ADDEESS MOVED.

HC Deb 17 July 1860 vol 159 cc2036-78

MR. BUTT

said, he rose to move that an humble address be presented to Her Majesty, representing that the House had learned with regret that many of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland were prevented by conscientious objections from availing themselves of the benefit of the funds voted by the House for the promotion of national education in Ireland; and praying Her Majesty to direct inquiries to be made whether such changes might not be made in the rules under which that grant was distributed as would enable all classes in Ireland to enjoy the advantages which that grant was intended to secure to the Irish people. The question involved was whether Ireland was to be treated in the same manner as this country, and whether an educational system which had grown up to gigantic dimensions was to be administered in deference to or in disregard of the feelings of a large portion of the population of that country. Towards the support of the system inaugurated by the Earl of Derby the grant in 1831 had been £30,000, in 1851 it had increased to £100,000, and in 1858 it had reached £270,000, and for this year it stood at the same amount. £30,000 was spent upon what were called model schools; nearly £20,000 upon agricultural schools; and the sum spent upon education generally throughout the country was £131,000. Here was a Board appointed by the Crown administering a revenue gradually approaching in amount the aggregate of the stipends received by the parochial clergy of the Establishment. The Board possessed great power, and controlled absolutely the education of the lower classes in Ireland. He was sure that such a system was not within the spirit of a free Government; and that if it were introduced into England it would be strongly protested against. But what he wished to call attention to was, that in Ireland a considerable number of the Roman Catholic population refused, from conscientious motives, to avail themselves of the assistance offered them by the State for the education of their children. Almost the whole of the Protestant population repudiated any connection with the system also from conscientious motives. Was that, then, he asked, a state of things that ought to be encouraged? About five years ago the right hon. Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) brought forward the case of the Protestant population of Ireland in reference to the system of national education in a speech marked by much eloquence and argument. He (Mr. Butt) cordially subscribed to that admirable sentiment with which the right hon. Gentleman opened his speech on that occasion—namely, that when the State voted large sums of money for the education of the people, they had no right to exclude any one class from its benefit. The Roman Catholic prelates however alleged that system was not adapted to the Roman Catholic population, and every Protestant clergyman who partook of the grant said he only accepted of the system in the absence of any other—that it was simply a choice of evils, either to accept the system of education that was offered, or to leave the children under his charge without any education at all. The system was based upon toleration, but in its action it was most intolerant. Unless a person submitted to the rules of the Commissioners he could not be permitted to share in the advantages. A system was called national, to which the whole nation was opposed.

In 1831, when the system was introduced into Parliament by the present Earl of Derby, it was stated that its main object was to protect parental authority, and to give every opportunity for the education of children without requiring the sacrifice of the slightest principle of conscience or the cherished convictions of the heart. It was also established as one of united education; and upon that ground alone could the rules which had been established by the Board, and the sacrifice of religious action which was required from the various denominations, be justified. Had the system, then, succeeded as one of united education, under which the children of parents of different religious denominations should be educated in the same school? Quite the reverse. He might be told that it educated so many Protestant and Roman Catholic children; but that fact did not prove it to have succeeded as a combined system of education. Now, he had not been able to obtain a statement showing how many Protestant and Roman Catholic children were mixed together in those schools in Ireland. He knew, however, that in more than 2,000 schools or more than one-half there was no admixture of children whatever; that those schools were administered by Roman Catholics, and the pupils were all Roman Catholics; and in the few schools that were administered by Protestant clergymen there were no Roman Catholic children. The returns obtained by Lord Clancarty in a Committee of the House of Lords, moreover showed that in the few schools in which there was an admixture of Roman Catholic and Protestant children the proportions of the former were immense as compared with the latter. It was, then, generally admitted that as a mixed system of education it had utterly failed. In Youghal, the borough which he had the honour to represent, there was a large population of Roman Catholics; there was also a considerable Protestant population, consisting principally of artisans, who would be glad to avail themselves of any system of education for their children which they could conscientiously share in. There was a large number of zealous clergymen in that part of the country, and yet there was not in Youghal a single school receiving sixpence out of this large grant of public money. The Protestant clergymen said that the national system called upon them to exclude the Scriptures from their schools, and they would not consent to such a condition. The Roman Catholic clergymen said that the system of education in these schools was inconsistent with their conscientious feelings, and they could not accept it. So that both parties raised voluntary funds from the population for the support of their respective schools. The same principle was adopted in many other parts of Ireland. There was a large number of the Government schools connected with convents and monasteries. Surely it never could be supposed that in such schools there could be anything like a mixed education. He had before him the evidence of officers of the Board in reference to these convent schools. The secretary of the Board said that those schools, like all others under the national system, must be bonâ fide opened to children of all denominations, but that, on account of the peculiar and distinctive character of those particular schools, no Protestant children attended them. The secretary further observed that he had always considered those schools as exceptional, and that none but Roman Catholic children attended them. It was his (Mr. Butt's) opinion that no Protestant could conscientiously send his children to them. Now, in making these observations, he must say he should consider it a great misfortune if the aid were withdrawn from those convent schools. He would confess, that when he made inquiries into these institutions he approached them, like many other persons, with some degree of prejudice; but, like others, he had soon sa- tisfied himself of the extreme value of the services which the nuns rendered to the cause of female education and was highly gratified by the neatness, efficiency, and order that prevailed in their schools. He was anxious, therefore, to bear his unbiassed testimony to their value. At the same time he should contend that they proved a departure from the principle of the system administered by the Board. He might mention one fact as illustrative of the inequality and injustice of the system. In the town of Youghal there was a convent school in which nearly 400 Roman Catholic girls received education. An English Protestant woman, who happened to be residing there whilst her husband was in the Baltic during the war, sent her two children to this school, where, unfortunately, they learned how to bless themselves. The mother was astonished at finding that they were receiving a Catholic education, and made a formal complaint upon the matter. An inquiry was instituted, and it was discovered that in the school, intended exclusively for Roman Catholics, the teachers were in the habit of reading during work hours some religious book. Thereupon, for no other reason than because two Protestant children had accidentally found their way into the school the Board put a stop to the reading of religious works, except during the hours set apart for religious instruction, and thereby, as he thought, interfered with the right of Roman Catholics to a free education. Similar incidents were occurring day after day in Ireland, and they were far from being calculated to promote goodwill among Protestants and Roman Catholics. Under the care of religious ladies observances were mixed up with what he would call the poetry of children's existence, which gave birth to the most sacred feelings. But if by accident a little "heretic" should find its way into such a school, suspicion and mistrust were sure to follow, and ladies who devoted themselves to the education of their poorer brethren were alarmed and vexed by the visits of Government officials asking them why they dared to commit the abominable crime of having the Ave Maria inscribed upon their walls.

The condition on which the Board gave assistance was that religion should not be mixed up with the education of the children. The Protestants objected to that exclusion. It was not so much the Pro- testant clergyman that objected to it as the parents who now asked him (Mr. Butt) to claim for them the aid of the State in the education of their children without being called upon to sacrifice their religious convictions. They had been taught to venerate the Bible, and they wished it to be interwoven with every moment of their children's education. Was that a feeling so unreasonable that they must be called on to give it up? That was the case of the Protestants of Ireland. The Roman Catholics said exactly the same thing in other words. They did not regard religion as a thing that ought to be relegated to a particular hour of the day, but they wished it to be mixed up with every portion of the education of their children. Both the great religious denominations in Ireland were dissatisfied with the policy pursued by the National Board in granting aid to schools. The Earl of Derby, then Lord Stanley, in a speech delivered in the House of Commons in 1839, contended that religion should be mixed up with the whole system of education; and upon that principle assistance was given to schools in England. Every denomination in this country was allowed the privilege of educating their children in their own faith; why, then, should such a privilege be denied to the people of Ireland? The Roman Catholics, as well as Protestants, were placed in a worse position in this respect in Ireland than they were placed in England. The Roman Catholic in Ireland had not less regard for his faith than the Roman Catholic in England, nor did the Irish Protestant venerate his Bible less than his English co-religionist. The National system in Ireland was not a united but a separate education. In the county of Cork 80,000 Roman Catholic children received education in the National schools, and only 740 Protestant children. For the sake of those 740 Protestants the Board interfered with the religious rights and free education of the 80,000 Catholics. What reason was there for that? Could not the Board protect the Protestant children without interfering with the right of the Roman Catholics to a free education? Again, when a Protestant parent said he conscientiously objected to send his child to a school in which the Bible was not interwoven with the whole education of his child, why did the Government seek to coerce his conscience? The present Earl of Derby, when Mr. Stanley, in 1831, wrote a celebrated letter, in which he announced the formation of the National Board in Ireland, and the principles by which it was to be guided. The language of the writer was decisive upon this point. He would ask his right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland whether he might not write an exact paraphrase of the letter in respect of the present system of National education? Ought less to be done now to meet the conscientious objections of Protestants than was done at the time the letter was written to meet those of the Roman Catholics?

