Lords Sitting of 17 June 1845

MINUTES.
Sat First.—The Lord Fisherwick, after the Death of his Father.
BILLS. Public—Reported.—Schoolmasters (Scotland).
3o. and passed: — Death by Accident Compensation; Deodands Abolition; Canal Companies Tolls; Canal Companies Carriers.
Private.—1a North British Insurance Company; Battersea Poor; Glasgow, Garnkirk, and Coatbridge Railway; Shaw's Waterworks.
2a. Heaviside's Divorce; Bridgewater, Duke of, Trustees Estate; Chelsea Improvement; Brighton, Lewes, and Hastings Railway (Keymer Branch); Belfast and Ballymena Railway; Yoker Road; Lord Barrington's Estate.
Reported.—White's Charity Estate (Herbert's); Bedford and London Railway; Shrewsbury, Oswestry, and Chester Junction Railway; Berks and Hants Railway; Lowestoft Railway and Harbour; Blackburn, Darwen, and Bolton Railway; Yarmouth and Norwich Railway; Castle Hill (Wexford) Docks; Newcastle-upon-Tyne (Tynemouth Extension) Railway; Dundee and Perth Railway; Aberdeen Railway; Quinborowe Borough; Claughton-cum-Grange (St. Andrew's) Church; Claugh-ton-cum-Grange (St. John the Baptist's) Church.
3a. and passed:—Dunstable and Birmingham and London Railway; York and Scarborough Railway Deviation; Leicester Freemen's Allotments; Lady Sandy's (Turner's) Estate.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Marquess of Normanby, from Liverpool, for Inquiry into the Sanatory Condition of the Tailoring Trade.—By the Marquess of Normanby, from John Liddle, Medical Officer of Whitechapel Union, relating to the Unhealthy Condition of many parts of that neighbourhood, and for the Appointment of a District Officer of Health.—By the Duke of Bucclcuch, from Bradford, Coventry, and Edinburgh, for the Adoption of Sanatory Regulations in Populous Districts.—By Lord Redesdale, from Hinckley, and 2 other places, against the Increase of Grant to the College of Maynooth.—By Lord Stanley, from Provincial Parliament, for Protection and Extension of Privileges to Vessels employed in Navigating the Inland Waters of the Province of Canada.—From Macroom, for Protection to Rights of Agricultural Labourers (Ireland).—From Landowners of Crossgar, for Protection to Rights of Tenants (Ireland).—From Protestant Clergy, and from the Inhabitants of several places, in Ireland, for Encouragement to Schools in connexion with Church Education Society.

THE CHURCH EDUCATION SOCIETY (IRELAND).
The Bishop of Cashelpresented a petition, signed by 1,360 clergymen

633
of the Established Church, praying aid to the schools in connexion with the Church of Ireland. He was enabled to say, from direct and positive information, that the opinion entertained by the clergy of Ireland was adverse to the plan of the national schools, especially as some of them were now conducted; in many of them the use of the Scriptures was excluded to please the priests. The Roman Catholics, as was well known, held that the Scriptures alone could not be safely circulated among the people; whereas the Protestants held the very contrary doctrine, that they alone were sufficient, without note or comment, for religious instruction. The clergy of Ireland, therefore, upon principle, objected to any plan or system which did not enforce the use of the Scriptures; for they felt they could not be parties to refusing to children an opportunity of becoming acquainted with the Word of God. He regretted to be obliged to call their Lordships' attention to details so painful; but he held in his hands letters which showed that parents were threatened with excommunication for sending their children to schools where the Bible was taught. On the 8th of January last, a Roman Catholic clergyman, named Stratt, wrote to a most respectable gentleman in the county of Waterford, named Smith, who had established a school for his tenants, stating that he was instructed by his bishop to excommunicate those Catholics who attended his schools where the Scriptures were taught. When those schools were first established, Extracts from the Scriptures were used, but now those were thrown side; and even that was a matter which he thought means ought to be taken to remedy. The Rev. Mr. Woodward, in a pamphlet he had published on the subject of the National Schools, contended that the mixed education given under the National Board was most injurious to Protestants. The Rev. Mr. Mackesy, whom he had been accused of censuring for his opposition to the Church Education Society, wrote, on the 30th of May, 1843, to the Rector of Monksland, a parish containing a large Protestant population, and where he was then doing temporary duty, in these terms:—
"There are a great many Protestant children attending the national schools; and, as far as I can learn, no sufficient care has been taken by any person on the part of these children,
634
that the rules of the Board, particularly as to religious instruction, shall be strictly enforced: and I find that the Protestant children are present, when the Roman Catholic children are instructed in the catechism of their Church."
