HC Deb 23 May 1862 vol 166 cc2158-79

House in Committee.

SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR in the Chair.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a sum, not exceeding£290,904, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Public Education in Ireland, under the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, there were certain items in the Vote which ought not to be defrayed out of the taxes of the people either of England or Ireland. There was in the first place eighteen establishments denominated "Model literary schools." He did not think that the public ought to be taxed for literary schools. The salaries of the principal, and teachers was no less than £6,900, and there were other items, making a total charge of £18,610 for these schools. The salaries of work-mistress and teachers of higher branches of needlework in the industrial schools amounted also to £6,500. That, he thought, was an objectionable charge. In the debates on the Revised Code it had been held that the instruction fitted for English children should consist only of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Again, he took exception to the charge for agricultural schools. Of these establishments there were not fewer than eighteen; and the Vote on their account amounted to no less than £4,690. The charge for the Glasnevin school was £2,351. The items to which he had referred amounted altogether to £32,000; but he did not propose to reduce the Vote by the whole of that sum. He wished it to be understood that he did not object to any money that was voted for the education of the population of Ireland, but he thought it was most unfair towards the taxpayers of this country to call on them to pay for a high-class education for persons who would probably be come by-and-by valuers and surveyors of land. He should therefore move to reduce the Vote by the sum of £7,041, the amount asked for the agricultural schools and the model farm at Glasnevin.

MR. MONSELL

said, he had an anterior reduction to propose.

SIR WILLIAM DUNBAR

said, he thought the hon. Member might move it afterwards.

MR. WALPOLE

said, the practice of the House was to take the items in order.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

said, he would postpone his Motion.

MR. MORE O'FERRALL

said, he objected to the item of £800 for salaries of two professors employed as training masters and lecturers on the English language and literature, geography, mathematics, political economy, and natural philosophy, at £400 a year each. What was the necessity for sending such persons into the country parts of Ireland to teach the sciences? Would it not be better to give the money granted for their salaries to increase the salaries of the underpaid masters throughout the country? He should move, with a view to test the opinion of the Committee, that the sum be reduced by £400. There was also a classical instructor for special class teachers with a salary of £100. Was it, then, intended to teach all the poor Irish peasantry Latin and Greek?

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, that the Vote was precisely the same as that adopted last year; and as the number of scholars had increased, and there was consequently greater need for the money, he presumed that the Committee would not reduce a Vote which had been approved formerly.

MR. MORE O'FERRALL

said, that be did not consider the explanation of the right hon. Baronet satisfactory. It did not follow that because the Vote was passed last year, it must be passed in the present year.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he wished to ask whether the Committee were aware of the manner in which it was proposed to spend the public money? He found mentioned in the Vote two professors, who were to lecture on the English language and literature, history, geography, mathematics, political economy, and natural philosophy. There were also two assistants, to these professors, a classical instructor for special class teachers, a literary teacher to agricultural pupils in training, a professor for music, and lecturers on physical science and botany. Every subject in the world appeared to be cared for, except the teaching of the Ten Commandments.

MR. HENNESSY

observed, that the result of the instruction in political economy was that the right hon. Baronet had not a single supporter in Ireland.

SIR GEORGE LEWIS

explained that the professors were not intended to be employed in teaching the peasantry, but in teaching the schoolmasters, and it was quite conceivable that a schoolmaster, though he did not teach Greek, Latin, or political economy, might be better qualified for general duties if he had some elementary knowledge of those subjects. The scheme had the support of the National Board and had been in operation for some years.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, he believed that the question of national education in Ireland was running riot, and he very much doubted whether they were not carrying education in that country far beyond the wants or the intelligence of the people. He was the patron of five or six schools, and he never went to any of them without being struck with the fact that they were not giving to the people the useful, practical education which their circumstances demanded. The right hon. Gentleman said, that the professors were not to teach peasants, but masters; but it was worth considering whether giving such an education to men who received £25 a year—["No, no!"]—yes, £25 to £30 was about the salary of the ordinary parish schoolmaster in Ireland—whether they were not over-educating them, and making them discontented with their remuneration. State education in any shape was questionable; but if the State did educate, al that it was justified in providing was an elementary education. Those who wanted accomplishments should go elsewhere, and not to the State supported schools. The right hon. Baronet sad that the system had been in operation many years, but he (Mr. Osborne) believed that the classical master was only introduced into the Vote last year, and he for one was rather surprised that there was not a dancing master likewise. They had music and moral philosophy, and no doubt next year there would be a professor of dancing, which would, perhaps, be most popular, for the Irish, he believed, were much fonder of dancing than of moral philosophy. It was a question for the House whether the whole system of national education in Ireland should not be overhauled. He maintained that all the State could be expected to give was elementary education. But he wished to have an answer to this question. What was to be the limit of education in Ireland? He was sure they were going too far, Education in Ireland was becoming a mere show system for English visitors; it was not the working system of the country. He shuddered when he saw a model school, built in the very best order of architecture, rising up by the side of the peasant's cabin. Education was fast outstripping the wants and requirements of the country. Not only had they "bloated armaments," but bloated votes for education. The system ought to be checked at once, and he trusted the Committee would take the same view of the subject.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, he thought there was no country so much in need of instruction in political economy as Ireland. As to natural philosophy, no doubt the rudiments of knowledge of this sort were more useful even to the lowest class of peasants. As for the school not teaching the girls to cook, they did not profess to teach cooking. What they undertook to teach was reading, writing, and arithmetic. If Government interference was to be abolished, let that question be fairly raised and settled; but if not, he thought these petty objections were unfounded, and he should not record his vote in favour of any such Motion as the present.

