EDUCATION (IRELAND).

HC Deb 05 August 1839 vol 49 cc1258-70

On the question being again put,

Mr. Dillon Browne

felt sorry that he had not a different opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the motion which he rose to bring forward, but the fact was, that it was grounded upon a petition which was not received by the House, and which was presented so late in the Session that he could find no certain opportunity except the present for bringing the matter forward. He felt that he was about to give expressions to sentiments which would place him in no very desirable position. He felt he should be opposed on the opposite side of the House, because hon. Gentlemen might suppose that the object of his motion was to maintain the stability of the Catholic Church by civil enactments, when he only desired to assert its religious independence, and he did not expect a more favourable reception from the varied sections that compose the ministerial side of the House. Her Majesty's Government would oppose him, some because they were as hostile to the progress of the Catholic faith as the most orthodox hon. Gentlemen opposite, though they expressed themselves in different terms; and others because his proposition was opposed to the present system of national education in Ireland, of which the present Government were sponsors. He should be opposed also by another section at this side of the House, the English and Irish Protestant movement party. Deriving their belief from private interpretation, they had in common no definite principles of faith, and consequently thought it was impossible (and under the circumstances he agreed with them), to adopt any religious instruction agreeable to all. Others who wished to unite with secular instruction certain moral instruction, based upon a vague, abstract, indefinite principle, which he could not comprehend, a species of compound extract of all religions, a sort of ethical quintessence, which they declared to be common to every creed, hut which he feared would be recognised by none. And he felt he should be opposed by another section on his own side of the House, which gave him much cause of regret, many of whom were his friends, most of whom were his fellow-countrymen, and all of whom were his fellow-believers. They would oppose him, not because they did not wish as sincerely as he did to maintain the religious independence of the Roman Catholic Church, not because they did not acknowledge as fully as he did, that no religious instruction can be received by Roman Catholic children incompatible with Ecclesiastical authority, and not because they did not see as clearly as he did that the time was fast approaching, when, arising out of very potent reasons, the whole Catholic hierarchy of Ireland would repudiate the present system of national education in Ireland, but they would oppose him because they might think that dwelling upon a subject of this peculiar nature was imprudent in a Roman Catholic. The member of that Church who did as he was doing might be designated by those who confounded civil with religious duties, as a political bigot, when he was only maintaining the religious rights and privileges of his Church. Those Gentlemen might censure him too because they saw him in opposition to a favourite Government upon a favourite scheme, and saw him assailing her Majesty's Government in Ireland in a quarter in which they were found very vulnerable in this country. Indeed it had been said, as he had been informed by an hon. Member, a particular friend of his, that in consequence of his having held peculiar opinions upon this subject, that he risked his seat. However the hon. Gentleman might have used the expression, he could not so far forget early associations as to reciprocate the wish. It had also been stated, that whatever might be his private opinions, he had no right to act in opposition to his party, this was a system of political philosophy he could never adopt, because it resolved itself to this, that a supporter of Government should never have an opinion of his own. In fact, in political matters, the doctrine of the barbarian who burned the library of Alexandria should be established—that we should seek all wisdom and principle in the Koran given from the Treasury benches, and it ought to be esteemed profanation to look beyond it—that a man was not to think or act for himself, or to propound any scheme emanating from his own mind—that he was never to vindicate his own principles, though, at the present time, whatever might be a man's opinions, and however they might be opposed to his party, and however slavishly and mechanically he may serve that party, he need not, in the great vacillation of parties, despair of seeing those opinions vindicated. Therefore, he saw that he should meet with considerable resistance from all sides, and sympathy from none, but he hoped that the House, which was always inclined to act generously, would accord to him its attention, particularly because he stood alone, and did not hearken to the voice that would whisper to him For party give up what is due to mankind. In treating this important subject he would indulge as little as possible in any polemical matter; he would only introduce it as far as it was necessary for the illustration of his argument. He knew that religious discussion was displeasing to the House, but it was anomalous to expect the entire rejection of it, when the House legislated upon religious matters. They were to consider this subject, first