EDUCATION (IRELAND) PETITIONS. (Hansard, 16 April 1832)

Mr. Alderman Wood
said, as one of the Representatives for the metropolis, he felt himself called upon to support the prayer of the petition. The petitioners found it necessary to lay their sentiments before the House in consequence of the remarks made by hon. Members on presenting petitions containing a contrary prayer, in doing which they assumed that the opinion of the country was with them. He begged leave to move, that it be printed.

§ Mr. Henry Grattan
thought the prayer of this petition was highly honourable to the petitioners. He lamented the difference exhibited on this subject between the independent Corporation of London and the once independent Corporation of Dublin; he must further observe, that the latter would never recover its respectability until it followed the example of the former.

§ Mr. Alderman Venables
said, his constituents had requested him to support the 538 prayer of the petition, which he did with great pleasure, for he entirely approved of the new plan of education proposed for Ireland.

§ Sir George Murray
presented three petitions from three Presbyteries of Scotland, against the new system of education in Ireland. The petitioners stated, that they felt a deep interest in everything relating to the education of youth in Ireland. The people of Ireland had a right to a religious education of which the proposed plan would deprive them; and they, therefore, prayed that the House would not pass any legislative enactment with a view to force it upon the people of that country. He hoped, that it would not be for one moment supposed that he had swerved from the principles of toleration he had always professed; but, notwithstanding, he continued stedfast in those principles, he concurred with the petitioners in thinking that it was the principle of the Protestants throughout the empire, to have the sacred volume in their possession, and to be instructed from it. The plan proposed by Ministers was erroneous and blameable, in as much as it separated the moral and literary from the religious education of children. It was a great error to suppose that education could thus be divided into two parts; one of which, the State, by this plan, attempted to take under its own protection, while it left the other entirely to itself. This system could not fail to weaken the religious impressions which prevailed at present amongst the humbler classes of society. The Government sought to reconcile principles to each other which were wholly irreconcileable. The Protestant thought that the whole volume should be thrown open to the public, while, on the other hand, the Catholics thought, that the sacred volume should be placed in the hands of their priesthood, and that only as much of it as they chose ought to be given to the public, with such comments as they chose to give with it. It was impossible to reconcile such a wide difference as this. He would not discuss which principle was preferable, for both were liable to abuse. The Catholics might turn the one principle to the injury of the Protestant religion, while the Protestant principle, if carried too far, might tend to weaken amongst the lower classes the respect and regard with which they viewed the Holy Scriptures by teach- 539 ing them to look upon it as if it were merely a common book. The Catholic principle, on the other hand, even if it did no harm, yet would give to the priesthood of that persuasion a tool to turn to their own advantage. Upon the whole the plan of Ministers appeared to him to be very unlikely to be attended with success and it could not fail to weaken the religious feelings of the community. He was decidedly of opinion that the public money should not be employed in such a scheme. The right hon. Baronet concluded by moving that the petitions be brought up.

Colonel Conolly
supported the prayer of the petitions. He would call upon that House to prove to him, if they could by any possibility, that the new system was in the smallest degree calculated to act as an improvement upon its predecessor, and that its admission was not likely to produce the most dangerous results and effects in that country. Surely, if that sacred volume were to be put into the hands of the lower classes, with the idea impressed strongly upon their minds that one part of it was proper for them to read and that another part of it was improper for their perusal and for their belief; surely if this were so, he would ask, could a doubt exist in the mind of any man of the evil tendency of such a system. When the question should come before the House, he should take the liberty of urging to the utmost of his abilities the various objections—the almost insurmountable objections he would term them—he had to the plan. He should feel himself called upon to press those opinions upon the House as strongly as his powers would enable him, with a view of inducing either the abolition of such a system, or with the hope that some amelioration might take place in the proposition of the Government. He did consider that no sanction ought to be given to any plan which had for its object the creation of a discussion on religious subjects.