MR. AUGUSTUS SMITH

called attention to the great increase which had taken place in the Vote, the amount having nearly doubled within the last ten years.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, he hoped the right hon. Baronet the Chief Secretary would give the Committee further information upon the Vote. The form of the Vote was inconvenient, as, although it showed the aggregate increase, it did not specify the items of increase. There were two professors employed in training masters and giving lectures upon many subjects. Either these gentlemen were men of extraordinary information, or their instruction was of a superficial character. Which ever was the fact, they received £400 a year each. The professors in the Queen's Colleges had been for years complaining of the insufficient amount of their salaries, but without obtaining improvement, al though they were men whose lives had been devoted to literature. They received only £203 a year and fees, which in no case exceeded £100 a year. He also wanted to know something about the classical instructor. It might be said that he was to teach classics to the schoolmasters; but if those masters were not to teach classes themselves, why should they be taught classics? He did not at all agree with the doctrine of the right hon. Gentleman, that because the Vote was agreed to last year, it ought to be passed this year. If that rule was to be acted upon, the Votes had better just be placed on the table and passed at once.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he would state what were the items of increase and what of decrease on the year's Vote. As to the two professorships, his right hon. Friend the Minister for War had already clearly explained their position to the Committee. The whole amount of increase in the Vote was £5,526 over last year. There were seven items of increase and four of decrease. There was an increase in the metropolitan model schools of £350 3s. 4d.; in the district model schools, of £687; in the minor model schools, of £300; in the salaries of teachers, £5,700; in inspection there was an increase of £30; in school apparatus, of £10; and in the official establishments, of £149—making a total increase of £7,226. Then there were four items of decrease, which were comparatively insignificant; £50 for normal establishments; £300 for the Navigation School; £220 for the Royal Albert Agricultural School; and £1,130 for other agricultural schools, making together a decrease of £1,700. Deducting the increase from the decrease, the whole increase became £5,526.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary had not even touched the points of inquiry. He wished to know what were the heads of the increased expenditure; were they in salaries, in books, or in instruments? If the particulars were not furnished, it was impossible for the Committee to know where the increase or decrease actually occurred.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