He was entitled to assume that which every witness before the Lords' Committee testified to—namely, the entire failure of this system as combined education—that is, as combined education in one school; and what he would suggest was that in every place where the people themselves wished for a school based on purely Roman Catholic or purely Protestant principles aid should be given to such school, provided that the managers were willing to submit it to the inspection of the National Board. He did not wish to compromise on matters of such moment as religious principles. He believed they would make men better Christians by sending them out in the world with a deep conviction of the truths of Christianity brought home to their hearts, by instruction in their own religion, than they would by sending them out after an education conducted on the principle of a false conciliation. Protestantism, if true, as he believed it to be, would then have a far better chance than by educating the child according to a method of compromise. Let a child be educated in the religion in which the parent desired the child to be educated. However, the Motion he should submit to the House did not pledge any one to any particular view of the question, but merely declared that many persons in Ireland were prevented by their religious convictions from availing themselves of the funds voted for the promotion of National education. He asked the House to state that truth, and to address the Queen to institute an inquiry on the subject. He trusted that a Royal Commission, which might devise some means for removing the objections of the Roman Catholic Prelates and of the Protestant people, would be issued, and that a system would be founded which, conciliating the feelings of all classes, might be called a National system. The Irish people of every class and section were not in favour of the present combined system of education, and such being the case, he asked whether it was consistent with the free spirit of the institutions of this kingdom, or fair to the population of Ireland, that there should be this power of interfering with the prejudices find feelings of the nation. It was by letting the feelings of individuals freely develope themselves that every nation became great, but by imposing restrictions on persons, and by binding them down to peculiar plans, their energies were deadened, and that was the system applied to Ireland. In the name of freedom and of truth, he desired that such rules in respect to education in Ireland might be adopted as would enable every one in that country to enjoy the advantages of education without doing violence to their conscientious convictions.

Motion made, and Question proposed,— That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, representing that this House has learned with regret that many of Her Majesty's subjects in Ireland are prevented by conscientious objections from availing themselves of the benefit of the funds voted by this House for the promotion of National Education in Ireland; and praying Her Majesty to direct inquiries to be made whether such changes might not be made in the Rules under which that Grant is distributed as would enable all classes in Ireland to enjoy the advantages which that Grant is intended to secure to the Irish people.

MR. WHITESIDE

I have the honour to represent a very different constituency than that which returns the hon. and learned Member, and yet I find it my duty to give him my cordial support. Of course, it will not be necessary for me now to trouble the House by proposing the Motion on the same subject of which I had given notice, or to trespass on the attention of the House when the Irish Education Vote may be brought forward, as the question, as far as I am concerned, may be disposed of on the present occasion. About this time last year the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland was called on to express his opinion on this important subject, and he fairly stated that his then brief tenure of office and comparative un-acquaintance with Ireland at that time disabled him from giving any opinion on the most critical part of the question, but he undertook to consider it, and to be prepared on a future occasion to state to the House what course the Government meant to pursue. The first question is whether the objection to the existing system is taken by the Church. Now, I avow frankly that while the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Butt) has spoken for the nation, I set forward mainly the objections of the Protestant clergy and laity to the system as it stands. Well, the first question to consider is, are those conscientious objections? The other day we heard the hon. Member for Leeds (Mr. Baines) say that against a particular measure of the Government he, and the respectable party with which he acted, had an instinctive feeling and a conscientious scruple. That scruple was attended to. In spite of the sarcasms of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary the intended legislation was altered, and the conscientious objections of the English Dissenters were respected. I claim, then, for a body of persons equally respectable and equally conscientious, the same tender consideration. An hon. Member of this House (Mr. Buxton), who was examined before the Committee of the House of Lords, was asked whether he believed that the scruples of the Irish clergy were conscientious scruples. He stated that he had gone to Ireland rather prejudiced in favour of what is called, but miscalled, the National system, but after the inquiries he had instituted he said his conclusion was that the objections to the system were conscientious ones. Another witness, Mr. Stapleton, being asked the same question, replied, that in his judgment clergymen of the Church of England had adopted a very wise and right resolution, and that, in fact, they could hardly conscientiously have adopted any other. Other witnesses who were examined stated that they did not give their adherence to the rules of the system, because if so they felt that they would be departing from the principles of the Reformation. An illustration is sometimes worth more than a great deal of argument, and here is one:—The Rev. Mr. Campbell, one of the witnesses, was asked his opinion on the subject, and he mentioned that in his school on a certain occasion he rebuked a child who had committed a theft, and he gave admonition and instruction suitable to the occasion. But, he said, had his school been under the National system, he could not have given the instruction then, because it was not the hour in which to give it. This gentleman objected to being bound by the law to keep his mouth closed for any portion of the day; he would not allow himself to be prevented from imparting religious instruction in obedience to the command "in season and out of season." On a former occasion I stated on the authority of the Bishop of Ossory that a clergyman who referred to one of the Commandments in the school was corrected by the schoolmaster, who said he had no right to remark on the Commandments of God, except at particular hours. This question was considered by the Bishops of the Church, and I can answer for it that in their celebrated manifesto they spoke not only the sense of the Episcopate, but that of four-fifths of the clergy of the Reformed Church. The House may remember that a petition was presented to the House of Lords by the Archbishop of Canterbury, signed by 4,514 of the parochial clergy of England, in which they stated that in their opinion the clergy of the Reformed Church in Ireland discharged their duty in resting on the Scriptures as a part of education, and further that they only acted up to the letter and the spirit of their ordination vows. Now, this is not a question of whether the Irish Secretary is of a different opinion. He would, perhaps, recommend them to adopt the advice of our sarcastic and incomparable Dean Swift, who, in pointing out to the clergy of his time how to rise, observed that a man's conscience was of no manner of use unless it stretched with the occasion. The conscientious clergy of Ireland will not support the National system, and, although a deanery or a bishopric might be the reward of their adherence, yet the highest reward which Ministries can bestow has made not the slightest impression on the bulk of the working clergy of Ireland. Such as they have been they are, and such as they are they will continue to be. Every one will admit that the rules of such a system ought to be few, simple, intelligible, and just; but, on the contrary, all the witnesses whose evidence fill the two large volumes now on the table of the House admit that they are evasive, lax, unintelligible—some say unintelligible—liable to be interpreted in every way, in order if possible to meet every case, and to be fixed by no principle whatever. At one time, when the National Board are asked whether religious education can be given in the schools, they reply "Oh yes!" At another time they say, "Not at all; no allusion must be made to religion, or to morality if blended with religion, from ten till three, but before or after school, if you can catch a lad"—and he can't be much like an Irish lad if you do catch him at such a time—"you may talk to him then of religion and morality." The other day a curious correspondence appeared between the Rev. Canon Dalton and the National Board. The Rev. Mr. Dalton wrote the following letter to the Board:— For seven years I have had the charge of the parish of Kilbryan, diocese of Elphin, as vicar. The gross tithe amounted, per annum, to £14. Lately the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for Ireland were enabled to grant a slight augmentation, which raised the annual income of that vicarage to the net value of £70 a year. I have maintained a school in that parish. The struggle to pay a teacher, supply requisites, and repair the school-house with so small an income, and the scant aid which the Diocesan Church Education Society could give, may well be imagined. The re-opening of the education question by The Daily Express, especially the statement of the editor in this day's paper, induces me to apply at once to the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland for decisive information. Will you, then, favour me with a distinct and direct reply to my query on one point on which I really cannot form a clear conclusion from the 'Rules, &c.,' as now propounded in The Daily Express. It is simply this:— If I place this school in connection with the Board as a non-vested school, may I make use of any reference, remark, observation, elucidation, example, enforcement, precept, quotation, rebuke, or comment out of the Holy Scriptures during the existence of the school in its integrity in 'school hours.' In plain terms, may I, then, as patron of that school, walk into my school-room at any time during school instruction, and, if I deem it needful, use the Word of God, the Holy Scripture, in any manner ancillary to the subject-lesson at the time being taught? I earnestly beg a clear, candid reply, whether I may or may not take up one of the school Bibles, or my pocket Bible, quote from it, and thus refer to it, and make use of it, unfettered by conditions; or, if not, by what conditions binding my free use of it, as a minister of the Gospel—the Word of the Lord which endureth for ever.' In reply to that letter, Mr. Dalton received the following reply from the Secretaries:— We have laid before the Commissioners of National Education your letter of the 11th ultimo, in which you request a distinct and direct answer to your query on one point—namely:— 'If I place this school in connection with the Board as a non-vested school, may I make use of any reference, remark, observation, elucidation, example, enforcement, precept, quotation, rebuke, or comment out of the Holy Scriptures during the existence of the school in its integrity in 'school hours?' In reply, we are directed to state that the Commissioners have found it necessary to decline answering questions of a hypothetical nature regarding the rules, but that they will always be ready to afford full explanation of the principles and rules of the National system, should a difficulty arise in their application in the case of any particular National school. We are also directed to forward to you a copy of the rules and regulations of the National Board, and to call attention to the fourth section of part the first, containing the regulations respecting religious instruction. We are further to observe that there are various National schools in Dublin, and its vicinity, open to you as a visitor, in which the Commissioners' rules will be found practically exemplified. Should you, on consideration, resolve to place the school to which you allude in your letter in connection with the National Board, we shall be happy to send you the forms of application, with the necessary instructions for filling them up, &c. The writer of that letter is somewhat skilled, I think, in the science of evasion, for certainly the question put to him is a very plain and distinct one, and his answer is no answer at all. Mr. Dalton then wrote to the Secretaries as follows:— Sirs,—I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 1st instant, in reply to mine of the 11th ultimo, enclosing a copy of the rules, &c., and calling my 'attention to the fourth section of part first, containing the regulations respecting religious instruction.' I have carefully read the same, and my interpretation of them is, that if I subscribe these rules I consider that I could not honestly make any use of the Holy Scriptures, under any circumstances, while all the school is in attendance during school hours. Indeed I am informed, upon excellent authority, that this is the interpretation put upon these rules by the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland themselves. If I am correct in this my interpretation, I cannot place the school referred to in connection with the Board. Should I not be correct in this interpretation, I shall thank you to forward to me the 'terms of application,' &c, to fill up. In case I do not hear from you I shall take it that this interpretation of these rules is the correct one. The Secretaries replied thus:— Sir,—Having laid before the Commissioners of National Education your letter of the 3rd inst., we are directed to inform you in reply, that the use of the Holy Scriptures during the hours of secular instruction, when children of the different denominations attending the school are required to be present, is incompatible with the rules of the Board of National Education, and that religious instruction can take place only at the times and under the conditions laid down in those rules. Now, it is impossible for a body of clergy who conscientiously believed that they ought to instruct their children out of the Scriptures, to give their adherence to such a system which acts on the principle contained in this correspondence. It is said that the clergy of this country are not so unreasonable, and would feel no difficulty in comprehending the rules. Now, I have shown that correspondence to a friend of mine, well known as a learned man, Mr. Grirdlestone, the rector of Stourbridge, and a Fellow of the University of Oxford, and I asked him to say without any prejudice or leaning in favour of the Church or clergy of Ireland, what he, as a gentleman, himself engaged in the work of education, thought of these rules laid down by the Irish Education Board? The rev. gentleman replied as follows:— You ask me what I think of the rule laid down by your Irish Education Board, as recently stated in the letter of the Secretaries to the Rev. George Dalton (February 20). I have no hesitation in replying that no amount of Government aid would induce me to comply with any such condition, however great the difficulty of finding funds to maintain efficient schools in this populous parish. In debarring the schools, of which I am manager (above 600 children in all), from the free use of the Bible in school hours, not only should I deprive them of the only infallible text-book in moral and religious training, but I should do violence at once to my own conscientious convictions, and to those of my parishioners in general. The subscribers to the schools, the parents of the children—nay, the very scholars themselves—would be apt to think meanly of a compromise which, for money's sake, or even for peace sake, would put a ban upon the Scriptures, and tie the tongue of the teacher from so much as, even in school time, quoting the Word of God as an authority in faith or practice. And in thinking meanly of such a compromise, they would cease to respect their pastor if a party to it. Indeed, unless my standard of morality were lower than theirs, I should, in such a case, despise myself. That letter contains a representation of the convictions of the great bulk of the parochial clergy of Ireland. It has been said that the rules are not what they have been represented to be, but even Mr. Cross, the Secretary to the Commissioners, stated to the House of Lords that the rules were vague and difficult of interpretation, constantly leading to conflicting judgments, and he recommended that their Lordships should prepare or suggest a mode of preparing a code to make the matter clear and certain.

