HL Deb 03 May 1839 vol 47 cc756-64
The Bishop of London

seeing the noble Lord the President of the Council in his place, he wished to move for a paper containing the minutes of a meeting of the Privy Council, dated April, 1839, which, though brief, embodied principles of the utmost importance to the people at large. He had looked with the most anxious wish to find in that paper the indication of some scheme which might be calculated to remove some of the chief difficulties that had hitherto stood in the way of such a system of national education as would conciliate all parties. He confessed that he did not expect to find such a scheme; because long experience of the state of religious feeling in this country had convinced him that such a scheme was impracticable; but above all he did not expect to see (he wished to avoid any harsh expressions) such a scheme as that which had been propounded in this paper. On the present occasion, it might appear impertinent, if not irrelevant, in him to trespass at any length on the attention of the House with respect to that subject, all-important as it was; but he could not refrain from calling attention to the principal features of that scheme, for it appeared to him, after most mature, and he hoped not uncandid, consideration, to contain all the vices of the Irish system of education, without being excused by that palliation which was to be found in the peculiar and unfortunate circumstances of the sister country. Here then, was no necessity for such a scheme, or anything like it; the result of it must be to spread throughout the land latitudinarian principles. It was an attempt which, however, be doubted not, would be an unavailing one to comprise in one system of religious education whatever class or denomination of religious sects existed in this country—a system which if it could be carried into practice at all, would not be a system of religious instruction. It would in the first place lead to indifference and generalities, and in the last, to irreligion. If a system of national religious education were to be based on the principle of giving to the members of every different sect the same advantages as were enjoyed by those in connection with the Established Church, then the Established Church might as well, so far as its connection with the State and the use and object of that connection was concerned, at once abdicate its functions. He protested against the principle that a school should be established by the State in which, in the first instance, a chaplain connected with the Established Church was to be paid for superintending the religious instruction of the scholars; but in which, so soon as the Government thought that a sufficient number of Dissenters had been collected in that school, then there should also be a Dissenting chaplain, who was to be called a licensed minister. If that were equitable and right for one class of Dissenters, it was equally so for another; and if the school comprehended a large number of scholars, as was the avowed intention, then it would become an object with each sect to collect there as many representatives of their particular sect as possible. Each class was to have its licensed teacher of religion, and there would therefore be established in one institution for religious education five, six, or seven teachers of different religious denominations, conflicting with one another. The result at least, must be, that the children would be brought up in principles of the widest latitudinarianism; they would be brought to think that it was of very little importance what system of religious opinions they adopted, if it did not end in their thinking that it was of little importance whether they adopted any. In conformity with that plan, not only the authorised version of the scriptures, which had hitherto been regarded by the people of this country with veneration, but the Roman Catholic version, would be introduced into this school; and if the Roman Catholics, why not the Socinian or any other version which any particular sect might wish to introduce as favourable to their views? What could be the consequence but the total subversion of that feeling of reverence which he maintained it was their bounden duty to encourage and inspire towards the word of God? What must be the effect of an establishment such as that, which by the principles of its formation announced that other branches of knowledge were essential, that there was a course of secular instruction which, all who went to the school must go through, but that the scriptural instruction they might receive, or not, as they pleased? By a strange phraseology the order in Council spoke of "peculiar religious instruction," as if there could be any religious instruction which would not be peculiar religious instruction. Could any man, with any experience as to the differences between religious sects, believe that there could be any instruction which was religious instruction at all that would not be peculiar? It was with unfeigned grief that he felt compelled to speak in language so strong, of a system, the designers of which, he doubted not, thought that it was calculated to benefit the country; but he bad been urged to bring forward the subject without delay, from the deepest conviction that, if that system were acted upon it would inflict the heaviest blow that had as yet been struck at the religion of the country, and the Established Church of the country, because they could not aim a more deadly blow at that religion than by attacking her through the medium of the education of our youth. When the paper itself had been laid on the Table he should think it his duty to bring the question before the House in a more solemn and regular manner. He thought that it was the duty of the clergy and particularly of the bishops, as the rulers of the Church of England, to protest against all attempts to force upon the people of this country as a national system of religious education, any system which was not connected with the Established Church, and which by implication, though he hoped not by intention, was calculated to throw some discredit on that Church, or at all events to raise all Dissenting sects to a level with it in the estimation of the people. As to the country, so far from its being true that any desire existed for any such benefit as could be derived from the proposed system, he was confident that before long their Lordships' table, and that of the other House would be loaded with petitions from those classes who were most interested in the subject, praying that Parliament would not do that which the Privy Council had recommended—that they would not withdraw from the national societies for education the assistance which been extended to them. Those societies had not, nor did they claim, a monopoly; but they claimed to be assisted only in proportion to their own exertions, He would not then enter into the question whether Dissenters ought to be assisted by the State in the education of their children. That that had been done had not been made a cause of complaint by them, because they were certain that the feelings of the country were with them, and they had no reason to fear competition. He trusted that their Lordships would give this subject their serious and candid consideration; and then they must say whether, consistently with their duty to the Established Church, they could give their sanction to such a plan as that, of which the outlines had been laid before the public by the order of the Privy Council. He did not impute to the members of the Privy Council any intentions unfriendly to the Established Church; but if the plan itself were injurious to that Church, the best intentions on the part of its framers would afford no justification to their Lordships for giving them the power to carry it into effect.