as regarded the combination of religious and secular instruction, and, secondly, how that combination should be made so as to sink the sectarian prejudices of all parties, and, as far as his motion extended, the peculiar state of society in Ireland. He begged to be understood, that he did not wish to press upon the consideration of the House any peculiar religious opinions of his own, he did not wish to maintain that one set of religious opinions were right, and another wrong, but that such being the notions of the majority, that we should to a great extent legislate accordingly. He did not wish to attach any peculiar importance to any peculiar opinions, but he wished to maintain, that whatever were the opinions of the masses, their laws should bear a necessary reference to them. Whatever might be his private opinions, he would not in that place declare, that the Irish people were right in submitting the religious instruction of their children to the pastors of their Church; but that such being the feelings of the Irish people, we could not establish a system of national education repugnant to those feelings. He was of opinion, that secular and religious education should be combined. He held this opinion simply as a citizen, without even referring to higher considerations, for if he had been an unbeliever, he would maintain, that religion was the best engine which could be used to promote the prosperity and happiness of the State. For he always thought, that those moral fears excited in the youthful mind by early instruction, did more in after life to deter men from the commission of the greater crimes than all the penal enactments with which you could crowd your statute-book. Many a man, instigated by bad passions to take away the life of his fellow, would despise the authority of the law, and, perhaps, anticipate its judgment with his own hand, did he not, in consequence of early impressions, fear a tribunal which is not of this world, and an inevitable justice whose vigilance never sleeps, and whose course cannot be diverted. Religious instruction being combined with secular, the next consideration was, how could that combination be best made to suit the sectarian prejudices of all parties. Could it be done under a lay supervision? The Government say they will adopt a Committee on authority common to all, and communicate religious instruction common to all. Could this be done in a community composed like this, of multitudinous sects, some of whom acknowledged Church authority, and some of whom did not; and many of whom differed in essentials? Those who did not recognize any Church authority, might receive religious instruction however it came; but those who did acknowledge it, would repudiate this joint-stock company in religion. Where they differed in essentials, could you find any religious instruction common to all? To achieve that desirable undertaking, you should discover some resting place so elevated above all sectarian prejudices, that each could find a neutral ground to join in bonds of amity. Could you find this neutral ground between the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England? Could you find for them any principle common to both, which they consider so paramount above all others, that they will reject the consideration of all others to obtain instruction upon this? You will, perhaps, say this principle is the abstract question of redemption. But the Roman Catholic was bound to consider a belief in the sacrifice of the mass, and in the seven sacraments, as essential to salvation as a belief in the redemption; and any Catholic teacher who is conscientious, would be obliged to inculcate this principle. Therefore, you would exclude Catholic teachers from giving religious instruction, or you would employ men who ought not to be trusted. Amongst the other Dissenters, are there any brighter hopes of coming to an understanding? Suppose there were established in this town, a school upon your joint-stock principle amongst a community which comprehends different sects—members of the Established Church, Presbyterians, Socinians, and Unitarians—and that the majority (and it is no very remote contingency) were Unitarians; suppose Mr. Fox, the Unitarian preacher, were chosen as the spiritual instructor. Now, Sir, Mr. Fox declared—he, (the hon. Member) used the expression with the greatest reverence—speaking of the godhead of the Saviour, "that our Saviour was merely a prophet; that he was the first radical Reformer of his time; and that if he were incarnate in those days, he would be taken up as a Chartist!"* Could any Protestant, could any Roman Catholic, could any Christian parent submit his child to receive religious instruction from this man? And Mr. Fox would have as good a right as any member of the Established Church to lay claim to be made religious instructor under the joint-stock company in religion. Therefore, he thought, that secular and religious instruction could not be combined under a lay supervision. And then he came to the peculiar state of society in Ireland; he was not cognizant of any country less calculated from its social condition to receive a combined system of religious education. There had been two parties in Ireland long contending, the one for equality, the other for domination; and religion was the weapon they most constantly made use of in their conflicts. When civil concessions were granted on the one side, and when licen- ^* It seems proper to state, that the gentleman alluded to in