Let me now draw the attention of the House to what was stated by one or two witnesses about these rules. Mr. O'Hagan was asked whether he understood these rules; and he replied that he thought there ought to be some fixed principles laid down for the guidance of the Commissioners. At present the National system was without a fixed system; with a central school that was a shifting model? Mr. Stapleton was asked the same question, and he said he could not say that he did understand the rules. He had tried, but found it was an impossible task to make himself master of them. He understood a few of the most important, but only a few. The right hon. Gentleman may say that such is not the opinion of the inspectors and the paid officials; but I find that Mr. Macready, the head inspector, and therefore one who it is natural to suppose would comprehend them, if comprehension be possible, states that there are rules which admit of some latitude of interpretation, and about which there are sometimes difficulties. There is a rule as to religious instruction, as to what parties shall be present, and circumstances which may render their attendance proper, and the wording of that rule sometimes gives rise to misunderstanding, and it is difficult to say when it is observed, and when it is not. The Board laid down a rule, and said that they would consider it violated if any influence, either direct or indirect, were exercised over a child to induce him to remain during the period of religious instruction. There arose a controversy as to what was indirect influence. The Roman Catholic clergy not unnaturally said that you must not give any religious education in a school where there were any Roman Catholic children, because, if you put them out, the exclusion was a sort of indirect compulsion. I may be told that lawyers may understand the rules. Now, there is Master Murphy, a friend of my own, a very able gentleman, one of the Commissioners, and he says:— Every day, I may say, we are pressed to violate some rule or other, or to explain or interpret a rule. If the rules were made clear and plain, and it were understood that we could not modify or relax them, it would be simply necessary in such cases to call attention to the particular rule. In addition to these witnesses I may quote the Archbishop of Dublin, Dr. Whately, who is one of the competent judges of the meaning of words. He had a dispute with the other Commissioners as to the meaning of the rule under which he said certain books, the Evidences of Christianity, and Lessons on the Subject of Christianity, might be made part of the combined religious education. A majority of the Board held another view, and were of opinion that, if any one child out of 500 objected, the books must be put aside. "That," said the Archbishop, "is not the interpretation upon which you have been acting for many years." There was a long corres- pondence, debate, and argument, and the books were got rid of, but the Archbishop, feeling that faith had been broken with the public, communicated his opinion to the Lord Lieutenant, and getting no redress in that quarter he withdrew from the Board, an example which was followed by several of the gentlemen. I submit, upon the evidence I have quoted, that the rules are in a condition which makes it impossible to administer satisfactorily this system.

I admit there is a question, when you talk about education which must be dreaded, and although you may attempt year after year to evade it, must at last be decided by this House. That question is, can you have education without any religion? There are few men who are more clear in their views than the Archbishop of Dublin, and he says in his own forcible style:— We might have an anti-Christian system; we might go against Mahomedanism, Hindooism, and against Christianity altogether; we might try instruction out of 'Æsop's Fables.' But one thing is clear, that Education without religion is impossible. Because, supposing a boy were to ask his teacher whether Jupiter was a real god, or was there any other God, or to tell him who was the true God to worship, what would be the result? Therefore it is absurd to suppose that ever education can exist apart from religion. The Archbishop was the first man to support the Board; he stayed with it as long as he could conscientiously, and then when it departed from its principles he left it. There are some things about it which I do understand. I understand they have three or four great fundamental rules. The first is that united education is to be regarded. When I look to the evidence I find that nothing can inspire the Commissioners with more alarm than an application from persons who differ in religion to establish a school. There happen to be about thirty schools out of 5,400 which are managed by patrons of opposite opinions, and they give more trouble than 3,000 other schools. The witnesses say you cannot get the priest and the parson to agree, and that fact is to the credit of both, because, if both are sincere and conscientious, they of course take opposite views. Now, one of the rules is, that every school under the national system shall be open to inspection, and when Mr. Stapleton visited Ireland he went to a convent school with that object. On his presenting himself at the gate somebody came and, opening a little wicket, asked him what he wanted? "To inspect your schools" was the reply. "Do you mean the Roman Catholic school?" "Yes."—Then I must tell you that we never admit anybody to inspect it without a letter from the Roman Catholic clergyman." "But," said Mr. Stapleton, "I was under the impression that all the schools under the National system were open to inspection." "Well, then," was the answer, "if you come back in three-quarters of an hour you will be let in." Mr. Stapleton, however, thought it better to decline the offer, conceiving that in three-quarters of an hour any little arrangements that might be thought expedient could be made, and walked away.

I would now beg to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman opposite to the fact that when the National system of education was originally instituted it was not intended that it should apply to the parochial schools of the Church of England at all. The attention of the Chief Commissioner, Mr. M'Donnell, than whom there could be no better authority on the subject, was drawn to this point, and he was asked what be thought of the passage in the Report of the Commissioners of 1812, from which it appeared that the parochial schools were regarded as institutions which were to be permitted to exist as they stood, save so far as related to the improvement of the secular education which they administered. Mr. M'Donnell's reply was that, in his opinion, the Commissioners must have meant that the parochial schools should remain very much in the same position as that which the schools of the Church Education Society occupied at the present day, and that the supplementary schools should be looked upon somewhat in the light of the existing schools connected with the National Board. Now, this is a point which appears to me to be of considerable moment in the prosecution of the inquiry in which we are engaged; for, while one of the modes in which justice may be done to Ireland on this question may be to allow the patron of each school to have such religious instruction communicated to the children who attend it as he may deem right, something may be done also in the same direction by leaving the old parish schools attached to the old parish churches to give instruction in the Scriptures to all who enter them, as has been the practice from time immemorial. The Scripture schools, I may add, are attended by 80,000 children, of whom 14,000 are Dissenters, and 8,000 Roman Catholics, the rest being Episcopalians; and I am perfectly ready to admit that the rule is that a portion of the Scriptures should every day be read in those schools without note or comment.

