Commons Sitting of 17 May 1861

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Flint County v. the hon. Thomas Edward Mostyn Lloyd Mostyn, deceased.
PUBLIC BILL.—1o Salmon and Trout Fisheries.

THE GALWAY POSTAL CONTRACT.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to give notice that as soon as the papers were laid upon the Table connected with the annulling of the Galway Contract, he should submit a Resolution upon the subject, and should take the sense of the House upon it. He would now beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, inasmuch as the Directors of the Atlantic Company are about immediately to reply to the Letter of the Postmaster General annulling the Galway Contract, this reply will be printed, together with other Papers on that subject, to be laid before the House?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that, of course, such reply
  2194
  when received would be laid before the House.

BRITISH SHIPPING IN AMERICA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. J. C. EWARTsaid, in the absence of bis hon. Colleague (Mr. Horsfall), he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, if Merchant Ships seeking freight at New York were chartered by the Federal Government of the United States previous to the arrival in America of Her Majesty's Proclamation, the owners of such ships would be liable to the penalties therein stated?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the question was one which involved a good deal of legal difficulty. He had communicated with his hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, and he expected that he would have been present to answer it in a formal and more authoritative manner. Being absent, the hon. Member had better postpone the question for a short time.

MILITARY FORCE IN CANADA.

  QUESTION.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he wished to ask, Whether Troops have been moved from Montreal to the Cornwall and Beauharnois Canals, and whether the locks on the St. Lawrence Canals are guarded by the Military? Also whether it is true that the Commander-in-Chief in Canada has made a requisition for a large addition to the force now in Canada, and, if so, with what result?
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, the Secretary for War had received no official information as to the removal of troops from Montreal; but he had received private information that about 100 men had been moved from that place. With respect to the question as to whether any requisition had been made by the Commander-in-Chief of Her Majesty's Forces in Canada for a larger body of men, he had to say that representations were made some time ago for a larger force, it not being so large as it had been formerly. In point of fact, two years ago the force was reduced to only one regiment of the Lino and the Canadian Rifles. In consequence of information recently received, the Secretary for War intended to send out one battalion to Canada, thereby restoring the number of the troops to what it had previously been.

CHANCERY FUNDS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUMEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether any general Rules have been promulgated by the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland for the regulation of investments of money under the control of the Irish Court of Chancery, pursuant to the provisions of 23 and 24 Vic. cap. 38.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, no such regulations had yet been promulgated, but, he believed, some were in contemplation.
  Moved —That the House at its rising do adjourn till Thursday next.

  IRISH EQUITY JUDGES.—QUESTION.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether it is in contemplation of the Irish Government to increase the number of Superior Equity Judges to ten; or whether it is contemplated to confer the jurisdiction of a Court of Chancery upon the Court for the Sale of Landed Estates in Ireland? He had been surprised to find it stated that there were ten Equity Judges in Ireland, for he had been under the impression that there were but two—the Lord Chancellor and the Master of the Rolls. There were also the Masters in Chancery, formerly five in number, but now reduced to four, and one of them was a Receiver Master, with about 1,000 estates to look after. When the Landed Estates Court was established the Government of the Earl of Derby proposed to appoint two Judges; but hon. Gentlemen opposite insisted upon having three. He did not know whether these learned functionaries were to be called Equity Judges.
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, there was no intention of making any such change as was referred to by the right hon. and learned Member, nor did he know how it had been ascertained that there were ten Equity Judges in Ireland.

THE BISHOP OF RIPON AND THE DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, that he wished to call the attention of the House to a matter of some importance, and to put a question to the Government upon it. He called at the Home Office that day for the
  2196
  purpose of calling the attention of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary to the matter. He saw the hon. Under Secretary for the Home Department, who was in his place, and acquainted him with the course which he intended to take. The circumstance he referred to was mentioned in the Ripon and Richmond Journal, and was to the following effect:—
  "Removal of a Tombstone by Order of the Bishop of Ripon.—An event forming a general topic of discussion, and creating a high degree of feeling in certain quarters of the town, has transpired since our last issue, by the enforced removal of a tombstone placed at the grave of the late Mr. W. Priestman, in the parish churchyard. The stone, which is of a tasteful character, consists of an ornamental cross, with a crown of thorns encircling the sacred monogram 'I. H. S.' The stem of the cross divides the front of the stone into two compartments, on the left side of which is the following inscription:—'Of your charity pray for the repose of the soul of William Priestman, who departed this life September 6th, 1860, aged 62 years. R. I. P. Eternal rest give to him, 0 Lord.' Running down the stem of the cross are the following words:—'Miserere me, Dens.' We need scarcely remark that the interference has arisen in consequence of the purgatorial doctrine implied in the inscription, which is contrary to the Articles of the Church of England. After the stone had been up for about a week, we are informed, an order was received from the Bishop of Ripon, addressed to the rector or his representative, that it should be at once removed. This having been notified to the family of Mr. Priestman, they declined to comply with the Bishop's order. On the communication of the refusal the church authorities directed the immediate removal of the stone, which was carried out on Saturday last."
  He understood that the tombstone had been removed against the wishes of the family, at the desire, and by the order of the Bishop of Ripon. He was also informed that the person to whom the Bishop of Ripon directed the order could not find a single labouring man who would perform the duty. However, other labourers were got, the tombstone was forcibly removed, and the grave desecrated. He believed the right rev. Prelate recently distinguished himself at a meeting at St. James's Hall, by denouncing the intolerant conduct of the Government of Spain; but if the right rev. Prelate could have pointed out such an instance of intolerance on the part of the Spanish Government towards foreigners would he not have done so? He believed that the removal of the stone was an illegal act, and if the Bishop of Ripon had jurisdiction in this diocese, and should carry out his idea, he must destroy most of the monuments in Westminster Abbey and many in Her Majesty's Chapel at Wind-

  2197
  sor. He asked, If the attention of the Government had been called to the subject, and what stops had been taken with regard to it?

PROTESTANT WORSHIP IN SPAIN.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Before the noble Lord answers the Question of the hon. Gentleman, I wish to know if any steps have been taken in reference to an address that has been presented to the noble Lord bearing on a case of persecution of British Protestants in Spain. But, first, let me say I quite agree with the hon. Member for the King's County that it was very indiscreet in the Bishop of Ripon—if the facts are truly reported—to remove the tombstone, and, although the right rev. Prelate has lately spoken out manfully against the persecutions in Spain, I should be sorry to support him in the removal of a stone of that character. Perhaps the House will permit me to allude to a case bearing on the same subject, information of which has reached me this morning. And I must apologize to the House for again alluding to the question of religious persecution in Spain; but the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department has shown so much reluctance and indifference in dealing with the subject that it is necessary it should be more vigorously handled by the noble Viscount at the head of Her Majesty's Government. The question I have to put is not in reference to the treatment of natives of Spain by the Spanish Government; it is more important. At the request of British merchants residing at Zerez do la Frontera and Port St. Mary, in the south of Spain, I have to bring under the notice of Parliament some circumstances that have just occurred there of the most oppressive nature it is possible to conceive. The British merchants have been in the habit of having the service of the Established Church performed on Sundays alternately at Zerez and Port St. Mary, in the houses of the vice consuls at those places. But at Zerez the service has recently been performed in the house of a private person, the vice-consul at Zerez, Mr. Gordon, having refused to allow the use of a room in his house for the purpose. I must say it is a scandal and disgrace to the consular service that a British vice-consul should not allow the service of the Church of England to be performed under the protection of
  2198
  the British flag. It would appear that the clergyman who has acted in those two localities has recently left and a fresh clergyman has been appointed. I have received the following letter, stating the circumstances:—
  "Zerez de la Frontera, May 8.
  "We have for the past two years had the benefit of the services of our Church, the duties of the clergyman being divided between Port St. Mary and Zerez de la Frontera. The service in Port St. Mary is held in the house of the Vice-Consul Campbell, that of Zerez was up to this time held in my house, owing to our vice-consul being a Roman Catholic, and refusing to allow us the use of a room in his house, though we cited cases in which other consuls who hold his faith had in the most liberal manner done so. Up to the present time all has gone on well, hut on the 2nd ult. I received, through our Vice-Consul Gordon, an order from the Alcalde to close my chapel (copy of which order I enclose), and threatening me with a criminal prosecution in case of refusal, according to their Penal Code, Article 139. At a meeting of English held here we again respectfully asked our consul for a room under the protection of our flag, which he has again refused. May I ask your kind interference in our interests? As one of the many British merchants settled here with their families, the service is to ourselves a most vital point."
  The punishment threatened under the 139th Article of the Spanish Code is, as is well known to many hon. Members, eleven years' penal servitude in the gallics. These men offered to pay the salary of the clergyman out of their own pockets; they in no way interfered with the religious feelings of their neighbours, and they had a right to have the services of their Church performed freely and without interference. The noble Foreign Secretary on a former evening said that though the Spanish Government might interfere in the case of native Protestants, it was prepared to treat English subjects with all the liberality compatible with the law. I think the performance of the Church service in their own houses ought to be compatible with the law of any civilized country. But I have received another letter from a Mr. Joseph Bentley, residing at Little Bolton, who states that he has a daughter living at Gijon, in Spain; this daughter had a child who died there on the 21st of January. The authorities of the place would not allow the body to be buried because the parents were not Roman Catholics, and it was kept above ground for some weeks before they could send it to England for burial. Really, I think the conduct of the Spanish Government—for which I feel as much contempt as my noble Friend—in this matter is the most outrageous that can be con-