the text, denied ever having used any such word or words bearing any such interpretation as Mr. D. Browne assigned to the language of Mr. Fox. tious power was bridled upon the Other, the state of things was not much improved. Catholic emancipation, and the suppression of Orange societies, did not much improve the moral condition of the country; for afterwards two evil passions raged, the least calculated to promote that object, and the most to disturb the social order—on one side the keen memory of wrong, and on the other, the sullen mortification engendered by the loss of power. Those passions are ever fermenting, being kneaded by the vigilance of one party or another, and however they may assume today the aspect of tranquillity, like the yeast of the housewife, a small portion is always laid by to feed the excitement of to-morrow. Under those circumstances, how can you adopt a system of religious education, common to all, and acceptable to all? Will those who have lost power receive religious instruction from their Helots, or will those who have gained equality allow their former tyrants to minister to them? No more than will the emancipated negroes of Jamaica (and we know this from sad experience) receive their laws prescribed to them by their former task-, masters. There could not be adopted a joint system of education in Ireland. Any system of education adopted in Ireland must have respect to the Roman Catholic religion. There are 7,000,000, forming the majority of the population of that country; any national education must respect the feelings of that majority, or as far as they are concerned, it will be inoperative. They cannot receive religious instruction, except from their pastors or persons accredited by them, because every Roman Catholic is obliged to submit, with implicit obedience, to the authority of his Church. That implicit obedience has procured for the Church its most distinguishing mark, its unity, which has been undisturbed by time, and space, and clime, and taste, and language; which had adapted it to flourish under every Constitution, while it could be affected by none. Let the House, however, take those opinions from the Catholic hierarchy themselves. In 1826, the Catholic Bishops in Ireland assembled in synod, and after frequent conferences with Government, promulgated certain resolutions as the analysis of their aggregate opinions, and as an example to their flocks. He would read a short extract from those resolutions;— That the admission of Protestants and Roman Catholics into the same schools for the purpose of literary instruction, may, under existing circumstances, be allowed, provided sufficient care be taken to protect the religion of Roman Catholic children, and to furnish them with adequate means of instruction. That in order to secure sufficient protection to the religion of Roman Catholic children, under such a system of education, we deem it necessary that the master of each school in which the majority of the pupils profess the Roman Catholic faith, be a Roman Catholic; and that in schools in which the Roman Catholic children form only a minority, a permanent Roman Catholic assistant be employed, and that such master and assistant be appointed upon the recommendation, or with the express approval, of the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese in which they are to be employed; and further, that they, or either of them, be removed upon the representation of such Bishop. The same rule to be observed for the appointment or dismissal of mistresses and assistants in female schools. That in conformity with the principle of protecting the religion of Roman Catholic children, the books intended for their particular instruction in religion shall be selected or approved of by the Roman Catholic Prelates, and that no book or tract for common instruction in literature, shall be introduced into any school in which Roman Catholic children are educated, which book or tract may be objected to on religious grounds by the Roman Catholic Bishop of the diocese in which such school is established. That appointed as we have been by Divine Providence to watch over and preserve the Catholic faith in Ireland; and, responsible as we are to God for the souls of our Hocks, we will, in our respective dioceses, withhold our concurrence and support from any system of education which will not fully accord with the principles expressed in the foregoing resolutions. Such were the resolutions passed in the year 1826, by the Irish Bishops assembled in Synod; their opinions are there given distinctly upon the terms upon which they are willing to receive Government assistance for the purposes of national education. These opinions have not since been altered, and they are not to be mistaken. They declare that they will not recognize any system of education, except with the following provisions:—That they will not allow Catholics to be educated in the same schools with Protestants, unless that there is a Catholic teacher appointed where the majority are Roman Catholics, and that when Roman Catholics only form the minority, that there is appointed a permanent Catholic teacher, approved of by the Bishop of the diocese, and subject to removal upon his recommendation. These principles are as distinctly opposed to the regulations of the Board of National Education in Ireland as principles can be; but it may be said, that the Catholic hierarchy in Ireland have altered their opinions, and that when, on a late occasion, certain resolutions