HL Deb 03 July 1832 vol 13 cc1271-96
The Earl of Belhaven

rose to present the Petition to which he had referred, during the course of last week, as being in his possession, from the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, wherein that body stated their approval of the National Plan of Education adopted by the Government for the instruction, as well religious as otherwise, of the poorer classes of Ireland, both Protestants and Catholics.

The Archbishop of Armagh

observed, that if he understood the petition rightly, the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland approved of the plan of education for Ireland, because it was understood by that Assembly, to be identical with the plan of education which was pursued towards the same class of people throughout the whole of Scotland. If otherwise, that Assembly would be surrendering the great principle of their religion, namely, that the Bible was open to all. How such a misconception had gone forth amongst the persons who composed that Assembly, as that the plan proposed for Ireland was the same as that which was followed in Scotland, he did not know, but all he could say was, that they were totally mistaken upon that point, and did not rightly understand the nature of the plan of education proposed for Ireland. He was not, at that time, however, going to enter into a detail of the differences between the two systems of education, nor to state his objections to that proposed for Ireland: even were he to do so, he could add nothing to the force of those arguments which had already been brought against it. What the Prelacy and Protestant clergy who were opposed to this plan complained of was, not that the Catholics were at the disposal of their priests with respect to their study of the Bible, but that, they being so at their priests' disposal in that respect, the Protestants were deprived of the Bible, and prevented from an unrestricted study of it. He, and those who thought with him, would never consent to teach Protestants that it was proper to keep out of view any portion of the Scriptures; neither did he assent to the necessity for giving them a special license, to study out of school hours that volume which formed the basis of all human happiness. If it was true, that the General Assembly had come forward, fully understanding, at the same time, that the Bible was forbidden during school hours, and addressed the petition before the House in favour of the plan, he could only lament the circumstance, and set it down as an evil sign of the times. But he consoled himself with the thought, that the petition did not embody any such sentiments. The plan of education was at variance with the opinions of most of his brethren of the Irish Church. Of the Prelates of Ireland, eighteen were opposed to it; the clergy were also opposed to it; and it was also deprecated in numerous petitions from all classes, but more particularly from the Presbyterian Dissenters, not only of Ireland, but also of Scotland and England. He saw no reason for making the sacrifice which they were called upon to agree to, nor why, if the Roman Catholics objected to the Bible, it should, on that account, be taken from the Protestants. Allusions had been made to the opposition which the Irish Prelacy had fostered amongst their respective clergymen to this plan, and it had been said, if the clergy were left to their own judgment they would approve of the plan. Now he begged to assure their Lordships, that so far from the Bishops in Ireland being obliged to invite the clergy in their respective dioceses to object to the plan, they were obliged, very frequently, to exert themselves to repress their feelings, and to keep down the ebullitions their warmth when expressing their objections to the plan. He himself had been at the pains, in his own diocese, to prevent meetings from being held having in view an opposition to the plan, and he was glad to say, he had been successful in his efforts. The noble Lord (Lord Plunkett), in his observations last evening, had stated the increase in the number of applications for schools on the plan, and had cited Mr. Carlyle as a testimony to the fact; but the noble Lord ought, whilst laying so much stress on this circumstance in favour of the plan, to have stated how those applications were got up, in order that their Lordships might judge of the value of those applications. For himself, he could say that he had seen letters, wherein were exposed the delusions which were practised upon the Protestants with respect to the plan of education, and it was under those delusions that they had made their applications for schools. The most reverend Prelate here proceeded to read a letter from the Bishop of Ferns, in support of his allegation, and concluded by expressing his conviction, that the sentiments of the people generally were to be ascertains more correctly from their petitions, than by any reference to the number of applications for schools under the Government plan.

