§ MR. WHALLEYrose to call attention to the Report of the Committee of Council 1789 on Education (1860 and 1861, p. 195), so far as respected the Reports of the Roman Catholic Inspectors on Roman Catholic schools receiving grants of public money, and to ask why the Reports of certain Inspectors had been omitted from the Reports presented to Parliament, and moved for further papers. He observed that, out of three Roman Catholic Inspectors, the Report of only one was published. Not less a sum than £184,000 of the public money was applied for the benefit of Roman Catholic schools, under the superintendence of Roman Catholic Inspectors, and there existed no means of knowing whether the money was properly applied. There was reason to think, from all the information they had been able to obtain, that very small results in the way of education had been obtained from that outlay; but they knew that by the side of the schools there were rising up Roman Catholic churches and chapels, and consequently an apprehension was excited that the money granted ostensibly for the purpose of education was applied to the endowment of Roman Catholic chapels, nunneries, and institutions of that nature. However that might be, he contended that the accounts of the persons to whom the money was entrusted should be under the same revision as the other educational grants.
Motion made, and Question proposed—
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of Further Reports of Inspectors on Roman Catholic Schools receiving Grants of Public Money.
§ MR. NEWDEGATEseconded the Motion, for he thought that the subject was one really deserving attention. Every other denomination supplied accounts showing that the money received for education was applied to that purpose; they stated what was the number of their scholars and the general results of their teaching; but, from the absence of the Reports alluded to, there was no security that the money was in the case of these Roman Catholic schools applied at all to the object intended. He would call attention to another point which showed extreme reticence on the part of the Committee of Council for Education. It appeared that Mr. Moseley, one of the Inspectors, had expressed the opinion that the system of the British School Society commended itself far more to the great bulk of the population of Wales than the system of the National Schools under 1790 which the Government grants were made. In consequence of that declaration the secretary of the Archidiaconal School Society of Carmarthen, thinking—he (Mr. Newdegate) concluded—that the Church should, if possible, avail itself of the terms, upon which grants were made to the British schools, addressed three questions to the Secretary of the Committee of Privy Council. He asked, first, whether the Inspectors of the British schools were instructed to report on the knowledge of the children in the Scriptures; secondly, whether the pupil-teachers in the British schools underwent an examination in the Scriptures at the end of each year; and, thirdly, whether candidates for the Queen's Colleges and certificates of merit were obliged to answer the questions in the Scriptures which were given to the candidates from the Church of England Schools. Those questions were addressed to the Committee of Privy Council with a view to produce union between Protestant Dissenters and the Church of England, and at the same time to obtain security that a Scriptural education should be given; but they received a very curt and unsatisfactory answer, the Secretary of the Privy Council Committee merely stating that, "My Lords decline to reply to your inquiries respecting the instructions issued to the Inspectors of the British schools, or to enter into any correspondence with you on the subject." He hoped the House would express an opinion to the effect that, when respectful inquiries were addressed to them for information, the Committee of Privy Council should be more courteous and explicit in their replies. It certainly appeared to him that Parliament had a right to expect that all the information should he laid before them that could enable them to see how the money they voted for educational purposes was expended.
SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, there could be no objection to furnish the fullest information with respect to the expenditure of the Privy Council grants for Roman Catholic schools, or to produce any Reports which might be useful for that purpose. But he would request the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Whalley) to renew his Motion in a more explicit form, giving a more precise description of the documents which he wished to call for; and if the hon. Member were to bring forward the subject again either to-morrow or on Thursday, the Vice-President of the Committee of the Privy Council for Education (Mr. Lowe) 1791 would then be in his place, and would be able to give fuller information than he could pretend to afford. The matter was, no doubt, one which deserved the attention both of that House and of the Government, and he believed the Committee of Council would profit by the observations which had been made in the course of this debate.
§ MR. WHALLEYcould fully bear out the observations of his hon. Friend (Mr. Newdegate) as to the reticence of the Privy Council. An inquiry had been made of them respecting these very Reports of Mr. Marshall and Mr. Morrell, and they had refused to give any reply to the question asked. He had come down to the House at great personal inconvenience, being much indisposed, but he would renew the Motion on Thursday.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.