Sir, I confess I have heard with regret the grounds upon which this discussion has turned as to the original principles of education. Those who oppose the vote take, I think, a very low view of this important matter. It is very well to say the object is to teach the peasantry, who want nothing but a knowledge of reading, writing, and arithmetic, and that therefore it is absurd to teach the masters anything beyond that. That doctrine was held thirty years ago, when the principles of education were not understood, and when old prejudices ran against giving the lower classes knowledge even to the extent of reading and writing. The art of teaching is an art like other arts, and for a man to teach anything well his mind must be well cultivated, and above the mark to which he is to bring his pupils. The mind is like the body. Why are the French soldiers taught all sorts of gymnastic exercises? Not because they are going to perform those exercises in the face of an enemy, but because they may acquire a perfect knowledge of the movements of the human body. As it is with the body so it is with the mind. A. man who knows nothing but reading, writing, and arithmetic is about on the same level with the pupils he is to teach, and will make a bad hand in teaching them even those small things you expect him to teach. But are these things small? Is it useless to a peasant to know the elementary principles of political economy? We have been for years in this House urging the great importance of teaching the humbler classes the elementary principles of political economy. In consequence of the knowledge the working classes have acquired of those elementary principles a great deal of discontent has been avoided that might otherwise have arisen among men who were suffering from privations, the causes of which they misunderstood. Is natural philosophy useless? What is natural philosophy? It begins with mechanics; and is it not useful for the peasant to know the principles of the screw, the plane, the Wedge, and the pulley, things which he pay be called upon to put in practice every day of his life? All those arguments that have been urged rest upon the supposition that a man is always to remain in the class from which he springs, and is never to rise above it, and therefore it is unnecessary to furnish him with the means of rising. But is that the case? How many instances are there of men who, originally in humble positions, have, by the knowledge they have acquired, by the cultivation of their minds, by their industry and intelligence, raised themselves in the social scale and amassed ample fortunes? But these men could not have done all this with a mere knowledge of reading, writing, and arithmetic. Many of them acquired a knowledge of natural philosophy and of mechanical arts; and are the Irish less able than Englishmen to do these things? Why, hon. Gentlemen conversant with the country know that no people in the world are so apt to learn, so quick, so desirous of learning, and so able to turn their learning to account as the Irish peasantry. If any one will go into the Model school in Dublin, which has been condemned by the hon. Member (Mr. Osborne), he will not stay there ten minutes before he finds the proof of what I have been saying. I recollect being there one day, and the master brought out the mental arithmetic class. The boys answered a great number of difficult questions. At last the master said, "What will 8d. a day make in four years?" That question would, perhaps, puzzle a good many Members in this House. But four boys held out their hands to show that they could answer the question. Three calculated a certain sum, and the fourth a different amount. The master and the three boys said to the fourth, "You are wrong." "No I'm not," replied the boy, "and I'll prove it. We have four years to account for, and you haven't made any allowance for leap year." Was not that ready and clever? Then I say that children who are capable of such activity of mind are deserving of a higher kind of education than mere reading and writing. I do trust that hon. Members will not run riot with this Vote. Men have been appointed to these situations on the understanding that their places are, if not permanent, at all events to be held during good behaviour; and if this Vote is rejected, they will be suddenly cut off from employment, and be condemned to immediate destitution. That is not what anybody can wish to see, and I therefore hope that the Amendment Will be withdrawn.

MR. MONSELL

said, he quite concurred in the praise of Irish quickness and intelligence which had been pronounced by the noble Lord, who, however, had passed a less favourable judgment upon his countrymen at an early period of the evening. The principle which had boon laid down by the noble Lord with regard to Ireland was at variance with that which had been affirmed from the Treasury bench during the recent discussions on the Revised Code. He contended that such things as political economy should not be taught at the public expense. It was right, as far as the national finances would allow, to contribute to the education of those who were unable to educate themselves. He did not object to increase the salaries of the schoolmasters, or to multiply the parish schools; but it was not right to give the public money to afford education of a higher class to people who were well able to pay for themselves, He should certainly support the Amendment.

MR. CHILDERS

observed, that the Government granted £3,000 in aid of the lecturers at the training colleges in England, in addition to,£4,500 contributed to that purpose by the managers of the training colleges. The corresponding sum for Ireland was only £900.

MR. CONINGHAM

said, that the question before the Committee was not whether the children in Ireland, but whether the masters themselves, should receive a superior education. He contended that they ought to do so.

LORD NAAS

said, the question raised by the right hon. Member for Limerick was an important one. The right hon. Member seemed to argue that the national system had been done away with. Until that moment he was not aware that there was any Gentleman in the House of Commons who would advocate such a sweeping measure. If the English system was applied to Ireland, the people of that country would practically be left without the inestimable blessings of education. The training establishment in Ireland was not too large for the purposes required. If education was to be carried out to its full extent, there must be training schools. The masters in these schools were selected for their superior attainments, and too much care could not be bestowed on them. Training colleges were intended to teach men the superior branches of education, and he deprecated the turning of the particular inspection in question into ridicule. The study of political economy would be of the greatest use to these teachers. He should have liked, perhaps, to have had more details of the results of the system, but he believed that the education given justified the policy of the Vote. He hoped nothing would be done to weaken the effect of the training college.

MR. MONSELL

denied that he had advocated the introduction of the English system in Ireland. He had said nothing against the spread of parish schools; on the contrary, what he had contended was that public money should not be devoted for instruction in political economy to those who could find funds for their own education.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he believed the schools supported by the State had ruined the smaller private schools. They had certainly given very superior schools for the peasantry, and he rememembered a deputation urging that if money was voted for the education of the poor, the intermediate schools should receive support. The Government had not answered the question of his hon. and learned Friend, the Member for Belfast. Classical teachers were provided for "special classes;" were they classes for Herodotus, Euripides, Cicero, or Virgil? He should like to know for what part of Tipperary these classes were intended.