This was one of the dangers he (the Bishop of Cashel) had anticipated from the system of national education. Mr. Mackesy proceeded to say—
"I am favourable to the national system so far as this, that I consider it the next best thing where it is impossible to establish a scriptural school."
These were precisely the sentiments he (the Bishop of Cashel) entertained. Mr. Mackesy further said—
"I have acted upon this principle in my own parish; but it appears to me that a school under the Church Education Society might be established with great benefit in the parish of Monksland."
Mr. Mackesy had further written to him, that the establishment of scriptural schools was not only desirable, but necessary. There were a great number of English children there belonging to miners brought from Cornwall, thirty of whom asked for the establishment of a scriptural school. He wrote to Mr. Osborne, on whose estate they had settled, asking for ground for a school, and offering any purchase money he chose to ask; but that gentleman refused, thereby showing, that those who talked of civil and religious liberty, were not remarkable for their liberality to those who were working the mines on their estates, and thereby increasing their income. He (the Bishop of Cashel) considered that scriptural schools ought to be established for the Protestants of Ireland. Mr. O'Connell had lately expressed himself in the strongest terms against anything in the shape of united education; and in an extraordinary paper put forward by the Roman Catholic bishops, they had demanded that the professors of several branches of education in the proposed academical institutions should be Roman Catholics, urging, that if their request were not complied with, Roman Catholics educated in those institutions would be exposed to great danger. He (the Bishop of Cashel) would venture to say, that the nearest approach to united education was, that given by the Church Education Society. That society possessed 1,800 schools, containing 100,000 scholars, of whom 33,000 were Roman

635
Catholics. He believed, that so imperfect was the working of the mixed system of education in Ireland, that in schools attended by a large number of Roman Catholics, there was a very small attendance of Protestants. He would give another case. To show the objections entertained to this system, he might mention, that in those places where the majority of the children were Protestants, few Roman Catholics attended; and in those places where the majority were Roman Catholics, few Protestant children attended. In the town of Cloghjordan, the Rev. Mr. French, a most pious and exemplary clergyman, established a school of which the majority of the pupils were Protestants. Only three Roman Catholic children attended at this school. At the circumstance of the attendance of those Roman Catholic pupils, the Roman Catholic priest of the parish took offence, and denounced the schoolmaster from the altar. The consequence was, that before the following Sunday the schoolmaster was murdered in the streets of Cloghjordan. There were, for instance, in the diocese of Meath, schools under the National Board containing 500 children, without a single Protestant scholar; so that the National Society was actually carrying out a species of separate education. But there was another ground on which he thought that the prayer of the petitioners ought to be considered. It appeared from the Report of the Census Commissioners in 1841, that from 1831 to 1841—during the period the National Board had been in existence—ignorance had been increasing in Ireland, while, on the other hand, education had been diminishing. In page 36 of that Report, he found a statement of the comparative number of persons in Ireland possessing the advantages of education from 1741 to 1841. It appeared, that in 1741 the proportion of the population of Ireland who could neither read nor write, was 63 per cent. He would not trouble their Lordships by going through the whole period between that time and the present; but he might state that in 1830 the proportion of the population who could not read or write diminished to 35 per cent.; but in 1835 it had risen to 42 per cent.; and in 1841 it was as high as 76 per cent. He found another return at page 39 of the Report of the Census Commissioners, from which it appeared,
636
that in 1821, the number of young people receiving education in Ireland was 394,000; in 1824 it had increased to 509,000; in 1831 it was 684,000; and in 1841 it had fallen to 502,000. These facts showed that the effect of the National Board, which was maintained at an expense of 70,000 l. a year, was to increase the amount of ignorance in Ireland. The National Education Society in Ireland had, in fact, put an end to all other educational institutions—such as the Kildare Place Society, the London Hibernian Society, and the Schools for discountenancing Vice. The national system was now, therefore, the only educational system existing in Ireland, except the Church Education Society, which afforded education to 100,000 children. Although the National Society had done a great deal, it had done more in destroying other societies, than in building up itself. He considered that the facts he had mentioned, showed most satisfactorily, on authorized statements, that since the establishment of the national system of education in Ireland, ignorance had been on the increase, and education on the decrease. It might be considered that one reason for supporting the national system was, lest, by adopting any other plan, they might offend the Roman Catholics by supporting Protestant education. He had reason to know, however, that the Roman Catholics of Ireland would not be annoyed by the establishment of scriptural schools. To show the non-existence of this feeling, he would mention what had lately occurred in the town of Cashel. In a suit which had been lately gained by the Corporation of Cashel, in which a considerable amount of property was gained by the town Commissioners (so we understood), a sum of 200 l. a year was appropriated by the Chancellor of Ireland for the education of the poor of the town. At a public meeting, at Cashel, a Roman Catholic shoemaker proposed a resolution to this effect:—
"We approve of a grant of 200 l. a year for the purposes of education, provided it be confined to the poorer classes; and, as the Protestants have applied for a grant for education, we approve of a grant of 30 l. from that sum being given to the Protestant minister, for the support of the school under his care."
