a common education in which all Christians could participate during school hours, and that during the other hours the patron of the school, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, should have the fullest liberty to give his own instruction to the pupils, provided he did not insist on the attendance of those children whose parents objected. It was by adhering to that just and equitable principle that the complete failure of 1830 had been converted into a great and signal success. He should always insist that the increase in the number of schools, from a very few in 1830 to 5,600 schools in 1861, and those annually increasing, was a proof that Parliament had discovered the means so long desired of giving the greater portion of the poor of Ireland the benefits of a common Christian education and of separate religious instruction. He believed that the Earl of Derby had never at any period of his life departed from the principle he had laid down in 1831, and what at this day was the guiding principle of education in Ireland. It was said that the principle had been changed. The application of the principle might might wisely be changed according to the exigency of the times, but no one could contend that these two principles had been infringed—the imparting an excellent education during school hours to every denomination, and at other hours a distinctive religious education, which no child was to participate in against the will of his parents or guardians. These principles were adopted originally by the Roman Catholics. In 1840 the Presbyterians became attached to the Board. The Wesleyans followed in 1859. In 1860 the Primate of Ireland gave his accession to the Board in that memorable letter, in which he recommended the clergy, when they had the means of supporting their own schools, to do so, but to avail themselves when it was necessary of the assistance of the State. The House of Commons had distinctly supported the present system by decisive majorities; and he trusted that it would long continue to receive the support of Parliament and to diffuse the benefit of a sound and extended education throughout Ireland.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, he did not wish to prolong the discussion, or to prevent the House from going into Supply. But, as he had taken a course on the question not altogether the same as that adopted on his side of the House, he could not allow the observations of the right hon. Gentleman to pass wholly without notice. He had always confessed the great advantages conferred upon Ireland by the system of National education, with all its imperfections. He had, moreover, always felt the force of the argument constantly used by the Government against any change—namely, that the system was so nicely balanced that if disturbed in the slightest degree, for every scholar brought in, a dozen or two would be driven away—that he had always refrained from pressing any modification of the system. He had entertained no more earnest desire than to see whether, either by some alteration in the practice of the Board, or by the removal of the conscientious scruples entertained by those who were opposed to the Board, it would not be possible for the opponents of the present system to come in and acquiesce in the rules of the Board. In that state of things, after a number of the clergy, influenced by the advice of the Primate, had joined the Board, it occasioned no small surprise to find that the Government, who had declared again and again the utter impossibility of making any change in the system in favour of any party, effected some of the greatest changes ever made since the system was first established, almost without notice, and certainly without consultation with the persons interested. The changes he referred to were chiefly those in the constitution of the Board, in respect to the books used by the Board, and to the mode in which the system was to be applied to the nun's schools. Did the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland believe that, if the changes made since the letter of the Primate had been made before, that letter would ever have been written? After that letter a number of clergy gave in their adhesion to the system; but that process had since been checked, and it was perfectly vain now to hope that it would go on. So much, then, for the Established Church. He would next take the case of the Presbyterians, for the House had been misled by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary's statement that that body were firmly attached to the Board, approved the rules, and were satisfied with all that was done. Within the last ten days there had been a meeting of the General Assembly in Ireland, and a committee of that body reported that they had waited on the Chief Secretary in reference to these changes, urging that they entailed a departure from the original plan set forth in Lord Stanley's letter. Thereupon a motion was made for the appointment of a Committee of Vigilance, and the motion was unanimously assented to by the General Assembly. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had also referred to the Methodists, who, in 1859, taking things as they then stood, put their schools under the Board; but they were now entirely of the same opinion as the Presbyterians as to these changes, which they deemed to constitute a radical alteration of the system of education, and which they considered ought to be watched with jealousy and anxiety. He believed that if these changes had taken place two years ago not one congregation of Methodists would have joined the Board. With regard to other portions of the populations interested in Irish education, he thought that a strong proof had been given in the course of these discussions that Protestant and Roman Catholic Gentlemen on both sides of the House were of opinion that the state of affairs in connection with the Board was anything but satisfactory, and he conceived that it would have been better for the right hon. Chief Secretary to have abstained from that triumphant and jubi- lant tone which he assumed when he proposed the present Vote. He sincerely believed the changes in question made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had thrown back for a quarter of a century the course of education in Ireland, and the chance of procuring a system acceptable to all parties.