hostile to the Board were proposed by the Archbishop of Tuam, that these resolutions were negatived by a majority. This is a fact. But a minority of eight supported the propositions of Dr. M'Hale, which would, independently of other considerations, be a sufficient reason to prove, that the national system of education could not be generally efficacious, for those Bishops superintend districts which comprehend one-third of the population of Ireland, and they have concurrent with them in opinion, a large majority of the members of the Established Church; and the majority of Bishops, in approving of it, gave but a qualified approval, and subject to a reservation which must be ultimately fatal to the system. They said, We will not disapprove of the Board, however it may lay down principles discordant; for as its regulations depend upon civil enactments, we are not ecclesiastically responsible for it; but it will be our duty to see that practically it does not operate incompatibly with the authority of our Church. We do not wish to destroy it, because we wish to make use of it; but we shall only make use of it in strict accordance with our own principles. We will assert, primarily, our own authority, and stand in a position as if it never existed. In our clerical capacities, it is not necessary we should be cognizant of its existence. We will resolve that the children of our Church shall be educated in our faith after that fashion which their Bishops will approve of. We will receive pecuniary assistance if, under the circumstances, it is offered to us, we care not from what quarter it comes, or from what Board, however constituted, as to its fundamental principles, provided it does not interfere with us in its practical operations. Therefore the Board stands in this position: it has eight Bishops separating from it because it is not established upon certain principles, and the remainder of the Bishops will hold no connexion with it unless those principles are put into operation. Unless the House adopted the suggestion in this resolution which he proposed, it would exclude more than one-third of the population of Ireland from the benefits of the system, and unless in practice it followed the spirit of this resolution, it would exclude almost the whole of the population. But he had strong reason to believe, that that approval had been given by the majority of the Bishops to the Board, with a reservation which would prove fatal to the system. The matter was referred to a higher authority, and to one which must necessarily be omnipotent with the ecclesiastics of the Roman Catholic Church, and he believed that the decision, though it was not yet officially announced, was in accordance with the opinions of Dr. M'Hale. But whatever might have been the peculiar decision upon that peculiar case, there were recent circumstances connected with the ecclesiastical history of Europe which rendered it a matter of little doubt. In fact, every day the opponents to the Board of National Education were increasing. It was but a short time since Dr. M'Hale stood alone; it was found that eight Bishops adopted his principles when suggested, and when it was generally supposed he would not have had one to support him; in fact, Catholic hostility to the Board was spreading rapidly over Ireland. He would take the liberty of reading an extract from a letter received from a divine of the highest character, and of acknowledged talents; he was not at liberty to mention the name, as the letter was only just put into his hands by a party who was not authorised to give it publicity, but it came from an individual not connected with the eight Bishops who were allied to Dr. M'Hale, and it comprehended what he conceived to be the principal objections to the Board of Education, and given in language better than he could adopt:— The chief objections to the existing system, as far as I can recollect, are the following:—1st. A combined system of education on the basis of religion, and yet excluding religious peculiarities, must either exclude the Catholic religion altogether, or give offence to some party. 2nd. Government interference is bad. 3rd. Structure of the Board is vicious and sectarian, because a Board, in which there are only three Catholics, does not represent in due proportion the Catholic population; because, as is notorious from the errors of the scripture lessons and fifth book of lessons, it affords not a sufficient security for our faith; because the composition of these books was entrusted to Carlisle, a Presbyterian; and because the structure of that Board is a formal recognition of Protestant ascendancy in a Catholic country and national concern. 4th. The system of district inspectors has been objected to. 5th. Training school also objectionable, 6th, Scripture lessons have been proved to contain heresy and error almost in every page. The questions appended to them embrace all existing controversies, The notes are saturated with the Calvanistic errors. The text is faithless, corrupt, and unauthorized. And the uncontrolled power of the masters in expounding these books, makes the thing still more dangerous. 7th. The 5th book of lessons contains theories at variance with Moses, and has been strongly objected to. 8th. The provisions of the existing system have been proved to be at variance with the resolutions of the episcopal body in 1826. 