Mr. James E. Gordon
said, that the Presbyterians were now all alive to this subject, and without a single exception, he believed, were opposed to it. This was the sixth petition which had been presented to that House, and he expected that all of them would follow the example. The heads of the Presbyterian Church were, he had no hesitation in asserting, the best and most proper judges of the effect which 540 the new plan was likely to produce. It was well known that the Scottish system of education was the best in the world, and it was, therefore, that he contended that the Scotch people were the best judges of that plan which was likely to be productive of the most advantage to the people. This was, to a certain extent, a proposition which would show a disposition to follow in the steps of the Roman Catholics, for the individuals of that religious persuasion were restricted by their priests from the free use of the Bible. He would contend that the more the Scriptures were used the greater the degree of reverence in which they would be held by the lower as well as the higher classes.

Mr. Pringle
could assure the House the general opinion in Scotland respecting the Ministerial plan was anything but favourable. For his own part he must express his entire concurrence in the opinions contained in the petition.

§ Sir George Murray
, in moving that the petition he printed, merely wished to say that he did not object to the sacred volume being thrown open.

§ Mr. Ruthven
said, that the colouring which was given to this new system of religious education, was, in his opinion, very different from that the proposers of the measure gave to it. He denied that the Roman Catholic priests were against the use of the Bible, and he condemned this marshalling of parties against each other on the subject of religion. There ought not to be any objection to a measure which was pregnant with benefits to the people, and calculated to produce the most desirable results.

§ Mr. Henry Grattan
was prepared to say, of his own knowledge, that the assertion that the Catholic children were not allowed to read the Bible, whether made in that House, in Exeter Hall, in Scotland, or elsewhere, was false and unfounded. He could take upon himself to say, that most of the Catholics had not only access to the Bible, but were in the habit of reading it. He was surprised that any Member should have the hardihood to make such an assertion.

§ Sir George Murray
begged to quote, as his authority for the assertion he had made, and which he requested the hon. Member would peruse—not of course the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, but the hon. member for Downpatrick—a passage 541 contained in a letter written by the right hon. Gentleman, the Chief Secretary for Ireland, in which the allegation was made. As to the observations of the hon. Member who spoke last, he should take no notice of them.

Mr. James E. Gordon
would follow the example of the gallant Officer, and take no notice of the observations of the hon. member for Meath; but whatever statement he made in that House, he should, at the same time, be prepared to substantiate it.

Sir Robert Inglis
presented a Petition from the clergy, gentry, and inhabitants of Manchester, signed by upwards of 4,000 persons, against the new plan of religious education in Ireland. The petitioners said, they did not so much object to a selection from the Bible, as to a selection which was to exclude the use of the whole volume of the Scriptures. The essence of Protestantism was the Bible, and the whole Bible. Protestantism, therefore, could gain nothing, but might lose much by the substitution of selections from the whole Bible. There was a growing feeling throughout the country on the subject. These petitions, like the others, were signed by several clergymen, not of one, but of numerous denominations of Christians; and, differing as they did, on political subjects, and also on theological points, they were still unanimous in their desire to make the Bible the foundation of education, which they considered essential, and in no instance was it more necessary to disseminate Gospel truths than amongst the common people. It was a subject which became the more important, as by the new system all the support which had formerly been given to the Protestant establishment for education in Ireland had been withdrawn, while the Roman Catholic institutions of a similar description were left untouched. The objections to the new plan were greatly increased by the circumstance that the Roman Catholic was thus to be the only national education in Ireland supported by Government.

Mr. Sheil
said, he would thank the hon. Baronet who dwelt so much on the use of the entire Bible as the essence of Protestantism for some information on the subject. He begged to ask, whether at the public schools of Westminster and Rugby, the Scriptures were read with so much care and so exclusively as his arguments 542 went to prove? He wished the hon. Baronet would extend his sympathy in this respect to the Aristocracy of England, for he did not believe that at the Universities the Scriptures were greatly attended to. He would ask whether, if a volume were made containing extracts of the Statute-laws now used, the hon. Baronet would say that the use of such a volume amounted to a disuse of the Statutes; besides the hon. Baronet was not quite correct when he asserted that the Roman Catholic was the only system of national education supported by Government in Ireland. The University of Dublin received 40,000l. a-year.

Sir Robert Inglis
, in reply to the question of the hon. and learned Member, said, he could assert that the Scriptures were now duly attended to in the Universities, and the public schools; with respect to the sum of 40,000l. a-year received by the University of Dublin, that was altogether distinct from anything the State gave. It was absolute property, in nowise connected with a parliamentary grant, and was as much the property of the University as any property the hon. and learned Member could call his own.