I now come to consider how the great principle of the National system—that the schools under its operation should be equally open to all classes—is carried out in practice. In dealing with that point it is necessary that I should draw a distinction between vested and non-vested schools, and my argument is, that in the latter the principle which I have mentioned is at an end. So long as the Board kept schools vested in itself or in trustees they were its own property, and it had, perhaps, a right to prescribe the course of education which should be carried out in them, but the moment it established the distinction between vested and non-vested schools the principle of an united National system of education was overthrown. Moreover, it is in evidence on the authority of the secretary to the Board, that when the Presbyterian body gave in their allegiance to that system they did so on the express condition that the distinction which I have mentioned should be observed. His words were— This is, perhaps, a suitable opportunity of stating that when the Presbyterian body gave in their adhesion to the National system it was made an express stipulation as to the distinction between vested and non-vested schools. I am persuaded that neither clergymen of the Established Church nor Presbyterians would accept aid from the Board unless on the condition that they should not be required to permit any religious instruction of which they disapproved to be given in the school. I may further observe that I feel assured very few clergymen of the Established Church, or belonging to the Presbyterian body, would accept aid from the Board on the condition that they should permit any religious instruction to be given in the schools under their superintendence of which they disapproved. The late hon. Member for Newry used to argue in this House with great force and clearness—and in my opinion the argument was never answered—that the moment the Board established non-vested schools it put an end to the National system. I may and that our sturdy friends in the north of Ireland—for whom I have a profound respect—when they saw the rules of the National Board said, "We will never join you on those terms," and sent a deputation to Lord Stanley stating what their own rules prescribed. His answer was that he never could recommend the adoption of rules that were calculated to strike so completely at the principle of his system. Lord Ebrington, however, went over as Lord Lieutenant to Ireland, and took occasion to mediate between the Presbyterian body and the National Board. The Presbyterians were firm, energetic men, wedded to their belief; and when earnest conscientious men are opposed to yielding Commissioners who are depending merely upon rules of lax construction, if they press hard they will squeeze their own terms out of them; and they did so in this case. Then, how can you, after conceding the demands of the Presbyterians, refuse to grant what we ask for? The Presbyterians plainly and boldly stated the objections which they entertained, going, as it seems to me, to the root of the whole principle of the National system. The Synod of Ulster, after much debating, ultimately adopted resolutions declaring that the Ministers and people of that Church, without the necessary concurrence of the ministers or the members of any other Church, should enjoy the right of applying to the Board for aid to their schools. This disposes at once of the fundamental principle of the Board that the application shall proceed jointly from members of different religious persuasions. They further declared that it should be the right of parents to require the patrons to set apart a convenient portion of the study and school-hours for the reading of the Holy Scriptures, and that these should be daily read, but that no compulsion should be resorted to to make children remain during that period. The Presbyterians, moreover, said, "our schools shall begin with prayer, and we will have the catechism taught when we think proper; we will not inflict a penalty for non-attendance at these religious exercises, but we will not undertake that the children whose parents may object to them shall leave the school, nor will we provide a place for them to retire to." The result has been, and I rejoice at it, that the children do remain in school to hear the Scriptures read; naturally, in a moist climate they do not like to go out; they have nowhere to retire to, and therefore they stay where they are. As to the rules of the National Board, they no more put them up in Presbyterian schools than they do the rules of the Divan. Dr. Cooke, in his own racy style, denies that they are bound to put up "a show- board" signifying that religious instruction is about to commence, that order having been issued years after the arrangement with the Presbyterians was made, and he states that "he would not put up a showboard for all the Archbishops and Lords that compose the National Board." You have no right, he maintains, to warn children off the premises when the word of God is about to be read. Yet, every Roman Catholic or Protestant clergyman who may join the Board is obliged to define the period of religious instruction by a notice publicly hung up in the school. What is the use of asserting, contrary to the fact and to the evidence, that this is a system of mixed education? Dr. Henry, in his evidence, says the present system is a loose one, which leads to abuses, and he distinctly states that he should prefer a system which should allow religious education to be given in accordance with the wishes of the people.

I come now to the Roman Catholic schools, and I will take first the schools of the nuns. Now, Dr. Kiernan states that what reconciled the Roman Catholics to the system was the admission of the nuns' schools into the system of the National Board. The rule of the Board, however, is that schools are to be open to children of all religions, but it is notorious that these schools are entirely exclusive. It is a rule of the Board that there shall be no emblems in the school, and nothing in the outward appearance of the teacher to mark any distinctive religious faith. These rules are openly violated in the nuns' schools. The garb of the nun is a violation of them, the emblems in the school are violations, and the school itself is generally within the walls of a convent. All this, no doubt, is very proper, but still it is in violation of the rules of the Board. I am not asking you to take a penny away from these schools, which the witnesses state are very efficient; for, though I have my feelings as a Protestant, I hope I have some common-sense as a politician. One of the rules of the Board is that all the teachers shall be trained at your central establishment, but of course the ladies who teach at these schools are not trained there. Another rule is that the teacher shall be paid by an annual salary according to proficiency; that, of course, cannot be carried out in the nuns' school, and a new rule, or rather an exception, has been agreed on with regard to them, and the payment is regulated according to the number of pupils at each, school. These are all infractions of the rules of your Board, and are in direct violation of the principle of the National system. The object of paying the teachers is, that the teachers should be under the control of the Board. There are, however, no teachers under the control of the Board in these schools. The nuns walk into the schoolroom in the middle of the day, they find on the table all kinds of books—books which the rules of the Board exclude—and they use the books in teaching the children. If I am asked whether I consider they are right in doing this, I must answer that I think these ladies are quite right. They are acting according to their vows, under the direction of their superior; they are fulfilling the objects of their corporate existence, and they are quite right in paying no more attention to your rules than to the rules of the Grand Turk. In the monks' schools these rules are still more openly violated. There is a clause in the Emancipation Act with regard to these monks, the object of which the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the Secretary for Ireland, will probably understand much better than I, as he is the executor of the eminent person who proposed it. I suppose its object was that, while the parochial clergy got a good education, the "regulars" should be got rid of out of the country altogether. Theoretically, therefore, they have no right to be there, though I do not think they have much to fear practically. The rule of the Board, however, is in accordance with the statute law; and it says that "no clergyman of any denomination, and no members of any religious order, can be recognized as teachers of a National school." But it is notorious that, while clergymen of the Established Church are excluded, monks, who have taken the vows of a religious order, are openly employed in teaching these schools. From what I have said it is apparent that the cases of the Presbyterians, the nuns and the monks make it impossible to regard this as a united National system of education, and I should like to hear an explanation from the right hon. Gentleman opposite.

Parental authority is said to be the fundamental rule of your system; but that principle is respected when it excludes the Scriptures, and is set aside when the Scriptures are included. I will refer the House to the great model school in Gardiner Street, within fifty yards of which is the school of Archdeacon Gregg, and within a few more yards another school. The model school contains about 800 scholars; but the parents of 400 children send them on Sundays to the school of the Archdeacon, where the Scriptures are taught, and there are 250 scholars on week days in the same school. One single minister of my church has 400 children sent by their parents to his school, where they receive a secular education and hear the Scriptures also; and yet it is said that in the National schools we must succumb and conform to the opinions of those parents who wish to exclude the Scriptures, but that we must not attend to the opinions of those parents who are desirous of including the Scriptures in the course of education. How is this to be answered, according to your theory of yielding to parental authority? My case is this, that you should provide for the Roman Catholics fully, fairly, and freely, but that you should not press the clergy of the Reformed faith to proceed on principles which are odious to their faith and repugnant to their consciences. I know that the right hon. Gentleman may say that this reasoning is all very well in the case where the Protestants had schools, and the priests had schools too; but what is to be done in places where there is only one school? My own opinion is that every school should be open to every child, but upon the condition I have indicated.