The Marquis of Lansdowne

said, that if the right rev. Prelate had contented himself with merely moving for the paper, it would have been granted as a matter of course; but as he had now lent the sanction of his name and experience to a custom, frequently of late introduced into that House, of producing, by premature discussion, an unfavourable impression against a measure, without notice of any intention to bring on such a discussion, he was bound to offer a few words in explanation, stating distinctly, that when the subject was brought formally forward, it would be his duty, however, unequal to the task, to meet the right rev. Prelate on this subject, and to induce their Lordships to believe, that the characteristics which the right rev. Prelate had given to the system of education proposed under the Order in Council, were the reverse of what was intended and would be produced. The right rev. Prelate had stated, that the proposed plan included all the vices of the Irish system. He would not adopt the gentle phraseology of the right rev. Prelate, and describe the Irish system which had been adopted by Parliament as a vicious system; on the contrary, he considered that it was the only system on which education could be extended through the Roman Catholic population of Ireland; that it was a useful system, and one well devised to meet the exigencies of that peculiar case; but he must in the most distinct terms contradict the statement of the right rev. Prelate, that the system now proposed, was founded in any degree on the particular features of the Irish system. On the contrary, it was founded on this principle, that from any scheme of education which could be introduced into this country, religious instruction, as connected with the tenets of the Church of England, could not be excluded. The right rev. Prelate well knew, that the main feature of the Irish system was, that it could not be included. That was the slight difference which had escaped the right rev. Prelate's attention. The right rev. Prelate had not adverted to the circumstance, that the whole of the regulations proposed by the Order in Council, were to be applied to a particular school, the only one to be founded by the public; and that, it was not, therefore, a scheme for general education, but for furnishing the best means of training schoolmasters; and if it were desirable, as was not denied, that better means should be afforded for perfecting the system of education, and qualifying men to conduct it in the schools of this country, it followed that training masters of all persuasions ought to be appointed. At the commencement of the right rev. Prelate's speech, he had supposed him to contend, that no assistance, direct, or indirect, ought to be given by the Government to schools not connected with the Established Church, but he apprehended, that he must have misunderstood the right rev. Prelate, because the right rev. Prelate did afterwards admit, that it might be desirable out of the public funds to afford assistance to schools in connection with the Dissenters. If he made that admission, he must also admit, that if training schools were to be established at all, they must be established so as to admit masters for dissenting schools. Now, all the regulations to which the right rev. Prelate's observations could apply, which had been issued in the Order in Council, were to enable schools not in connection with the Established Church, to send their masters to this training school, without their being compelled to receive that instruction which was provided for the members of the Established Church. Now, unless the right rev. Prelate was prepared to contend, that the training school for masters, which was to be maintained out of the public funds contributed by all the people of this country—was with that money to be so carefully constructed as to exclude from all benefit all the masters sent by dissenting schools—all the masters sent by Roman Catholic schools—all the masters whose friends were not willing to submit them to instruction in the catechism of the Established Church—unless he was prepared to lay down that doctrine, and on that doctrine he was prepared to meet the right rev. Prelate, he did say, that the scheme proposed was not liable to the observations which had been made with regard to it. He had been led to make this statement by the course taken by the right rev. Prelate on moving for the Order in Council. When the Order was laid on the Table, he should be most anxious, that there should be the fullest discussion upon it, and then it would be his duty to remind their Lordships of what the right rev. Prelate had omitted to mention, that the whole principle of the proposal was connected with the establishment of one training school for the whole of England, and there could be no training school for all England which did not admit masters of different religious sects; though at the same time there could be no doubt, that it was the duty of the Privy Council and the Legislature to see, that every Member of the Church of England in that school was instructed in the doctrines of that Church.