  2199
  ceived, and if it thinks it can treat such things with indifference, I believe it is very much deceived. Spain finds it more agreeable to send out buccaneering expeditions, and to promote slavery, but I am sure the noble Lord has his eye on those proceedings, and will remind the Government of what is due to the principles of justice and humanity. I wish to ask, Whether any steps have been taken to induce the Spanish Government to treat—not Spanish Protestants—but British subjects in the manner that the country would wish to see British merchants treated?
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he very much regretted that the hon. Gentleman behind him (Mr. Hennessy) had called the attention of the House to the conduct of a Member of the other House without giving previous notice of his intention to do so. He (Mr. Collins) could hardly think that the facts had been properly reported. He thought there must be some misrepresentation, and that the Bishop ought to have had some fair opportunity of replying to this statement.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON:—Sir, in answer to the Question of the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), I must state that, on account of the urgency of the public service, I cannot postpone the Estimates beyond Thursday next. Before that day hon. Gentlemen will have full opportunity to prepare themselves to discuss them.
  With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy) I am not at all prepared to give any answer. My right hon. Friend the Secretary for the Home Department is unable to be present, being detained by duty elsewhere; but I am quite sure, when his attention is directed to the subject, he will be able to give an answer.
  With regard to the Question of the hon. Member for Tamworth (Sir Robert Peel), I have to state that I did receive the memorial he alluded to, and it has been duly placed before Her Majesty's Government. I have also to state that steps have been taken in the matter. Instructions have been already given by my noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Department to Her Majesty's Minister at Madrid to make urgent representations to the Spanish Government, not only with regard to its proceedings towards British subjects, but in reference to the generally intolerant principles of its administration. My hon. Friend, who knows Spain better
  2200
  than I do, must be well aware that the Spaniards are a people peculiarly sensitive of any foreign interference with their internal affairs, and, therefore, any representations by the agents of foreign Governments, to be usefully made, must be made with considerable discretion. As far as regards concessions made to British subjects, however, there can be no difficulty and there need be no hesitation; and I am glad to say that the Spanish Government have evinced every disposition to extend to British subjects the privileges which we ask for them—namely, freedom to perform their religious services according to the rites of the Protestant service in their private houses, and the establishment of schools where their children may be educated in accordance with the Protestant faith. If, therefore, any instance has occurred in which that general understanding has been departed from, I am quite sure that on a proper representation to the Spanish Government ample redress will be afforded if it lies within their legal power to set the matter right. With regard to the general question, everybody knows that Spain was in former times governed upon the most intolerant religious principles, and the country was the scene of lamentable executions on account of religious opinions. Great improvement has since taken place in this state of things, and these punishments have been moderated, but still Spain in this respect is far behind any civilized, and, I will almost say, any uncivilized nation. At the same time "the evil that men do lives after them," and the misconduct of former generations still weighs upon Spain in the prejudices which still linger in the public mind there. But Spain now enjoys the advantage of a free constitution, of a representative assembly, and, to a certain extent, of a free press. I cannot doubt, therefore, that discussion will enlighten the mind of the nation, and when that shall have been accomplished the Government of Spain, which is far more advanced than the nation at large, will be able to carry into effect those liberal opinions which I can assure my hon. Friend are entertained by those who at present have the direction of affairs in Spain. All I can say is that Her Majesty's Government will lose no opportunity of which, in their opinion, they can usefully avail themselves, for promoting those principles which everybody in this country is so auxious to see established; and I can assure the House that the unofficial and confidential

  2201
  communications which have passed between our Minister at Madrid and the Spanish Executive give us good reason to hope that there will be no difficulty, as far as they are concerned, in doing that which for the interest of Spain herself ought to be done as speedily as possible.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the noble Lord had not alluded to the conduct of the Vice-Consul Gordon, who, being a Roman Catholic, was intolerant enough to decline allowing the service of the Church of England to be performed under the British flag, and who was the means of inducing the Alcalde to withdraw permission for the celebration of the Protestant service. This person replied in the Spanish language to the communication addressed to him by his fellow-countrymen; and, considering all the circumstances, the Government would surely send out orders at once revoking his appointment. [An hon. MEMBER:—Read his letter.]
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was quite sure that if the circumstances were as they had been represented and were laid before his noble Friend (Lord John Russell) right would be done.
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the Vice-Consul's letter was in Spanish, or he should have been glad to read it.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Thursday next.

  THE REGENT'S PARK.—QUESTION.
  Order for Committee read.
  Account of Exchequer Bills raised or authorized to be raised [presented 16th May] referred.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, a piece of land in the Regent's Park had for some time been cut off from the Park and let to the Toxopholite Society, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Peel) would give an assurance that when the term expired that ground would be reserved for the public. The Parks of London were not a bit too large for the population, and anybody who went into the Regent's Park on a Sunday would see that it was highly expedient that the public and not any private society should have the benefit of that piece of land.
  MR. PEELsaid, that no application had
  2202
  been made by the Toxopholite Society for the renewal of their lease, which did not, however, expire until the end of 1863. Some time ago the Society were anxious to surrender their unexpired term, but they still remained in possession of the land. He understood, however, that the rent was considerably under the present value of the land; and, therefore, supposing application were made for the renewal of the lease, the Society would, at all events, have to pay a much higher rent than at present. As to throwing open this piece of land, it had never formed part of the Regent's Park or been open to the public, so that there was no question of withdrawing from the public that which they had in time past enjoyed. When three or four years ago the proposal was made to surrender the lease a question arose what was to become of the property, and after a correspondence between the Treasury and the Office of Works it was agreed, with the consent of the latter office, that the property should be appropriated for the building of villa residences. However, the surrender of the lease not having been actually made the proposal was not persevered with, and the question of what would be done with the land when it became available was still open. The noble Lord, however, might rest assured that nothing would be done without full consideration.

NATIONAL EDUCATION IN IRELAND.

  RESOLUTIONS.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he rose to move the Resolutions on the subject of National Education in Ireland which stood in his name. At first the Legislature took no notice of Irish education; and, therefore, there were no schools in Ireland save those supported by voluntary contributions, and those sustained by the parochial clergy, which had existed since the Reformation. A Committee which sat on the subject in 1812 reported that the wants of the country were not supplied by the parochial schools, and then a body of gentlemen, animated by Christian principles, united for the purpose of carrying on the work of education more effectually than it could be conducted by the parochial clergy. The society which they established in 1811 was called "The Society for Promoting the Education of the Poor in Ireland," and its first meeting was attended by the late Mr. O'Connell, who approved the principles on which it was conducted.