The Duke of Wellington

felt no surprise at the sentiments expressed in the petition of the Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland; and he admitted, at the same time, that there was no body of persons in the kingdom better calculated to form a just opinion upon the subject of their petition, than that from which it had proceeded. But he must, at the same time, beg leave to say, that he concurred entirely in the opinion of the most reverend Prelate who had just spoken, namely, that the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland was not accurately informed upon the subject of the new plan of education for Ireland, at the time that the assent of that body was given to the petition. He knew that there was, in general, no time so uselessly spent in that House as in discussing the way in which petitions were got up; but, in the case of the present petition, there had been a considerable misapprehension on the part of the General Assembly, and his attention having been drawn to it, he deemed it necessary to bring it before their Lordships. It appeared that at the meeting of the General Assembly, at which the resolutions upon which the petition was founded were proposed and agreed to, the Solicitor General for Scotland, who is a member of that Assembly, as well as an officer of the Government, got up and stated, that he had received certain official letters from a gentleman who was also in the service of Government, and who was in a situation where he was most likely to be possessed of accurate information on the subject of Ireland—he meant the Chief Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. It appeared that hitherto the General Assembly had only possessed that knowledge of the plan of education which was possessed by their Lordships, the House of Commons, and the public at large. The letter to which the Solicitor General referred, as having been officially received, purported to be from the Chief Secretary of Ireland, and he would refer to the proceedings in the Assembly, in order to show that that body was not before aware of the real plan of education, if even they could be supposed to be so after they had heard the contents of that letter. The noble Duke here referred to the proceedings of the General Assembly, as reported in one of the Scotch papers. An Elder, of the name Dr. Duncan, asked the Solicitor General to explain the nature of the plan of education, as he did not mean to foreclose himself from expressing his dissent from it. The Solicitor General then explained, that one part of the plan, as stated by the right hon. Secretary for Ireland, was, that he (Mr. Stanley) saw no objection to the establishment of a Bible class in every school which was conducted on the Government plan; that class to be held once a day, for the express purpose of reading the Bible, and at which the Protestants were to be compelled to attend, but the Catholics were not to be forced to give their attendance. The Solicitor General then said, that he wished the General Assembly to understand, that this explanation of the plan did not rest upon one, but upon several communications from the Chief Secretary of Ireland. Now, after the Solicitor General had given this information to the General Assembly, a resolution was proposed by Dr. Cook, which was founded on that communication of the Solicitor General, and which would be found embodied in the petition to the House. Thus it appeared, that the approbation of the plan of education, by the General Assembly, was solely obtained in consequence of their belief that there were to be Bible classes in every Government school. Now, he (the Duke of Wellington) understood that Mr. Stanley had not arranged the system on the plan stated to the General Assembly, nor was he aware that there was any intention to do so, and yet it was on that statement that this petition was founded. He certainly agreed that all comments on the petition had better be avoided, but his attention having been excited by the document to which he had just referred being put into his hands, he thought it but just to the General Assembly to give this information to their Lordships. The subject, to be sure, was a most important one; it was no less than the education of a whole people, and the Board of Education had solemnly declared, that no system could be a proper one, as a plan of national education, that was not founded on the whole of the Scriptures as the rule for doctrine and morals. It was not the meaning of the General Assembly that the Scriptures should he taught out of school hours. Its meaning was, that the schoolmaster should teach the Scriptures in the schools, and that the Protestants should be obliged to read the Scriptures. It was not to be a matter of choice, but of obligation, and that was the meaning of the petitioners. They had an Established Church, and the clergy had the care of the national education, and that education ought to be founded on the Scriptures, and the whole Scriptures. But, in the new system, the reading of the Scriptures as a whole was prohibited.

The Earl of Belhaven

said, he did not rise to answer for the proceedings of the General Assembly of the Kirk of Scotland, or to give an account of what passed there, for he was not a member of that body, and, consequently, could not state what took place on the occasion to which the noble Duke alluded. It appeared to him, however, that the noble Duke was in error when he averred that the Solicitor General stated himself to have received a communication from the Chief Secretary for Ireland. He believed the Solicitor General said no such thing; he alluded to a letter which had been received by another individual, a member of the Assembly; but he did not at that time say it was an official letter, and he simply stated the contents of that letter, in order that they might serve as an inducement, or rather a foundation, for some of the proceedings of the General Assembly that day. The letter merely stated, that the Government had no objection to the formation of Bible classes in the schools; and the petitioners, adopting that principle, agreed in the propriety of granting to the Protestants the fullest liberty in the use of the Bible, and also in its being daily read in the classes. The letter, therefore, nowhere stated that compulsion was to be used to form those classes, nor could the noble Duke make out that the General Assembly entertained any idea that the schoolmasters were to use compulsion towards forming these Bible classes. There were no Catholic schoolmasters, and, although a Catholic might attend those classes if he liked, still he was very sure no schoolmaster in Ireland would ever think for a moment to enforce upon any Catholic, an attendance at a class where the Bible was indiscriminately read. He understood the Chief Secretary to say, that the Government had not any objection to the formation of Bible classes in the schools, but that those classes were not to be formed during school hours—they might be held either before or after, but were to form no portion of the common duties of the school. That arrangement would be satisfactory, so he understood it, and so he believed the General Assembly understood it; and if such should be the general impression in the minds of the persons composing that body, he certainly saw no objection to the Government encouraging the establishment of those classes in the schools in Ireland.

