§ On the question that the sum of 35,000l. be granted for the Advancement of Education in Ireland, for the year ending 31st March, 1836,
§ Mr. Plumptrewas bound to object to this vote. He could not avoid expressing his disapprobation of the proceedings of the Commissioners of Education in Ireland.
§ Viscount MorpethI hope the hon. Gentleman will not think it discourteous on my part if I defer the defence of the Irish Board of Education until he has brought forward his reasons for the censure he has preferred against them.
Mr. O'ConnellDid I understand the hon. Gentleman to say, that Protestan children were compelled to attend Roman Catholic schools?
§ Mr. Plumptresaid, he had seen a paper in which questions and answers were given respecting the manner in which the schools under the control of the Board of Education were conducted; and that from these 462 it appeared that the Roman Catholic children, who were punctual in their attendance at the school, so as to hear mass, were rewarded with a Roman Catholic prayer-book: and that the reward given to Protestant children for their punctual attendance to hear mass was a suit of clothes. He had seen this statement, and he believed it to be correct; and therefore he was opposed to this grant.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that the principle on which the Irish Board of Education acted, was to give to children of all persuasions an equal advantage in the schools that had been established, reserving to every one not only freedom of conscience, but the fullest opportunity of obtaining religious instruction according to his own creed. He thought this was a principle that would be approved of by the British public. But he would take the liberty of suggesting to the hon. Gentleman, that if he condemned this system on account of some vague and unsubstantiated statement which he might happen to have seen in some paper, without affording those who upheld the system the means of contradiction, then that there could be no system—whether Catholic or Protestant—whether of the Orange or the Green party—that could stand the test of attacks of that kind. Those who adopted and administered the system now pursued had no disingenuous object whatsoever. It never was intended by these votes to establish an exclusive system of instruction. On the contrary, it was always avowed that the schools were to be common to all—both Catholic and Protestant. If the hon. Gentleman, instead of mis-stating the actions of the Commissioners from unauthenticated documents, most likely coming from persons not very impartial in their decisions, would furnish the Government or the House with time, place, circumstance, and proof, an inquiry should be immediately instituted, and if any abuse should be found to exist, it should be corrected. But if, instead of abuse, these attacks against an establishment which ought to be considered placed on neutral ground, but which had, unhappily, been made the arena of the most bitter party contest that was ever known—if, he would repeat, these attacks should, as in all probability they would, be proved to be gross calumnies, then the detection of their falsehood could not, he was sure, fail to be most gratifying to the hon. Gentleman 463 himself as it unquestionably would be to all the friends of the system. As a proof that these schools were based on a system calculated to give instruction free from all sectarian prejudices and distinctions, they had the satisfaction to know that the system had been approved of, and was about to have been carried on by the late Government, to whom the present Government were opposed. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the late Government had never made any attacks upon that system; but it was nevertheless a very remarkable circumstance, that the mass of individuals most intimately connected with that right hon. Gentleman, and particularly those residing in Ireland, were the very persons who made themselves most active in their hostility to it.
§ Sir Robert Ingliswas not aware that the question was to be brought forward on the present occasion. He had, however, objected to the principle before, and he saw no reason why he should not repeat the objection now.
§ Colonel Sibthorphad no idea whatever that anything was coming on. He looked with the greatest suspicion to every thing that was done on the opposite side.
§ Dr. Bowring, although not an Irish Member, saw with great pleasure the sum of 35.000l. devoted to advancing education in Ireland on liberal and Christian principles.
Mr. O'Connellhad the honour of knowing one of the Protestant Commissioners—a Gentleman at the Irish bar—he meant Mr. Holmes—well, and he was quite sure that if any thing wrong were brought before him, he would resign his situation rather than tolerate it in the slightest degree. The hon. Gentleman had made two statements which were doubtlessly perfectly true; the one was, that he had seen a certain paper; the other that he believed it to be true. Further than this, however, he did not go. He had not enlightened the House by telling them what the nature of the paper was, from whom he got it or who the producers of it were; or whether it was part of Den's Theology. He really wondered how the hon. Gentleman could be so imposed upon. The hon. Member had read a paper which the hon. Member described as an investigation into the manner in which these schools were conducted and yet the paper which he had read contained a string of questions and answers? Who put the questions? Who gave the 464 answers? Why did not the hon. Member give the House that most essential information? Why, too, did he withhold it? The plain fact was, that this plan of education was working great good in Ireland. It gave hopes that in the next generation the children of some of them and the grandchildren of others would have kindly feelings of Christian benevolence and charity towards each other. Fair play, and no proselytism, was the principle of the Board, and as it acted impartially upon that principle, it was giving satisfaction at present to all parties save the high Orangemen in Ireland.