  2203
  In 1825 a Commission was appointed to inquire into the subject; and in the Report Sir Frankland Lewis and his brother Commissioners' printed letters from no fewer than fifty-seven leaders of the Irish Roman Catholic Church who approved the principles of the Kildare Place Society, those principles being to educate by voluntary contributions all who wished to be educated, without reference to religion, only taking care that the Holy Scriptures were read in the schools. Even Roman Catholic children were educated in them, retaining the right of using their own—the Douay version. That society attracted the notice of Parliament, which voted to it a small sum of money. At the time when that society was suppressed its grant was £25,000 per annum, and the number of children educated was 100,000. At that rate £100,000 ought to educate 400,000 children. The Parliamentary grant under the present system amounted in 1852 to £164,577; in 1853, to £182,073; in 1854, to £193,040; in 1855, to £215,200; in 1856, to £227,641; in 1857, to £213,271; in 1858, to £228,000; in 1859, to £249,000; in 1860, to £270,722; and this year the amount was £285,377, including buildings, architecture, and agriculture. Altogether Parliament had granted to these schools nearly £3,000,000 of money; and Protestants were excluded from all participation in the grants. It had been asserted that in 1812 the Commissioners recommended a school system like the present. No such thing. They recommended that the existing parochial schools should be supported, and good books provided, and that supplementary schools should be provided in places where they might be required, admitting persons of all religious persuasions. The Commissioners recommended that the books should not only inculcate moral principles, but that there should be extracts from the Scriptures themselves, an early acquaintance with which they believed to be indispensable to forming the mind on sound principles. They reported that there were about 2,400 parishes and unions, and that if each parish school educated fifty children, that would give a total of 120,000. They also reported that the children would be taught without difficulty as to school superintendence and control, in consequence of having the advantage of the clergy. The Commission of 1825, to which Sir Frankland Lewis gave the benefit of his services, also reported strongly in fa-
  2204
  vour of the system of the Kildare Place Society; but they were of opinion also, that another principle might be acted upon which would include a larger mass of the people. Shortly afterwards the Earl of Derby—who had had the singular good fortune to propose one measure which struck off the shackles from the slave, and another which released a nation from the bondage of ignorance—became Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant. In a curious book written by Lord Cloncurry a description was given of a dinner which took place about this time at the Castle.
  "The Secretary was sent for (ho said), and we sat up till two o'clock in the morning discussing the question of National Education. When it was proposed to Mr. Stanley that the system should be one from which religious education was to be excluded, he at once answered that the Protestant mind of England would never stand that."
  It was hardly fair, perhaps, to report conversations which took place at that hour of the morning, but subsequent events showed how sensible the observation was. Mr. Stanley wrote a letter, and an amended letter, and the last proposed that there should be a certain portion of combined religious education in the schools. Archbishop Whately refused to be a party to any system of education from which religious instruction was excluded; in fact, he distinctly laid it down that there could be no education without religious instruction—a proposition which he illustrated in his usual happy manner—
  "Suppose a boy (he said) asks his master which is the true God—Jupiter or Christ—are you to forbid the master to instruct him at some portion of the day on that point?"
  But the principles on which a system of education should be established had been admirably explained by the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, whom he regretted not to see in his place. In a hook published by the British and Foreign Bible Society he found a speech of the noble Lord's reported, in which he said—
  "Innumerable difficulties have been raised as to whether you can have education conducted without any regard to religion. I could not help being very much struck with the answer given by a boy in the course of his examination to-day. When he was asked for what purpose the Holy Scriptures were given to mankind, he said, 'To be the guide of our conduct in life.' What an imperfect and lame system must that be which, either by State assistance or voluntary effort, proposed to educate the great body of the people or this country, and yet to leave out that which is to be the guide of their conduct in life! Can any proposition be more unwise or more fatal?"

  2205
  The noble Lord further said—
  "I have always contended that this matter of religious instruction is secular as well as religious; that it belongs to us all; that it pervades all the business of life; that it is one of those things which we ought to recommend among the common things of which every household ought to partake."
  He might be out-voted, but, fortified by that authority, he could not be out-argued. There were three kinds of religious instruction originally intended by those who formed the National Board, among whom was the Earl of Derby—one that might be given, another that could be given, and a third which was to be given in the model schools and the schools vested in the Board, where religious extracts, religious poetry, and The Evidences of Christianity were to be used—the latter book being written by Archbishop Whately, with all the clearness and force of Paley. The Board was founded on those principles. His argument was that the original plan had been subverted, that they had overthrown it, and that, having overthrown it, they now insisted, not in truth, but in argument, upon maintaining the national system. Archbishop Whately, the founder of the Board, quitted it because the principles upon which it was founded were subverted. He discovered that his book, The Evidences of Christianity, after it had been approved by the late excellent and esteemed Roman Catholic Archbishop Murray, was not read in the model school. Archbishop Whately maintained that a model school should be the pattern of all other schools, and while the patrons of other schools might reject certain books, all the books for combined religious instruction should be used in the model school. It was said that in a school of ninety-nine Protestant children and one Catholic child, the one Catholic child, though only of five or six years of age, might pronounce against a book written by that eminent, divine and able scholar Dr. Whately, and prevent its being read in the school. That never could be the right interpretation of the 8th rule, but the Board held that it was, and Archbishop Whately, when he found that practical absurdity maintained, determined to quit the Board. In giving his reasons for that step, Dr. Whately said—
  "I, however, as I think any man of common sense would, perceived that there could no longer be any security against any amount of innovation; that those who had broken faith with the public
  2206
  could never enjoy or deserve any further public confidence; and that I could not, consistently with any principles of honour, consent to be a party to proceedings which amounted to the abandonment of all fixed principles, and to the consequent subversion of the existing system and the misapplication of the Parliamentary grant. I not only approve the original system as decidedly as ever, and am as ready as ever to carry it on, but it is because I will not be a party to its subversion that I have ceased to be a member of the Board."
  Again, he said—
  "It would be unfair for me to deceive Parliament and the public by pretending to carry on a system which is, in truth, essentially changed."
  That secession led to the departure of the Lord Justice Blackburn, and of one who was an irreparable loss to the Irish Bench—Baron Wilson Green. Now what were the rules of the system? They were simple and intelligible. He would read one or two. The first was—that religious instruction should be so arranged that each school should be open to the children of all communions. He would show that that rule had been entirely departed from. Other rules were that due regard should be paid to parental rights, and, accordingly, that no child should be compelled to receive, or be present at, any religious instruction which its parents or its guardians disapproved, the time for religious instruction being so arranged that no child should be excluded, directly or indirectly, from the advantage of the schools. The Roman Catholics complain, with much reason, of the use of this word indirectly. If a landlord, for instance, insisted on the children of his tenantry attending the school of which he was a patron, did this word protect the children or the landlord? It was introduced, he believed, for a purpose which it had certainly amply fulfilled, of leading to endless confusion, bickering, and quarrel. Another rule was that public notification of the time for religious instruction should be made, and of the general nature of the instruction to be given. The way in which that rule practically worked was that when the clergy of the Established Church or the clergy of the Roman Catholic Church were about to make any allusion to Christianity, a placard on a pole was hoisted to warn the children of a different communion off the premises, lest they should hear a word of truth respecting the Christian religion. No rule had given more offence to the clergy of the Established Church, and it was indignantly rejected by the whole Presbyterian body in Ireland, for though the right hon. Gentleman op-

  2207
  posite contradicted him on that point last year, yet he had since made inquiries, and he found that it was as he then stated. In the Presbyterian schools they would not put up the placard, and yet they remained under the Board, whose rules were flexible in some cases and inflexible in others. Another rule was that religious instruction should be given either before the school began or after it was over, and the result was that instead of 400 or 500 pleased and attentive listeners to the work of the Archbishop, when it was part of the school teaching, there were, perhaps, only twenty, when the children were required to come at half-past eight instead of nine for the purpose. It was an ingenious plan to warn the children from obtaining any religious instruction whatever. There was, also, another rule which was very offensive. Suppose that at half-past eight in the morning a chapter in the New Testament was read by a Protestant clergyman, or in the Douay version—which, in his opinion, was a very good version—by a Roman Catholic clergyman, what was to be done with the book for the rest of the day? Why, the rule declared that it should be kept under lock and key, for fear it should be seen in school hours, till the hour of reading it, came round again on the following morning. Now, though the Irish clergymen were not generally in favour of using the Bible as a school-book, they did not like that the children should be told the Bible was to be locked up from them. Another rule was that no clergyman or person in religious orders should be a teacher in these schools. But no sooner was that rule made than for a very good reason they proceeded to incorporate the conventual and monastic schools into the system. He thought it right to mention here that it was a mistake to suppose that all religious orders were prohibited in the country; there were certain confraternities against whom no law existed. If, now, any Gentlemen were to ask him what was the difference between the national schools and the Scripture schools, he would tell them that in the Scripture schools the walls were decorated with texts of Scripture, such as "Thou shalt not steal," "Thou shalt do no murder," the Lord's Prayer, and others; and in the case of the infant schools, for instance, the letters were so big that they might learn from them the first principles of Christianity while they were sitting in their seats, and doing little else, perhaps, than staring on
  2208
  the opposite wall. But if a national inspector entered one of those schools, the first thing he would require would be to take down all those texts. This the clergymen invariably refused to do. However they might be sneered at as old-fashioned, they thought them better than the staring pictures of those monstrous animals that existed before the flood, which the inspectors offered them in their place, and which, in his opinion, were better calculated to frighten the children than to instruct them. But then, it was said, look what an enormous amount of good is done under this system. He did not forget the speech which the right hon. Gentleman opposite made last year, that there was no country in Europe where such educational progress had been made as in Ireland under the national system. The right hon. Gentleman told them then that before that day twelvemonth the opposition to those schools would vanish, charmed by his seductive eloquence; that the Protestant clergy would change their opinions, because a pamphlet had been written by a learned friend which had had precisely the opposite effect, and because a letter had been written by the Primate which would bring all the clergy over to his views. Now, he would inform the House what the effect had been. A large meeting, composed of representatives of every class of the community, had pronounced strongly in favour of the views he was now advocating, and the subscriptions to carry them out were about £5,000 more than last year. He bad been told on good authority that a person who had been in the employment of the National Board had said that that system could not survive the disclosure of the numbers of pupils of different religious persuasions in actual attendance at the schools. It should be remembered that the great object which Mr. Stanley had in view was to establish a system of education that would include all religious denominations; and his hope was that there would be applications for schools in each district from both of the leading sects. That, however, was done in only a small number of cases, and the schools thus established gave infinite trouble to the Board. There remained, however, the great principle of mixed education, which the right hon. Gentleman boasted had proved such a groat success. Two returns had been issued on that subject, one of which was a myth and the other a reality. The former gave the names of all the