The Bishop of Exeter

begged to trespass for a short time upon their Lordships' attention. He had been authorised by more than one member of the General Assembly to state, that the impression under which they had drawn up a petition was, that there would be a Bible class established within the schools. The petition then before their Lordships was the result of an amendment, moved upon a resolution of the Solicitor General, by Dr. Cooke, of which amendment the Solicitor General said, that it was so identical with his own resolution, that he begged leave to withdraw his own motion, and to second that of Dr. Cooke. It appeared, therefore, that the petition had the full weight of the Solicitor General's authority; and, to do justice to that authority, it was right that he should state to their Lordships what, he was authorised by a most respectable member of the General Assembly to say, was the purport of that learned gentleman's declaration. "Certain communi- cations, it was said by the Solicitor General, had lately been made to him, as well as to many other gentlemen, by his Majesty's Secretary for Ireland, from which it appeared, that Mr. Stanley had no objection whatever to the establishment of a Bible class in these schools, for the express purpose of reading the Bible every day, at which all Protestant children should be compelled to attend, and the Catholic children permitted and encouraged, but not forced to attend. This statement was made by Mr. Stanley, a member of the Cabinet, not only in one, but many letters, and to many gentlemen equally in Mr. Stanley's confidence as he (the Solicitor General) was, and he was not more certain of his own existence than that that virtual obligation would be honestly and regularly fulfilled." After that declaration, the General Assembly understood that they had received an assurance, that a daily Bible class was to be established in all the schools under the Board of Education in Ireland. Had not this been their full and confident persuasion, a petition of a very different tenour would have been sent to that House. But, to the astonishment of the petitioners, it had since appeared that the Solicitor General was unauthorized in giving the assurance. Mr. Stanley had denied having given any pledge or promises to the effect stated; and it seemed that, not only was the statement of the Solicitor General denied, but the object of the petition was refused. There was, it appeared, to be no Bible class in these schools. He could tell their Lordships, on the authority of one of the most respectable ministers of the Church of Scotland, that very strong feelings were entertained by that Church with respect to the course pursued by his Majesty's Government upon this question. He was authorised to read a letter received by an hon. friend of his, a Member of the other House of Parliament, from that gentleman. To any member of the Government he was ready to show the letter; but there were some strong phrases in it which he certainly would not read, were it not necessary to make their Lordships acquainted with the impression which had been made on the Scotch Church:—the writer said, 'My object was, to put you in possession of another document, showing the impression of the members of the Assembly on the subject of Irish education, and of the Solicitor General's trickery. I presume the member of the Assembly you allude to, as giving you the true state of feeling in the Assembly, was my acquaintance, Mr.—.His impression is entirely the same as my own, and as that of every member of that Court with whom I have had an opportunity of communicating. A clergyman of the highest respectability in Edinburgh, in writing to me the other day, says, "I cannot tell you how I am grieved and mortified, and even ashamed, to see in the votes of the House of Commons Petition of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, in favour of the Government system of education in Ireland.' I think it incumbent on every honest-hearted Presbyterian to reiterate these neglected and misrepresented petitions which have already been sent, and to add double emphasis and force to what has been already too faintly and feebly expressed. The trick perpetrated by the friends of Government here entails on them indelible disgrace." I do confess to you, that I am much of the same opinion, and I am inclined to think, that the trick, as my friend calls it, will recoil on those who were guilty of it. I think it likely that, unless Government give a pledge of some kind that they will carry into bona fide effect the assurances of the Solicitor General, petitions embodying these assurances will pour in from Presbyteries in every quarter of Scotland. I may confess to you, my dear Sir, that I feel more deeply on this subject, as I have all along been as strenuous a supporter of the cause of Reform, and of the present Ministry, as my clerical character permitted; that is, I gave them my good wishes and my prayers; and, for some influential individuals among them, I entertain a personal friendship which can only end with my life. The disgrace, therefore, which attaches to this transaction, I feel in some degree reflected on myself.' Such, was the language of one of the most respectable ministers of the Scotch Church. It confirmed what he had said of the petition being adopted in error, and not doing justice to the feelings of the General Assembly. The petition was different from those which had been presented to the House from the various Presbyteries in that part of the United Kingdom. They all, without exception, breathed a warmer and more earnest spirit than was evinced in the present petition. He would beg leave to quote part of one to their Lordships:—'It is not the only objection of the petitioners to the exclusion of the Bible as a daily class-book, that it exposes the children who attend the schools, and more especially the children of the Protestants, to the privation of Christian instruction: however this might be compensated on separate, days, or by special arrangement, the petitioners still confess their strong repugnance to such a proscription of the Bible by British law; and that, not because of its literary unfitness for the purposes of education, but because of its religious unfitnes, in the eyes of Roman Catholics, for the free use and indiscriminate reading of the people; the petitioners do not object to a book of Scripture extracts for the purely educational object of easy reading or of adaptation to the gradual advancement of the scholars, but only such a compilation when given, not as a specimen of the whole, but as a substitute for the whole. However indefinitely near in spirit and substance the proposed abridgement can be brought to the original Bible, the petitioners regard it as a serious infringement on right principle, that the one should be made exclusive of the other—that a message intended by God for every creature under heaven should be altered in the least, with the view of making it palatable to any priest, or to any people. The difference is a vital one when the sacred lessons of each day are drawn from a book admitted into schools because priests have sanctioned it, instead of being recognised as drawn from a book which neither priests nor people might dare to meddle with.' That was an extract from the petition of the Presbytery of Edinburgh, and it was understood to have proceeded mainly from the pen of that distinguished man, Dr. Chalmers. The petition stated, that the petitioners having had their attention directed to the proposed system of national education for Ireland; and having been led to expect that a modification of that system would be adopted, they hoped that it might he such as would authorise the use of the Bible as a daily school book, in all the schools under the control of Government. The right reverend Prelate referred to several petitions, reading short extracts from them, to substantiate his assertion, that the General Assembly had proceeded upon a misundsrstanding, and that the petitioners generally, from all parts of the country, were opposed to any scheme of national education which excluded any parts of the Bible. After entering at considerable length into these petitions, the right reverend Prelate said, he trusted he might then be allowed to recur to some observations of a noble and learned Lord, and of the noble Marquess, and he confessed he had heard them with some degree of surprise. The noble Marquess had said, that the children would learn, by the unrestricted study of the Bible in schools, all the objectionable parts of the Bible. He (the Bishop of Exeter) assented to the correctness of some part of the remarks of the noble Marquess, but to the adoption of the phrase "objectionable parts" he could not agree, because he thought it impossible to allow that any thing contained in it embodied any impropriety. He presumed, however, that the noble Marquess did not imply that any part of the Scriptures were objectionable in themselves, but only objectionable to the Roman Catholics. [The Marquess of Lansdown assented.] He was only doing justice to the noble Marquess by making that remark, but he must be permitted to add, that the noble Marquess was mistaken in supposing that a Scriptural education would be given under the new plan. It must be borne in mind, that moral and literary education was to be bestowed on the scholars during four or five days of every week, and that, during these days, Scriptural instruction was not to be combined with the moral and literary education. It was true that a volume, or a part of a volume, had been prepared for the use of the scholars, of which, by the courtesy of the noble Duke at the head of the Board, he had a copy in his possession. It was compiled from the Scriptures, but was not exhibited in the original form, it was neither according to the authorised, nor the Douai versions; other matter was mixed with the Scripture; and it was especially provided, that it should not be given to the children as the Scriptures, because that would be opposed to the great principle of the Roman Catholic Church, according to what the Roman Catholic Prelates themselves had sworn. Dr. Kelly, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Tuam, said, in his examination before the Commissioners of Education Inquiry, in 1825, "Every thing given as Scripture from a version not authorised by us would be objectionable." Dr. Curtis, Roman Catholic Archbishop of Armagh, being asked by the Commissioners, "Would it not be possible, that on both sides we should agree on a certain paraphrase, which should alter the text very little, and possibly keep up the spirit, which should not be, in the opinion of either Protestants or Roman Catholics, the Scriptures, but a paraphrase, as close as possible?"