Let the House look at the absurd condition in which the schools are placed in regard to books. The Evidences of Christianity were passed by Archbishop Murray, and the book was received and read; but it was afterwards rejected, so that you bind people to the system of reading a particular book, though the system may be changed the next day. What, however, puts an end to all idea of this being a united system of education are the Statutes of Thurles. Mr. Cross, the Secretary to the Board, said he had read those statutes with very great pain—and, indeed, the truth is, that the statutes pronounced against the system formally and ecclesiastically, and that decision has been confirmed by the opinion of the Pope and of the Papal legate. Archbishop Cullen, in his Pastoral, states the opinion of the Church in these terms:— As, therefore, the doctrines and practices of the Catholic Church must be continually repeated and inculcated in order to make them productive of good fruit, you will easily perceive, dearly beloved, that your children cannot be properly educated under any system from which religion excluded, or by persons professing opinions hostile to the teaching of our holy Church. Hence, mixed education, which unites in the one school teachers and pupils of every creed, and professes to teach the religious doctrines of no Church, must be looked on as unfit for Catholics, and calculated to promote scepticism and infidelity; and you cannot with safety send your children to schools or colleges where the teaching is Protestant, and where the masters, oftentimes without knowing what they are doing, imbue the minds of their pupils with most fatal errors on religious subjects. There is evident danger that Catholics, who in their youth have received this sort of mixed instruction—neither Catholic nor Protestant—or who have been brought up in Protestant Colleges or Universities, will frequently, in after life, betray the grossest ignorance of Catholic discipline, broach opinions contrary to Catholic doctrine, and scandalize the faithful by their want of respect for their holy Church. Protestant or infidel teaching cannot produce any other effect on the tender mind of Catholic youth. It may, indeed, be said that mixed education in Protestant Colleges and Universities will occasionally bring with it great temporal advantages; but recollect the words of our Divine Redeemer:—'What doth it profit a man if he gain the whole world, and suffer the loss of his own soul? Or what exchange shall a man give for his soul?'—(Matt, xvi., 16.") That opinion is authoritative, and, I believe, sincere. That being so, I may be asked how could any schools patronized by Roman Catholics possibly have been put under the Board since? There are nearly 3,000 schools of which the priests are the patrons. The priest is subject to the Bishop, and the Bishop to the Legate, who is the Vice Pope, and subject to the Pope. The Statutes of Thurles now bind the Pope, the Legate, the Bishops, and the priests, and the priests must carry out the principle of the statutes, which is to put an end to mixed education. The evidence shows that wherever the patron is Roman Catholic the religion is exclusively Roman Catholic; and wherever the patron is Protestant the religion is Protestant. And all I say is that, under the Statutes of Thurles, it is impossible for any Roman Catholic priest to allow mixed education to exist if he can prevent it. It is a vain thing to proceed in the course you are pursuing. The wise and manly course is to do one of two things—either to grant the same practical exception which is allowed to Presbyterian schools, nuns' schools, and monks' schools, to the schools of parish ministers, or else to establish the broad principle that the State will give a good secular education under inspection, and by masters trained and qualified for the duties, and not interfere with the religious education which the patron may think fit to instil. I hold that it is impossible, after the Statutes of Thurles, to carry on mixed education in Ireland.

A meeting of Protestants—at which I was present—recently addressed a letter to the Government, in which their views are temperately stated. The answer to that letter was that no concession could be made with reference to their conscientious objections; and therefore it is for the House now to say whether the decision of the right hon. Gentleman can be justified or not. If this Motion be carried, and the clergy of the Established Church be one and all induced to join the Board, your secular education will be carefully, sincerely, and usefully carried out in 1,600 or 1,700 schools, and you will put an end to disputes and dissensions on this subject in Ireland. If any one could have carried his point it was the Primate. But a great meeting was convened, a meeting of the laity. They held by their original opinions—namely, that religious instruction, the Bible was that by which they should abide; they separated, and they were more resolute now than they were before that letter was written. It comes, then, simply to this—a great principle is at stake. Let each patron carry out his own system of religious instruction while adopting your secular system. Roman Catholics ought not to object to this at our request, for they know that their Protestant brethren are sincere. There are no penal laws now on the Statute Book; if there be any penal law which is objectionable to them I abjure it; but they must be prepared to encounter discussion, the light of knowledge, and of truth. They must be prepared for the full current of education, and I have no fears of the result. I believe, as it has been said, that truth is strong, next to the Almighty. She requires no policies nor stratagems to make her victorious. These are the shafts that error uses against her power, therefore I am satisfied, if we can have free access to truth, and a right to spread the truth. But you must be mindful of this—and I say it in no spirit of bigotry—the question is whether the Protestants as a nation are to be allowed to read the Bible. Remember what was effected for you by those who restored the Bible to you. From that time to the present the unfettered use of the Scriptures has made you free, wise, religious, and happy. You send your missionaries to every clime to bring home the knowledge of the truth to those who have it not, and by what right do you then turn round upon those who desire to read the Scriptures in the parish schools, and say we will embarrass, annoy, and vex you, not for the purpose of conciliating Roman Catholics, but for the purpose of establishing some grand principle of centralizing authority, hoping thereby to control the feelings and affections of the human mind, which is an impossibility? While I am willing to make every concession which is reasonable and just to the Roman Catholics of Ireland, I will not consent, on the part of my own Church and the laity, of which I am a member, and whose opinions I speak, to give up that which is our birthright, and I commend the cause which I have but too feebly advocated, to the mind of every true Protestant in this House and country.

MR. CARDWELL

Sir, thirty years ago this House withdrew its support from the system of education then followed in Ireland in consequence of the total failure of the efforts which had been made in pursance of repeated inquiries instituted under the highest auspices and prosecuted with all the power and influence of the British Government. During the thirty years which have since elapsed there has grown up in Ireland a system which, as scarcely any one can be found to deny, has conferred upon the whole people of the country the greatest benefits that ever were bestowed by any system upon any country in the world. I say scarcely any one can be found to deny this, because, while many criticise the details of the system, while one objects to this provision, and another to that, yet the universal testimony of fact and of opinion coincides in this—that the most signal blessings have been conferred on Ireland by the system of education which has now been in successful operation for thirty years. The generation which has grown up under this system is different from any which has preceded it in the power it exercises for compassing its own material prosperity, and that of the country; but that is the least of its benefits, including, as they do, every social, every moral, every religious advantage which the population of a country can enjoy.

Let me proceed, with the patience of the House, to trace out in some detail the progress of the system which has thus grown up. In 1806 there was a memorable Commission, which reported in 1812, and which laid down those broad principles of liberal education for Ireland which from that period to the present Parliament has been endeavouring to establish and promote. After the experience of twelve years the result of the first experiment proved unsatisfactory, and again a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the cause of its failure. That Commission reported in 1826, and a Committee of this House recommended in 1828 the adoption of the principles it enunciated. That recommendation was again confirmed by another Committee in 1830, and in 1831 issued that memorable letter with which the name of the Earl of Derby will be for ever honourably associated, and which constitutes the charter and foundation of the system of education in Ireland. During the time which has since elapsed the pro-press of that system has been as follows:—In 1833 there were 789 schools and 107,000 pupils; in 1843, ten years afterwards, the number rose to 2,912 schools and 355,000 pupils; and in 1853 to 5,023 schools and 550,000 pupils. Since 1853 we have been told it was impossible that the system could flourish and progress after the decree issued by the Synod of Thurles. But has it withered from that or any other cause? In the last Report of the Commission, at this time at which I speak, the number of schools in Ireland under the system of national education is 5,496; and the number of pupils, 570,000. But it may be said that the system is partial in its operation, that it is not fully extended through the country, that it showers its benefits here, while it withholds them there. Let us see, then, what is the distribution of the system through the four provinces of Ireland—provinces differing widely from one another in many of those respects which constitute the main features of a question of this kind. In Ulster there are now 189,000 pupils, in Leinster 142,000, in Munster 154,000, in Connaught 84,000. This shows, I think, that the benefits of the system are equally and generally distributed throughout the country. But any one who has listened to the speech of the right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) will not fail to conclude that in another respect at least the system is partial in its operation, and withholds its benefits from various classes of the community. Let us look at the facts of the case. If we take the pupils according to their religion, we find that the pupils belonging to the Church of the great majority of the people, the Church of those whose circumstances render it most necessary that the State should be solicitous for their benefit and carry education to their door—the pupils of that denomination numbered in the year just expired no fewer than 478,000. The pupils connected with the Established Church were 29,000, with the Presbyterian Church 59,000, and with other Dissenting bodies 2,500. The evidence contained in the blue-books of 1853, from which the right hon. Gentleman quoted, is in some degree answered by the fact that conspicuous as were the growth and progress of the system before that time there has been nothing since which at all tends to discourage the confident expectations of those who advocated and sustained it. Compared with that period the increase in the number of Roman Catholic pupils has been 54,000; the increase in the Presbyterian pupils 19,000; and in the pupils of the Established Church 4,400. Well, I say, when you appeal from argument to fact, when I am told that this system is alien from the feelings of the nation, I answer by showing that there has been such a continuous history of progress, such a gradual advance in the popular acceptance and influence of the system, as is certainly unexampled in our records, or, I believe, in the records of any other country.

But it will be said, "You can exhibit an increase in regard to other churches, but there has been a remarkable falling off in regard to the Established Church." I will examine that part of the case. What has been the progress of the system in respect to that body in behalf of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman made his animated appeal? From 1852 to the close of last year the increase of Protestant pupils under the national system, has been from 67,000 to 91,000, being an increase of 36 per cent and of pupils belonging to the Established Church, from 24,684 to 29,105 being an increase of over 17 per cent. In the meantime the Church Education Society, which in 1854 had a total of 95,000, has now only a total of 78,000; while of Established Church pupils they had, in 1854, 60,000, and five years afterwards only 52,000. Then, if you take another test,—one of the most important and conclusive to which the popular acceptance of any system of education can be subjected—and ask, "Has the whole of this been attained by the expenditure of money generously given by this House, or has there been on the part of those who have enjoyed these advantages a growing desire to contribute to the maintenance of the system?"—in that respect, too, you will find equally remarkable and satisfactory evidence of the growing influence of this system over the popular mind in Ireland. In 1852 the local contributions raised towards the system amounted only to £26,000; whereas in the year just expired they nearly reached £44,000, being an increase of 62 per cent. Then, I say, whatever may be urged by those who criticise one part of the system or raise objections to another, the evidence of fact is clear and irresistible—and I believe that those who endeavour to ascertain for themselves by personal experience what the general feeling of all classes in Ireland is, will arrive at the same results—the evidence is clear and irresistible that it commands the respect and wins the affections of the community which it is destined to serve.