  2209
  children who had shown their faces in school, and had not been absent for more than ten or twelve weeks at a time. The latter return was a return of the classes, and that return, he believed, was accurately and correctly kept. Now, what was the return? The right hon. Gentleman produced the numbers of 263,000 children as a great and triumphant result; 263,000 children educated at an expense of £320,000, while the old society educated 100,000 children on a grant of £25,000. But even these numbers required to be analyzed. The right hon. Gentleman told them last year, that if the system was not acceptable to the Protestants the Roman Catholics were enchanted with it. But let him inform the House what was the real state of the facts. The right hon. Gentleman said there were 93,000 Protestant children in the schools. That was to say, there were 50,000 of the Presbyterians, 20,000 of the Church of England, and 20,000 of the other denominations. No doubt that was the nominal return. The rule, he believed, differed in the schools of England and Ireland. He had been informed that day that if there were 500 names on the roll in an English school you might expect 400 to be in attendance. But in Ireland, if there were 105 on the roll you might expect 49 in the school. One of the Commissioners of Endowed Schools, who had examined every school in three counties, never found present on any occasion half the number of pupils on the roll. But even these numbers of 263,000 he found were obtained by reckoning in the children in prison. Attendance at school was generally reckoned a voluntary act, but they could hardly reckon the children in prison voluntary scholars. Then there were the model schools, in which great advantages were offered, and in which a considerable number of persons were educated. And, lastly, there were the agricultural schools for instructing children in farming knowledge. These schools certainly could not be registered as national schools. The number of parish schools did not exceed 150,000, and he found the nun schools exceedingly popular, and for this reason. The argument was, that if they allowed religion to interfere with school knowledge and teaching, the result would be a bad kind of secular education. Now that argument had been proved to be utterly fallacious. All the reports of the national school inspectors had proved the falsehood of that position; and although he disap-
  2210
  proved of monastic institutions, yet of all classes of monastic institutions those were the best in which the ladies were engaged on the education of the people. The reports of the inspectors proved that these schools were the best ventilated and the best managed; and although they taught religion he did not think the worse of them because they violated the rules of the Board; for they were bound to teach religion and did do so. But the people, strange to say, had not the option of choosing between convent and national schools. There were 50,000 children in the convent schools, which was a proof of the fallacious ground on which the principle of the rule of exclusion rested. The evidence of the parish priest of Dundalk (Mr. Keirnan) showed that the best thing which could have happened for the national system was the adoption of the convent schools; for if they had made no provision for the religious principle which was asserted by those schools the whole national system would have been held in doubt and suspicion. The nun schools were taken into the national system by an exception which had been made in their favour. They were an exception to the rule, and, therefore, the rev, gentleman said he felt a confidence in the Board which he had not previously entertained. It was in vain, therefore, to attempt to assert a principle in Ireland which could not be asserted in this country. He knew he should be asked, "What are your numbers? You admit, at all events, that of the 150,000 children in the national schools there are 50,000 in convents, and among them a full share of Protestants." What, then, was the result of the voluntary principle, because it was admitted that the two principles were opposed to each other? The House might be disposed to ask, "What can you show? What is done in respect to Scriptural education? What are your numbers?—if it be a question not of principles but of numbers." It was very interesting to look into that question. He had obtained the number of the children at the Scriptural schools, which were called Church Education Schools, and found it to be 73,497, of which number 10,000 were Roman Catholics. So far as the Roman Catholic children were concerned, the conductors of the schools took care not to offend the religious prejudices of their parents, and they always had the Douay version of the Bible. In the Robertsonian Endowed Schools there were 1,315 children; in the Erasmus Smith's Schools, 5,948; in the

  2211
  Incorporated Society's schools, 871; in the Irish Church Mission schools, 2,000; in the Irish Society's schools, 600; in the Island and Coast Society's schools, 1,200. And then came the Sunday schools, the number of children attending which was 230,676. All these schools asserted the principle of religious education, and he maintained that in Ireland a greater number of pupils were taught by voluntary contributions than in this country, at the expenditure of nearly £300,000. Religious instruction was the main object aimed at in these schools, but many of the pupils were unable to read, and were also instructed in that art. Of the 230,676 children who were instructed in those schools, of course a considerable number also received instruction on a week day, but 130,000 attended no other school. All the children whose parents kept them at work, or who were employed in factories all the week, flocked to these schools. No document was more interesting than that which contained the result of the operations of the British and Foreign Bible Society, and from the Report of that Society he found that they had supplied to the Sunday school secretary no less than 10,500 Bibles, and 13,000 Testaments. No copy was given to any person who could not read. It was said that the revival in certain northern counties in Ireland had led to a great demand for the Scriptures, but he was glad to say that now, when the excitement had subsided, the appetite for the Scriptures still remained. He would further state how the rest of the work of education was carried on. There were issued last year 629,025 spelling-books, and 893,670 alphabets, besides a number of other books, all of which had been supplied by voluntary contributions. On what ground, therefore, was it that out of the repertory of knowledge in Marlborough Street, which was paid for by the public at the rate of £300,000 a year, a single spelling-book could not he given to such a society as that? On what ground was a grant of books refused to such a society? They asked for no salaries for schoolmasters; they asked for no money for the purpose of building schools. How was the system pursued calculated to improve the moral and intellectual condition of the people of Ireland? The returns to which he had referred did not include the ragged schools, the pupils in which amounted to 376, or the reformatory, a Protestant school, containing 40 children. The parechial and other poor schools, on
  2212
  the principle of the Church Education Society, contained about 20,000 children. The number of Protestant children attending the National Board schools was 91,000. The total number of children in all these schools was not less than 327,523. In addition, he might mention that the Belfast Ragged School contained 460 children. Deducting the 91,000 Protestants attending the national schools, the number of scholars educated by voluntary contribution was 236,893. He contended that all who subscribed to the public money came within his first and second Resolution, and ought to be included within the Parliamentary grant; and if either Resolution should he adopted, it would apply to a great number of his fellow-countrymen. He was lately much struck with the iniquity of the present system. He was at a Church at Belfast when it was announced that the body of the church would be required for a special service at half past 4o'clock. The number of children in connection with the school was from 800 to 1,000, and he happened to ask whether it was under the National Board—a question which very much irritated the lady to whom he was obliged to apologize as best he could for supposing that there was anything of the kind in connection with the school. Now, would any person answer him—not out of blue books, for he did not believe one-tenth part of what they contained, but with any solid argument showing why that respect should not be accorded to the conscientious opinions of the Protestants of Ireland which was extended even to the humblest sect in this country? He had received a letter from a member of the bar, who was one of the committee for managing Archdeacon Gregg's schools, giving details with regard to a school of 300 children, with a constant attendance of 200, situated close to the National Board; not a Roman Catholic was in the school, and in six others in the neighbourhood which were visited at the instance of this gentleman the proportion of Roman Catholics was very small, but they were all excluded from the benefit of the grant, or from any assistance from the public funds. From time immemorial it had been their practice to teach the Scriptures. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Youghal (Mr. Butt) had procured a return, to which he should invito the attention of the House as a curiosity, because it showed how impossible it was for a statesman, by any notions of his own, to alter the convictions,