MR. LONGFIELD

said, the old village schools of Ireland gave a kind of education very superior to the mere elementary teaching of reading, writing, and arithmetic, advocated by the hon. Member for Liskeard; and as the State had assumed the education of the lower class, it ought not to give it of an inferior description to what the people had before. He trusted that the right hon. Gentleman would not persevere in his Amendment, as he should feel I bound to vote against it.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, he questioned how far the House was justified in increasing the Vote year after year, for such a high education in an agricultural country. He recognised in the remarks of the noble Lord the very excellent lecture on education which he had delivered at Romsey, but it did not apply to Ireland, where they were teaching an an agricultural population. If the noble Lord delivered such a lecture in the interior of Ireland, the peasantry, who earned 10d. a day, would be very much astonished to hear that they must know all the sciences that they might have an opportunity of rising in the world. He was told he was turning the subject into ridicule by saying they might soon have to provide the schools with a dancing master. It had nearly come to that already, for there was an allowance of £500 for enabling the ordinary teachers in the National Schools to learn singing, drawing, and navigation. To learn to sing, a man must have a voice; for drawing, he must have a peculiar aptitude; and for an inland county of what use to a teacher was navigation? They might easily push the system to an extreme that became ridiculous.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON

I accept my hon. Friend's challenge. He says what I stated at Romsey might do very well for a town, but not for an unenlightened district of Ireland. [Mr. BERNAL OSBORNE: Agricultural.] I will just give him an instance in point. On my estate in Sligo there was a boy, the son of a labouring man, he received a very good education at one of these schools there; his natural talent was cultivated; he went to the Botanical Gardens at Kew and distinguished himself there; afterwards he was employed by Sir Joseph Paxton at the Crystal Palace, where he was found to be very intelligent. He was then engaged in the Army Corps in the Crimea, and he now holds an excellent situation at a high salary in the county of Sligo.

MR. MAGUIRE

said, he did not think the education of Ireland had been raised to a point which ought to excite the alarm even of those hon. Gentlemen who had a prejudice against national education. As to the Vote for teaching navigation, the hon. Member for Liskeard seemed to forget that Ireland was an island having a large seaboard, and that therefore instruction in navigation was useful to her people. In her large cities and towns, too, there were great numbers of mechanics, to whom a knowledge of elementary drawing was of the utmost importance. He agreed in much of the noble Viscount's speech on education, which had been animadverted upon, though he regretted that in that speech the noble Lord had disowned Ireland as his birthplace, stating that he was a Romsey man. Parliament ought to raise the status and remuneration of the village schoolmasters of Ireland, whose average pay from all sources did not exceed 12s. a week, or much less than was received by a London hodman.

MR. MORE O'FERRALL

said, that some of the model schools had no pupils, because neither the Catholics nor the Protestants would send their children to them. Yet an increased grant was proposed for those institutions. It would be better to raise the salaries of the country schoolmasters, and enough might be saved for that purpose upon other items, without diminishing the efficiency of the central system. He would leave his proposal in the hands of the Government, and not trouble the Committee to divide.