But let us apply still wider and larger tests. Do you know any country in the world the education of which will bear a comparison like the one to which I am about to expose that of Ireland? Taking the whole population of Ireland at 6,000,000, you will find, according to the calculations usually made, that one-fourth of that entire number will consist of young persons between the ages of five and fifteen, or about 1,500,000 of the Irish population. If you take one-half of that number as the bonâ fide proportion of pupils attending school you will still keep close to the calculations commonly made in such cases. Now, notwithstanding the discouragement this system has had to encounter, not the least of which is the unfortunate opposition it has long experienced from those whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman has declared himself specially to represent, and who have had under their care a number of pupils not far short of, and sometimes even exceeding 100,000, you find that Ireland presents the remarkable fact that you have a population now under education nearly corresponding with that which you would expect by the ordinary calculation to be in attendance at school. Remembering, too, that all this is due to a system established only thirty years ago upon the failure of preceding systems, which for nearly an equal period had been striving with all the power and wisdom of the State to promote national education in Ireland, I think it cannot be—I believe it will not be—denied that it does present, upon the whole, one of the most gratifying instances of success to be found in the history of public instruction in Europe.

But it is said—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman dwelt very earnestly on this part of the case, while the hon. and learned Mover even thought it too manifest to condescend to adduce proof in support of the assertion—it is said "You may have a widely distributed education, but you have totally failed in establishing a mixed system." Now, is it true that it has failed as a mixed system? In the first place, I differ from the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who thinks you attain no important end if you offer to a people a system of instruction which is in its nature suited for a mixed assembly of pupils,—whether it be actually attended by a mixed assembly or not. For what is an exclusive system, but one in which the tendency of each individualized and particular opinion is to grow and develope in the particular school, whereas in a system like that established in Ireland there is a tendency, by giving the same education, from the same books, to enlarge the general nature of the whole, to expand its principles, and produce a disposition even in pupils who may have been trained in different schools to mix in after I life in the business and intercourse of society with greater facilities, greater freedom, and mutual adaptation, and with I greater advantage to the public. But the case does not stop there. The system is; actually that which it is intended to be, a system of mixed education. Where the population is not mixed of course the attendance at school is not mixed. And as in large parts of Ireland there is no mixture of the population, and as where there is there have been other schools maintained for the express benefit of the minority, who have naturally been attracted to them, of course it is not to be expected that the statistics should exhibit any great and favourable result in respect of mixed education. But if you examine the figures you will find that in Ulster, where the mixture of the population is greatest, 84 per cent of the schools are mixed schools; in Leinster the proportion is 41 per cent; in Munster 34 per cent; and in Connaught 49 per cent. Could anybody, then, looking to all the obstacles with which the system has had to contend, have anticipated a larger measure of success than that which has really been attained? Again, do you think a compari- son would be unfavourable to Ireland between the 570,000 pupils educated under the National Board there and the 820,000 last year educated under the Privy Council in this country? Looking to the population and wealth of the two countries, and comparing them with the means and the end to be obtained, can it be said that the result is unfavourable to the system of education in Ireland? What has that system been? The right hon. and learned Gentleman, when we discussed this subject last year, invited me to abstain from drawing hasty conclusions from blue-books. He has not on this occasion entirely observed the advice he gave me, but since he gave me this advice I have endeavoured by personal inquiries, rather than by reference to a blue-book seven years old—and that is a generation in a system that has only been established thirty years—to ascertain the real state and circumstances of the system now in operation in Ireland. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has extracted the answers to a number of inquiries made to witnesses who were subjected to an ingenious and searching cross-examination before a Committee of the other House, which answers appeared to him to furnish the best materials for the case he was endeavouring to establish. But, in examining a system like that under consideration, you must first draw a distinction between those rules which are essential and cardinal, and which cannot be departed from by the managers except by a breach of principle, and those other rules which are merely ancillary in their nature, and which any reasonable man would mould and modify to meet the varying circumstances of the country, and the particular case with which you have to deal.

The system of national education that has been established in Ireland for thirty years has two cardinal rules—first, that the education given to pupils during ordinary school hours shall be of that—I will not say secular—but of that comprehensive character that it may be offered equally to the pupils of all the Christian Churches into which Ireland is divided. The second rule is, that the patron of any school may give religious instruction in other than school hours according to his own distinctive tenets, provided that no child shall be required to be present at any religious instruction which his parents and friends disapprove. Under great discouragement these principles have been and are still maintained, and when the right hon. and learned Gentleman says that these rules have been infringed for the benefit of the sturdy Presbyterians and in other cases, I must join issue with him, and say that neither in the one case nor the others are these cardinal rules set at nought, either by the managers of the system or by the Government. I wonder, indeed, it did not occur to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that his complaint is an answer to itself, and that the rules that are applied to one are also applied to another. He says that no offer has been made to the Church body of an adaptation of these rules. Certainly no offer was made to the Church of a compromise of these cardinal principles, and no such offer will, I trust, ever be made with the sanction of this House. But in answer to the very friendly memorial of the Church Education Society a plain statement of the rules of the National Education system was returned, with an intimation of the desire felt both by the Government and the Commissioners that the system should, if possible, and without interfering with the integrity of its rules, enjoy the great advantage of the support of the Church Education Society.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has descended into details of such antiquity, that I cannot attempt to follow him, but at the same time I cannot avoid answering some of the points he has brought forward. He must surely have forgotten that the Presbyterians have now been included in the system for twenty years, and that the greater part of the growth of the system, during which it has comprehended more and more new pupils drawn from the whole population of Ireland, has taken place since the time of which he spoke. Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman mean to say that the rules are not binding, and that they are systematically infringed for the benefit of one class of the population in Ireland? If he says that, I must meet him with an express denial of the accuracy of his statement, and I invite him to bring instances before the notice of the Government in order that they may be redressed. He says there is one rule for Presbyterian schools under the Board, and another rule for missionary schools in remote parts of Ireland. Of course there must be one rule for schools in which the managers are bound not to make a proselyte, and in which it is not alleged that they ever made a proselyte, and another rule for schools established for another object in different parts of Ireland, and which are excluded from the aid of the State because they decline to submit to the rules of the Board. So it will be found that, where a school maintains itself with the aid of the Church Education Society, it retains its independence as a missionary school; while the increasing number that seek a connection with the Board derive the great advantages which this House so liberally offers through the Commissioners of Education. It is also charged that the managers in some cases allow these schools to be used as chapels. The rule on which the Government acts in such cases is broad and plain. Any services of a sacramental character are prohibited in the schools, but if ordinary meetings are proposed to be held the inspectors do not inquire into the objects of those meetings. From no quarter has any complaint reached me of any compromise of the rules for the benefit of the Presbyterians. The right hon. and learned Gentleman spoke in terms of just and merited respect of the great value of nuns' schools to the rising population of Ireland, and said it would be a great calamity if anything should prevent the mothers of the future generation from receiving the education thereby given in many parts of Ireland; but the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been told that the rules to which I have referred have been violated in these schools, and that Protestants have declared that they would not intrust their children to nuns' schools. This statement of an unwillingness on the part of Protestant parents to intrust their children to these schools I do not dispute; but it is not that with which we are concerned. The right hon. and learned Gentleman's argument was that, as the rules were violated for the Presbyterian schools so also they were violated for the Roman Catholic schools. On the authority of the resident Commissioner I can state as a fact that in no instance have the Commissioners sanctioned a violation of the rules in the case of these schools. What does the hon. and learned Gentleman who made the Motion say? The right hon. and learned Gentleman complains that the rules of the Board are so slippery and elastic that he cannot describe them, but the hon. and learned Member who opened the debate said that they were of so rigid and Procrustean a character that they cramp the mind and character of Ireland. Both these complaints cannot be well founded, and my opinion is that the truth, as is usually the case, lies between them, and that the Board of National Education pursues a middle course, which, while requiring an adherence to cardinal rules and fixed principles, admits a certain amount of relaxation of minor regulations in order to meet the exigencies and requirements of the time. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asserted that in respect to nuns' schools all rules and principles were abandoned; but in the case of the nunnery at Youghal the hon. and learned Member for that borough (Mr. Butt) stated that when there had been an infringement of the rules in the school connected with it the Commissioners sent down a Protestant inspector, who examined into and reported upon the circumstances. That is a conclusive answer to the charge of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. With regard to the monks I hope to give an explanation which will be satisfactory to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. The Commissioners have decided that the rule which prohibits Presbyterian and Roman Catholic clergymen and clergymen of the Church of England from being teachers in schools shall, by parity of reasoning and equality of principle, apply also to monks.

MR. WHITESIDE

When was that decision come to?

MR. CARDWELL

I cannot inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman as to the exact date, but, although most of his information is seven years old, he will allow me to proceed upon that of a more recent date. The Commissioners have decided that although a monk is not necessarily a person in holy orders, he shall be held to be so for the purposes of this system; and, that although those already upon the establishment may be continued in their employments, no more monks shall be received as teachers. The system then is quite as much a system of mixed education as, under the circumstances, you can reasonably expect. And with regard to the quality of the education, I might call into court as a witness the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself who last year, in advocating the claims of the Church Society to a participation in the benefits of the National system, pronounced, in terms of just eulogium, his opinion upon the teachers and books of the National Board.