That grant of 30 l. a year was now received by the Protestant school in Cashel. The true mode of carrying out the 14th

637
Report, and the Appendix to that Report, was to keep up the national schools, along with the parochial schools, under the superintendence of the parochial clergy. He hoped that Her Majesty's Government would give their serious consideration to this subject, which he had been desirous of bringing forward on the part of 1,700 of the Protestant clergy of Ireland.
The Earl of St. Germans, although no longer officially connected with Ireland, yet felt that the occasion was one on which he might be excused for making a few observations on the right rev. Prelate's speech, and on the petition which he had presented. He thought that the right rev. Prelate had entirely failed to explain the nature of the alterations in the national system of education which he called upon their Lordships to adopt. He believed, however, that the right rev. Prelate wished to give to the Church Education Society a grant of money proportionate to the number of scholars which it was instrumental in instructing. Now, what would be the effect of such a step? In England, the grant voted for education was divided among several societies, there being no Government bound to superintend its application. But in Ireland the case was different; and Parliament, in voting money to the Church Education Society, would be erecting, by the side of their own admitted officers, an irresponsible board, over which Parliament would have no control. The right rev. Prelate had commented on the constitution of the present Board of National Education; but he would ask him to remember that, as the money which it was called upon to distribute was derived from persons holding different religious opinions, it was but fair that the Board should be so constituted as to represent these different religious opinions. With respect to what had been said as to reading of the Bible in the national schools, he must say that the right rev. Prelate had misrepresented the practice. Religious instruction was so arranged in these schools as to be given only when the children of parents who objected to their being present, would have an opportunity of withdrawing. The Church Education Society, however, were not very consistent in the objections they brought against the National Board; for, in a sermon preached by the late Bishop of Down and Connor—a distinguished advocate of the Church Education Society—it was
638
represented as contrary to the principles of the Established Church to permit the reading of the Scriptures without note or comment. That sermon had been dedicated to, and printed with the approbation of, the Church Education Society, and might, therefore, be taken as declaratory of their principles. But that Society also permitted children not belonging to their communion to withdraw when religious education was being communicated. This was treating the Liturgy and Catechism with the same disrespect which the Society charged upon the National Board in reference to the sacred Scriptures. The right rev. Prelate had dwelt a good deal on the number of Roman Catholic children who received instruction at the schools of the Church Education Society; but the House should recollect, that when Roman Catholic parents sent their children to schools where the Scriptures were read without note or comment, they were violating the laws which enjoined obedience to their priests; and he did not think any system of instruction much calculated to benefit children, when they were taught at the same time to regard that system as involving a violation of their duty. Let him remind them, too, that the Presbyterians of the north of Ireland—who were certainly as much inclined to respect the Bible as any sect of religionists could be, and who were, therefore, quite as likely to object on such a ground, if it were valid, as the Established Church—admitted that religious freedom, as to scripture reading, was well provided for by the rules of the national schools. Let them not forget, either, that there were 940 of these schools in which the Scriptures were read, and 1340 in which the Extracts were made use of. The Rev. Mr. Woodward, a distinguished clergyman of the Established Church, had been referred to by the right rev. Prelate. Mr. Woodward had lately written a pamphlet, in which pamphlet he said—
"If education is to be provided for the whole people, and that education is not to be a separate education, I cannot conceive a more unexceptionable and liberal system than that provided by the Board. There the Bible, the whole Bible, and nothing but the Bible, is given to those who are willing to accept it, and secular instruction is afforded to all alike."
He afterwards said—
"Were the clergy examined one by one, it would be found that the great body of them have thought little on the subject for themselves,

639
but have followed the lead of a few who are used to dictate on such matters. Many are in heart inclined to give in their adhesion to the system, but are afraid to appear to desert their friends."