Mr. Randall Plunkettwould have been sorry to trespass on the House, if he had not had some facts to communicate which were connected with the subject of this grant, and which he considered to be of great importance. One of those facts was contained in a petition, which he should present to-morrow, from the inhabitants of the borough of which he had the honour to be the representative. That petition stated that the plan of education sanctioned by the Government was placed in Drogheda in the hands of two Franciscan friars, to be carried into effect as they pleased, and that there were no persons more zealously disposed to establish popery on the ruins of the Protestant Church in Ireland than these two Catholic Ecclesiastics. Two Protestants who were Trustees had been driven from the superintendence of the school. In their stead came these two Franciscan friars who had even made preparations for erecting a Franciscan monastery in the town. Now if the Members of his Majesty's Government were really as sincere Members of the Church of England as they pretended to be, they would agree with him in thinking that Protestant children ought not to be sent to a Franciscan school, and that their grandchildren, if they should have as numerous a progeny as the hon. Member for Dublin, should have some chance of a Christian education like their fathers, in the principles of the Church of England. Another of the facts to which he had alluded was the possession of the school at Ennis by two monks. His information on that subject came from a Mr. Fitzherbert, a Magistrate and Deputy-lieutenant of the county. These were two facts. He was convinced that the late Government had no intention to support the system of Edu- 465 cation invented and sanctioned by their predecessors longer than was necessary to enable them to substitute another for it. He was as convinced as he could be of anything, that his constituents had no wish to support this grant any longer. He would avail himself of the present opportunity to record it as the general opinion of the gentry and magistracy of Ireland that the Government system of education could not promote anything that was desirable among the people.
Mr. O'Connellrepudiated, in as strong terms as any man could use with courtesy, the imputations which the hon. Gentleman had cast upon those whom he had been pleased to designate tauntingly as Franciscan friars. He wanted to know whether a man had not as good a right to be a Franciscan friar as to be the member of an Orange lodge? He (Mr. O'Connell) thought that a man had a great deal more right to be a Franciscan friar than a sworn Orangeman, for the latter was a member of an illegal society, while the former was attached to a church to which the hon. Member did not belong, but which had nevertheless its ordained ministers, and was tolerated by law. He had had the honour of knowing a Franciscan friar, to whom it would be a difficult task for the hon. Gentleman to compare himself. He was alluding to Father O'Leary. Father O'Leary was a Franciscan friar, and he (Mr. O'Connell) thought the hon. Member would find it a task of exceeding difficulty to find any man who was acquainted with both, ready to affirm that the hon. Member was as well educated as that Ecclesiastic. In one portion of education he was sure that the hon. Member was more deficient than Father O'Leary—and that was in Christian liberality. It did not become the hon. Member to speak in the way he had done of Franciscan friars. They had as good a right to be in the town of Drogheda as the hon. Member himself had, and perhaps were as well received by the inhabitants as the hon. Member would be if he should go to visit them. If they conformed to the regulations of the board in their management of that school, they had a right to keep that school. But if the hon. Member could show that they violated those regulations, then he would make out a case either against the Franciscan friars or against the commissioners, or it might be against both; but until he did make out such a case, those despised 466 Franciscan friars would acknowledge no superiority in the hon. Member above themselves; on the contrary, he believed that they would assert their superiority over the hon. Member in any literary or religious controversy to which he might be pleased to challenge them. It became the hon. Member well enough to talk as he did about Franciscan friars; he would recommend the hon. Member to reserve such language for Exeter-hall, there the hon. and learned Member would have the police and a picked auditory. The hon. Member had also spoken tauntingly about the monks at Ennis. Why, those monks belonged to a class called "education monks." They gave themselves up to be taught at an early period of their lives, in order that they might, in the course of it, be able themselves to educate the children of the poor. They received no fee—they demanded no pecuniary reward. Their lives were devoted to purposes of education, and to the promotion of those purposes alone. There were now 300 or 400 of them in Ireland, and they were doing incalculable good in that country, by promoting the diffusion of education. Many of them came within the regulations of the Education Board and received assistance. Others of them refused to come within those regulations, and received no assistance. With the latter the House had nothing whatever to do; but with the others it had, and the House had a right to blame the Government, if it permitted a Board under its control to supply money to those who would not conform to its regulations. Why, then, were excellent individuals, when they conformed to the regulations of the State, to be spoken tauntingly of as monks? It was this foolish affectation of superiority by the Protestant aristocracy of Ireland over those who differed from them in creed that worked such fatal consequences in that country. It was as if they were superior to them in station, conduct, and moral character—ay, even in the rank of human beings, when men of a certain rank in society spoke tauntingly of excellent and pious individuals as "monks." He hoped that the lesson which the hon. Member had that night received would teach him, when he next addressed the Chair, to keep the violence of his sectarian feelings to himself, and not to obtrude them on the British House of Commons on a delicate subject of this nature.
Mr. Bellewobserved, that the language of the hon. Member did not surprise him, as it was a well-known fact that those who had gone from the cause of the people were always the most bitter in the hostility which they subsequently displayed towards them. He could say, from his own knowledge, that the management of the School at Drogheda had given great satisfaction in that town and neighbourhood. The new Education Board had established several schools in the county with which he was connected. There were already fourteen or fifteen schools there under its control; and so far from those schools having been established contrary to the general opinion of the gentry and magistracy of the county, he could inform the House that four or five Protestant Magistrates, who were also high Tories, had voluntarily signed the requisition for their establishment to the Board of Education. In Ulster, where the Protestant population was most predominant, 900 such schools existed at present. The number was daily increasing, and the larger the sum devoted to this object was, the greater would be the spread of education, the greater the good understanding between the different sects of religion, and the greater the conviction of the Irish people that the Government of England was inclined to attend to their wants and wishes on all subjects of domestic legislation.