MR. W. WILLIAMS

complained that the votes for education in Ireland did not all appear in one part of the Estimates. On a former occasion they had voted £66,000 for education in Ireland; now they were asked for this additional sum. He adhered to his previously-expressed desire to see the Vote reduced by the sum of £7,041 for agricultural schools, for which the English taxpayer ought not to pay.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he rose to call the attention of the Committee to the grievance under which the supporters of Scriptural education in Ireland labour. It was a short case and a very clear one. The myth called "united education" did not exist; and it was a mistake to sup pose that national education meant united education. It was said that there were 500,000 or 600,000 scholars attending the national schools; but the fact was, that the number was 300,000, and no more. He was interested on behalf of those who supported Scriptural schools in Ireland, which the noble Lord at the head of the Government in Ireland pronounced to be in no way inferior to any schools. It could not be denied that the Protestants paid their share of the income, and of every other tax. The grievance of which they complained was, that while they contributed to the general funds out of which the system of national education was supported, they were excluded from all participation in those funds. The condition of the Scriptural schools was better that year than it was in the last; and as a large number of the Catholic pupils were taught in the same schools as Protestant Dissenters, it appeared that there was more united education in schools where the Bible was read than in schools where it was not. There were on the roll of the Church Education Society 230,000 scholars well taught at the expense of persons who contributed to those schools, as well as to the fund out of which the national system was maintained. Last year he went into the matter rather mi- nutely, and he was followed by the hon. Member for Roscommon. The Speaker then left the House for a few minutes, and while he was absent some active Member of the Government whipped out the House. It was not often that they had to regret the loss of a speech, but they could ill spare the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford, which was not delivered upon that occasion. So ended the question of united education for that year, but he hoped that the noble Viscount, whose aspirations were to evangelize Spain, to Protestantize Italy, and to upset the Pope, would now do the small act of justice which he demanded. The head and front of their offending was, that they read the New Testament in their schools, and, dealing candidly with the Government, their unequivocal intention was to continue to do that which their forefathers had done before them. Ireland was governed by a number of Boards, and he thought as little of the Board of National education as of any institution in the British Empire. If a person walked into the offices of the Irish Board of Education, and said he wished to be the patron of a school, he would be asked, "What do you believe?" Suppose he said, "I believe nothing; my mind is unaffected by religious prejudices." The Commissioners would say, "That relieves us from all doubt. There can be no unpleasant questions with you. If you promise never to allude to the Christian religion, you may be the patron of as many schools as you pleaae." The National system really admitted of a gentleman being patron of a school, who announced explicitly. "I am a disbeliever in the Christian religion, and I undertake that neither I nor my schoolmasters will ever refer directly or indirectly to the Holy Scriptures." [Sir ROBERT PEEL: No.] The right hon. Baronet said no, but the rules said that reading the Scriptures in the Protestant or Roman Catholic form, public prayer, and religious exercises should be avoided. He objected to formulas being mixed up with the doctrines of Christian faith; but he still more objected to the rule which said there should be no religious instruction in the school-room. In fact, it was a rule which might as well have been indited by that much-abused body, the Inquisition of Spain. But he warned the Government that the persons for whom he claimed justice were not to be snuffed out because they advocated a principle dear to the heart of every true Protestant. Suppose Peturini went before the Commissioners—he was tried for burning the Bible, but acquitted. The Commissioners might say to him, "Oh, we have heard something of you." "Well," but I he would say, "I undertake never to refer to the Bible." He would be made a patron forthwith, while the parish minister would be excluded. Then came the nunneries. It was said every school must be open for all classes of the country alike—was it meant that these schools were intended for the Protestants of Ireland? The Protestants of Ireland were practically excluded. Why were they established? In order to remove the scruples of the Roman Catholic clergy and people, who, he believed, really wished to have a religious education in certain of their schools, they were taken into connection with this system. There were, however, neither Government masters nor mistresses in those schools, and the only way in which the Government could give assistance was by paying a capitation grant. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for the city of Oxford (Mr. Cardwell) had said that a rule was established that monks were no longer to be masters of schools—did that appear among the published rules? Monks and friars, and especially those ladies devoted to the purposes of religion in the robes of their order, did teach, and, he believed, honestly and conscientiously, the truths of their religion. Well, then, he asked, if they had made a grant to accommodate the religious scruples of their Roman Catholic countrymen, they ought not to overlook the ancient parochial schools of the country that must teach religion? They were ready to take their books, their school requisites, their training I establishment, and their inspection, only they promised to read the Bible in their schools. What could be more inconsistent or unjust than the course they took in voting money for the teaching of geology and conchology, and all the other ologies, and withholding it from parish schools, simply because religious instruction was therein given? He had no desire to interfere with parental authority, but there would be no infringement whatever of parental authority if they gave the grant to schools in which the Scriptures were read. What must be the effect of such a system as the one existing upon the schoolmasters? He did not say that they would not be well instructed and clever men, but they might be most dangerous subjects. He had said before that an infidel might be a patron of the schools, and he now said that a revolutionist might be one, and he alluded to a revolutionary speech made by Mr. Lavelle at a large meeting at the grave of O'Connell, and yet that person was the patron of two schools to which Government aid was given. If they gave assistance to schools of such a character as that, why, in the name of common sense, could they not give it to those who would teach loyalty, piety, submission to the State, reverence to the Sovereign, and belief in God? It was said that Roman Catholics were unfavourable to the teaching of religion in the school. An eminent Roman Catholic writer had acknowledged that the reading of the Scriptures was a duty which belonged to the Church as well as to the Synagogue, and that the Gospels especially were manifestly intended for the use of all. Fenelon held a similar view. A great many Roman Catholics adopted the principle of reading their own version in schools. That version was a very good one, and he would have no objection to the reading of it in Protestant schools. One plan which had been suggested was to annex the Irish schools to the Privy Council system. Another and a much better plan would be for the House to devise the best system of secular instruction—that of the National Board, if they approved it—and enforce it on all who apply for aid, at the same time offering no objection to religious education. It might be said that in such a case the Roman Catholics would avail themselves of the plan. Of course they would do so, and he should be sorry to propose any plan in which they could not share as well as Protestants. The Rev. Mr. M'Gee wrote to him that "if the Government did not establish a system of Scriptural education, as was in fact its duty, it ought not to interfere with religious instruction, but leave it free to the managers of all schools." That was also the plan which was approved by the Bishop of Ossory. It was a simple, practical scheme, and, while securing to Parliament a control over the dispositions of the public money and the superintendence of secular education, would leave the conscience free. On what principle did they refuse to the Irish Church that small meed of justice which was granted to the most obscure sect in England or Scotland? In the Lord Advocate's new Education Bill for Scotland the small body of Episcopalians was duly provided for. The Irish Church was surely entitled to equal consideration. Even the moderate proposal which he made last year, that books should be granted to Church schools, would, he feared, be rejected. The extreme position of the National Board was illustrated by the recent refusal of the application of one of the bishops and a great number of the clergy and laity in the north of Ireland for a slight relaxation of the rule prohibiting religious instruction. He might remind the House of Archbishop Whateley's proposition—" Suppose a boy 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? "Again, suppose the walls of a school were covered with texts of Scripture, such as "Thou shalt do no murder," was the master to be required to take them all down as involving religious instruction. When the Earl of Eglintoun first went to Ireland, he was in favour of the National system of education as it existed, but he changed his opinion after he had had the opportunity of investigating the subject. When he (Mr. Whiteside) was appointed Attorney General, and was preparing for his election, he asked that noble Earl whether he believed it was necessary to maintain the rigorous rules of the Board, or whether some reasonable concession could not be made to the friends of Scriptural education. His reply was that some relaxation ought to be allowed, and that if it were not, he did not intend to retain his office. Before, however, anything could be done in the matter, the Government quitted office. He believed that the Earl of Eglintoun, in holding the necessity for a relaxation, did not desire to disturb otherwise the present system. He submitted that he had made out a case, and had shown that the friends of religious education in Ireland suffered under a grievance, the removal of which might be effected without doing any injury to the Roman Catholics, and would do much to render the Government popular in Ireland.