The Dean of Ferns (the Rev. Dr. Newland), who had been formerly opposed to the Board, now approved of it; and the Rev. Daniel Bagot, vicar-general of the diocese of Newry, one of the most distinguished scholars of Trinity College, had, after visiting several of the schools in which a mixed education was given, borne testimony to the practical utility of the system. At one of them, where the numbers of Protestant and Catholic children were nearly equal, he was surprised at the clear and satisfactory answers of the Roman Catholic children. At another, he examined a large class of Roman Catholic children; and they gave most satisfactory answers, so as to show that they had a general acquaintance with all the essential points of our religion—both Protestants and Catholics acquiring a good religious education together. At a third school, where there were fifty scholars of all denominations, some of the Roman Catholic children were amongst the best answerers upon religious points. If the national system had failed as one of united education—if it had partially failed—although he would not even admit that that was the case—the result must be attributed to the opposition of the clergy of the Established Church and a large body of the landowners, who ought rather, and certainly might have aided in contributing to its success. The fault, if fault there were, was not in the system, but in those who tried to retard, instead of aiding, to develop it. With reference to what had been stated by the right rev. Prelate as to the duty of Mr. Mackesy to keep a school in his parish, he (the Earl of St. Germans) wished their Lordships to know, that the obligation referred to was imposed by a Statute of Henry VIII.; the ninth section of which provided, that promotion was only to be given to such persons as could speak English; and that the archbishop should administer an oath to the person promoted, that he would endeavour to teach the English tongue, and likewise, that he should repeat the beads in the English tongue. Now, if this repeating of the beads in the English tongue were a part of the administration of the Established Church, then, of course, it might apply to Mr. Mackesy; but he (the Earl
640
of St. Germans) was inclined to think that the right rev. Prelate would hardly admit that to be the case. It was hardly worth while to advert to the extraordinary statement made by the right rev. Prelate, as to the Return furnished by the Census Commissioners. He could not conceive the idea of any man believing, with the right rev. Prelate, that ignorance was more extended and dense in Ireland now than it had been ten years ago. He (Lord St. Germans) thought that, when, according to the Return of the Census Commission, there were upwards of 3,000 schools, and nearly 400,000 children; and when the right rev. Prelate himself had declared that 100,000 children were educated in the schools of the Church Education Society, it was a most extraordinary proposition on the part of the right rev. Prelate, that ignorance had been increasing within the last ten years. He (the Earl of St. Germans) had watched anxiously and narrowly the effect of the system pursued by the National Board; and, being convinced of the benefits it had conferred upon the Irish people, he implored their Lordships to pause before they assented to such a proposition as that suggested by the right rev. Prelate, the adoption of which would necessarily lead to the dissolution of that Board; as neither the clergy of the Protestant Church, nor the clergy of the Church of Rome in Ireland, would consent to remain members of the Board, if the Government placed itself in immediate connexion with another Board established in direct hostility to it. They might depend upon it that it would not be satisfactory to the Romon Catholics, if a grant for educational purposes were made in favour of the Established Church, without putting the Roman Catholic Church upon the same footing; and upon these grounds he should give his most strenuous opposition to the proposition of the right rev. Prelate.
The Marquess of Normanbyfelt that it was quite unnecessary for him, after what had been said by the noble Earl, to add his testimony to the good working of the national system of education in Ireland. In reference to the case of the Rev. Mr. Mackesy, he thought the right rev. Prelate had exhibited some want of candour in charging him with inconsistency, on the authority of a letter written two years ago, while that gentleman had temporarily the charge of the parish of Monksland, without having given him any opportunity for explanation; more especially

641
as the right rev. Prelate now admitted that, next to the Church educational schools, the national system was the best. The right rev. Prelate said, he was supposed to have admonished the Rev. Mr. Mackesy on account of his connexion with the National Board. But what was the impression produced by the charge of the right rev. Prelate in regard to that gentleman, upon those who were present at the time it was delivered? He held in his hand a letter written by the Rev. Mr. Brown, who heard the charge delivered; and he stated that "the Bishop of Cashel spoke in strong terms against the national system, and called it, as well as he remembered, the 'devil's work.'" He had also other letters to the same effect; and if that was the understanding of those who heard that charge, they would be surprised now to hear the right rev. Prelate declare that, next to the Church educational schools, the national system was the best. With respect to Dr. Henry, he (the Marquess of Normanby) had, since the previous discussion, communicated with that gentleman, and he was enabled, from the reply he had received, to assure the right rev. Prelate that he was mistaken, when he supposed that his schools were attended exclusively by the children of one religious sect.