Mr. Bridgmanrose to set the hon. Member for Drogheda right with regard to his observations on the management of the school at Ennis. The managers of that school had got a small grant from the Education Board; and for that small grant seven or eight hundred children were educated at Ennis by gentlemen whom the hon. Member tauntingly called monks. Now, the fact was, that those gentlemen were not monks. He hoped that the hon. Member was better informed respecting the school at Drogheda than he appeared to be respecting the school at Ennis.
§ Sir Robert Inglisdeprecated the practice of one hon. Member accusing another of displaying violent sectarian feelings in defence of his Church. He could not sit in the House without expressing his objections to such a practice. With respect to the observations of the hon. Member for Ennis, that those who conducted the system of education in the school of that place were not monks, he should leave that hon. Gentleman to settle the point 468 with the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, who had said, that there were three or four hundred of such monks in Ireland.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. Member had accused him of accusing the hon. Member for Drogheda of displaying violent sectarian feelings in defence of his religion. Now, he had done no such thing; but he had accused the hon. Member of displaying violent sectarian feelings when he assailed the religion of another Church. He, for his part, assailed no man's religion. But the hon. Member had talked tauntingly of Franciscan friars and monks, and had used the word "Popery." Now if there were an offensive nickname for Protestants, as there was, what would be said of him if he were to use it in that place? If he were to speak of Protestants as heretics, he should deserve to be put down in that House. He expected, if the same courtesy or privilege was not to be extended to Roman Catholic Members which they were disposed to show towards Protestant Members—he expected, he said, that the House would extend to him the right of repudiating any attacks that might be made upon his Creed. The monks to whom the hon. Member for Oxford had referred were called Education Monks, but were not monks according to the definition of the law, for they had not taken any oaths or entered into any orders, which brought them under the statute prohibiting the increase of monks in Ireland. They had, however, registered themselves as the Emancipation Act required, but under a protest that they felt that they did not come under the interpretation of that Act. He wished that his example in refraining from making attacks on the religion of others might be followed by those who, with Christian charity ever on their tongues, exhibited little of it in their speeches and actions.
§ Viscount Morpethsaid, that the vote now under consideration stood first on the Irish miscellaneous estimates, and any one who looked at the paper might easily conclude that it would come on this evening. With respect to the question raised by the hon. Member for Kent, he felt assured that if, in schools connected with the board, any practice subsisted which gave offence to Protestants, as regarded the treatment of their children, the evil would be redressed on a proper application.
§ Mr. John Youngmuch regretted the 469 acrimony which had been infused into the discussion, and which he would not increase by adding a single objection to those already made to the system of government education in Ireland, though he was far from thinking that system free from objection. He wished to draw the attention of the noble Lord opposite to two suggestions, which he trusted would be received favourably, though coming from one who had never professed friendship to the system of national education.—The first was, the unfortunate locality of the school-houses in many instances. In the county of Cavan he could state, of his own knowledge, that several were so close to the Roman Catholic chapels, that the Protestants and Presbyterians could not but feel averse to sending their children to them. This he considered a just and reasonable ground of complaint, but it was also one which might be avoided in future by a little care and attention on the part of the Board of Commissioners. To such attention the Protestants and Presbyterians of Ireland, though only a minority of the people, were well entitled. The second point was of a graver cast, and stated on no light and insufficient authority—that authority, as it proceeded from a person officially employed by the present government, he would give in private to the noble Lord if required. In two of the southern counties the positive rules of the board were not adhered to as regarded the class books, and especially that which contained the whole Gospel of St. Luke. To this book the Roman Catholic Clergy, a body of whom he would not speak disrespectfully, were as hostile, he had been informed, as to the whole Bible. They withdrew and discountenanced it wherever they could, and so deprived the people, in very many schools, of part of the benefit Government wished to extend to them. This was a serious evil, and gave additional cause for the mistrust and suspicion so widely and justly felt as to the character and tendency of the system.
§ Viscount Morpethsaid, that it was a rule with the Commissioners of the National Board to prefer schools unconnected with places of worship, although they did not refuse aid in all cases of schools otherwise circumstanced. He felt assured that it was the wish of the Commissioners to consult as much as possible the religious scruples of every body.
§ Mr. Hardysaid it ought to be under- 470 stood that the present system of schools had been established very much against the wishes of many sincere Protestants, because they justly thought that there must be some compromise of principle in educating Protestants and Catholics together, and that the compromise was made by the Protestants on giving up the reading of the whole Bible. A man must not be surprised when he heard of Roman Catholic Priests endeavouring to inculcate upon the children of Protestants their own particular doctrines, for it was quite natural that they should do so; but it was most important for Protestants, especially for Dissenters who adhered to the Bible and the whole Bible, to see that no improper instruction was bestowed upon the children, and that under the guise of a general, religious, and moral education, a sectarian education was not given. When a school was held in the vicinity of a chapel, it appeared to him that Catholic Priests had opportunities of getting Protestant children into it, and inculcating their favourite doctrines upon them.
§ Mr. Henry Grattanwas astonished at the sublime ignorance of the hon. Member. Had the hon. Gentleman read the series of questions issued by the Board of Education in Ireland?