MR. CARDWELL

said, that the proposal which had been made by the right hon. and learned Gentleman was not new, nor had it been enforced by any new arguments. The proposal was as old as the system of united education in Ireland, and it had always been answered by the same arguments, and had always met with the same decided rejection by the House of Commons. That proposal was to break down the fundamental principles upon which the system of united education was founded. Those principles were two—that during school hours the education of the poorer classes should be of such a comprehensively Christian character that it should be open to the children belonging to every Church into which the population was divided; and that during the hours other than school hours the patron of every school might give whatever Christian education he pleased, provided always that no children should be compelled to be present whose parents objected to their being present. The right hon. and learned Gentleman commenced by saying that under the rules as they now stood infidels might have schools under the National Board. Had the right hon. and learned Gentleman been able to adduce a single instance in which the public money had been applied to support the teaching of infidel doctrines, he would have brought a serious impeachment against the rules and practice of the Board; but he know very well that there was throughout all Churches and all classes in Ireland so deep and sincere a zeal for the Christian religion, that there was in that country no chance of an infidel being a patron of a school. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had charged him with inaccuracy of statement as to monks' schools, and had gone back to a blue-book nearly ten years old for the information which he had given to the House upon the present state of education in Ireland. There was a rule of the Board, and he believed there always had been a rule, that ordained ministers of no Church should be permitted to be teachers of schools in Ireland; but for a time monks, who were not in holy orders, were allowed to teach in such schools, in the year 1855, as he correctly stated to the right hon. and learned Gentleman on a former occasion, that exception was abolished, and from that time to the present the allowance of monks to teach in schools, except in the case of five schools, which at that time received aid under the former rule, had been discontinued. Probably, however, what the Committee would be most anxious about was to know accurately what was the state of things with regard to Scriptural education in Ireland. He would state to the Committee what might be done, and that he might speak with authority he would derive his information from a right hon. Gentleman who himself represented in that House the Church of Ireland, and preceded the right hon. and learned Gentleman as Member for the University of Dublin. That right hon. Gentleman had published a pamphlet, in which, after saying that he had taken great pains to ascertain what was the exact state of the case, he stated that "any school in Ireland may be opened with prayer. There may be a daily Bible class for all children whose parents consent that they shall attend. None need be deprived of careful daily instruction in the word of God, except those whose parents object."

MR. WHITESIDE

said, he wished to ask if there was a rule, according to which a school could, as a school, be opened with prayer.

