MINISTERIAL PLAN OF EDUCATION (IRELAND).

HC Deb 05 June 1832 vol 13 cc404-7

Mr. James E. Gordon

presented Petitions from Dewsbury, in Yorkshire, and Rathcoolen in the county of Cork, against the Government system of Education in Ireland; another from Glasgow, on the same subject, and with the same prayer, which was agreed to previous to the Petition from Glasgow, adopting contrary opinions, which was lately presented to the House.

Mr. Dixon

said, that there had been no feeling of religious animosity in Scotland for years, and he hoped the present plan intended by Government, would have the effect of doing away with that feeling in Ireland. He could not deny the respectability of many of those who signed the petition, but he must maintain, that they were not calculated to judge what was best for Ireland.

Mr. James E. Gordon

said, that the pretended Government plan he considered as strictly anti-scriptural. It expressly excluded the Scriptures as a whole; he, therefore, could not but view it in that light. He (Mr. Gordon) was anxious to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Stanley), regarding some correspondence of an ecclesiastical nature, which had created some feeling lately. The Solicitor General for Scotland had read a communication at some public meetings, as coming from the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, stating, that reading of the Scriptures was to be compulsory on the Protestants, but voluntary on the Catholics. As this was a deviation from what he understood to be the Government plan, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would give some information upon it, as it would be satisfactory to the country to know what the Government plan was.

Mr. Stanley

said, that he was sure the House was wearied and disgusted with the repetition, day after day, and week after week, of charges by the opponents of the system, which charges had been as often refuted and repudiated, but which, nevertheless, were still continued by the assertors of them, who abated not a jot of their accusation, however successfully repelled. The system now was—what he had over and over declared it—one which would enable Protestants to learn what their parents and clergy desired they should be taught, but which would not force Catholics to study what their parents and clergy wished to debar them from. A particular portion of each day would be set apart for the instruction of the Protestant children in the whole of the Scriptures. This might be an hour or half an hour before the arrival of the Catholic children, or after they had departed; so that, in this respect, the one party would not in any way interfere with the other. This was the plan adopted, and this had satisfied, when it was stated to them, the intelligent people of Scotland; it had satisfied the public in general, with the exception of those whose minds were warped by religious bigotry, and who made use of this scheme as a means of agitation.

Mr. Shaw

said, that the fact as stated by the right hon. Gentleman was, that the Scriptures were to be excluded from the school while the boys were congregated together. If they wished to be instructed in the Bible, they must go either before or after school hours.

Mr. Stanley

While the Catholic children were not there.

Mr. Shaw

Exactly so; and this, he contended, was a practical exclusion of the Holy Scriptures, and he should as warmly oppose the plan under any Government as under the present one.

Mr. O'Connell

The Catholics did not wish to have the Scriptures as a schoolbook; and, as the object was to give a joint education to the people of Ireland, if any plan were to be adopted which the Catholics objected to, the object in view would be, of course, defeated. He trusted there would be an end to these discussions, which, by their continual repetition, must be tiresome to the public.

Sir Robert Bateson

denied, that the opposition to this measure was in the slightest degree tinctured with political feeling, and contended, that the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland were, almost to a man, opposed to the plan proposed by Government for educating the people of Ireland.

Sir Francis Burdett

said, if the system of education was to be national, it was impossible that any difference could be made in favour of one religious persuasion over any other, or all others. If the desire was, that the Catholics should read the Bible, he would ask those hon. Members who were opposed to the plan, whether it was not more likely that the Catholics should be induced to read the Bible after they had learned to read, than by preventing them from learning to read at all, which would be the effect of the measure which hon. Members on the other side desired to have put into action.

Sir Robert Inglis

said, that any system which made it a breach of discipline to bring a Bible into the school at any time of the day, was a system which he could never sanction, and which no paternal government ought to adopt.

Mr. Stanley

said, that the hon. Baronet must well know that, even at Eton and other public schools, it would be a breach of the discipline of the schools, if a boy were to bring in a Bible at particular hours of the day. It was well known to them all, that a boy would be guilty of a breach of discipline, who brought into the school a Bible instead of his Horace or his Virgil.

Mr. Anthony Lefroy

hoped, notwithstanding the impatience of the House, that the subject would be discussed, for he was sure, that the whole of the people were opposed to it; and if it were discussed, would defeat it.

Mr. James E. Gordon,

in moving that the petition be printed, said, that the right hon. Secretary for Ireland had put the meaning of the provisions of the Bill for educating the poor in Ireland in a new light. He disavowed being actuated by bigotry, or by political or party spirit.

Petition to be printed.