The Earl of Wicklowthought that a matter so trifling as that of the consistency of this gentleman or that of the right rev. Prelate, should not be permitted to occupy so much of their Lordships' time. But there was one accusation which had been made against his right rev. Friend, in reference to the charge in question, in support of which not a shadow of proof had been adduced, and which, in the absence of such proof, he could only regard as an unmitigated falsehood. It had been said, that his right rev. Friend had, in his charge to the clergy, inculcated the doctrine of separate dealing, and recommended that there should be no dealings with Roman Catholics. That accusation he must look upon as devoid of all foundation; and having resided for some time in the same neighbourhood with his right rev. Friend, he felt it to be his duty to come forward and bear testimony to the zeal and anxiety his right rev. Friend had always displayed for the education of the Roman Catholic poor of his diocese. While on his legs, he would trouble their Lordships with a very few words upon the general subject before them—the national system of education in
642
Ireland. To that system, it would be remembered, he had stated his objections when it was first brought forward. He had then said, that his objections were not to the system itself; on the contrary, if it were about to be introduced in a country where no system of education existed already, it might perhaps be as good a one as could be devised. His objection was not, then, to the theory of the system; but because it went to destroy one of the best and most efficient systems of education then existing in Europe, viz., the Kildarestreet Society's schools. That was the opinion he had expressed when the national system was first established; and from all he had learned since, notwithstanding the various reports they had had from time to time of its progress, notwithstanding the statements that had been made of increased accommodation in consequence of the great increase of the grant, he was prepared to pronounce it a direct and decided failure. It was a most melancholy fact, that the consequence of this system had been to deprive altogether of the benefits of education that portion of the population of Ireland, which had, at times, been the most distinguished for their loyalty and devotion to the connexion with this country. Neither the Protestants of Ireland, nor their clergy, had confidence in the system. He was aware that many of the clergy of the Established Church of Ireland did co-operate with the National Board; but generally they did not. And the petition which had been presented to their Lordships by his right rev. Friend, signed by 1,700 or 1,800 of the Protestant clergymen of Ireland, against the system, was of itself a sufficient proof that it had made no progress. Then, the question was, were their Lordships prepared to say that the poor of the Established Church in Ireland should be left without education altogether? The course he should wish to see adopted now was, that the Protestant poor, the Church of England poor, in Ireland, should, with regard to education, be put into communication with the Church Society of this country. That was what the Church Society itself was anxious for, and what he believed the English clergy and the Irish clergy were equally anxious for; and the effect of such a connexion would be to cement together and draw the bonds of union more strongly between that part of the Established Church which was in Ireland, and that part of the Established Church which was in England, and thus conduce to the interests of both. He called

643
upon the Government and the Parliament to show that they were not forgetful of the Protestant poor of Ireland. What he now suggested it would be wise to do now; and it might be done, not only without injury to the national system, but would so far benefit it that it would go far to remedy the prejudice which now existed against it, by inducing a comparison between the education administered under the one system and the other. Apart from religion, he was not prepared to deny that the national system of education was infinitely the best general education that could be given; therefore, he believed, if the prejudice against it could be removed, it would make greater progress, and confer more general advantages than under present circumstances it could do. He hoped the instruction which had been understood to have been given to the Irish Government by the right hon. Baronet (Sir R. Peel)—that no clergyman should be promoted in Ireland who was not in communion with the National Board—was, if it had ever been issued, no longer in force. Such an instruction he could not regard but as one of the deepest wounds upon the Protestant Establishment in Ireland that had ever been inflicted, and as tending to demoralize and destroy the high character the clergy of that Church had hitherto maintained, by inducing them to sacrifice their conscientious views to the hope of advancement. If the Government was determined to maintain the national system as the best under present circumstances; but at the same time would concede to the wishes and prejudices of the members of the Church of England, they would confer a great boon on the country, and give satisfaction to those who were now irritated — unjustly, as he confessed—against them, and show that they were not influenced by bias or favour to any one party in that or this country, but were determined to hold the scales of justice with an even and impartial hand. It was with the view of extending the benefits of education to all classes in Ireland, that he ventured to urge this proposition on the attention of their Lordships and the Government.
The Marquess of Normanbyexplained. He had not disputed the right rev. Prelate's version of his charge, when stated on his own authority; but the case of the letters was different.