—answered, "Anything more than a paraphrase, in which we all agree, cannot be admitted without offence." Thus their Lordships would perceive, that even extracts of Scripture, if offered as such, were inadmissible. But no books were yet provided. The Board had been in existence for nine months, and had produced this small fraction of a volume. The Commissioners, indeed, were required to pursue a very different course. In Mr. Stanley's letter, which explained the foundation of the Board, and prescribed its duties, it was implied, that the Commissioners were to devise a system of instruction suitable to all sects. That had not been done, and the only book which had issued from the Board, beside the fraction of a volume he had referred to, was a new edition of the Decalogue, which, to his astonishment, was required to be stuck up in every school; for, though it proceeded from a Protestant Government, it was not framed according to the interpretation of the Protestant Church. In this new edition of the Decalogue the Second Commandment ran, instead of, "Thou shalt not make to thyself any graven image," &c., the version ran, "graven thing." Now, it might be well to have had a version of the Commandments written agreeably to the Roman Catholic doctrines, and another in conformity with those of the rules of the Established Church of England, but it was most improper to depart from the authorised version of the Church. Again, in this Decalogue, the Commandments were not divided—the children were allowed to make the division as they pleased. This Catechism, then, was the last amongst the achievements of the modern liberals. They had retrenched the Bible, and reformed the Decalogue. The noble Duke at the head of the Board had praised the facilities afforded for religious education by setting apart separate days for that purpose. But there were no teachers provided for that purpose; it was left to the clergy, and, if he understood rightly, the condition of Ireland, the want of roads, and the distance the clergy lived from one another, placed physical obstacles in the way of their doing this duty. If, however, it were once conceded that it was, or ought to be, a leading feature in any system of education, that religion, or the free use of the Bible, should form the fundamental principle upon which that education should be based; it was then necessary that teachers should be appointed to afford that instruction, which must the more indelibly impress religious feelings on the minds of the children. The late Archbishop of Dublin had said, that he could not see how far opinions so differently amalgamated could be brought to reconcile the religious feelings of Protestants and Catholics, in respect to a system of combined education. Supposing, however, that a number of those schools were established in every parish in Ireland, and that it was admitted, in the first instance, that the clergymen were the fittest persons to superintend the religious instruction of these children (and he was quite sure that, if they did so undertake the task, they would perform their duty most conscientiously); allowing this to be the case, he would then ask, how would it be possible for the clergyman to attend all the schools, in widely-spread parishes where every parish would contain a number of schools? In some parishes there were eight or ten schools, and how could one clergyman attend them all? The thing was impracticable; for their Lordships must recollect the great disproportion of the number of parishes in Ireland as compared with those of England. The proportion of parishes in Ireland in respect to England was one in ten, and that, he repeated, placed insuperable obstacles in the way of the clergymen teaching religion at those schools. He saw no means of accomplishing that object but by following the recommendation of the Commissioners of 1824, and appointing a Protestant and a Catholic teacher to each school. The noble and learned Lord said last night, that he congratulated the House and the country upon the opposition which had been made to this measure. That noble and learned Lord had said, that such was the success of the plan adopted by his Majesty's Government, that it bore down all opposition. He had informed their Lordships that 600 applications had already been made, and that a great number of these applications were made from Protestants, and many also from Roman Catholics. Now, what the real fact was would soon be made to appear. He trusted he should have some opportunity hereafter of calling the attention of their Lordships to this part of the subject, as certain returns had been moved for, nearly a fortnight since, respecting these very matters, which would have given much further information. He regretted the circumstance, but, at the same time, he meant to impute no blame to any person. But it appeared from the documents which he had seen, that the applications for schools did not amount to 600, but to 452, of which number only twenty-seven were from clerical persons, or rather persons called clergymen. He said "called clergymen," because the term had been adopted in respect to all teachers, whereas he contended that the term clergymen applied only to those who were the ordained clergy of the Established Church of England and Ireland, or Scotland, or Roman Catholic priests. Of the class of clergymen of the Established Church, not more than seventeen had applied; of which number, some of the parties were not connected with the parishes for which they applied. But with respect to this system he would make some further observations. One of the main objects of the system was, to unite all the children of the different persuasions that existed throughout Ireland. This scheme, consequently, related to parishes in which there were clergymen to take charge of the education of the poor, and the Board, if it could in any place get but one signature of a clergy: man, might apply for a national school to be established in every parish in the kingdom. The only object and principle of the Board would be to get the funds of the country, in order to apply them to the instruction of the children of Roman Catholic parents. He was desirous of pursuing the subject further, for it was one of the highest importance, and it pressed immediately upon the best interests of the United Kingdom; but as the present was only the occasion of presenting a petition, he would refrain from trespassing any longer on the time and attention of their Lordships. He could not, however, refrain from saying, that it was a most alarming crisis, a truly tremendous symptom of the times, when a national system of education could be founded upon a plan of separating the literary, and even the moral, instruction of the people from a knowledge of their religious obligations. He would only beg leave to ask, what was meant by the moral instruction of the people? He conceived that moral instruction not only ought to impart a knowledge of every man's duty to his fellow-beings in this world, but a deep feeling as well as a knowledge of his relation to the Supreme Being, and of his hopes of a future state. He would ask, could any such instruction be true which was not founded upon the basis of God's words—upon the basis of the will of the Supreme Being? And where could this be known if instructors would not look at the Word of God with which he had inspired the holy men of old? In what utter ignorance of all such important truths would the people of Ireland be brought up, if, in the system of national education, there were not the essential characteristics of the Christian scheme, by which all men knew, and most thankfully acknowledged, that their relations to God were not merely the relations of a finite creature to its Creator, but likewise the relations of a fallen creature to its Redeemer, and of a corrupt creature to its Sanctifier. How, he would again ask, were the poor to be taught these great and sacred connexions, if the word of God itself were to be excluded from the system of education, as far as Protestants were concerned, whilst with respect to the Roman Catholics, they were to be consigned to those whose principle it was, that it was a bad mode of teaching religious duties to teach them by the Holy Scriptures? He would trouble the House but briefly with an extract to show what were the opinions of Dr. Doyle upon the subject. Dr. Doyle had said, that he considered that the children of the Irish peasantry would be much better instructed in the morality of the Gospel, by giving them religious books than by giving them the Scriptures themselves to peruse; and that he did not consider the teaching of the Holy Gospels of Christ to the poor to be one of the highest and most valuable distinctions of the Christian religion. Dr. Doyle had added, that he conceived that the poor would be best taught by religious books, and not by the book of the author of their religion. "I prefer," said Dr. Doyle, "books of morality, in which the rules of life are explained and inculcated, to the Holy Gospel itself, and such hooks I have endeavoured to circulate in my diocese." These, he begged leave to remind the noble Lords, were the sworn statements of the opinions of a Roman Catholic Bishop of Ireland, statements given before a Commission appointed by the Sovereign to inquire into the mode of instructing the poor of Ireland. As the subject before the House was only the presentation of a petition, he would not further trespass upon their Lordships, but he had felt himself called upon by a sense of duty to bring before the House the facts and observations to which he had called its attention.