MR. MORE O'FERRALL

said, that as one of the earliest supporters of the system, he wished to address a few words to the House. He would take up the history of education in Ireland where the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had left it. He (Mr. O'Ferrall) was for a long time a staunch supporter of the Kildare Street system. But at length the proselytizing spirit grew so strong in it that he withdrew from it the schools that were under his care, and very generally the system was abandoned. In 1831 they had the letter of Lord Stanley, which proposed to establish a system of education in which there should not be a suspicion of proselytizm. The first step, however, in the carrying out of the new plan was to appoint five Protestant Commissioners and two Roman Catholics, to superintend the education of 7,000,000 of Roman Catholics and 1,600,000 Protestants. Then as to the books which were issued by the Commission, it should be borne in mind that they were compiled exclusively by Protestants, and in progress of time there had been sent out some books most objectionable to Roman Catholics—among others, the Archbishop of Dublin's Evidences of Christianity. It was only after a number of other circumstances had come to his knowledge that he found he could no longer place confidence in the system. Something had been said about the adhesion of the Presbyterians. That adhesion was given because a particular rule on which the Roman Catholics relied as a security against proselytism was mitigated and changed to obtain the support of the Presbyterians. The rule had been that when religious instruction was given children of a different religion should be obliged to leave the school; but it was changed so that it stood that no child should be forced to remain while religious instruction was given. The effect of that was shown in the return, which showed that a large number of Catholic children were receiving Protestant instruction in Protestant schools. Again, the evidence given before a Committee of the House of Lords proved that it was no uncommon practice under the altered rules to give Protestant instruction to the children in school hours. Further, it had been shown that the system had become completely a Government system, and was more under the authority of the Government than any other department of the State. The House and the country ought to be jealous of placing the whole of the education of the people in the hands of the Government; and yet with regard to education in Ireland the Government could do in that what he would defy them even to attempt in any other public department. It was also a matter of fact that, while the religion of the Scotch people was carefully guarded, and the schoolmaster in that country was obliged to take an oath that he would inculcate no doctrines at variance with those of the Church of Scotland, no such safeguard was provided in the case of the Roman Catholic or Protestant children who received instruction under the National System in Ireland. So far was that from being the case, it was, he believed, an undoubted fact that there were 1,200 children in Ireland being taught doctrines different from the religion professed by their parents. He had further to state that strong objections were entertained to the model schools which had been established by the Commissioners—or rather by the Government, for the Commissioners counted for nothing—on the part of Roman Catholics, and, he believed, on the part of members of the Protestant persuasion, these schools being vested in the Board, who appointed the masters and monitors, and who could introduce into them precisely such books as they pleased. Wherever the Government had put one of these schools the Roman Catholic Bishops had put a Christian Brother school, so that in many parts of Ireland schools were established on the voluntary system, supported by subscription, in order to counteract the effects of the Government schools, over which the Roman Catholics had no control. It might be well to teach the theory of agriculture in the parochial schools, but the Government, not satisfied with that, had got a model farm near Dublin, which was a curiosity in its way, for established facts were there treated as matters of experiment. The model agricultural schools and the model agricultural farms were sources of great expense. He should not object to the cost if the schools and farms conferred benefit, but they did not do so, because the boys were so well treated, their living was so good, and they were so comfortable in every respect, that they would never go back to the country. If they became stewards they were hard to please; but the fact was, he believed, that hitherto the pupils had all emigrated, and they had proved most successful emigrants. In reality, therefore, we were spending enormous sums of money for the benefit of agriculture, not in Ireland, but in America and other countries. The agricultural schools and farms, in short, were perfectly useless, and the best proof of their inutility was that the balance-sheet was always against the public. He could not help thinking that if the salaries of the parochial schoolmasters were raised, and if they were required to teach the theory of agriculture, the model schools and farms might be dispensed with. He was glad to see an inclination on the other side to admit—even the hon. Member for Dublin University had admitted — that there were such persons in Ireland as Roman Catholics. No Roman Catholic could object to Protestants being allowed to teach Protestantism in their own schools, and he for one had not the least objection that in Roman Catholic schools the Bible should be read under Catholic superintendence; he thought that would be a great advantage. But what he protested against was that a person of a different religion should expound the Scriptures to Roman Catholic children as he pleased, and not in a Roman Catholic sense. Churchmen, Presbyterians, and Roman Catholics should be allowed to teach their own religion to their own children, and all that State had to do was to see that within the schools receiving Government aid the secular education was a good education, that nothing was taught prejudicial to the laws and constitution, and that loyalty and all the duties belonging to a good subject were inculcated by the masters.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL

Sir, as several hon. Gentleman have alluded to me in the course of this debate, I may be permitted to say a few words. I certainly have maintained, with respect to England, that it is a great advantage to give a religious as well as a secular education to the poor, whether the schools are supported either wholly or partly by the State or not. That is a principle which I have always held; and, indeed, as a member of the British and Foreign School Society, I could have held no other. In England the National Church proposes reading the Scriptures in school daily. The British and Foreign School Society also proposes that the Scriptures should be read daily. The Wesleyans say that the whole of the Bible should be read. The Congregational and other societies say the same. The whole of these bodies, then, comprising the great majority of the people of this country, are in favour of religious education. The Established Church, it is true, think that the Catechism should be taught likewise; but all parties agree as to the general character of the religious education to be given in schools. I think it is a great blessing that it should be so in this country. The Scotch generally, whether belonging to the Established Church, to the Free Church, or to the United Presbyterian Church, teach the doctrines which are contained in the Shorter Catechism and the Westminster Confession of Faith. They, therefore, have the advantage of a religious education. Admitting, then, that a religious education is a great blessing, and maintaining, as I do, that education is not complete without it, the question occurs whether it is possible to adopt that system in Ireland. Towards the beginning of the century the Kildare Street Society, which taught the Scriptures, but not the formulas of the Church, was established in Ireland; but it was suspected to be a proselytizing society, and excited jealousy on that ground. My noble Friend Lord Monteagle then had a Committee of this House, in which he proposed means by which children of different religious persuasions should be brought together. The Report of that Committee was the foundation of the latter well known as Lord Stanley's letter, in 1831. I believe that letter contained the basis of the best system which could be applied to Ireland. It is said now, as in the Resolution before us—Why not allow religion to be taught in the schools? Meaning thereby that the religion to be so taught is to be taught to every child in the school. This raises the very great question whether you should have the denominational system in Ireland, as you have the denominational system in England. If you teach the Bible to every child that comes to a Protestant school, and if you assist that school by grants, you will violate every principle of equity if you do not give the same aid in Roman Catholic schools, where the religious education would be under the direction of the Church of Rome. Supposing that £280,000 were asked as a grant from this House you may safely reckon that about £200,000 of that would be given to Roman Catholic schools. Common fairness and equity would require that; but, on the other hand, when I have spoken to hon. Members of this house who were strong Protestants of the equity of such a division of the public money, they have pointed out that these Roman Catholic schools would be watched with extreme vigilance. I have no doubt that they would be watched with much vigilance. What would be the consequence? There would be no end of religious and sectarian controversy in this House with respect to the nature of the education given in these schools. Those who object to the grant to Maynooth—and I see an hon. Friend of mine opposite (Mr. Spooner) who has frequently brought that question before the House—would have much stronger objection if they saw so much as £200,000 more asked for Roman Catholic schools. I believe, therefore, the best way for peace—the best way for the instruction of the people of Ireland—is to persevere in the present system, according to the principles of Lord Stanley's Letter. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) says that the Presbyterian body in Ireland are dissatisfied with what my right hon. Friend has done, and he referred to a proposition that there should be three Commissioners appointed by the State, of whom one should belong to the Established Church, another to the Wesleyan body, and that a third should be a Roman Catholic. Now, considering the proportion that Roman Catholics bear to Protestants in the population of Ireland, where would be the fairness of the Commission, being two-third composed of Protestants and only one-third Roman Catholic? a Commission formed to superintend the education of the poorer classes in Ireland, a much greater proportion of the poor than of the rich being Roman Catholics. I own I think such a Commission would not be applicable to Ireland. Seeing, as I am sorry to see every year, proof of the extreme keenness of religious feeling and jealousy of one another among parties of opposite opinions in that country, I know of no better system than that which is at present adopted. The right hon. Gentleman (Mr. M. O'Ferrall) who spoke last talked of 1,200 Roman Catholic children, being taught as Protestants. That, surely, could not be the case if ordinary vigilance were exercised by Roman Catholics. But I will state what my right hon. Friend has done. Formerly there were five Commissioners, of whom only two were Roman Catholics; what has been done is to appoint as Members of the Board ten Protestants and ten Roman Catholics. That number, I think, gives a security to both Protestants and Roman Catholics, and I own I should be very sorry to see any material change in the system. There are 800,000 children being educated under it. It is a system which has had to encounter rocks and shoals, but it has steered and navigated its course between them successfully; and I do not believe that a better system could well be adopted.