9th. It has been urged also that the fundamental principle of the system is vicious and anti-Catholic. As the primary object of the system is to unite all in a forgetfulness of religious destinations, to impart education upon neutral grounds, and to thrust peculiar tenets into the contemptuous obscurity of separate instruction. Finally, it has been contended, and it is my impression, that nothing but a separate grant will ever satisfy the people of Ireland. Those were the sentiments of a learned divine, with which he perfectly coincided. He would not allude to the opinions of Dr. M'Hale—they were well known to the House and to the country; and they were opinions which would be respected by every Catholic and every Irishman, as emanating from a man who was an ornament to his Church and to his country, who shone brightest amongst the Catholic hierarchy, and who filled the vacancy left in it by Dr. Doyle; indeed, the people of Ireland, in mourning for the loss of that great polemical champion, might turn to Dr. M'Hale, applying the quotation made use of on a late occasion by the noble Lord the Member fur North Lancashire, and when they saw one golden fruit fallen from the parent stem, might exclaim in truth— Primo avulso non deficit alter Aureus et simili frondescit virga metallo. He thought that the present system of national education could never work, that no power or no art could force it upon the consideration of the people of Ireland. The desire of a favourite Government could not do it. Even the support to it, if given by the great champion of the liberties of his country, would not do it. Nor would it be effected by the bland temporizing of Dr. Murray. The policy of England had ever been to force upon the Irish people the religion of their conquerors, to Anglo Saxonize the country in every respect. And the people had shown, under circumstances the most trying, the most unexampled fidelity to their religion, The history of Ireland proves how assiduously her persecutors pursued their object, and how faithfully the persecuted clung to their altars. In every age and under every circumstance, the history of Ireland is sadly connected with religious persecution, and is brightly illustrative of national fidelity to religion. We may revert to the remotest period, whether our liberties were trampled by the hoof of the heathen, or under the banners of the cross. There is an evidence of the same object an the one side, and the same resolution upon the other. We may look back from Turgesius to Cromwell, and from Cromwell to the present time, and while invariably we see the frequent brand cast into the Temple, as we trace the ravages of the barbarian up the steep of time, we at the same time, mark in our progress how, still undismayed, the Catholic clung to the sanctuary. tuary. Do you think, now, that that people who have been so faithful to their creed, will permit a proseletysing Government Board, coming with a smiling face, to undermine their principles? What they refused to persecution, will they yield to sophistry and intrigue? The wolf which they repelled, will they now admit into the fold, because it approaches under sheep's clothing? Will they desert their Priesthood? When you passed every law that bigotry could suggest and tyranny enforce, to shut the people of Ireland out from religious instruction, did their priesthood desert them? When you endeavoured to put out the mind of Ireland, and when you rendered it penal not alone to educate its Catholic population, but when you declared it to be crime of peculiar atrocity to educate a minister of religion, did the people then want religious instruction? They then obtained it—they now will draw it from the same source, and they will not forget that in the days of persecution that that priesthood sought abroad, for their sakes alone, that education which was denied them at home, and collected, even amid the convulsions that agitated England, those seeds which they have scattered in their native land, the glorious harvest of which Ireland now exhibits in her seven millions of Roman Catholic population. The hon. Member concluded by moving, That, to satisfy the conscientious scruples of a large proportion of the Protestant, as well as Roman Catholic population of Ireland, and conciliate to the Board of National Education in that country the general confidence of the community, it is expedient that this House do recommend to the Commissioners the discontinuance of the use of the "Scripture Lessons," which are equally offensive to persons of all religious persuasions, as a mutilation of the Word of God; that it be a further recommendation to the Commissioners to adopt in practice the principle of setting apart an hour of each day for the religious instruction of children of different creeds, to be communicated in separate sections of the schools connected with the Board either by the spiritual pastors of the children respectively, or by other competent persons duly accredited by them, and subject to their supervision and control; that no religious instruction be communicated to the children in such schools except by their pastors, or by persons so accredited; and that, there being but two Roman Catholics amongst the seven Members of whom the Board consists, it is desirable, in order to secure the confidence of seven-eighths of the Irish people, both with reference to religious instruction, and to the impartial distribution of the funds at the disposal of the Board, that a Roman Catholic Divine, approved of by the body of Roman Catholic Prelates in Ireland, should be added to the Board of Commissioners.

Motion not seconded.