After a few words from the Earl of Clancarty,
Lord Monteaglehad heard with much satisfaction what had fallen from the noble Lord opposite; for it was of no small importance when a noble Lord whose judgment none could deny, and whose powers and opportunities of observation were manifest, and who had had the advantage of many years' experience of the system, came forward, point by point, to meet and refute every charge which the right rev. Prelate had brought to bear on the question of national education. His noble Friend had given strong testimony in favour of that system on two most important points—the one, the efficiency of the system in its practical working; the other, as to the accidental disturbing forces, which, in his judgment, had limited and contracted its advantages. But those were accidents for which the system was not responsible; and he should be able to show, on his noble Friend's own statement, that the misapprehensions prevailing on this subject, both in this country and in Ireland, were to be traced to an utter and complete ignorance of the working of the system, and an entire want of knowledge as to the nature of the education that was condemned. When they talked of Scripture Extracts, they forgot that the Scripture Extracts read in those National Society schools were no narrow or limited system of religious instruction; but comprehended the whole of the Gospel of St. Luke, all the Acts of the Apostles, and many of the most instructive parts of the Old Testament. There were schools in connexion with the National Board upon his estates, and he was able to say that those Extracts from the Gospel were read in those schools, and that the children were most anxious to possess them, and even to purchase them at their own expense. But then it had been said that the Government had set aside a Scriptural system of education for the purpose of introducing one in which the Scriptures were not taught. He asked them to look to what had been stated upon this point by the Commissioners of Inquiry—to compare the account given of the education as imparted by an institution that was beyond all others unusually "Scriptural"—the Kildare-place Society. One of the agents of this Society—a gentlemen well and long acquainted with its working, and whose interest it must have been to have given the best account possible respecting it—a Mr. Veevors, said, in answer to questions put to him, that the Scriptures were never expounded to the children—that it was his opinion that the

645
boys ordinarily did not understand the New Testament (and this was said not in reference to doctrinal points)—and that he never recollected an instance in which they manifested a wish to be better informed on the subject. This was what was called a Scriptural system of education; whilst as to the national system of education, which was so much objected to, a very different answer would be given, and a very different account rendered—for where the system was managed rightly, where the rules were enforced, he affirmed that there was no part of England in which a sounder or more full knowledge of religious truths were conveyed to the minds of the children. It was assumed by those who objected to the national system of education in Ireland, that it was one wholly devoid of religious teaching. Not only was such an assertion not the fact, but it was the very opposite of the fact. Of all the propositions that had been made, that which was made by the noble Earl opposite was the most objectionable, that of giving a grant to the Church Society in this country, for the purposes of Church education in Ireland. Now, he said, if any such grant were to be made, he would prefer entrusting it to the bishops of the Church in Ireland; but any such grant would be the establishment of an antagonistic system by the Government; it would be establishing a rival, and not on fair terms. He wished he could induce the right rev. Prelate to accompany him to two schools which he could point out to him: one of them was a Church school, under the especial care of a clergyman of the Established Church of the parish; the other a national school, under the superintendence of the Catholic clergyman. In the first of these schools—for he had visited both—he saw a few miserable and neglected children, with no means of instruction for them; he saw in that school the Bible certainly, but he saw it torn and mutilated—there, indeed, he did see a "mutilation of the Scriptures." He never saw the master, for he had "gone to the fair." He asked for the mistress, but she was not present; and, in short, there was there no system of instruction deserving of the name. What, on the contrary, did he find to be the state of the rival school? It was full to overflowing; all the Scriptural Extracts were read there, and, what was something more, they were understood there; the intelligence of the children was manifested when questioned respecting
646
them, and in the glances of their eyes could be discerned their aptitude and their progress in acquirements. He found even amongst them a competent knowledge of the elementary part of the mathematics. Such was the national system, and such its rival. He must say that he regretted to perceive that there would still be found 1,700 clergyman of the Church in Ireland opposed to this system. He respected their conscientious opinions; but doing so, he deplored that they could be so blinded to truth, to fact, and to the well-being of the people amongst whom they lived, as still to protest against the national system of education in Ireland. He knew the difficulty in which Her Majesty's Government were placed, in resisting this application from a large body of Protestant clergymen. They resisted it upon principle, and in doing so—in giving their support to the national system of education—they would confer upon Ireland the greatest possible good. He had only now to say that he wished they had made up their minds to do this on their first accession to office, because he believed, by their not doing so, they would induce many to involve themselves in a further opposition to the national system; and inspired them with what now appeared to be the vain hope, that the Government would abandon the national system for the purpose of giving support to its opponents.