I now come to the question what is the demand that is made upon the House, what is the practical step that you are called upon to take? The hon. and learned Gentleman who brought forward the Motion called upon you to extend to Ireland the system which he thinks works so well in England. I must remind him that among many differences between the circumstances of the two countries there is this great one—that, while in England the greater portion of the expense of education is paid by local contributors and the smaller portion by the State, in Ireland the reverse is the case, and education there is carried on almost entirely by means of the grant. The right hon. and learned Gentleman insists that the conscience of the giver shall be the rule according to which each gift shall be administered. What is that demand? Is it a demand for denominational education? Why, the Church Education Society very recently published a statement, in which, speaking of denominational education, they said,— There is hardly any measure which the Church Education Society would contemplate with deeper regret than that which would partition off the responsible management of the public funds given for educational purposes to the several denominations of which the people are composed. They are convinced that the result of such a measure would be seriously to retard educational progress, to foment strife and the bitterness of party spirit, and to place the Church of the country in a grievously false position—that of being only one denomination among a number equally recognized by the State. That is the opionion of the constituents of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and last year, when I was daily assailed with arguments that what was good for England must be good for Ireland, and ought therefore to be extended to that country, the right hon. and learned Gentleman, who was abroad, nevertheless determined there should be no mistake as to his opinion, and wrote to the Irish newspapers to say that denominational education had in him no champion and no supporter. But if we do not have denominational education, what are we to have? The right hon. and learned Gentleman proposes to break the rule in favour of the Church Education Society, and to give to their schools State support, although the pupils therein are required to receive instruction which Roman Catholic children cannot receive without offence to their consciences. If the rule is broken in favour of the schools of the Church Education Society, can it be maintained with regard to those of any other denomination; and if it is not observed, do you not arrive at that very result which is condemned both by the right hon. and learned Gentleman and by those whom he represents? The answer of the Government now will be the same as that given by Sir Henry Hardinge in 1834 after the accession to power of a Government which was supposed not to be favourable to this system, that the Imperial policy upon this subject was settled and fixed, and that, although there had been a change of Ministry there would be no change of policy. Again, in 1852, there was a change of Government. Did that change of Government afford to those who desire the overthrow of the National system any consolation or comfort? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said my hon. Friend the Member for Newport (Mr. Buxton), went over to Ireland prejudiced in favour of the system, and, with the candour which becomes an honest inquirer, he returned prejudiced against it. But Ireland was visited in 1852 by a more distinguished man even than my hon. Friend the Member for Newport: I mean the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland under the Government of the Earl of Derby. He went over to Ireland prejudiced against the National system; but he frankly admitted in the House of Lords that he returned convinced of its inestimable benefits, and determined to take no step which should be adverse to it. [Lord NAASS: Hear, hear!] The noble Lord cheers me, and confirms with his high authority the statement I have made. Years rolled on, and there was another change of Government. The voluminous blue-book, to which the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made so much reference, was not in the possession of the Government of 1852, but it was in the possession of the Government of 1858. If those long extracts which the right hon. and learned Gentleman read to us tell with such effect against the system of national education in Ireland, why did they fail to make a similar impression in 1858? I wish to be just to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I believe that as far as the personal convictions of the right hon. and learned Gentleman were concerned, those extracts did produce the effect which he describes. It was stated in the debate last year that the Irish Government did propose a modification to the Cabinet of the Earl of Derby; but to the immortal honour of the distinguished nobleman who inaugurated the system, he has not left behind the fatal reminiscence that he was prepared to subvert and overthrow it.

We are now in 1860, and what are the circumstances which in the present year should lead us to destroy the National system? If we have been firm and resolute during so many years of adversity, what is there in the circumstances of 1860 which should dispose us to yield to the pressure of the right hon. and learned Gentleman? The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us last year that, though the sturdy Presbyterians had connected themselves with the National system, yet the Wesleyans and the Churchmen were excluded. Where are the Wesleyans now? Have they not joined the system? Have they not given to it all the sanction which their known adherence to Scriptural education must necessarily convey? Why is it to be argued that rules which are not too rigid to exclude Presbyterians and Wesleyans are yet too rigid for the consciences of those whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman represents? Who in the long years of adversity was the head and heart of the system of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman is the advocate if not the venerable Primate? But on the authority of one who so long and worthily represented the University which the right hon. and learned Gentleman now represents—I mean Mr. Napier—the venerable Primate, in the words of the Bishop of Ossory, has in his recent letter "surrendered the whole principle of the question." Do not let me be told, therefore, that the rules of the National Board are too rigid to exclude Churchmen when the venerable Primate himself has abandoned all opposition to them. I have said that the Wesleyans have joined us. Has nobody else joined us since the publication of the letter of the Primate? Has the right hon. and learned Gentleman heard of no large proprietors, no men of the first rank and influence in Ireland, who have already placed their schools under the National Board? The Duke of Manchester told me recently that he had placed his schools, or was about to place them, in connection with the Board, and in the short period which has elapsed since the publication of the letter of the Primate no fewer than forty-eight Church schools have applied to be incorporated with the National system, the applications being made in twenty-eight cases by clergymen, and in the rest by laymen. I suspect the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find that his firm phalanx of 1,600 schools will not long continue to fight a battle of which the people of Ireland are already weary, but will take refuge in a union which I think is consistent with their conscientious feelings, and tends largely to promote the great cause they have at heart. The silent, but very perceptible, very intelligible, and almost irresistible force of public opinion which was manifested in Ireland in 1859 has also tended to confirm and strengthen to a degree that can scarcely be appreciated the influence of the National system of education in Ireland. To every proposal for breaking down the cardinal principles of that system, to every proposal for establishing denominational education, to every proposal for giving a separate grant to those who insist upon instruction during school hours which is not available for pupils belonging to all Christian Churches, Her Majesty's Government are prepared to reply in the emphatic words used by Sir Robert Peel in 1845:— I cannot, of course, question the perfect right of those who conscientiously dissent from a certain plan of public education to withhold their countenance from it, and establish another more in conformity with their own principles. But it is my duty to inform you that to that other plan so established Her Majesty's Government cannot lend their sanction… It would soon be discovered that we must take our choice between the upholding and encouraging of a single system of instruction, founded on the principles of that which is now receiving the sanction of Government, and the granting of public aid to at least three different societies in Ireland—by each of which secular instruction should be combined with religious instruction in the particular doctrine of each religion; one in connection with the Established Church, another with the Presbyterian, and another with the Roman Catholic religion. In such a case all hope of mixed education must be relinquished, and a line of demarcation would be drawn between the children of different religious persuasions, more marked than has hitherto existed at any period. Her Majesty's Government deprecate this result as a great public evil. Can you imagine a public evil more calculated to inflict permanent injury upon Ireland? What is the great aim and object of Her Majesty's Government and indeed of every one who labours for the good of Ireland? Not to diminish the sincere convictions of the members of any Church, but to secure that, while the private convictions of the Members of all Churches are allowed free play, in the intercourse of practical life, of business, of society, of pleasure, in duties public and in duties private, all classes of the community shall live together as one united people. Who can tell the effect, not merely upon the education, but upon the peace and pro- sperity of Ireland, which has been produced by the principles of Government which were inaugurated thirty years ago? If it be true, as Sir James Mackintosh and other writers tell us, that the great power of the British people is due to the freedom of their institutions, how much of that great development we have witnessed in Ireland during the last thirty years is due to the improved Government of which the national system of education has been often and truly called the greatest part?