§ Mr. Henry Grattan; Have you read it?
§ Mr. HardyYes; I have read it, and I can point out matters in it which are not consistent with Protestant principles.
§ Mr. Henry Grattansaid, that one of the questions put by the Commissioners was framed to ascertain whether the ground on which it was proposed to build school-houses was contiguous to a chapel, and if this turned out to be the case the Board refused to make any grant. He indignantly repelled the charges made on this occasion, although they were no more than might be expected from individuals who went to mountebank societies to make charges against the people and religion of Ireland—charges as false as hell. After this they pretended to support the cause of education for the people, but he rejected such support. He thanked God that the disturbers of the public peace in Ireland were at length about to be put down. He did not think that we ought to give the whole Bible to be read in schools—["Hear, hear!" from the Opposition.]—Let not Gentlemen opposite be 471 so ready with their cheers. Protestant Bishops had expressed themselves to that effect. What had been the effect of the Protestant ascendancy system in Ireland? It had made bad Christians—they had set Protestant against Catholic, and Catholic against Protestant, till they had made the island like a demoniac assembly, the consequence of which was, that they could not keep possession of Ireland without the aid of an enormous military establishment, for which this country was taxed, in order to keep up Protestant ascendancy.
§ Viscount Sandonbelieved, that the hon. Member opposite used stronger language than he really meant to apply. It was somewhat extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should accuse the hon. Member for Bradford of gross ignorance in reference to schools being built near chapels, because they had it in evidence on all sides that they were so built. It must be admitted that there was great difficulty in bringing Catholics and Protestants together for purposes of education, without a surrender or attempt to subvert some important point on one side or other—the result of which must be, that schools would be no longer considered neutral ground.
§ Sir John Hobhousethought, that the noble Lord had given the best reason for endeavouring to unite Protestants and Catholics whenever the attempt was practicable—the difficulty of union proved the necessity of attempting it at an early period of life, when the effort might be attended with the best chance of success. With all submission to the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Randall Plunkett) who had to-night expressed his opinions for the first time in that House, and who intimated that the right hon. Baronet at the head of the late Government only waited for a convenient opportunity to discard the existing system of education in Ireland, he thought the hon. Member paid a bad compliment to the right hon. Gentleman by the supposition. It was the duty of the King's Government to see that no part of this grant was misapplied—and there was no proof that such had been the case. However, if the hon. Gentleman could bring forward a case of abuse, a remedy should be applied. For his own part, he felt persuaded, that if the system were successfully applied, and if fair play were allowed, it would contribute in no small degree to 472 the peace and prosperity of a country for which we had so long legislated in vain.
§ Mr. Finchwas sorry that he could not agree with the right hon. Baronet as to the probability of the Irish system of education working well. The greater part of the children of persons of the Established Church could not avail themselves of it, and such being the case, it was vain to talk of the system working well. He had received an account of several schools from respectable authority. His authority was the reverend Robert Daly, and the communication mentioned several schools that were built in the chapel yards, and supported by grants from the Commissioners. In some of those schools no Scripture lessons were read, but a Roman Catholic catechism was used, and the attendance consisted exclusively of Roman Catholic children. He would read a few specimens and leave the House to say whether this were a system of general education:—
Hacket's-town.—The school recently built and not quite finished in the Chapel-yard. The children at present attending in the Roman Catholic Chapel, but not yet in connexion with the Board. Roman Catholics, 48; Protestants, 7. The Board granted at first 106l., and since 50l. more.English-town.—The school is holden in the chapel. The teacher Roman Catholic. Grant for salary 5l. No Scriptures. The station of the Holy Cross. Roman Catholics, 46; no Protestants.Baltinglass.— A male school about two perches from the chapel. A female school in a branch of the chapel cut off by a partition. Teachers Roman Catholic. Grant for salaries 22l. Roman Catholics, 162; no Protestants. No Scripture lessons: Dr. Doyle's Catechism.Tullow Female School.—Children entering this school must pass through the chapel-yard; in fact, it is in it, but divided by a door. Salary 25l. per annum. Roman Catholics, 300; no Protestants. No Scripture lessons. Dr. Doyle's Catechism. This school is entirely in the possession and under the direction of nuns.Tullow (male).—This school is entirely in the hands of monks. The Board gave 13l. for fixtures, and allows 20l. per annum. They have not a single copy of the Scripture lessons. Doyle's Catechism in hand. Roman Catholics, 185; no Protestants.Fermoy School.—A well-built and extensive school. Roman Catholic teachers. Salaries 50l. Grant 35l. Roman Catholics, 515; Protestants, 2. Board books in use, also Butler's Catechism, and a small book entitled Think well on it, by Chaloner.473Macroom School.—Built in Chapel-yard. On entering this school I found the master, a Roman Catholic, repeating and explaining some of the prayers, collects, and acts of faith, hope, and charity, out of the Roman Catholic prayer book, to all the children collectively, although it was not his day of religious instruction. They never received the Scripture lessons. Roman Catholics, 501; no Protestants.Such circumstances proved, in his opinion, the existence of great irregularities in the present system of education—a system to which, however it might be carried into effect, he decidedly objected.