  2213
  the opinions, or, it might be, the prejudices of men. A political emetic must be administered to some of those red-tapists to compel them to disgorge the hoards of red tape that disordered their stomachs and obscured their understandings. It appeared by the return in question that there were 5,496 so called—though miscalled—National Schools, of which no less than 2,598 did not malic even a pretence of imparting mixed education, leaving' a residue in which it was assorted that the mixed education principle was carried out by 2,898 schools. Of this residue there were 478 schools in which the maximum attendance of Protestants claimed was one in each; and this the House should understand was not by any means a Protestant in the flesh, but a phantom Protestant, introduced to perpetuate the delusion of a combined education. There were 385 schools in which the minority of Protestants or Catholics, as the case might be, consisted of two; 281 schools in which there were three Protestants; 210 schools in which there were four; and in 164 schools the magnificent number of five! Thus, 1,518 additional schools were made up, in which it was plain, from the figures he had given, that not even a pretence existed for saying that there was any mixed education. Deducting that number from the residue of 2,898 schools, only 1,380 would remain. But from that reduced number there were others that must be deducted. It could not he said, for instance, that mixed education was carried out according to the fundamental rule of the society in prisons. There were seven such schools as those. Of workhouse schools there were 139; model schools, 14; minor model schools, 40; and agricultural schools, 14; in all 218. Leaving these out of the calculation, as he was bound to do in fairness, the voluntary schools in which the mixed system of education was carried out were reduced from 5,496 to 1,162—or about one-fifth of the number. Descending into particulars the results were even more remarkable. In the province of Minister there were 1,382 National Schools; but of these there were 483 in each of which the pupils of a different creed from the majority on the roll amounted only to one. Subtracting from the total number those schools in which the minority upon the roll did not amount to nine scholors, there were exactly 35 schools in the province of Munster in which the principle of united education was really carried out.
  2214
  In Leinster there were 1,315 National Schools, but, instead of the handsome percentage of 47 per cent in which it was alleged the combined system of education had been successfully carried out, there were but 97 schools in the entire province where the numbers belonging to the religious denomination of the minority exceeded five. In Connaught, where there were 814 National Schools, 242 out of the 354 mixed schools had less than five pupils belonging to the minority, 295 had less than 10, and the remainder, having more than 10, was exactly 59 schools throughout the entire province. In Clare county, with 179 National and 54 mixed schools, in not one of them was there a maximum of 10 children out of the average number of 105 who belonged to a different religion. He would give the House the facts with regard to two counties. It was not fair to select those which were either exclusively Catholic or exclusively Protestant; but he would take the counties of Carlow and Wicklow, which, being happily circumstanced as to the proportions of the different religions, would afford a good illustration of the state of things existing under the present system. He had spoken to an hon. Member representing one of those counties, and he told him that the return obtained by the hon. and learned Member for Youghal was perfectly accurate as far as it went, but it took no account whatever of the schools supported by voluntary contribution, almost side by side with the others. And that was the case with all the blue-books—they gave but one portion of the truth; and half a century hence some unfortunate man—Mr. Buckle, for instance—who might attempt to write history, and who relied for his information on the contents of blue books, would find himself in possession of but half the real facts. [The right hon. Gentleman read the list of attendances at the different National Schools in the county of Carlow, as given in the official return, which exhibited the attendances of Protestants of all denominations, as varying from one in a school of 117 to six in a school of 187, the vast majority of the children being in every instance Roman Catholics.] Could the House regard that as a return of mixed education? He had felt at some loss to understand how Protestants were educated in that county till he procured from his friends a return exhibiting the true state of the matter. From the Government return it appeared that 99 Protestants and 2,715 Catholics—

  2215
  2,814 in all—were educated in the National Schools of the county of Carlow; whereas, strangely enough, in the schools supported by voluntary subscriptions on Scriptural principles the proportions approximated more closely, for they contained 168 Catholics to 1,538 Protestants—making a total of 1,706. These were the results obtained on one side by the weight and favour of the State directed to the establishment of a particular system, and on the other by the efforts of a respectable body of persons who could not tolerate the exclusion of the Scriptures, nor give their adhesion to rules laid down to fetter their judgments and consciences. He should be really astonished if the noble Viscount at the head of the Government, who always displayed such excellent sense, and still more his noble Colleague who made such admirable speeches on the question of education, refused to vote with him on the present occasion. To look at the returns for the county of Wicklow one would think that there were no Protestants whatever living there, and that he must dive into the earth to find those who had received a Protestant education in that county. An eminent Roman Catholic contractor had opened up that county to all who wished to see its splendid scenery, and as the journey from Dublin to Bray was but a short one, there was little difficulty in obtaining information as regarded education in Wicklow. Those who supported the National system as it was now carried on would tell the House that a religious instruction would interfere with secular education in schools for the people, and that if the Catholic child went to the school of the Catholic priest—to which it was natural for him to go—and if the Protestant child went to the school of the Protestant clergyman—to which it was just as natural for him to go—these children would be found quarrelling all the rest of their lives. The criminal statistics of the county of Wicklow falsified that assertion. It was exactly thirty years since there had been an execution in that county. When he was Attorney General he received official accounts of the number of prisoners for trial in each of the Irish counties, and from those returns it appeared that two prisoners were the average number for trial at the Wicklow Assizes. The Sittings of the Criminal Court occupied about twenty minutes each assizes. In short, he believed there was not in the world a population more deserving of admiration than
  2216
  the population—Catholic and Protestant—of the county of Wicklow. They were as moral, courteous, peaceable, and religious as any people on the face of the earth. Well, how many Protestant children were returned as attending the National School in the town of Bray? One; while the number of Roman Catholics was 176! He would just give the House a notion of the truth on this point; not that he impugned the official return; he believed that it was prepared with the greatest fidelity. The question was how to overtake this little urchin; because he might run over the whole county, and escape over the border and into the county of Dublin, before he finally settled down in a particular school. It was his opinion that this little Protestant of whom mention was made in the return, being an active little fellow, might outrun the inspector and escape to the next school before that functionary arrived. There was this suspicious circumstance about him—that those who visited the particular school never saw him. He might, in fact, be described as "the Phantom Protestant." He happened to be at Bray, and was asked to attend a school; and to do that which was greatly against his inclination, make a speech. However, he submitted; attended the meeting of school children; he made a speech, and, if he might judge by the rattling of the teacups, did very well. Well, at that gathering he saw with his own eyes—and they need not quote blue books to him as against what he saw with those eyes, for he always believed the evidence of his own senses—nearly 200 Protestant children. The clergyman of the place was Archdeacon Whately—a son of the Archbishop; he was the vicar of Bray. He could assure the House that in no place did the people live on better terms with each other than in the county of Wicklow, where these 200 Protestant children were attending a Scriptural school, and where the Catholics attended schools in which they received religious instruction according to their own faith. It was, therefore, absurd to support the National system on the grounds put forward by its advocates. He did not blame the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland personally for that system. The right hon. Gentleman had not invented, he had only spoiled it. In the county of Wicklow there was a Protestant Orphan Society for orphans of whom both the parents had been Protestants. In that school there were 410 children. There was also an