The Earl of Clancartyand the Archbishop of Dublin having arisen together, the former said:—I trust the most rev. Prelate will permit me, before he addresses the House, to make a few remarks, to which it might be desirable that he should reply, respecting the 14th Report of the Commissioners of Education Inquiry in 1812. That Report has been referred to by the Board to which the most rev. Pre late belongs, as the basis of the national system of education in Ireland. Upon it Sir Robert Peel, in his recent correspondence with the Lord Primate of Ireland rests the justification of the Government for adhering to that system; and for the same purpose, my noble Friend, the late Secretary for Ireland (Earl of St. Germans) has this evening quoted from it an answer to the right rev. Prelate by whom this discussion was commenced. It struck me, however, that my noble Friend did not convey to your Lordships a just view of the recommendations of the Commissioners. I hold in my hand the Report

647
from which my noble Friend quoted, and will beg your Lordships' attention to what he omitted to quote, which, I think, would have conveyed to your Lordships a very different notion of the views of those Commissioners. From the noble Earl's quotations, it would appear that the object of the Report was by a general system of education, analogous to that under the National Board, to supersede all others; but by looking at the context your Lordships will find it was no such thing; that the schools that were to have been founded upon the principles laid down, were not to supersede, but to be supplementary to those at the time in existence. Taking up the Report where my noble Friend left off, I read as follows:—
"We recommend that, in the first place, those Commissioners be instructed to apply to the governors of all existing establishments for the education of the lower classes, wherever the information that has been received by us shall appear to be insufficient, and to require from them returns of the several institutions over which they preside; such as may enable them to ascertain in what districts supplementary schools, to be put under the direction of Protestant or Roman Catholic masters, as the circumstances of the case may render eligible, are most immediately necessary; which schools the Commissioners should be empowered to found, to endow, and to regulate. The check which the existing schools would receive, were the superintendence to be transferred to the proposed Commissioners, the difficulty of changing long-settled establishments, and the waste of time to the Commissioners, who would be much more profitably employed in forming new seminaries, than in altering old ones, induce us strongly to recommend, that the institutions which now exist, should remain under their present managers, and that the spirit of improvement already manifested among them should be left to operate undisturbed, under the influence of that emulation which the new establishments would naturally excite."
Thus, not in the Appendix only, which the right rev. Prelate has this evening quoted, but in the very body of the Report, does it appear that the Commissioners of Education, in 1812, so far from condemning or wishing to supersede the parochial schools, attach the greatest importance to their conservation and improvement. And what, my Lords, are these parochial schools, but the schools which the clergy were formerly required to keep for teaching the English language; or, as the noble Earl (St. Germans) has explained to your Lordships, for teaching the Irish to tell their beads in the English language? I confess I was
648
astonished at my noble Friend's taking so narrow a view of the duties of a clergyman, as to suppose that his oath bound him to do no more by his parishioners' children than to have them instructed in the English language. If it was the duty of a Roman Catholic clergyman, when the Roman Catholic religion was the State religion in Ireland, to instruct his parishioners to tell their beads in English, I think it is perfectly obvious, that the schools were for purposes connected with the then established religion of the country, which was the Roman Catholic religion; and that the clergy of our Protestant Establishment, in making them seminaries of Scriptural knowledge, have taken a correct, though an enlarged view of the spirit of their obligations. It still continues to be the duty of the parochial clergy to maintain these schools within their parishes; and it is creditable to them that they have, in general, given themselves to the fulfilment of this duty, in place of connecting themselves with schools under the National Board, in which they could not faithfully act up to their obligations. The course they have taken is justified not only by their conscientious feelings, but by the evidence taken before a Committee of your Lordships, appointed in 1837, to enquire into the working of the national system of education. It is true, my Lords, that the evidence taken and reported, upon that occasion, was unaccompanied by any opinion of the Committee upon it; but that defect was compensated by the deliberate expression of the opinion of a Member of that Committee, whose advice your Lordships are accustomed to look up to with the utmost deference, and than whom no other Member of that Committee could be named more likely to have formed a correct estimate of the evidence taken before it—I mean the noble and gallant Duke (Wellington). Addressing your Lordships in 1838 on a Resolution moved by the Bishop of Exeter—
"That the working of the system of national education had tended to the undue encouragement of the Roman Catholic, and to the discouragement of the Protestant religion in Ireland,"
the noble Duke is, in Hansard's Debates, reported to have said—
"I cannot help thinking that there is great truth in the Resolution moved by the right rev. Prelate, that the system has operated as a discouragement to the Protestant religion in

649
Ireland. I can have no hesitation in saying, that if the evidence on the Table be true, the system must have greatly tended, among other circumstances which have occurred within the last few years, to discourage the Protestant religion in Ireland. The truth is, that clergymen have not the power of going into the schools, and teaching the doctrines of Scripture; there are not the means of enabling them to give religious instruction to those who desire it."
I think, my Lords, that the noble Duke's opinion of the national system—an opinion not hastily taken up, but the result of a careful inquiry—amply justifies the clergy of the Established Church in declining to connect their schools with it. The propriety of the course they adopted, received, however, in the following year (1839) a yet more remarkable confirmation, from two other distinguished Members of Her Majesty's present Government. The first I shall quote is Sir Robert Peel, who, after expressing doubts as to the correctness of the opinion he had once been led to form, that under the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, the national system of education might have been productive of good, proceeded to say —
"But with respect to the Established Church, I hope that rather than consent to any plan from which ecclesiastical authority is excluded, it would separate itself altogether from the State upon this point; that it would take the education of the people into its own hands; that it would not shrink from insisting upon the publication of its own peculiar doctrines, but that it would demand that the highest respect should be entertained for its power, by its being inculcated in the minds of children, that religion formed the basis of all education. I very much doubt whether the principles of the Christian faith being thus inculcated among children, as good a chance of harmony would not be secured, as by telling them that religion was an open question, and that each of them was to be instructed by a minister of his own creed, on a certain day set apart for that purpose."