MR. CARDWELL

said, he must repeat what he had stated upon the authority on which he had made the statement, and he would add that he believed it was the practice to open schools in Ireland with prayer. He made that statement in the presence of many hon. Members, who could correct him if he was wrong, but he believed that he was right. [Sir HUGH CAIRNS: Hear!] His hon. and learned Friend the Member for Belfast cheered the statement; and he was sure that it was the practice of the Presbyterians to open their schools with prayer. Such being the state of things at present, what did the right hon. and learned Gentleman want? He desired that the public money should be given to those who insisted upon teaching the Scriptures during school hours to those whose parents did not wish them to receive such instruction. From the very commencement of the undertaking, that had been forbidden by the rules of the Board, and by the highest authority upon the subject. In 1833 Lord Stanley, speaking of the Scriptures, said— To introduce the reading or hearing of any such book during the ordinary school hours—namely, those during which children of all denominations are expected to attend—would be a palpable violation of religious liberty. That was the doctrine of Lord Stanley at the time of the foundation of the system, and that was the language of Sir Robert Peel, when an appeal was made to him to assist with the public money schools I which did not conform to the rules of the National Board. The right hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the opinion of the Earl of Eglintoun; but did he answer for the opinions of the Government of Lord Derby? but did he mean to assert that the noble Earl, who, to his immortal honour, had founded this system of education, and had by that means conferred upon Ireland one of the greatest blessings which it ever fell to the lot of any individual to confer upon a country—would he undertake to assert that the Cabinet, under the direction of the noble Earl, were prepared to break down the principle of that system, and to withdraw its benefits from the people? The right hon. and learned Gentleman knew that he could give no such information to the House. From the time of Sir Robert Peel down to the year 1858, when the Government of the Earl of Derby, of which the right hon. and learned Gentleman was himself a member, was in power, there had been no departure from the cardinal principles of the system. The Lord Chancellor of the Earl of Derby's Government in 1858, since his retirement from office, had published a pamphlet, in which he stated that the principles applied in the Dublin University were precisely the same as those adopted by the National Board. He preferred the authority of the distinguished writer of that pamphlet to the authority of the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. It was by an adherence to those principles—by giving a comprehensive Christian education during the ordinary school hours to all classes of children in Ireland, and by allowing patrons to give religious education according to their own tenets during the rest of the day, provided that no child whose parents or guardians objected was compelled to at tend—that the House of Commons had established in Ireland a system of education which had conferred the greatest benefits upon the Irish people. The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman was to return to the principle of the Kildare Place Society, which was established before 1830, and from which Parliament withdrew its assistance. It was that withdrawal which led to the establishment of the National system, and he believed that the Parliament which established that system would now firmly and irrevocably maintain it.

SIR HUGH CAIRNS

said, he had always been glad to admit that it would be difficult to exaggerate the benefit conferred upon Ireland by the national system of education. That system in theory was far from being perfect, and he should have been well satisfied if in its inception it had assumed a different form; but he had al ways thought that great care and caution would be required before any change could be advocated or introduced. At the same time it was necessary to remember that the adherence to the system of the clergy of the Established Church was one of the greatest advantages that could be accomplished if the means existed for obtaining it. He had no doubt that the objections made to the system by a great majority of the clergy had been conscientious objections on their part, and therefore he thought it was of all things in the world incumbent upon those who administered the system to be ready, not only to embrace any overtures of reconciliation, but even to court them. What, however, had taken place within the last month or two? For many years the Bishop of Down and Connor had been one of the warmest advocates of the system of national education. Within the last few weeks, after repeated conferences between himself and the clergy and laity of his diocese, he had obtained the concurrence of 87 of the former and 119 of the principal Members of the latter, in a proposition which he desired to make to the Education Commissioners upon the subject of putting the schools of the Church under the National Board. What did the Bishop propose on behalf of his clergy and laity to the Lord Lieutenant? He intimated that they were prepared to adopt the two cardinal rules of the system, which had just been explained by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, on condition that if during the hours devoted to secular instruction a child should be found guilty of telling a falsehood, or of committing a theft, they might be allowed to inculcate a moral lesson by a reference to the revealed word of God, provided that no distinctive teaching of a denominational character were introduced. Surely nothing could be more reasonable than such a proposition, and he submitted that the Commissioners were not justified on that ground alone in refusing a number of clergymen who wanted to join the national system. The Commissioners, in reply to the memorial, stated that while they were most anxious to extend the benefits of the National system of education, they could not consent to the proposed modification of their rules, inasmuch as they believed the concession would be subversive of the fundamental principles on which the system was based. Now, what was it, let him ask, which was thus held to be subversive of those principles? Why, the inculcation of precepts of morality during school hours. He for one deeply regretted that such an answer should have been given, and at such a time, because he believed an opportunity of bringing about harmonious action in the working of the system had thus been lost which might not, for a long time to come, again occur.