The Earl of Haddington

did not rise with any design of occupying, except for a short time, the attention of their Lordships, but he could not refrain from making a few observations upon one part of the case, on which there appeared to prevail much misconception, and which, from circumstances he was enabled to clear up. He had been within the last fortnight in Scotland, and he had, consequently, had an opportunity of informing himself correctly of all that had passed in the General Assembly when the subject of the present petition had been brought forward. He felt, therefore, that, it was no more than just and fair to the noble Duke, that he should add the corroboration of his testimony as to the correctness of the statement which the noble Duke had made to their Lordships. It was a fact, that when the plan or system of his Majesty's Ministers, for establishing a scheme of national education in Ireland was first made known in Scotland, it occasioned a very strong excitement throughout the General Assembly in that kingdom, and it was intended to move a set of Resolutions, similar to those which had been moved and carried in other Clerical Courts in Scotland, and which condemned the whole design and plan of his Majesty's Ministers. When, however, his Majesty's Solicitor General for Scotland had made the statement which he had that night in the House been represented to have made, the excitement was certainly calmed, and it entirely subsided. It became the opinion of the General Assembly that if in each school there were established a daily class of scriptural instruction for the Protestant children, from which the Roman Catholic children should not be excluded, but to which they should not be compelled to attend, there could be no possible objection to the present petition being presented to Parliament. Dr. Cooke had, therefore, moved the resolutions upon which the present petition had been signed. But the petition was an approbation of a plan totally distinct from that which his Majesty's Ministers now wished to carry into execution, and on this ground the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland was censured. The views of the General Assembly had been strictly in conformity with the Act which they had passed in the year 1794, and an extract of which be world now beg leave to read to their Lordships:—'All parochial schoolmasters and other teachers of schools shall cause the Holy Bible 'to be read as the regular exercise of the school, and the Ministers of the different parishes shall visit the schools, and there shall likewise be regular Presbyter visitations throughout the year.' When the General Assembly had been led to believe, by his Majesty's Solicitor General, that it was the intention of Government to establish such daily Bible classes in the national schools, it was not at all surprising that the excitement which had previously existed in the General Assembly should be calmed, or that the Assembly should agree to the petition which had that night been presented to their Lordships' House. It was not possible, by any contrivance, to construe the petition into an approbation on the part of the General Assembly of Scotland, of the plan of national education which Ministers were now carrying into effect. If the General Assembly had not been entirely misled and deceived by the speech of his Majesty's Solicitor General, they would have sent up a very strong and decided petition against the plan of Government. He had occupied the time of their Lordships to a greater length than he intended, but he certainly did feel very desirous that the opinions entertained upon the subject by the General Assembly of Scotland, should not be so mis-stated and misrepresented as they had been in that House.