  2217
  orphan school for the children of mixed marriages, and the number of children in it was 170 to which it was proposed to add 20. The children in those schools must all be forthcoming. The child was the receipt for the money paid for his support; and children seldom or never died in that county. In all there appeared to be 800 children attending various schools in which Scriptural Education was given. The number appearing in the returns of the National Schools was three, and some people went the length of saying, that if you went into the National Schools in Wicklow you would not find a Protestant child there at all. The Catholics were very happy. The priests were the patrons of about 2,000 of those National Schools. The Catholics had confidence in them, and it was natural that they should send their children to the schools of which those rev. gentlemen were the patrons. The principle of the Roman Catholic clergy might be to exclude the Scriptures from the schools. He did not assert that they did; he did not say how that fact was; nor did he want to force the Scriptures on any one; but he did want that the fact of the Scriptures being taught in a school should not render that school inelegible for any participation in the educational grant. They heard a great deal in that House, and he was quite sick of it—of efforts for evangelizing Spain, Protestantizing Italy, converting the Hindoos, and disturbing the whole world, when only across the Channel they denied the Scriptures to their own fellow-subjects, who read them before they had anything to do with them, and would still read them when they were all gone. According to the return of the county of Cork, there were many schools with less than five Protestants in each, and being in the county lately, he asked the secretaries of some of them whether their subscriptions were falling off, and the answer was, "No, we have got more money this year than ever we got before." Much had been said about the opinions of the bishops, who were supposed to have favoured the National system. With all respect, he would observe that the opinion of a Bishop did not conclude a question. The opinion of a Bishop was to be respected, but, at the same time, it was to be considered. The name of the Primate of Ireland had been mentioned. There was no better man; and it was a mistake to suppose that his Grace was not in favour of religious instruction in schools; for he subscribed
  2218
  £500 for that object. The Primate and other Bishops of the Irish Church addressed the Chief Secretary for Ireland to make some concessions in respect of the National system. The right hon. Gentleman replied that he could not; and it was when this refusal was conveyed to the most rev. and right rev. Prelates, that the Primate, in a letter to his clergy, told them that if they found they could not carry on schools conducted on the Scriptural system, they were at liberty to join the National, rather than allow their children to be without education. That statement had been extracted from the Primate by the refusal of the right hon. Gentleman. His Grace was coerced by what he conceived to be his duty—though as to the wisdom of the course taken by him there was a difference of opinion—to issue that letter to his clergy; and it was not fair for the right hon. Gentleman to cite him as an authority against the vote which these Resolutions were intended to establish. Let them now turn to Ulster for an illustration of the operation of the mixed system of education, where, according to the right hon. Gentleman, it had always presented itself in a favourable aspect. [The right hon. and learned Gentleman referred to the figures of several of the schools in the County of Antrim, in each of which there was only one Protestant to a large number of Roman Catholics.] In the Townsend Street School, in Belfast, there was but one Catholic to 374 Protestants; and he asked what chance the Catholics would stand among so many Protestants? So much for the Protestant county of Antrim, and so much for a system which compelled people to do what they did not wish to do, and to yield to a principle of which they could not approve. In Armagh and Carvan the same rule held good, there being at the rate of one Protestant to hundreds of Catholics in each school. In the model schools in Dublin, where the Board had carried out more rigorously the rule to give a mixed education, the attendance of Protestants was greater than elsewhere, being in one case 112 Protestants to 499 Catholics; in another, 89 Protestants to 367 Catholics; and in another, 64 Protestants to 366 Catholics; but in other schools in that city the proportion was I Protestant to 138 Catholics; I Protestant to 114 Catholics; I Protestant to 241 Catholics, and so on. He asked whether any man of ordinary sense and fairness could, in the face of such facts, persevere in say

  2219
  ing that that was a mixed system of education? There was another most extraordinary part of the case, and that was the convent schools. In those schools, which were held within the convent walls, ladies were the teachers, and the people liked them because the teachers were ladies. They were very familiar with the children, and were accustomed to spend the money which they received as salary from the State in purchasing food and clothing for the children. He was unwilling to say anything derogatory of these schools, but he would put it to the Roman Catholic gentlemen present whether they believed in their hearts that such schools were intended for Protestants. When Mr. Cross, the Secretary to the Board, was examined before the Lords' Committee, he said with great frankness, speaking of the convent schools, "They are not schools into which any Protestant should suffer his child to enter." When Mr. Sullivan, who wrote many of the books for the National system, was asked by the same Committee why the convent schools had been introduced by the Board, his answer was, "You must ask that question of the Board." The right hon. Gentleman had told them that monks were not to be employed any more in teaching. He was sorry for the poor monks, though he was bound to say that their being so employed was contrary to law. But with regard to these convent schools, the intention of the Board no doubt was that these secular books should be read there. Were they so read? It was of no use to say that the rules of the Board were to that effect. The truth was, that these ladies never thought of obeying the Board, but only the superioress under whom they were placed. The rules of the Board were violated, and the schools made accessible to Catholics, and were, indeed, intended for them; but it was a false pretence to say that they were intended for Protestants. The secular books of the Board were given to these convent schools with the intention that they should be read there. Why was the same assistance not extended to the Protestant schools whose case he advocated? He had no quarrel with the books of the Board; they were excellent, and so, indeed, were all their school requisites, for large sums were expended year by year in providing the most improved school apparatus that could be found. Then why did they not confer these benefits upon the schools where the Scriptures were also
  2220
  taught? They asked no assistance for buildings, an assertion which he was ready to repeat, though the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) shook his head when he made it. It was a singular fact that as the grants for the National Schools increased the number of pupils diminished. He held in his hand a table showing the amount of the annual grants from 1854 to 1858, and also the number of pupils; and he found that in 1859 the Board received £236,026, being an average for each school of £43 odd. The expenditure in 1859 was £174,050, leaving a balance unaccounted for of £61,950, which was all spent on model and agricultural schools and official establishments, but was sufficient to support additional schools; and it was strange rather, that while those schools had increased in number in six years to the extent of 318, there was a nominal decrease of pupils amounting to 31,935, the actual decrease being much greater. The House had been often told that the books used in the National Schools were the very best that could be got. He was ready to admit that the books were good, but they were by no means the best that might be provided. A criticism in one of the education reports affirmed that these books were deficient in picturesqueness and interest. He would admit, however, that the Irish school books were good, and he was willing to receive them. But the House would not let the Protestants have them unless they bought them, and the punishment for reading the New Testament in their schools was as expensive a system of secular education as possible. It did not appear that the more advanced books of the series were in great demand, for it appeared by the report for 1860 that of the total number of scholars on the roll—519,000—the real number being 363,000; there were 214,709 who read in the first hook, the primer; 249,999 who read in the second book, the sequel to the primer; 79,929 read in the third book; and 32,919 in the fourth, so that the vast proportion were receiving the most elementary kind of education. Of all the fallacies extant, indeed, the greatest was that an improvement was taking place in the secular education given in these schools. He admitted that if one went into a model school one found proficiency; but a clergyman, a friend of his, let him into the secret. He told him to go into any school in a country parish and remark the contrast. The reason was the

  2221
  total want of local sympathy which characterized the Irish, as compared with the English system. The average salary of the schoolmasters under the Irish Board was £26 11s. 4d., which was to be increased by £10. The original plan was that school fees and local contributions were to come to the aid of the teachers; but the plan had been departed from, and it appeared that local assistance had diminished in some cases as the Parliamentary grant had increased, In one of the most flourishing districts in Ireland the contributions from local sources were six shillings, It was not to be expected that the Protestants would subscribe when they raised £300,000 for the support of their own schools, besides paying in taxes for the maintenance of a system from the benefits of which they were rigidly excluded. One of the main causes of the want of local sympathy and the declining efficiency of the schools was that the rules had alienated the support of the landed gentry and clergy. One of the Inspectors, Mr. Fitzgerald, declared that a generation was now growing up in Ireland in a state of comparative, if not in total ignorance. The teachers, it was also stated, were dissatisfied with their present position and remuneration, and were organizing an association for obtaining an increase of pay. In his first Resolution he asked the House to affirm that aid ought not to be refused to any school in which the Word of God was read. He would admit the right of the State to inspect schools to which aid was given, but he would take from the Board the right to refuse aid on the ground that religious instruction was imparted. The House would soon be obliged to consider both for England and Ireland the best mode of National education. In Ireland the difficulty was that there were 210,000 Roman Catholic children in schools receiving aid from the State, while the Protestants of Ireland were educating a greater number without receiving 6d. of public money. In the House of Lords' Committee a Resolution had been proposed by the Earl of Derby to the effect that the Board should grant aid to schools, whatsoever the religious education might be, the patrons of which were willing to receive the visits of Government inspectors. The great principle that religious education ought to be given in schools required no advocacy in a House of Commons representing a people whose laws and institutions were interwoven with the Christian
  2222
  religion. The Bishop of Ossory, an eminent authority and advocate of Scriptural education, had written a pamphlet on the subject in which he propounded a plan, in which he (Mr. Whiteside) very much agreed. He said—
  "The plan, then, to which I refer is this; that that the State should prescribe a system of secular education, the best that it can devise, considering the wants and all the circumstances of the country, and that it should enforce this system in all the schools in which it gives aid, and ascertain that it is carried out bonâ fide in all such schools by means of periodical inspections, half-yearly or quarterly inspections, as may seem best, making the allowance from the State to the schoolmaster depend, either altogether or in part, on the progress of pupils in the prescribed system, giving a capitation allowance for all who made a defined progress in the interval between two inspections, or adopting any other way which may seem better fitted to secure the effective carrying out of the system. But having done this it should make no other absolute requirements that no school should be excluded from connection with the State on account of its rules as regards religious education; but that every school should be admissible to such connection on making an engagement to carry out the prescribed system, and should be kept in connection so long as it faithfully adhered to this engagement,"
  That suggestion was disputed by some; but a more modest and tolerant proposal could not be made. The Government, under such a system, would see to the secular education, and leave to the clergy of the Established Church the right to read the Scriptures in their schools. Dr. Cooke, an eminent Christian divine and eloquent preacher, stated that the objection of the Presbyterians to the proposal of the Board was that in order to obtain the support of the Board it was required that they should unite with others to whoso religious principles they were opposed, and also that the Scriptures should be excluded during school hours; the Presbyterians holding, on the other hand, that the Scriptures constituted an essential basis of education, and should form part of the instruction during school hours. Dr. Cooke added that he would not put up the notice warning people off when the Scriptures were read for all the bishops and archbishops in the country, and as that rule was made since the Presbyterians formed their arrangement with the Government they stood upon their arrangement. It appeared, however, that the Presbyterians were tolerant and just, for Dr. Cooke said that such of the children as chose might leave the school while the Scriptures were read; but the Presbyterians made no arrangement for them to go to any other place. The result was