§ Viscount Morpethhoped if the reverend Mr. Daly had any complaint to make that he would send the grounds of it to the Government or the Board, in which case the grievance, if any, would be redressed.
§ Mr. Plumptresaid, that having met with the passage to which he had before referred, he should now quote it, especially as some doubt appeared to be thrown on the matter. The report was written, by Mr. Graham, and was dated the 2nd of July. It stated, that in the case of one school visited by the writer, at 1 o'clock on that day he found the children dismissed in consequence of a fair which was held two miles off. Mr. Graham received his information from two ushers in the school, who stated that it had been established in 1827, and was visited daily by the friars. In answer to the question, "For what purpose is that altar used?" The reply was, "For reading mass morning and evening." The inquiries and answers proceeded—"Do Protestant children assemble along with the Roman Catholics?"—"Yes; they must attend." "Is the school daily opened and closed with mass?"—"Yes." "At what hour in the morning will the school commence?"—"At half-past 9." "Will it be then opened by mass as usual?"—"Yes; by one of the friars." "Who is the person that celebrates mass on the occasion?"—"One of the friars from the convent." This concluded the day's discourse, said the writer, and I proposed to attend the school in the morning. The information referred to the school of Esker. On July the 3rd Mr. Graham again visited the school, and ascertained from the master that he had superintended the school for six years, that 50l. was allowed annually by the Board of Education, and that he and his wife acted as superintendents of 474 the school. The question was, whether it was fitting in a Protestant Parliament to grant a sum of money in support of a system of education under which the Holy Scriptures were excluded from the schools? He objected to it on that account, and because he believed, that so far from conveying instruction to the Roman Catholic population, it would be the means of riveting the chains of superstition and darkness, in which they were already bound.
§ Mr. George F. Youngsaid, that the hon. Members who opposed the present grant appeared to have arrived at very sweeping conclusions from very ill-considered premises. Within the last few months he had visited Ireland for the first time, and whilst in Dublin he endeavoured to obtain all the information he could relative to the national system of education, and he had brought away with him, and since read, every book used in the schools. It was his conscientious conviction from all which he had heard and read, that if the principle were recognized that it was improper to attempt to force upon Catholics the adoption of the doctrines of the Protestant Church, it was impossible that a better mode of education for Protestants and Catholics indifferently could be devised than that now acted upon. He regretted the tone in which part of the discussion had been carried on; it was time to lay aside prejudices and hold out the right hand of good fellowship to all who were inclined to co-operate in the task of promoting education. The statement which the hon. Member for Kent read contained an obvious error; it was said that mass was performed in one of the schools in the morning and evening; but it was well known that mass was performed only once a-day, and that was in the morning.
§ Mr. Bodkinsaid, that the school of Esker was principally supported by Mr. James Daly, the brother of the redoubted hero who came over to fight the battle of Protestantism at Exeter Hall. If the hon. Member had made inquiry before he made the statement he had just given utterance to, he would have held his peace.
§ Mr. James Grattanregretted the tone that had prevailed throughout the debate. He thought the funds not now voted were utterly insufficient; they should have a large surplus applied for the object. The establishment should be on a more extensive scale than it now was. He hoped also 475 that a more correct statement would be made out with respect to these schools next year, so that there could be no doubt as to the truth of the statements made.
§ Mr. Wysesaid, that they had been told that the Bible had been excluded from the new schools, but the charge now was a want of Christian charity in adopting a system to prevent Roman Catholic and Protestant children from being educated together. The truth was, that from the conduct hon. Gentlemen pursued they seemed anxious to divide Ireland into two sects, entertaining the most rancorous feelings the one towards the other. Except in doctrinal points there was but little difference between the Catholic and Episcopal Church of England, but it would appear from the tone of the discussion, that hon. Gentlemen wished to carry the differences which existed into every act of social life. He would not charge the individuals whose authority had been so repeatedly referred to this night in support of the statement made, but he would say, that they laboured under the grossest errors and ignorance. He trusted that the present system of education would be extended throughout the country.
§ Mr. Finchobserved, that the hon. Member for Tynemouth appeared to have made rather an extraordinary statement when he said, that though he had been but a very short time in Ireland he had made himself master of all the details of the system of education there pursued. The hon. Member said, that he had perused all the works introduced into the schools. He held in his hand a pamphlet, which, in his opinion, contained most objectionable observations. In one version of the Scriptures the expression was used "it shall crush the serpent's head," but in the Roman Catholic version it is rendered "she shall crush the serpent's head." Although there might be apparently little difference in the sense of these, still a most important distinction was drawn. The words used in the note to the passage are, "Oh! Holy Blessed Virgin Mary, you were promised from the beginning of the world that by your seed you should crush the serpent's head." Now he thought that this was one of the most objectionable expressions that could be introduced into a work for the education of both Catholics and Protestants. The Bible had not been excluded from the Kildarestreet schools.
§ Mr. George F. Young, in explanation, said, that it appeared to him that the hon. Gentleman seemed to have taken a lesson from the polemical disputants who had recently figured in Exeter-Hall. The hon. Gentleman had just referred to a passage to be met with in one of the books used in the schools, which did not appear to him (Mr. Young) to be so objectionable as to the hon. Gentleman. It had not been insidiously introduced, however, by a Catholic, but by a zealous Protestant of the Establishment, and as sound a scholar as was to be found in the empire, who contended that it was the correct translation of the text, and who challenged any persons to dispute it with him.