The Bishop of London

said, that the noble Marquess had misunderstood two of his observations. He had not said, that Dissenting schools ought to receive no assistance from the Government; all that he stated was, that he regretted that the present practice of making grants to the two great societies for education, according to the rate of their own funds, was to be discontinued; and he expressly forbore from entering into the question, whether Dissenters ought or ought not to receive any assistance from the Government. Now, although it was perfectly true that the principal feature of the proposed scheme was the establishment of a training school, still a very material part of the plan was to establish a model school which was to contain as many as 450 scholars; and to that his observations had been particularly directed. The word "vice," as applied to the Irish system, he had used in its classical sense of "defect;" and what he complained of was, that a system of education of the kind which he had described, should be introduced into a school which, by its very name, was held up as a model to all the schools in the kingdom. He would only remark, in conclusion, that not long ago the noble Lord, the Secretary of State for the Home Department, had declared that any such scheme as this was wholly impracticable.

Lord Brougham

said, that he had heard with the greatest pain, the discussion which had been brought on that night by the right rev. Prelate. He frankly confessed, that the reason why he had so long delayed pressing his bill on the subject on the attention of Parliament, was, that he had been anxious to avoid the mixture of religious differences with the consideration of this subject; and he found that the practice of affording grants of money to the education societies had worked so well, the balance having been held even between the sects on the one hand and the Church on the other, that no intermixture of religious differences had occurred. But that which made him listen with so much pain to the discussion that had taken place that night, was, that it rendered certain the defeat of his measure, and not only of his measure, but the defeat of any possible measure that man's wisdom could contrive for the general education of the people. For their Lordships might be well assured, since they were forced to grapple with the question at once—they might be well assured that, if the Church of England attempted to maintain the claim that had been put forward to-night by the right rev. Prelate to the superintendence, as a national church, of the public education of the youth of this country, the people of this country would not submit to pay for such a system, and he would be the first to counsel them to resist it. He acknowledged the rights of the Church—he acknowledged that it was the ecclesiastical institution of the country—he granted its endowment by law, he allowed it the preference which the law gave it; but the law had not said—and he demanded to know if any one authority had said it—where, in what authority of the common law, in what letter of the statute law, there was to be found this shadow of a ground for the position that the people of England should not be taught secular learning without the superintendence and control of the Church? That was not the law of England. He would appeal to his noble and learned Friends [Lord Lyndhurst was sitting with the Lord Chancellor] on the Woolsack, and ask them if they knew of any such law? He would appeal, also, to the right rev. Bench, to say whether the education of the country belonged exclusively to the Church, and that the Church should teach or control education, or that the people should not be instructed? If he bad any fault to find with this plan, it was that the Government had not gone far enough. He should say, let instruction be given, leaving to the families of each child the task of imparting religious instruction. Were the means of the Dissenters to be poured into the hands of the churchman for the education of his children, excluding the Dissenters? Such a proposition would be urged in vain to the representatives of the people, who had to vote the money of Churchman as well as Dissenter; and if the Church so set up, for the first time, this outrageous claim that the education of the Churchman should alone be paid out of the public funds, then he would say, "If you tax you must also teach; and if you wish to teach, to the exclusion of the Dissenter, you may tax yourselves, and leave the Dissenters untaxed; for so long will they insist on their right to receive a share of that for which payment was made." He hoped and trusted that a more liberal feeling would preside over the deliberations of Parliament in the further stages of this important subject; for of this he was certain, that on no other terms, and under no other conditions, would it be possible—and he would go further, highly as he valued education, would education itself be desirable—would it be possible to establish a system in any less catholic, less liberal, less just, and more contracted principle.

The Bishop of London

said, in explanation, that he had never made any such proposition as that which the noble and learned Lord had now demolished with such vigorous blows. He had only said that he did not think this was a system which would be satisfactory either to Churchmen or Dissenters.

Lord Abinger

thought a system of national education must invariably fail; for where there was such a difference of opinion amongst the Dissenters as well as between Churchmen and Dissenters, the object of the noble and learned Lord and the Government must necessarily be frustrated.

The Archbishop of Canterbury

came down to the House, without being in the least aware that this question would be brought forward, much less that any discussion would be entered into upon the subject. He now merely rose to bear his testimony to the misrepresentation which had been made of his right rev. Friend's speech. He thought that it was impossible to teach two systems of religion in one school. Religion must either be altogether excluded, or it must be taught according to some particular system. Besides, it was improper to teach people that there was any system so good as their own.

Address agreed to.