  2223
  that the Scriptures were read every day in the week in the Preshyterian schools, while the Church Educational Schools, having no special contract with the Government, were excluded from the advantage enjoyed by the Presbyterian schools. There was a very interesting body of persons in Ireland called the Christian Brothers. They were not monks, and they existed at the time when Sir Frankland Lewis examined into the state of education in Ireland, who represented them not as a religious order, hut as a congregation devoted to educational purposes. The upshot, however, was that they would not teach without teaching religion, and it was reported by the inspectors that the secular education given by them was better than that given in the National Schools. He thought that the House would do well to affirm the second Resolution which he should propose, and which would include the schools of that body of men as well as the 1,700 Church Education Schools, irrespective of those of that glorious Society—the Sunday School Society—which effected more good than all the other schools put together. The third Resolution he should propose related to the reconstruction of the National Board. The original Board in Ireland consisted of seven members; it was then brought up to fifteen, and afterwards to twenty. [The right hon. and learned Gentleman here quoted from the evidence given before a Committee of the House of Lords, for the purpose of showing the various inconveniences arising from so numerous a Board, the result being that the resident Commissioner became absolute master of the situation.] What, he would ask, had the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for Ireland done in order to cure these evils? He had constructed a Board consisting of twenty members, some of whom resided at so great a distance from Dublin that they were rarely able to attend in their places, and the great majority of whom, including the Lord Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, the Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench, the Attorney General for Ireland, &c, were the paid officials of the country. To a Board so constituted he, for one, objected as ill-conceived for the purpose of performing the duties which it was called upon to discharge. It had, he might add, been reported that the right hon. Gentleman had actually placed on the Board the Provincial of the Jesuits, but upon looking in the Roman Catholic Directory for the present year, he found that it was not that
  2224
  gentleman but his brother, upon whom the appointment had been conferred. Now, for his own part, he would never consent to attack a man for opinions which he might have held twenty years ago; but he could not, at the same time, help saying that a more unfortunate selection, so far as the Protestants of Ireland were concerned, than that which he had just mentioned, could not, in his opinion, well be made. If the members of the Jesuit body wished to live quietly in this country they might do so, but he would never be a party to committing the education of its youth to such hands. He objected to the ten Roman Catholic Members of the Board being all, with the exception of the hon. Member for Tipperary (Mr. Waldron), connected with the Government of the day. He also objected to having the law officers of the Crown, or those who aspired to that position, placed upon the Board, and what he sought by means of his third Resolution to effect was to do away with that Board as it at present existed, to substitute for it two paid Commissioners; the one to be a Roman Catholic, who would enjoy the confidence of the members of that persuasion, the other a Protestant; and if to these were united the right hon. Gentleman opposite, or whoever the person might be who held his office, they might hope to possess that which did not at present exist, the means of administering effectively the system of National Education in Ireland. He hoped, therefore, the House would consent to do away with a Board which had given to the Protestants of Ireland the deepest dissatisfaction, and by agreeing to his second Resolution would enable Sunday School Societies, and other institutions of the same character, to obtain for their schools those moderate advantages which they required. By taking that course the House would, he felt assured, be conferring a boon both upon Protestants and Roman Catholics, because then they would have succeeded in rendering just and impartial a system which at present was not so, and which never could be so while its present harsh and exclusive rules were in operation.
  Amendment proposed,
  "To leave out from the word 'That' to the end of the Question, in order to add the words 'the advantages afforded by Parliamentary Grant for the purpose of Education in Ireland ought not to be denied to any School upon the ground that the Holy Scriptures are daily read therein,"—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE O'CONOR DON: Sir, in rising to make a few remarks on the Resolutions now submitted to us, I do so relying principally on that kind indulgence which, I believe, is seldom refused by the House, to one who, for the first time, addresses it. I have listened with great attention to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman, and he must pardon me, should I find myself obliged to vote, not upon that speech, but on the Resolutions which he has placed on the paper. In many of the statements which he has made I fully concur, but I must confess that I do not believe that the opinions expressed in his speech are borne out in the Resolutions. These Resolutions I consider to be unfair and partial in their character, and, however eloquently he may proclaim his desire of obtaining for the members of all religions equal advantages; yet, in giving our vote on this occasion, we cannot overlook the true meaning of the Resolutions submitted to us. Now, Sir, what are these Resolutions and what is their true nature? By the first Resolution Protestant denominational schools obtain all the advantages which they could seek. They are to have an unrestricted freedom in the reading of the Scriptures—in other words, their religious teaching is distinctly recognized. But this Resolution holds out no such advantage to the Roman Catholics. The second Resolution, the right hon. Gentleman tells us, will assist the Roman Catholics—but in what manner? Under it Christian Brothers' Schools, and others of a similar nature, may receive aid to procure books and school requisites; but is this an advantage equal to that given to the members of the Established Church by the first Resolution? Even this trifling concession, however, is bound round with restrictions, for books and school requisites are to be given only at the discretion of the Commissioners. And here I may remark that the Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman do not appear to me quite consistent in themselves, for it seems rather strange—first, to propose to give more enlarged discretionary powers to a certain body, and then to declare that in that body you have no confidence. Yet, this is what is done in the Resolutions before us. The right hon. Gentleman tells us that the present Board is composed chiefly of officials, and that in it no confi-
  2226
  dence can be placed; yet he proposes to invest that Board with still greater powers than it at present enjoys. But, whilst differing in opinion with the right hon. Gentleman respecting his proposals, I am quite ready to agree with him in stating that I do not consider the present system of education satisfactory. I fully believe that it has not attained the ends for which it was originally designed; but the evils existing at present would certainly not be terminated by the remedy proposed by the right hon. Gentleman, He has dwelt very much on the justice of the demand for a free reading of the Bible, and as I believe that, unless this were accompanied by an equal freedom for all other religious teaching, it would be a violation of religious liberty, I may be pardoned for asking the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to an opinion expressed by one whose authority I do not think he will call in question. In the year 1833, Lord Derby, then Lord Stanley, in reply to a demand of the Presbyterian Synod of Ulster, similar in its nature to that now made by the right hon. Gentleman, gave expression to the following remarkable statement:—" The proposition that any child, at any hour, and in the midst of any other employment, should be permitted to read the Bible, is a proposal so perfectly novel and unheard of, and so totally impossible, as it appears to me, to be reduced into practice, that I should not have noticed it but that such appears to be the express sense of proposal number two, and seemed to be sanctioned by the Synod." And again, he says—"To introduce the reading or hearing of any such book during the ordinary school hours, namely, those during which children of all religious denominations are expected to attend, would be a palpable violation of religious liberty." Now, Sir, I fully agree with Lord Derby in this statement, were not freedom for all religious teaching equally granted; and I hardly think it is reconcileable with the proposals before us. As I stated before, we Roman Catholics are not quite satisfied with the way in which education is at present carried on. We may differ as to the changes which ought to be made, but we all, I think, agree that some changes are necessary. I am fully aware, Sir, that I may differ with many of my hon. Friends on this subject—I am fully aware that there are many Roman Catholics in this House, and many in Ireland, who would see with regret any change infringing on the vital principle of the sys-