Lord Plunkett

would repeat the statement which he had made upon a previous evening, that the applications in favour of the Government plan from Ireland had already exceeded the number of 600. Already were there 125,000 boys in progress to receive education in the national schools about to be established by his Majesty's Government, and this number exceeded what had been taught by the Kildare-street Society for many years. He entirely and cordially concurred in the principles laid down by the noble Duke, that no system of education could be considered as a national system if it were founded upon abstract principles of morality, without reference to the principles of revealed religion. He would even go further than the noble Duke had gone, and lay down as a first principle, that in this country no scheme of national education could benefit the people if it did not include the doctrines which gave them the opportunity of being made acquainted with the duty which they owed to their Creator, and the knowledge of which was to be acquired by a study of the Gospel. He would maintain, that in every system or scheme of national education, let it emanate from whom it might, religion, according to the essential doctrines of Christianity, must be brought in aid of the principles and precepts of morality. But still, notwithstanding this, no man was more firmly convinced than he was, that it was most desirable to have a system of national education which could include every class and persuasion of subjects throughout the United Kingdom. In that part of the kingdom where a vast majority of the people were of the Roman Catholic persuasion, it appeared to him obviously essential, not to introduce into the schools any elements which should have the effect of excluding the Roman Catholic children from the benefits of the education, which those schools were intended to diffuse for the safety and welfare of the kingdom in general. No man could deny, that to the people of a country situated as Ireland was, great would be the benefits of a moral education, and great likewise would be the advantages of literary instruction, and these would be infinitely enhanced if they could be taught consistently with the religion of each of the Christian sects, so that no denomination of Christians should be repelled from the national schools. It must be the wish of every well meaning and sensible man that the national system should be made the foundation of national concord, and the means of bringing a hostile and inflamed people within the pale of civil society. Was it not a most fearful thing to say, that you could not give the people the benefits of the Scripture, unless you closed against them the book in which were introduced the extracts from the Gospel? The reverend Prelate did not appear to complain of the book of extracts itself, and he (Lord Plunkett) had received copies of the books to be used in the national schools, and he found that not less than nine of them had been adopted from the books which had been actually approved of and used by the Kildare-street Society. Books circulated in the Roman Catholic schools had likewise been used, and he was happy to say, that the Roman Catholic teachers had cheerfully submitted to every alteration which had been suggested or proposed by the Protestant Board. With respect to the opinions which might be entertained of the national schools in Scotland, he must be permitted to observe, that the circumstances of Scotland and Ireland were totally different. The one was a country altogether Protestant, whilst in the other the great majority of the population was of the Roman Catholic persuasion. In one country the different sects were in harmony, whilst in the other they had long been divided; and it was now the general wish to unite them in habits of social concord. The noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Haddington) had acknowledged, that the General Assembly of Scotland would consent to the scheme of national schools upon one condition, namely, that in each school there should be established a daily Bible class. He would only observe to the noble Earl, that every member of Government was of opinion that the Bible might be taught in each school every day out of school hours. They concurred that in the common school hours all should have the benefit of common scriptural instruction, whilst at other hours each sect should have afforded to it every means of scriptural instruction, according to its own wishes, principles or notions. With respect to the observations which the right reverend Prelate had made against the Roman Catholic teachers, he (Lord Plunkett) was able to speak positively on the subject, and he would assert, that they formed an assembly of as respectable teachers as any in the empire. Another objection had been made, that in one of the books of extracts, in the quotation of the Commandments from the Book of Exodus, the word "Thing" had been substituted for the word "Image." So far from this being any stumbling-block, it had been agreed that three boards might be put up in the schools, one with the word "Image" and one with "thing" and the third containing an account of the difference between the two religious creeds on this subject. When such was the case, he saw no objection whatever to the expression.

The Bishop of Exeter

said, that he did not object to the form in which the Commandments were drawn up of itself, but only because it professed to be according to the formula of the Church of England.

