SUPPLY—EDUCATION (IRELAND). (Hansard, 30 July 1845)

§ Mr. G. A. Hamilton
stated that, however strongly he was opposed to the National System of Education in Ireland—however he was of opinion that a most important principle had been conceded in it, in order to render it palatable and acceptable to the Roman Catholic party—and, although he should have felt it to be his duty to give it every opposition if now brought forward for the first time, and its principle made the subject of discussion, yet he was ready to admit, all things considered—considering that the system had been now for more than twelve years in operation, supported by three successive Administrations differing from each other in political sentiments, and that school-houses had been built and arrangements made upon the faith of its continuance, he (Mr. Hamilton) should not feel justified in endeavouring so suddenly, as on a Vote in Committee of Supply, to stop a grant for the support of schools in which so many hundred thousand children of the poor in Ireland were now in course of education. It was certainly his intention to have brought under the consideration of the House the present state of the Education Question in Ireland, with the view of vindicating the Protestants of Ireland, and especially the clergy of the Established Church, from the unjust imputations which had been cast upon them, and the odium to which they had been exposed in consequence of their continued and conscientious refusal to identify themselves with, or give their sanction to, that system—and of stating to the House the reasons and motives by which they were actuated. But, at so advanced a period of the Session—in the present position of public business—in the exhausted state of the House, and in the absence of so many of his hon. Friends—he felt it would be 1258 useless to attempt to do justice to the subject, and he would, therefore, refrain from raising any discussion respecting it. On the present occasion he would content himself with entering his protest against the principle which was involved in the Vote before the Committee, and expressing the deep regret he felt that Her Majesty's Government had not thought it proper to entertain favourably the strong appeal which had recently been made to them in reference to Scriptural Education in Ireland. That appeal had been made on behalf of the great body of the Protestant laity of Ireland—of 1,700 of the clergy of the Established Church—and was supported by the petitions of more than 63,000 persons which had been presented in that House. The object of the application was to induce Her Majesty's Government to take into their consideration the very painful position in which the Protestant clergy and people of Ireland were placed, who conscientiously object to the present national system—and it urged the claims of 1,820 Scriptural schools, attended by more than 103,000 children of different persuasions. He (Mr. Hamilton) regretted deeply that such an appeal should have been disregarded—had it been entertained, he did believe that the subject would have been approached with a great desire to promote an arrangement or accommodation; and he was sanguine enough to believe, that a satisfactory accommodation might have been arrived at. For the reasons he had stated, he would not trespass further upon the Committee; but would be satisfied with entering his earnest protest against the national system and its principle.

§ Mr. Osborne
complained of the attacks that were made against the system, referring in particular to a speech of the Bishop of Cashel, in the other House of Parliament, wherein that right rev. Prelate stated that seventy-six out of 100 of the children educated in a particular locality could neither read nor write; the fact being, that those were children between the ages of five and ten, a fact which the right rev. Prelate omitted to state. His speech had been quoted and relied on at several public meetings, as containing substantial proofs and charges against the efficiency of the national system of education, but against which no tangible charge had yet been brought forward even by the right rev. Prelate.

§ Mr. Wyse
wished to know from the right hon. Baronet opposite, whether it were intended, as intimated by him at the commencement of the Session, to establish model schools in Ireland, with a view to the introduction of a higher class of education; and also, whether it was intended to incorporate the National Board, so as to give it the power of taking land for the building of schools, particularly in those districts where, as the right hon. Baronet must be aware, there existed great difficulty in obtaining sites for that purpose, owing to the opposition of the proprietary to the national system of education, and in consequence of which, schools were sometimes established in places most inconvenient to the majority of the population. He also wished to know whether it was intended to better the style of existing school-houses, some of which were scarcely better than hovels.

§ Sir J. Graham
had no hesitation in stating that the Board of National Education in Ireland did intend to found in certain districts such schools as he had described at an early part of the Session; and, in order to meet the difficulty referred to by the hon. Member respecting sites for school-houses, it was proposed to recommend to Her Majesty to grant a charter of incorporation to the National Board, whereby they would be enabled to take and appropriate land for that purpose. In reply to the hon. Member's last question, he could state that the attention of the Board had been directed to the state of existing school-houses. The point was one of much difficulty; but he had no doubt that they would be made more worthy of the object to which they were applied.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell
said, that it was not the speeches that were made in that House, but out of it, of which he had to complain. Hon. Gentlemen opposite wished for a separate grant for a system of education in connexion with the Protestant Church: they demanded a grant for the Church Education Society; but, if that were conceded, an equivalent, and consequently a much larger grant, should, in justice, be given to a Roman Catholic board for the purpose of Roman Catholic education. Such a course would upset the present united and useful system, and lead to much sectarian bitterness.

Lord C. Hamilton
denied that there existed on the part of those who sup- 1260 ported the Church Education Society any desire to establish separate boards, and maintained that the boasted success of the national system was merely fictitious, and that the only united system was that of the Church Society. He was prepared to prove, that while that system was both united and liberal, and interfered less with the religious tenets of the children than the national system, it conferred upon all alike, Roman Catholics as well as Protestants, a sound Christian education.

Mr. M. J. O'Connell
conceived that a distinct grant to the Church Education Society would have the effect he described. The very name of the society indicated a sectarian character. The Church Catechism was required to be taught in the schools of the Church Education Society. [Lord C. Hamilton: No, no.] Then he could neither understand the Society's name nor the speeches of its supporters. At a meeting last March, the Bishop of Down spoke of the system adopted by the National Board as "anti-Christian, because anti-Scriptural and anti-Church."

Lord C. Hamilton
defended the application of the term "anti-Scriptural," and insisted that 815 of the national schools had been found to admit neither the Scriptures nor the Extracts.

§ Mr. Osborne
said, that if the national system did not supply united education, it was because the clergy of the Established Church set their faces against it, and refused to attend at the schools. The rules allowed religious instruction to be given, and provided for it, though no child was to be required to attend if its parents objected. And hon. Members who voted for the Irish Colleges Bill could call this an anti-Scriptural system!

Lord C. Hamilton
could justify what he had said, but had much more respect for the Committee than for the observations just made.