Mr. O'Connellwas sorry, that the hon. Member for Kent had referred to the authority which he had quoted, as to mass being said in these schools. He could not charge the hon. Member for an English county with uttering a falsehood; indeed, he knew that he was incapable of so doing—but still he exhibited an instance of the grossest ignorance. He should be cautious before he was inclined to give currency to such silly calumnies, which, indeed, would appear so if they were not so utterly ridiculous. He trusted that, on a future occasion, this subject would be discussed in a different tone and feeling from that exhibited on the present.
§ Mr. Hardydenied, that the charge of bigotry could fairly be brought against those who opposed the present grant. He had ever been favourable to Catholic Emancipation and to the equality of civil rights for Members of every religious creed; but it was a very different thing for a man attached to his religion, and who wished to be saved by it, to see his children brought up in a religion which he did not approve.
§ Mr. Plumptredenied, that this was a party question, or that he had ever been opposed to a system of education under which children of all religious creeds could be brought up. He had, however, a very strong feeling as to the course now pursued, and should feel it his duty to divide the House upon the subject.
§ Mr. Sergeant Jacksonsaid, it was not his intention to say anything that could add to the unpleasant feeling which had been exhibited during the debate, but he could not content himself with giving a 477 silent vote on the present occasion. His objection to the new system was, that it did not bring together the rising youth of the country, and thereby instil into their minds those feelings of good fellowship and harmony which it was so important to the welfare of Ireland to cultivate and cherish. His chief complaint against the so-called system of national education was, that it produced a contrary effect from that which its promoters calculated upon. It was not a system of united education, such as that which it had superseded, and which could most truly be designated by that name. He had had the honour of being honorary secretary to the Kildare-place Society for several years. That Society was established for the purpose of giving to the youth of Ireland a united education without the slightest reference to religious distinctions of any kind. He would ask the House and the country, whether any system could be founded upon a broader basis than that which merely required the Scriptures to be read without note or comment. The Kildare-place Society did not require the authorised version of the Bible to be used in the schools. The rule which satisfied the Society was, that the New Testament, or the Protestant or Rheimish Bible, should be used; and he would ask the House whether anything could be more liberal than that. The Kildare-place Society did not seek for public aid; it was supported originally by voluntary contributions. It was invited to take public aid, and for years it gave the greatest satisfaction, and a great number of schools in connection with it were directly under Roman Catholic priests. In 1824 a royal commission was issued, and the Roman Catholic priests having set their faces against the Society, a great outcry was raised against it. The object which that outcry was meant to achieve had since been accomplished—namely, the withdrawal of the funds from the Society. Now, he could state, without fear of contradiction, that the system pursued by the Kildare-place Society was decidedly a scriptural and united system of education; and the Reports on the Table of the House would verify his statements, whereas the system pursued by the new Board was decidedly an exclusive one. When his hon. Friend near him read a statement of the number of children attending certain schools, and when he said that no Protestant attended, 478 it was met by a cheer from the other side. If it were intended by that cheer to infer that there was no Protestant population in these places, he could state most positively that the contrary was the fact. In Macroom, for instance, it was stated that 500 Roman Catholics attended the school, and no Protestants. Would any man say that there was not a large Protestant population in Macroom. If so, it might be asked, why they did not attend these schools? It was, because a system of education was pursued in these schools, in which Protestant children could not consistently partake. He had, himself, presented several petitions during the Session, in which poor Protestant parents complained of not having schools to which they could send their children. It had been attempted to throw discredit upon the statements read by his hon. Friend, because, in the document, the writer said that mass had been celebrated morning and evening. Roman Catholic chapels were considered by Protestants as mass houses, and religious ceremonies performed there were looked upon as masses, It appeared, however, that mass could not be celebrated after twelve o'clock—but the correspondent of the hon. Member, when he spoke of masses in the evening, evidently meant that Roman Catholic service of some sort was performed. Having been for so many years Secretary to the Kildare-place Society, he felt it his duty, when on circuit, to visit some of the schools receiving aid from the new Board. At Loughrea school he found all the children paraded for the purpose of marching them to chapel. He visited another school where there was not a single copy of the Scriptures to be found. In another he found the children, on a week-day, with Butler's Roman Catholic catechism in their hands. He asked the schoolmaster whether the catechism was in constant use, and he replied that it was, and when he inquired whether there was any copy of the Scriptures in use in the school, he was informed that there was not. He would ask the House whether the system could justly be termed a national or united system of education? He did not make these observations in an angry spirit; but he made them as a Member of that House, called upon to sanction the vote of a sum of money amounting to 35,000l., for the purpose of upholding a system which deserved any name better 479 than that of a national system. It might, perhaps be proper to have public funds appropriated for the education of Roman Catholics, but then the money ought to be granted openly for that purpose, and not covertly, as in the present instance. He would not say, that in some parts of Ireland, the north for instance, the Scriptures were not read; but if so, the Board had two sets of rules—one for the north and another for the south. If there were two distinct rules, let it be proclaimed, but don't tell the people of England that you vote this money for a united system of education. ["Lord Morpeth said, that selections from the Scriptures were made by the Board."] Would the noble Lord say that a selection made by five or six individuals, ought to be dignified by the name of the sacred Scriptures? He could not say whether these selections were made by the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Dublin or the Protestant; but he denied that a selection made by one or the other deserved the name of the sacred Scriptures. He was desirous of doing his duty; he had stated facts which no man could contradict. He did feel, standing where he did, and having for so many years filled the office of honorary Secretary to the Kildare-place Society, that he should not be doing his duty, were he not to protest against the transferring of the funds from a Society which imparted to persons of all religious persuasions a united system of education, to one which had failed to perform the service for which the funds had been granted to it.