Lord Belhaven

expressed his firm belief that his learned friend, the Solicitor General, had not been guilty of the conduct which had been imputed to him.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that the observation just made by his noble friend almost superseded the necessity of his saying a single word; for his only object in rising was, to vindicate his learned friend from the charge brought against him, not by the right reverend Prelate, but by his correspondent, whose letter he had read extracts from. The long polemical discourse with which the right reverend Prelate had indulged the House, after the attack upon his learned friend, might, perhaps, have drawn the attention of the House from that circumstance. He could not help thinking, that of all the persons who heard the right reverend Prelate's speech, not one, even of those who most approved of its contents, could entirely approve of the time which he had selected for its delivery; and he could not help thinking, that no noble Lord would feel inclined to follow the right reverend Prelate's example. With respect to the author of the letter from which the right reverend Prelate had read some passages, he would take upon himself to say, that if he were of the respectable character described by the right reverend Prelate, he would be disposed to lament, rather than to rejoice, at the use which had been publicly made of his most hasty, ill-advised, and utterly inaccurate expressions. The right reverend Prelate said, that the author of that letter gave the Government his prayers; if so, he bestowed them in private, whilst he commissioned another to vent his slander against them in public. Every one who was acquainted with the high character of his learned friend, the Solicitor General of Scotland, must know that he was utterly incapable of the conduct which had been imputed to him. The Solicitor General was celebrated at the Scotch Bar for the exact accuracy of his statements. He was, indeed, over-scrupulously accurate. This circumstance alone was sufficient to convince him, that his learned friend had never made the statement respecting the letter attributed to Mr. Stanley, because Mr. Stanley never wrote any such letter. Perhaps he had stated enough to show that the charge brought against his learned friend was unfounded; but it fortunately happened, that the charge having already been ventilated in the public prints, some high legal authorities in Scotland, who were present on the occasion referred to, had written to him to state, that the Solicitor-General made no such statement as that which had been attributed to him. He was, fortunately, able also to confirm his own statement by the written communications of persons who were present. He therefore took it to be absolutely certain, that, on no better authority than an erroneous report in a newspaper, in a country where, be it observed, reports were not so correct nor accurate by a great deal as they were in this country, where reporting was more of an art, better practised, and better understood, and more skilfully exercised than in Scotland—where, instead of debates every night, as their Lordships knew to their cost was the case here, there was merely a discussion in the General Assembly three or four times in one mouth only during the whole year—upon no better authority, he repeated, than a report taken under these circumstances, was the charge founded, that his learned friend had attempted to practise a trick. He could have wished that, before the right reverend Prelate brought forward a charge of that nature, the right reverend Prelate would have profited by past experience. The right reverend Prelate, or rather his correspondent, had attributed to the Solicitor General a trick, in order to accomplish a particular object. Not many months ago, the right reverend Prelate charged some member of the Government with having been guilty of a very gross abuse of official duty, in betraying the confidence reposed in him by, he would not say how high a personage, and with having given for publication in a newspaper, a confidential letter, written by a noble Duke to the King. That charge was indignantly denied; it was indignantly denied by every member of the Government then present in the House. It turned out, however, that not only no member of the Government who had a seat in that House published the letter—not only that it was not published by any of their colleagues in the other House, nor that they were not cognizant of its publication—not only that it had not come from the Treasury, whence it was hoped that it might be traced to proceed, nor that the Foreign Office was polluted with the stain of breach of trust to the Sovereign—nor that it had found its way into the paper from the Admiralty, nor from the Exchequer, nor from any other department of the Government; nor even from the Lord Chancellor himself (he thanked his noble friend for reminding him that he had forgot to protect a place nearer home), but that, actually, nobody had published it at all—that there was no corpus delicti, as the lawyers said—that the offence had never been committed by any body—that there was no principal, because there was no offence—no accessory, because there was no principal—no privity, because there was nothing to be cognizant of. When the letter which appeared in the newspaper, was compared with the letter that was written—and he could assure their lordships that it was most carefully compared within twenty-four hours after the charge made by the right reverend Prelate, because, from the confidence of the assertion of the right reverend Prelate—from his statement, that the letter was copied verbatim—Ministers were led to suspect, that what was known to have happened before had occurred again, namely, the trick (it might, indeed, be so called) of using a Cabinet key to open a Cabinet box. When people heard such assertions confidently made, they could not suppose that there was no foundation whatever for them; and that the right reverend Prelate might as well have dreamt of the circumstances which he had stated, for all the truth there was in them, for no facts ever happened corresponding to the right reverend Prelate's assertions. But, after these assertions, it could not be believed that not a line, nor half a line, nor even a single word of the original letter—for the communication of a single word would have been as much a breach of confidence as the publication of the whole letter—had ever been published, or was contained in that letter which appeared in the newspaper. Upon the most minute investigation it turned out, that there was not a shadow of foundation for the right reverend Prelate's charge. The writer of the letter in the newspaper came forward, and declared publicly, that he had no more knowledge of the letter, than he had obtained in conversation in society, and that he knew nothing of its substance, and much less of its words. He was really quite happy that the right reverend Prelate had afforded him an opportunity of refreshing his memory with respect to this notable passage in his Parliamentary life, short though it had been. The right reverend Prelate would excuse him for telling him, that if his Parliamentary life should be extended to as great a length as he himself could desire, it would never furnish a more remarkable passage. He had thought it necessary to say thus much, in vindication of a learned person who was absent.

The Duke of Wellington

said, he had thought it his duty to state what he had stated, and nothing he had heard had at all shaken his opinion.

The Bishop of Exeter

In the matter referred to by the noble and learned Lord, he had not given his own opinion; he had only said that such things were stated. The noble Duke not then in his place, (the Duke of Buckingham) got up in his place, and said, that the statement was correct, and, having only mentioned it as stated by others, he did not conceive himself responsible for it.

The Lord Chancellor

said, the right reverend Prelate might have stated only what he heard, but he should have made his statement with more caution. The right reverend Prelate had distinctly stated, that there had been a breach of confidence in some office of Government, by the publication of a letter from a noble Duke (Buckingham), which that noble Duke had said was published verbatim. He was inclined to think, that the noble Duke had been led into the mistake by confidence in the authority of the right reverend Prelate, and he (the Lord Chancellor) had merely suggested that he ought to be set right.

The Duke of Cumberland

said, that he had sat by the noble Duke upon the occasion referred to, and, the noble Duke, to the best of his recollection, had said that it was "almost verbatim," and that no copy of the letter had been given to any one, and it had been shown only to two individuals. That was what had been stated by the noble Duke. He must say, that he thought the right reverend Prelate was justified in what he had said.

The Lord Chancellor

said, that if ten noble Dukes repeated ten times, that the letter published was a verbatim copy of the letter addressed to the King, he (the Lord Chancellor) must contradict the statement. He had compared the letter himself with the publication; others had compared it, and there was not the slightest pretence for saying, that the person who had written the letter in the newspaper had ever seen the letter addressed to the King. The author of the newspaper letter, who signed himself "Radical" was well known, and he had come forward afterwards, and distinctly stated, that his information was derived from ordinary society, and from a consideration of the general course of events at that time; and that he had no communication whatever on the subject, with any member of his Majesty's Government. He repeated, that there was not a tittle of the real letter published, and that the writer of the newspaper letter had no possible access to the letter addressed to his Majesty.

