HC Deb 10 July 1821 vol 5 cc1510-4
Mr. Spring Rice,

in rising to move for the I4th Report of the Commissioners on the State of Education in Ireland, said, that even in an economical point of view, the subject to which the Report referred was of some consequence, for since the Union no less than 1,200,000l. had been voted by parliament, for purposes connected with the education of' the poor in the sister country. This vast sum had been expended upon three foundations, which were not only useless for the purposes for which they were intended, but mischievous. The first of these foundations was the Protestant Charter Schools Foundations, for which 622,000l. had been voted since the Union; the next was the Foundling Hospital, on which nearly half a million had been spent; the third the establishment for the Discouragement of Vice. All these institutions connected the education of the people with an attempt at proselytism—at the educating of the children of Catholics in the Protestant religion. The result of this was, that not only did these attempts fail, but all other attempts at the education of the people were viewed with suspicion. In opposition also to the system which excluded Catholics from these schools, others were established, managed on a principle of exclusion towards the Catholics. The Report was drawn up by some of the ablest men Ireland had produced, and whose names would ever be connected with its politics and its literature. This year, the House had voted 100,000l. to the three establishments he had mentioned. He did not find fault with the liberality of the House towards Ireland, but he hoped hereafter that this liberality would be shown in acting on the wise suggestions of their own commissioners.

Mr. Brougham

said, he entirely concurred with his hon. friend, as to the soundness of the principles laid down by the commissioners. Nothing could be more sound in the present state of Ireland, than that any system of education 'attempted to be made general there, should avoid all suspicion of an intention of proselytism. The state of the Established Church and the Catholics, in Ireland, was somewhat different from that of the Dissenters and the Church in this country; for whereas the Roman Catholics founded schools from which they excluded members of the Church, the Dissenters in England founded schools which were open to churchmen as well as to those who dissented from the Church. This led him to the statement of the reasons which had induced him to put off his Education bill for the -present session. His absence from town in the early part of the session, which had caused a delay, which he then regretted, in bringing forward the bill, gave time for a controversy which; had very widely diffused the principles of the bill. He had attended to the arguments of the various adversaries of the bill, and he should have had great pleasure if he could have found any line that would have reconciled all their contending objections. The Dissenters thought that the plan was too much connected with the Church, and that too much of the exclusive doctrine of the church would be propagated under it. Among a number of the churchmen an opposite fear prevailed. Between those diametrically opposite opinions it was extremely difficult to steer an even course. But this difference of opinion itself showed the necessity of meeting liberality on one side by concessions on the other. The controversy, (with a very few exceptions), was carried on by persons sincerely anxious to promote the education of all classes of the people. To men in this frame of mind, only a little farther discussion was necessary in order that some matters might be explained. It was for the purpose of affording this opportunity that he had postponed the farther consideration of the bill. In postponing it he would only remind both parties how great the concession was that each expected from the other. Those who thought the bill opened the door too widely to the dissenter, expected the dissenter to support by means of the tax a system of education from the benefit of which his children were excluded. If the regulations of the schools were such that it was made, if not impossible, seriously unpleasant for the dissenter, the hardship would be the same. The object of the churchman was to maintain the necessary connection between the school system of the country and the established church; but beyond what was necessary, not one step could be taken which was not con- trary to equity, to liberality, and to the interests of the establishment itself. On the other hand, let the dissenters look to the plan as it now was, and they would consider that even if there was no modification in the bill, a very great sacrifice would be made by the church to the peculiar principles of the dissenters. He thought, however, he could see how to modify the bill in parts Dot very material in themselves, but which the dissenters attached great importance to. He had the warmest attachment to the dissenters as the true friends of education; and it, was in this character that he besought them to reflect what principle this bill gave up—that which was indisputed between them and the church, in the bible society and in the Bell and Lancaster schools. The question as to these schools was, whether they should be conducted on such principles that the dissenters and churchmen could equally take the benefit of them? The churchmen said that the catechism, the liturgy, and a compulsory creed should be taught in these schools The dissenters said that it was much better that no liturgy, catechism, or compulsory creed should be taught, but that all sects of christians should be on an equality in these schools. Now this the bill sanctioned. One circumstance he hoped both parties would attend to,—that it was only by concessions that this great national object could be attained, and that if each was determined to give up, nothing because it was a concession to their adversaries, the conclusion to which they must come was, that no. national, provision could be made for the education of the poor.—And this brought him to the last objection which he had to mention; viz. that no such provision at all was necessary. This was the least founded of all the objections to the bill; for though there might be some doubt as to the mode in which the provision should be made, the want of such a provision had been clearly established. The parochial returns were said by those who raised this objection to be so incorrect that they could not be relied upon. His answer to this was very short;—he would put off the discussion of the bill for one season, and if they then found them incorrect, he must resort to other materials to prove, the necessity of a provision for education. The proofs of the necessity of a provision for education did not rest on parts of the return which were doubtful, nor on the disputable number of schools or scholars, but on the personal observations of the clergymen. In 220 out of the 800 parishes of Wales, the observations of the clergymen uniformly were, that these parishes were wholly destitute of the means of education, and that the people were extremely desirous to possess them. But as a delay was to take place, he would point out a way in which the correctness of the returns could be ascertained. Besides the general digest there were several parts of the digest, containing each a county, which remained for distribution. If any person would send to him for the returns of the counties in which he resided, he would take care that a copy should be supplied. He trusted this notice would have the effect of inducing people to investigate these returns, that the accuracy or inaccuracy of them might be ascertained. He entreated the conflicting parties to meet in the spirit of concession with mutual amity and good will. He would give his mite of concession, and if there was any part of the measure which could be shown to be inefficient or dangerous; or even if the whole should be shown to be of that description, he was not so far wedded to it, in preference to religious toleration and the cause of education, that he would not willingly abandon it. He had turned his attention to every thing that had been said and written on the subject, but he saw no reason to depart from the principle of the bill.

Mr. Bright

contended, that the Education bill was an attack upon religious liberty, and he hoped it would be manfully resisted by those who were interested. The dissenters were to be taxed for the support of schools, the teachers of which were to be chosen by the established clergy, and who would teach in a manner which would be agreeable to that clergy. The accuracy of the returns in the digest had been disputed, and with reason; for the Sunday schools were almost entirely overlooked. He should oppose the measure, as its tendency and effect would obviously be, to throw the whole education of the country into the hands of the established church, to the exclusion and injury of the dissenting interests.

Mr. Brougham

said, his hon. friend had no right to assume that there existed on the part of the advocates of the measure the least disposition to do any thing in the slightest degree offensive to one class or description of religious sects. The, report was agreed to by gentlemen who were as strenuous supporters of religious liberty, and as warm friends of the dissenting interests, many of them being themselves dissenters, as persons in or out of that House could possibly be.

The motion was agreed to.