§ Mr. Sheilrose for the purpose of calling the attention of the Committee to the date of the estimates in which the present vote was included. That date was the "8th of April, 1835," a period when a Government was in power which, doubtless, in the hon. and learned Member's (Mr. Jackson's) judgment, showed great discrimination in selecting individuals for the honours of the Irish bar. The hon. and learned Member at that time uttered not a syllable against the proposed grant of money, and he (Mr. Sheil) must admit that the hon. and learned Member's conduct with respect to the whole matter exhibited not a little talent. As the Frenchman said, "Il a grand talent pour le silence." "Mum," was then the word. And when the late Secretary for Ireland announced in the presence of the hon. and learned Recorder of the city of 480 Dublin, of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Jackson), and of the many pious persons now sitting beside him, that it was the intention of the Government to continue the grant to the new Education Board, not a single scruple, with reference to the proposition was expressed. It appeared, however, that serious objections were now entertained to the present vote; but to all that had been said against it he had this simple answer—the estimate which he held in his hand, and to which was attached the name of "Thomas F. Freemantle."
§ Mr. Sergeant Jacksonwas aware of the fact to which his hon. and learned Friend adverted, and he would tell him this in perfect good humour, that if a vote for 35,000l. had been proposed by the late Prime Minister of the Crown, or the late Secretary for Ireland, he should have risen in his place and made the same statement then that he had made this evening; and he begged to tell the hon. and learned Gentleman why he did not rise in his place on that occasion. It was but a short time he had the honour of being in the House, and he was little acquainted with the mode of proceeding with business, and little aware when it became a Member to rise. He was aware of this also, that the preceding Government had continued the grant to the Kildare-place Society, on the principle that they found it working, and they did not think it right to suppress it, but rather to allow it to go on for a year. It was the preceding Government to Sir Robert Peel's that made a grant on the principle that it was right to give a year's notice to the Kildare-place Society before they withdrew the grant; and, therefore, he thought the late Government were justified in continuing the grant to the new Board for one year, the more particularly as buildings had been erected and expenses incurred on the faith of the grant being made; but he would repeat, that he cared not who the Minister was, he should have risen and opposed it, on the grounds that he had that night urged.
§ The Committee divided on the Question: Ayes 143; Noes 42—Majority 101.
| List of the NOES. | |
| Agnew, Sir A. | Campbell, Sir H. |
| Arbuthnot, H. | Chisholm, A. W. |
| Attwood, M. | Cole, Lord |
| Balfour, T. | Darlington, Earl |
| Calcraft, J. H. | Dick, Q. |
| Dottin, A. R. | Maxwell, H. |
| Egerton, Sir P. | Plunkett, R. |
| Elley, Sir J. | Price, G. |
| Fector, J. M. | Pringle, A. |
| Finch, G. | Scarlett, A. C. |
| Forbes, W. | Sibthorp, Col. |
| Gordon, Captain | Sinclair, G. |
| Greville, Sir C. J. | Tyrell, Sir J. |
| Hardy, J. | Williams, R. |
| Hamilton, Lord C. | Wyndham, W. |
| Hayes, Sir E. S. | Young, J. |
| Jackson, Sergt. J. D. | TELLERS. |
| Inglis, Sir R. | Plumptre, J. P. |
| Kearsley, J. H. | PAIRED OFF AGAINST. |
| Kirk, P. | Buller, Sir J. Y. |
| Lefroy, Sergeant, | Cole, A. |
| Lefroy, A. | Cooper, E. |
| Longfield, R. | Perceval, Col. Thomas |
| Lowther, Col. | Vesey, Hon. |
§ On the Motion that 8,928l. be granted for the Roman Catholic college in Ireland.
§ Mr. Sinclairprotested against the vote for no Protestant state was bound to bring up its subjects in the errors of the Roman Catholic faith. That was contrary to the religion of the State, and he would never sanction it.
§ Viscount Morpethcould not consent to refuse to set apart so small a sum for the religious education of so large a number of people.
§ Mr. Warburtonsaid, the only objection he felt to the vote was to the site of the College for which it was intended. He could see no reason why it should not be on the same site as where the Clergymen for the Established Church were educated. Any one who took the trouble to examine the charter of Trinity College, Dublin, would see that it was intended to be one of many colleges. Let Trinity College have different Professors in Theology, one for Protestants, another for Roman Catholics, but why should not both be instructed together in arts and general literature. It was well worthy of the consideration of his Majesty's Ministers, whether the site of Maynooth College ought not to be changed. Such a course would be but carrying out the principles laid down by them in their system of general education.