  2227
  tem. Agreeing with many of my hon. Friends as to the unsatisfactory state of the question at present, I find myself obliged to differ from them as to the possibility, or at least probability, of any really important change for the better, without a radical alteration of the system. The chief objections which we Roman Catholics have to the system as now carried on, are set forth in a letter addressed to the Chief Secretary of Ireland, and which has been in the hands of hon. Members for some time. This letter was signed by the majority of the Roman Catholic Members of this House, and the objections specified in it were very fully entered into, and ably discussed by the hon. Member for Dungarvan during last Session. I may here, Sir, recapitulate a few of them. We object to the changes which have taken place in the system since its first establishment; we object also to the books, and in many instances to the constitution of the administrative departments. The principal changes introduced, and to which we object, are, in the first place—that separate religious instruction, distinctly recognized in Lord Stanley's letter, and in the first rules of the Board, has been in many schools abandoned, and might, I believe, without any breach of rule, be forbidden in all the non-vested schools. Secondly, that the superintendence of the clergy over this separate religious instruction, also recognized in Lord Stanley's letter, is no longer permitted; and in many instances the claim of the clergy to exercise this superintendence has been considered almost impertinent. If we refer to those blue hooks which the right hon. Gentleman holds in such contempt, although he did not abstain from quoting them, we shall there find that this authority or right of the clergy to superintend the religious teaching of the children of their flocks has been continually denied, and even more than this, parental authority has been rejected, when it was discovered that the parents were advised or received some direction from their pastors. But, in addition to these changes, there is a still more important one, on which I should wish to make a few remarks. I refer to the alteration of the rule which compelled managers of schools to exclude children from religious instruction not approved of by their parents. I know that this rule has been called in question, and that the present rule, which obliges the teacher merely not to compel the attendance of children at
  2228
  such instruction, is represented as the true interpretation of the original rule. Last Session my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland quoted many authorities to show that the present rule is the correct interpretation of the previous one, whilst, on the other hand, my hon. Friend the Member for Dungarvan quoted authorities to show the impossibility of such a view being correct. On looking over these authorities and quotations, it struck me that the authorities quoted by the right hon. Gentleman were perfectly consistent with both views of the question, and although they were consistent with the argument held by himself, they were not inconsistent with that of the hon. Member; whereas, the authorities brought forward by the hon. Member were wholly inconsistent with the view taken by the right hon. Gentleman. But, Sir, it appears to me to be almost trifling with the question to dispute whether there was merely an interpretation or a new rule, as the consequences in both cases are alike; and, if it be an interpretation, I can only say that it is an interpretation contrary to the principle laid down in Lord Stanley's letter, contrary to the express declaration of the First Secretary to the Board, and contrary to the view entertained by the Roman Catholics when they first joined the system. The results of this alteration have been unfortunately very pernicious, for under it children are now receiving religious instruction not approved of by their parents. I do not mean to say that the teachers compel them to remain during such instruction, but we can easily understand how children may be induced to remain with their companions until all the instruction is terminated. But, Sir, we hear reasons adduced why we should continue to support the present system. It has been said that under it no proselytism has taken place. But, Sir, is there nothing worse than proselytism? I freely admit that I am not aware of any instance of proselytism having taken place in the schools, but this is but a bad argument in favour of the system. For although there may be no outward change of religious profession, religious indifference may he the result; and, instead of becoming good Protestants, children become bad Catholics, or, perhaps, indifferent to all religion. Now, this is the natural result which I should expect from the system. It certainly would surprise me to see an actual change in religious profession take place, unless such change

  2229
  were induced by other circumstances; for when a child receives one sort of religious instruction from his pastor on Sundays, and on week days receives contrary or conflicting instruction in the schools, the probable effect will be that he will pay very little attention to either. It is not likely that he will outwardly change from the religion of his parents, unless some particular inducement is held out to him for so doing. But, then, it is said this mixed education will put an end to all religious contention in Ireland. Does experience justify this statement? The mixed system of education has been in existence for more than a quarter of a century, and has religious contention diminished during that period? I am happy to believe that it has; but that diminution has taken place everywhere except in the model province of mixed education. To keep that province tranquil each year more stringent laws have to be made, and are made apparently only to be broken. Is there anything extraordinary in this result? I think there is not. For, Sir, I believe that no Christian religion teaches hatred or inculcates hostility. On the contrary, I believe that all Christian religions teach peace and love of our neighbour; and consequently it is not to the profession of any particular faith, or belief in any particular dogma, that the unhappy contentions existing in the North of Ireland are chiefly due. When you weaken religious convictions you weaken the restraints imposed by a fear of religious responsibility, and you thereby incur the danger of party conflicts and animosities. The man who is most negligent in obeying the commands of his religion, and attending to his duties, is just the man most likely to fall out with his neighbour on account of a difference in religious profession. So that both theory and experience would not justify us in expecting such wonderfully salutary effects from mixed education. But I have heard it said that we, Roman Catholics, ought not to object to the system, because it would be unreasonable in us to expect that this Protestant House of Commons would grant to us aid for schools in which Roman Catholic doctrines were taught. I confess I do not see anything unreasonable in this; for aid is granted for such purposes to the Catholics of England and of the colonics, and surely we, Irish Roman Catholics, ought not to be treated more harshly than any others. I would now, Sir, refer to a statement which, I believe, has often been
  2230
  made in this House, and which was slightly touched on by the right hon. Gentleman. It has often been stated that the members of the Established Church in Ireland are treated with greater injustice, in the distribution of the funds for educational purposes, than the members of any other body; and it has been said that whilst the rules of the system are accommodated to the religious convictions of Roman Catholics and Dissenters, they are rigid and unaccommodating towards the Church by law established. Now, Sir, from this opinion I beg respectfully to differ. The Church Education Society and the members of the Established Church may have conscientious objections to joining the National System; but I do maintain that those objections arise not from any peculiar severity of the rules in their regard, but rather from the superior advantages which they in other ways possess. They say they are not treated fairly because the indiscriminate reading of the Scriptures—a Protestant religious practice—is forbidden; but does the rule which forbids this Protestant religious practice sanction any Roman Catholic one, or is there any other rule modifying this prohibition for the Roman Catholics? If there be not, if Roman Catholic religious works and practices be equally forbidden, where is the peculiar injustice done to the Protestants? I do not at all admit that we Roman Catholics place less importance on the combination of religious with secular instruction than the members of the Established Church do; on the contrary, I believe we place far more importance on it. I would ask, Sir, what is the nature of this conscientious objection on the part of the members of the Established Church. It is not one against the intrinsic principle of the separation of religious from secular instruction, for we find that the parties urging this objection are quite willing to accept in the vested schools that same separation. Further than this, in the very University which the right hon. Gentleman so ably represents, we find a like separation of secular and religious instruction, which could not take place were it wrong, on the part of the Protestants, under any circumstances to sanction it. But when we contrast the relative positions of the Roman Catholics and Protestants we may then discover the true origin of this objection. The Roman Catholic has no school to which he can send his children except the Protestant school, in which he believes they may receive erroneous religious instruction.

  2231
  The Protestant, on the other hand, has his own schools, in which religious and secular instruction is carried on just as he pleases. To those two parties the State offers aid on the same conditions; one of the conditions being that religious and secular instruction must be separated. The Catholic accepts the aid, the Protestant refuses it. But why? Not because the condition offered to both is not the same, but because the previous advantages possessed by the Protestant renders him in a position to be able to refuse it. He may have a conscientious objection to accept it, but that objection arises from the fact of his being asked to relinquish something he possesses, which possession, of course, was a previous advantage. But, surely, Sir, it would be a strange argument to say that the State should give aid in proportion to the advantages, and not in proportion to the wants of the people. I should imagine that if the State were to be more lenient towards any party, it ought to be so towards the poor and those in difficulties, than towards the rich and comfortable. In the present case, however, the nominal rule, to which the members of the Church Education Society object, is the same for all, and holds out no peculiar advantage for any party. As I have stated before, I
  2232
  agree in many of the statements made by the right hon. Gentleman in his speech, but I do not believe that the interpretation which he there gave of his Resolutions is the interpretation which they would receive in Ireland. The result of their being carried would be, I fear, that the minority of the people—the minority which possessed the greatest wealth and power—would obtain everything they wished. If the right of reading the Scriptures at any hour of the day were granted to them, they would then have obtained full and free liberty for religious instruction. But that liberty would not be obtained by the Roman Catholics from the same concession, as they did not regard the Scriptures as their sole authority in religious teaching, nor did they make the reading of the Douay version the basis of religious instruction, especially for young children. I have now, Sir, to thank the House for the very kind attention it has shown to me, an attention which, as it was undeserved, must be ever gratefully remembered.
  Notice taken, that Forty Members were not present; House counted; and Forty Members not being present,
  House adjourned at half after Eight o'clock, till Thursday next.