Let me ask a question of the right hon. and learned Gentleman. Upon what grounds is it that he of all persons comes forward to oppose the existing system of education? He filled with honour to himself the office of Attorney General for Ireland under the Government of the Earl of Derby. Is it in that capacity that he seeks to subvert a system with which the name of the Earl of Derby will be for ever associated? Does he make the attempt as the representative of the Church Education Society in Ireland? I find the very same men who as private individuals or dignitaries of the Church cannot reconcile it to their consciences to adopt the principles of the National Board, yet, as members of the Clare Street Board, are not only adopting the identical rules, but forcing them on remonstrant clergymen. Then, I ask, does the right hon. and learned Gentleman make the attempt as the representative of Trinity College? If so, has he ever read the pamphlets and letters in the newspapers by tutors and eminent members of the College, stating that the principle of the National Board has been for more than half a century the principle of Trinity College itself? This morning I received a pamphlet which the late Member for Dublin University, the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland, was kind enough to send me, and in it there is the following passage:— The case of Trinity College, though not at all parallel in degree, yet, as to this objection of complicity, seems to be decisive. After the Act of 1793 and the King's letter of 1794, the Board was bound to remove every impediment which stood in the way of a Roman Catholic taking his degree in Arts, and for this purpose to dispense in his favour with every rule of the system as to that part of the course of education in which it would be against his conscience to participate. And in another passage it it stated:— Although there is no express rule subscribed, there is, under the statute, the Royal letter, and the system of the University, a restriction as morally binding upon every tutor as if it were set forth in the words of the rule of the National Board, and subscribed under hand and seal. I am glad to have on my side the Primate of Ireland and the late Lord Chancellor. The right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite has not paid his learned Friend, the late Chancellor of Ireland, the compliment of reading his pamphlet, because he said that so far was this reservation about interfering with religious instruction carried, that if a gentleman went into a school, he must not remonstrate with a child whom he found stealing, lest, by referring to the Eighth Commandment, he should infringe the rule of the Board. The House will not expect me to enter into such an argument, but in the Appendix to Mr. Napier's pamphlet, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will find his observation answered. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Napier) says that he has taken pains to ascertain how far religious instruction is included by the rules of the National Board. This is the case with respect to that matter— The school may be opened with prayer; there may be a daily Bible class for all children whose parents consent that they should attend, and none need be deprived of a careful daily instruction in the Word of God, except those whose parents object. With respect to religious instruction in the schools, it is supposed by many that the education is wholly of a non-religious character; but it is a great mistake to suppose that to be the case even in the schools which most completely reflect the system of the Board. I have before me a paper which has been furnished to me by the Bishop of Derry relative to the books provided by the National Board, and he says they are the best books to be found in any of the Irish schools. I am told that the books sanctioned by the Board are read in all the 5,500 schools connected with this system of education, and never was there a time when there was less of irreligious feeling among the growing youth of Ireland than at present; while not a single instance of proselytism in these schools during the last twenty years is alleged. Being desirous to learn what was going on under this system of education by personal experience rather than from books, I followed the advice of the right hon. and learned Member and attended, wholly unexpectedly, the examination at the model school in Belfast. Dr. Willock and Mr. Anderson were examining the Church of England children, under the superintendence of the Bishop. All I will say with respect to the examination is this, that if the examination had been at Oxford, I might have supposed that the book of examination was the Horœ Pauliœ. The Bishop was educated at Eton. I had a friend with me who had received his education at Rugby, I myself was educated at Winchester, and on comparing notes the observation we made was, "Well, this may be an education from which religion is excluded, but we cannot remember that at a much more mature age, when we were at the great public schools of England, we could have passed so stiff an examination in the "Horœ Paulinœ," as these little children in the Belfast school were passing under the examination of Dr. Willock and Mr. Anderson. Proceeding into another room, we saw the Roman Catholic pupils and the Presbyterian pupils, who I believe are in a majority, in all 1,000, guided by a Roman Catholic master, engaged in singing hymns together, exhibiting the most gratifying evidence of the merits of the mixed system, as the other case did of the separate system. After this I can well believe that the challenge of Dr. Willock would be verified, and that if those whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman represents will produce children from the Church Education schools to compete in Scriptural education with children educated by the National Board, the latter will not be afraid to sustain such a competition and abide by the comparison.

Sir, the step which the House is now called upon to take is one of the most important, and, if taken, it would, in my opinion, be of the most destructive character. But I believe that as the House of Commons have been firm and steadfast in their adherence to the system of National education in times of difficulty, they will not fail to support it in the days of its comparative success. I believe that they will not allow its leading rules to be compromised. Though not at all unconscious that we have still great difficulties to contend with, I maintain that the system has proved succcessful in point of numbers and in point of results; that it has conferred the greatest benefits upon Ireland, morally, socially, and politically, as well as materially; that it has done more to raise the character of Ireland than any other institution or than any other system, and that it has, therefore, been of the greatest advantage, not to Ireland only, but also to this country. When the Primate has given his concurrence to this system, when the late Lord Chancellor of Ireland has become an advocate for it, when in the north of Ireland public opinion has been exhibited so markedly in its favour, and when throughout the whole country there exists, though not unanimously, the same irresistible feeling, I confidently believe that, while due concession may be made to reasonable objections and just suggestions, the cardinal principles of the system, which have been steadily upheld by successive Governments and by successive Parliaments, this House will not permit to be infringed.

MR. LEFROY

said, he felt it his duty to express, as shortly and as clearly as he could, the opinions of those with whom, together with his right hon. and learned Friend below him (Mr. Whiteside), he fully concurred on this question. He regretted that the subject had not been discussed at an earlier period of the Session, and still more that it should then be discussed under the pressure of other equally important business. He had never shrunk to express his regret for the course pursued by the National Board. He had felt that it could not be satisfactory to Ireland, and still less satisfactory to the ministers of the Established Church in Ireland, whose views he particularly represented on this occasion. He had never, since he had the honour of a seat in that House, hesitated to express that opinion; nor had he, on the other hand, hesitated to say that the system recommended by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Butt) would equally fail to give satisfaction. The ministers of the Established Church asked for no teaching but that which might be properly, and should be, taught in a Christian nation. They asked to have the Scriptures read in their schools, and they properly declined to take part in those schools where the Scriptures were practically excluded. If nuns' schools, if the schools of Presbyterians, if the schools of Wesleyans, were supported by National grants, surely the same advantage ought to be conceded to the Church of England. He therefore regretted that the Government had not taken steps to extend the National system in a manner which would enable all to partake in it, or that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland could hold out no hope that such a modification in the system would be adopted.

MR. HENNESSY

moved the adjourn- ment of the debate. There were many hon. Gentlemen who wished to speak, and as there was another important Motion on the paper he thought it was not right that the whole night should be occupied by Irish Members.

THE O'DONOGHUE

seconded the Motion.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, he thought the hon. Member could hardly be serious in moving the adjournment. Here was a Member of an Irish, county, who was constantly making complaints that Irish business was not properly carried on, when a debate upon a most important Irish question had commenced in good earnest, absolutely moving its adjournment. He (Mr B. Osborne) had considerable interest in this question, perhaps more than the hon. Gentleman, as he contributed to more schools. He had come down to hear the debate, and he thought the people of Ireland and the constituents of the hon. Gentleman could hardly feel satisfied if it was adjourned. It had been well conducted on both sides, and the House ought to have the opportunity of arriving at a decision upon it.

THE O'DONOGHUE

said, he had not the least apprehension of meeting his constituents on this question; he hoped his hon. Friend would persevere with the Motion.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

said, he hoped the House would not agree to the adjournment of the debate. The discussion had been well conducted on both sides and ought to be brought to a conclusion that evening. He would remind the hon. Gentleman who moved the adjournment that his Motion, if carried, would only be a mode of getting rid of the subject.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Debate be now adjourned."

The House divided:—Ayes 66; Noes 177: Majority 111.

MR. HENNESSY

said, the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland had referred to a document transmitted to him by the Irish Bishops. As the subject of Irish education with special reference to the allegations in that document was to be brought under the notice of the House a few weeks hence, he should defer his remarks on the general question till that opportunity. All that the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Youghal asked for was inquiry into a system in support of which £270,000 were annually expended, and which did not accord with the consciences of the people. The right hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside), who, with so much ability and success, represented the Protestant party, had clearly showed that the National Board failed to conciliate the Protestants of Ireland; while the protests more than once forwarded by all the Catholic prelates sufficiently proved that they were equally dissatisfied. It was remarkable that the House of Commons, which refused to sanction educational Votes in England, unless they were granted in connection with some religious denomination, adopted a wholly different course in Ireland. The necessity of associating education with religion had been recognized and enforced by every English statesman. The principle had been extended to the Colonies, and, with the solitary exception of Ireland, it was maintained in every portion of Her Majesty's dominions. In that country, however, where the three religious bodies, Presbyterian, Protestant, and Catholic, equally dissented from the Government plan, a narrow-minded system of mixed education was forced upon them by those very Liberal Members who talked loudly in the House and elsewhere of toleration and the liberty of the subject. The right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary, furnished, doubtless, with statistical fallacies from the portfolios of Dublin Castle, said that in these schools many thousands of Protestants and Catholics would be found, but he had altogether failed to show that those Protestants and Catholics were mixed. As an illustration of the fallacy of the argument thus put forward, he might mention in the county of Cork alone there were 67,000 children in attendance on the national schools, but of these 700 only were Protestants. He hoped the House, by the division that was about to take place, would mark its sense of the necessity existing for inquiry. It was not, however, a mere question of inquiry into statistical results. The people of Ireland came to Parliament asking for that which the wisdom of Parliament had repeatedly sanctioned. They asked for a system of public instruction in which religious teaching might be to erated. They declared that they had conscientious scruples which were outraged by the secular policy of the so-called National Board. A political party that boasted of its Liberal principles forced that secular instruction on the people. In these days it would seem that the definition of a Liberal was a man who en- deavoured to force his own particular opinions on those who differed from him. The Liberals will not tolerate real liberality. When they say, "We believe in mixed education, and insist upon having no other," the Irish people reply, "We are ready to accept that system for any persons who may prefer it; but we desire to have, in. addition, a system of religious instruction for any others who, in their consciences, deem such instruction advisable: in a word, we desire Freedom of Education."

MR. BUTT

in reply said, the national system had been forced upon the people of Ireland; but, in the Motion he had made, he did not wish to upset the National Board of Education, and it was merely for an address for inquiry. The right hon. Secretary for Ireland alleged that the Primate of Ireland had withdrawn his objections; but the fact was that his Lordship had been shamed into submission by the impossibility of getting education for the Protestant children on any other terms. If the mixed system was good in Ireland, why was it not adopted in England? There had been no justification offered for it by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland; and, as none of the arguments he had offered in support of his Motion had been answered, he must divide the House.

Main Question put.

The House divided: Ayes 62; Noes 196: Majority 134.