Mr. Lefroysaid, that the hon. Member for Bridport (Mr. Warburton) brought a charge of illiberality against Trinity College which he must be permitted to tell the hon. Member was quite groundless. That University conferred degrees upon persons of all religious denominations without the slightest distinction. It allowed Roman Catholics and others to 482 graduate; and, therefore, he maintained that the charge of illiberality was not sustained. The system suggested by the hon. Member would tend to increase the distinctions between the two denominations, rather than to abate them. At present, Roman Catholics and Protestants were educated together at the Dublin University in harmony and concord; and one of his objections to the proposal of the hon. Member (Mr. Warburton) was, that his system would rather impede than forward so desirable an end. He had said thus much to show that the system pursued at Trinity College was not an illiberal one; and with respect to the grant under consideration, he objected to it on the ground, that as the State acknowledged but one religion as the established religion—for he had not heard as yet of any legislative measure to abolish the Protestant religion as the established religion in England or in Ireland—it was not consistent that the State should teach a religion from which Protestants had separated, on the ground of erroneous doctrines. Upon that view of the case he had always opposed the grant, and should continue so to do.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, what was sauce for the goose was sauce for the gander. He would give the hon. and learned Member as much conscience as he pleased—he wished Protestants had a little more of it. The hon. and learned Member said, the Dublin University was open to Catholics. Yes, as far as education went, they were very liberal, but they never gave a Scholarship or a Fellowship to a Catholic; they were very careful of their good things. But to this he would answer, the College of Maynooth was precisely on a footing with the Dublin University. Protestants might be educated there if they pleased, and, with all due regard to their consciences, they might attend all the courses, excepting of course those of religion. He would now relate an instance of the way in which Catholics in a Catholic country treated such a subject as this. In Belgium a vote of money was moved in the Chamber of Representatives towards the expenses of a Protestant chapel in Brussels. Some division of opinion took place on that occasion: there were four Catholic clergymen in the Chambers, and three of those voted in favour of the grant, and only one against it.
§ Mr. Finchsaid, he opposed the grant, 483 because he thought, if a good vote, it was too small; and, if not, it should be discontinued altogether. With respect to the instance of Roman Catholic liberality which the hon. and learned Member had mentioned, he believed that, if the case were closely inquired into, the Catholic priesthood of Belgium had a second object in view when they agreed to the vote towards the Protestant Church building in Brussels, namely, that it would encourage Protestants to come and reside there.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, that the hon. Gentleman had charged the Roman Catholics with duplicity. No man could make that charge of duplicity against others, but one who judged from himself; and he (Mr. O'Connell) repudiated the foul and false charge. "What (continued the hon. and learned Member)! Is such a charge to be made, and are we to be prohibited from noticing it? Oh, no; it may do at Exeter Hall; but it will not do here. There is no policeman here to put down those who attempt to defend themselves. I repeat, therefore, that I return the slander to the foul source from which it comes."
§ Sir Robert Inglissaid, he thought the hon. and learned member for Dublin had misunderstood his hon. Friend the Member for Stamford, and had alluded to something his hon. Friend had said in another place, and not to what he had just uttered in his seat in that House. His hon. Friend had not made a general charge of duplicity against the Catholics as a body, but merely expressed an opinion, founded upon facts and reports which other hon. Members, as well as himself, must have heard, that the clergy of Belgium were not entitled to the full meed of liberality which was claimed for them in the instance referred to, because it was an accredited fact that they voted for the grant for the Protestant chapel, because they wished to induce English families to come and reside in Belgium. With respect to the grant before the House, it was a relic of the old Irish Parliament. When that Parliament was united with that of England all its obligations were taken along with it upon the Imperial Parliament, and this grant, being one of them, had always hitherto been agreed to. As, however, of late years, some other charges and grants of a like kind, and under a similar obligation, had been dispensed with, he thought all those who had a conscientious objection to the application of the funds in the pre- 484 sent vote had a full right to oppose it. Of those persons he was one, for he thought it was quite contrary to reason and to propriety that the Government of a country should raise funds for cultivating the growth of a religious belief which, by the constitution of the country, was disavowed by the State.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould merely say, that his hon. Friend in laying it down as an abstract proposition, that the State ought not to support any religion which was disavowed by the State went too far, for that argument, pushed to its proper conclusions, would lead the Dissenter and Catholics at once to resist the giving any support to the State religion. The fact was, that a large mass of the population of Ireland were Catholics, and they must be dealt with as Catholics. He supported the grant therefore, entirely on the grounds of expediency, it being in his opinion, necessary to give to such a large body all the advantages of the State.
§ Mr. William S. O'Briendenied that the religion of the State was essentially Protestant. The House of Commons represented the people, and there were two registered votes this Session contrary to the wishes of the Irish clergy. The State was bound to extend the blessings of education equally to all its subjects. He regretted that the sum voted was not greater.
§ Mr. Wysesaid, the question in reality was, whether the Roman Catholic clergy should go abroad, as heretofore, for instruction, or whether they should obtain it at home? He thought the grant should be double the amount fixed in the estimate.
§ Vote agreed to—House resumed.