MR. MONSELL

said, he could no help thinking that the argument of the noble Lord, in reply to his right hon. Friend (Mr. M. O'Ferrall), was rather humiliating to that House. He said it was desirable to maintain the present system, considering the feeling of the House. He did not use the word; but his meaning was that the bigotry of that House would not consent to deal with the large majority of the people of Ireland who were Roman Catholics as they did with the Roman Catholic minority in England or any other religious denomination. How did the noble Lord answer the statement of his right hon. Friend? The noble Lord doubted whether the statement was true that 1,200 Catholics were receiving Protestant education in Protestant schools. But the fact was true beyond all controversy. The original principle laid down by Lord Stanley's letter, to which every supporter of the system always appealed, and which had governed it during the first seventeen years of its existence, had been entirely diverged from. That principle was that every suspicion of proselytism should be got rid of. He warned the Government that, unless they recurred to that principle, it would be utterly impossible for them to maintain the system at all. The model schools, which cost £20,000, and in which the schoolmasters were trained who should educate the Irish people, were absolutely and entirely in the hands of the Commissioners. He protested against that as an encroachment on constitutional liberty. The Emperor Napoleon took similar measures, because he desired to control the minds by direction the whole education of the people. But it might be asked, had any harm occurred? He would quote the words of a gentleman who had given the most able evidence before the Royal Commission—he meant the Rev. Mr. Blakesley, better known by his signature to the letters he wrote in The Times, as the "Hertfordshire Incumbent." Discussing the expediency of having a denominational system, or having a system from which particular religious doctrines were excluded, that gentleman said that while it was a pernicious thing that education should be separated from religious instruction, it was no less an error to suppose that if a school happened to be set up on that principle good could not proceed from such education as it furnished. The writer added— The true description of such a system would be that so far as it goes it forces the rising generation to live upon the existing moral and religious capital, and thus tends to bankruptcy in some future generation. If the natural tendency of the system was mischievous, they were justified in protesting against it, and in endeavouring to have it remedied. Three-fourths of the whole number of schools in Ireland were non-vested or separate schools, in which one religion was taught, but if one child of a different persuasion appeared, that child received the secular without the religious instruction. On the other hand, the training schools, where the masters were reared, were managed on a principle not in harmony with that on which the non-vested schools were conducted, but rather in harmony with the principle of the vested schools, which formed only one quarter of the entire number. He must thank the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland for the changes he had already made in the system. The hon. and learned Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) had stated certain objections to those changes, but with all acuteness he had not assigned any grounds for them. For himself, he desired to see those changes carried further, by putting the model schools in harmony with the majority of the schools. The model schools were now entirely under the control of the State. The same was the case with the Queen's Colleges, where there was hardly a pupil who was not paid for being in those institutions. The length, in fact, to which State interference was carried in Ireland ought to arouse a wholesome constitutional jealousy against its further progress; and what he asked was that the Government should treat the people of Ireland in the matter as they treated the people of England.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

Sir, the complaints made by my right hon. Friend who has just sat down resolve themselves into this—namely, that we do not extend to Ireland, with regard to the educational grant, the same principle which is acted upon in England. Let us examine the justice of that complaint. I do not understand my right hon. Friend to say that he thinks the denominational system, as practised in the administration of the Privy Council grant in England, should be applied to Ireland. The substance of his complaint was that in certain particulars the rules laid down at the commencement of the Irish educational system have been deviated from. That is a question essentially of detail, and I can only say on the part of the Irish Government that it is not admitted that there has been any material deviation from the original character of the system. My right hon. Friend argues that the State unnecessarily interferes with the administration of the grant in Ireland, and that such interference is unconstitutional. Now, is there really the smallest ground for maintaining that there is any difference between England and Ireland in this respect? Is not the grant for education in England entirely under the control of the Privy Council? It may be true that the system on which that grant is administered differs from the system on which the Irish grant is administered. In England the system is denominational, in Ireland it is not; but the interference of the State is neither greater nor less in the one country than it is in the other. [Mr. MONSELL: No!] My right hon. Friend may say "No," but I defy him to show that the expenditure of the English grant is not followed out into the most minute details by the Privy Council. If my right hon. Friend had been present when my right hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Educational Committee of Privy Council made his statement, he would have heard that as regards every payment the Privy Council sends the money, and sees that it reaches the individuals for whom it is intended. I say, then, that a more minute interference than that exercised by the Privy Council never existed. [Mr. MONSELL: It does not interfere with the teaching.] I maintain that not only does it interfere, but that it is bound to do so, and that where we vote public money we must see that it is administered by persons who are responsible to Government and to Parliament. As guardians of the public purse we should neglect our first duty if we made large grants and then gave them to irresponsible individuals to be administered at their discretion. What, therefore, my right hon. Friend calls unconstitutional I maintain to be strictly constitutional, and also to be the established and invariable practice in England no less than in Ireland.

MR. BUTT

said, that with the permission of the House he would withdraw the Amendment.

MR. HENNESSY

said, he wondered at the hon. and learned Member taking this course; his proposition was so simple, so easily understood, and so true. He must object to the Amendment being withdrawn.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided:—Ayes 36; Noes 6: Majority 30.

Main Question put, and agreed to.