LORD NAAS

said, that although he had the misfortune of differing from his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Dublin on the question before the Committee, he had always been ready to admit, that the scruples entertained by members of the Established Church in connection with it were entitled to the utmost respect, and ought, if possible, to be met. He was, at the same time, bound to confess that he had always been of opinion that the attempt to meet those scruples might be attended with danger to the National system of Education in Ire land, and might be, as a consequence, productive of much injury to the country. He might add, that his late lamented Friend the Earl of Eglintoun, to whom allusion had in the course of the discussion been made, had for a period of ten years devoted the utmost attention to the subject, and had stated, in his place in Parliament, that he had gone to Ireland as Viceroy with a strong desire to comply with the request of the members of the Established Church; but that, after due investigation, he had arrived at the conclusion that he could hit upon no plan by which that end would be secured without driving the Roman Catholic children from the National schools. To the adoption of a course which would have that result, he would be no party. Such were the views of the Earl of Eglintoun on the subject; and for his own part, he might say, while concurring in those views, that he believed it was perfectly possible to give religious instruction under the National system. In support of that opinion he might mention, that he held in his hard two letters from clergymen of the Established Church, in which they stated, that they had no difficulty in communicating such instruction, and that the children under their charge were admirably provided for on that score. But, further than that, it was clear that the Presbyterians of the North of Ireland all supported the system; but could it be supposed that the descendants of men who were said to have carried the sword in one hand and the Bible in the other, would countenance as they did the National system if they believed it to be of the totally unscriptural character which was represented? Only three systems, of education were possible in Ireland, denominational, mixed, and purely secular; and with all its faults, he believed that the existing system was calculated to confer more benefits on Ireland than any other which could be devised.

MR. WHITESIDE

said, the speech of the Earl of Eglintoun, which the noble Lord had quoted, was delivered in 1854, while the conversation of which he himself had spoken took place in 1858.

MR. NEWDEGATE

said, he would warn his right hon. Friends on that side of the House not to hold out hopes which, when in power, they would be unable to carry out. While that House made an exclusive grant to Maynooth, it was not just that the Church schools should be excluded from all aid. That was a claim of justice that would force its way sooner or later.

MR. BERNAL OSBORNE

said, the Vote under discussion was for the model farm at Glasnevin, upon which a discussion upon the religious education of Ireland had been raised. The object of the model farm was to teach agriculture. Now, the best object of a farm was to make it pay. The farm, however, incurred a loss of £54: per annum, and he had never yet been able to find a man who, after having been instructed at the farm, went into the provinces and took a farm. He should like to have some information as to what the real Use of the farm was.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, there were lectures and other advantages connected with the school which prevented its merits from being tested by a standard of pecuniary profit and loss. There was a de crease on the Vote of £220 that year, and further reductions might fairly be looked for in future. The pupils, though they did not take farms, became land stewards in Ireland, and disseminated much valuable practical information through the country.

LORD NAAS

said, he thought they had arrived at the time when the institution might be put an end to. Teaching an industrial occupation, such as agriculture, at the expense of the State, was, he thought, founded upon very questionable policy. He thought the Government ought to consider the propriety of making a gradual diminution in the Vote.

MR. H. A. HERBERT

said, that the feeling in Ireland was strongly against these schools. He believed, as his noble Friend had said, that the time had passed when that spoon-feeding system was neces- sary or advantageous for Irish Agriculture. He had visited the schools, and believed they were intended to do harm rather than good, owing to the unpractical degree of expense with which operations were carried on.

SIR ROBERT PEEL

said, he had himself suggested whether a diminution of these Votes might not be possible. An actual deduction had taken place; but there seemed to be a feeling on the part of the Committee to reconsider these Votes.

MR. KINNAIRD

said, that unless he received a pledge that the Vote would not be renewed he should support the Amendment.

MR. HENNESSY

said, that in reference to a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford, he wished to state that, according to the rules of the Board, a National school could not be opened with prayer.

MR. CARDWELL

said, he believed, that though the children could not be compelled to attend when the prayers were being said, some of the schools were opened with prayer.

Motion made, and Question, That a sum, not exceeding £283,863, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1863, for Public Education in Ireland, under the Commissioners of National Education in Ireland, —put, and negatived.

Original Question put, and agreed to.

House resumed.

Resolution to be reported on Monday next; Committee to sit again on Monday next.

House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.