The Duke of Cumberland

begged it might be understood, that he had not himself stated that the published letter was almost verbatim a copy of the real letter. He had merely stated that his noble friend (the Duke of Buckingham) had said so.

The Marquess of Lansdown

, having been one of those who assisted at the comparison of the real with the published letter, could distinctly declare, that there was not, in the slightest degree, the resemblance implied; and the comparison did not afford the slightest reason to believe that any breach of confidence had been practised.

The Duke of Cumberland

must again remind their Lordships, that he had only repeated the words of his noble friend.

The Lord Chancellor

disclaimed any intention of imputing to his Royal Highness that he had made any such statement. It was the noble Duke, the writer of the original letter, who had been misled by the confident assertion of the right reverend Prelate.

The Bishop of Exeter

complained of the incorrect manner in which the noble and learned Lord had described his conduct. He had never made any confident assertion on the subject. He had merely said, that he had heard that such a circumstance had occurred, and had asked the noble Duke, if he would permit him to inquire if it was true, and the noble Duke had answered that it was true.

Lord Suffield

said, that the right reverend Prelate had mentioned the date of the letter, before the noble Duke spoke.

The Lord Chancellor

said, it had been publicly stated, that the letter had been published verbatim in the newspaper, by means of a breach of confidence in some one of the Ministers, but, on examining the newspaper, it was actually proved that the letter was not given, nor even professed to be given, in the newspaper. The newspaper contained only a general commentary upon a supposed letter.

Earl Grey

said, he had understood the right reverend Prelate, on the occasion alluded to, to assert that a particular newspaper contained, on a particular day, in a letter to the Editor, a copy of a confidential letter written to his Majesty by a noble Duke, which the writer of the letter to the Editor of the newspaper could not have obtained without a gross breach of duty on the part of some one of his Majesty's Ministers. He (Earl Grey) had heard the charge with indignation at the time, and had declared, that he believed it to be utterly unfounded; and that it certainly was so as it might be supposed to affect himself. On a subsequent comparison of the real letter with the letter signed "Radical," it appeared that there was not in the former, one passage which bore the slightest resemblance to the latter.

Lord Holland

said, that it had been said that the paper was to be proscuted. What for? For having said, that it had heard what was the contents of a supposititious letter. But the right reverend Prelate now defended himself for having brought a foul charge against his Majesty's Government, upon what he had heard. Equal justice should be dealt out to all; and when a person, for stating at public meetings, or for writing in a newspaper, certain things as supposititious, which were not true, were called foul and calumnious, libellous and slanderous assailants; when a man was so assailed for having said so much, their Lordships would, he was sure, agree with him, that it did not suit the dignity, and was not becoming the character of that House, that upon a mere light hearsay, a Member of the House should make a foul allegation and charge against his Majesty's Government.

The Earl of Eldon

said, that he had not called the newspaper libellous or scandalous. He had noticed it; but the noble Lord knew that there was a difference between noticing a paper and prosecuting it.

Lord Holland

was content with the question us it had been stated by the noble Earl. The notice was taken of the paper in that House in the way he had mentioned.

The Earl of Eldon

replied, the noble Lord was well aware, that there was a great difference between a notice in that House, and a prosecution.

The Bishop of Exeter

, having been charged with misrepresentation upon hearsay, for having said, that a certain letter, published in a newspaper, could not have been obtained without a breach of confidence, he begged to state, that he had said no such thing. He had only put a question. Their Lordships would recollect, that what they were talking about occurred three months ago; and it became no man to be confident of the extreme accuracy of his recollection. He would, however state with confidence, that he believed he had qualified all he had then said. He had never said, that he believed it himself but he had said that it was believed by other persons, that there was a connexion between that paper and the Government, and that belief gave to the opinions expressed in that paper a peculiar weight. He had stated that he believed the contrary, but that such was the belief of others, and that belief his Majesty's Government had indignantly repelled.

Earl Grey

said, that the right rev. Prelate had, at the same time, given as a proof of the connexion which he said existed between a certain paper and the Government, that it had published what it could only have obtained from persons in the Government. The right rev. Prelate disliked insinuations, but he stated what he believed, and all the venom went forth with the thin veil which the right rev. Prelate cautiously spread over it. He felt only disgust at the time, and now he felt nothing but contempt.

The Marquess of Salisbury

called upon the House to mark the language of the Prime Minister. The charge he had made was not very suitable to the dignity of the House. The noble Earl had, for the first time, he believed, said he felt contempt for a member of the right rev. Bench. He called upon the House to protect the right rev. Bench. The right rev. Prelate had only stated his belief, and that belief was confirmed at the time by the statement of the noble Duke (Buckingham). He thought the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had very unfairly attacked that noble Duke in his absence.

The Bishop of Exeter

entreated their Lordships not to pursue this discussion. He was sorry to have been the cause of raising this excitement. Whether his public life had been such as to justify the expression of contempt on the part of the noble Earl, he must leave to those who had observed his conduct. He would say nothing further, than that he trusted to his character to protect him against such a remark.

The Lord Chancellor

hoped the noble Marquess (Salisbury) would excuse him if he did not confess himself wrong. He had originally replied to a charge, and that which was a defence the noble Marquess had converted into an attack. He would not confess himself wrong, because, with all respect to the noble Marquess, he believed himself right. The noble Duke referred to, he believed, was at the time under a complete mistake, or he never could have said, that a letter appeared verbatim in a Newspaper, which never appeared at all.

The Petition was laid on the Table.