The course the Irish clergy have taken exactly accords with what Sir R. Peel here described it as their duty to take. The views of the Minister are now changed; but their duty remains the same. The other Member of Her Majesty's Government to whose opinions I alluded, is the present Secretary for the Home Department, who, from the Home Office, appears to direct the Irish Government, in profound ignorance of the circumstances and character of the country. In the
650
same debate on national education, in June, 1839, that right hon. Baronet is reported to have said—
"Reference had been made and great reliance placed upon the system of mixed education now in operation under the direction of the National Board in Ireland. He must say, in his opinion, that plan had not been very successful. He thought it had proved a failure.… The plan (of Her Majesty's Government) viewed no religious creed with favour; it went to admit an equality of right for State endowment to all. The moment that doctrine was admitted, a paramount State religion was at an end. Now, in this country, the State had chosen the religion of the Established Church to represent the Government in religion; but, in selecting that particular creed, the State still permitted each individual to be guided in matters of belief entirely by the dictates of his own conscience. The moment they went beyond that, and admitted the right of the civil magistrate to apply the public money, not in accordance with that view, but as circumstances and his discretion might seem to warrant, then they would put an end to the Established Church, the existence of which he believed to be essential to the peace, the happiness, and prosperity of the entire community.… He knew there were many persons who thought they could accommodate the difficulty attending the application of these doctrines (toleration) as regarded a State religion, by the adoption of a middle course, and that they would be able to introduce a kind of arbitration between God and man; but such opinions he deemed visionary."
Again—
"He much feared that any combined plan for a system of national education, such as that in question, would inevitably fail. It had been attempted and had failed in Prussia; and it was his conscientious belief, that if it were to be adopted, it would have that inevitable result here as well as there. In his mind, there could be no sound education without religion; and there should be no education in any religion at the expense of the public, but that of the Established Church." (See Hansard, Adjourned Debate on National Education, June 20, 1839.)
Such, my Lords, was the opinion delivered by Sir James Graham, only two years before the accession of the present Ministry to office, and on the last occasion, prior to that event, on which any discussion took place upon the subject of national education. I think that the expression of opinions such as I have quoted, was calculated to raise an expectation that Her Majesty's present Ministers would have acted very differently from what they

651
have done: the case, indeed, might be strengthened by a reference to the speeches of the noble Lord the Secretary for the Colonies (Lord Stanley), upon the same occasion. He was foremost in denouncing, as inconsistent with the due maintenance of the Established religion, the proposal of introducing into England a system of united education, analogous to that in Ireland, although he had himself introduced it into the latter country. Friendly to Protestantism in England, the noble Lord is practically opposed to it in Ireland. Well might he ridicule the idea of Ireland ever becoming a Protestant country, when he withdrew the Bible from the national schools. [A noble Lord here stated that the Bible was read in above 900 schools.] I understand the noble Lord to say that the Bible is read in above 900 national schools. I believe there are 4,000 national schools. [Lord Stanley; 3,000.] Well, there are 3,000 national schools; and, by the noble Lord's own admission, it appears that the Bible is not read in one-third of them; and I may remark, that even where it is read, it is not made an essential part of the educational course, or held in due respect. I have always considered the Bible as the very foundation of the Reformation; and I cannot conceive a more effectual way of perpetuating in Ireland ignorance of true religion—especially the religion of the Anglican Church—than by discountenancing Scriptural instruction as an essential in national education. Much has lately been said about endowing the Roman Catholic Church; but no endowment of Romanism could be productive of more serious consequences to the Established religion of the country, than the system of education Her Majesty's Government have determined upon patronizing in Ireland; it is, in fact, only less objectionable than the endowment of Maynooth College, because it is not an endowment given in perpetuity. The system of education has failed of accomplishing its original object of uniting Protestants and Romanists in the same schools; and the clergy have been charged with having obstructed its success. I do not deny, my Lords, that the influence of their opinions, and the efficiency of the schools they maintain without any Government assistance, may have stood in the way of the schools under the National Board; but if the clergy of the Established Church be to blame for
652
the failure of those schools, may not the alleged failure of the schools under the Kildare-place Society, which the Government previously patronized, be with equal justice charged upon the Roman Catholic clergy? No noble Lord has dared to call in question the respectability of the motives which have actuated the Protestant clergy—no one will, I presume, say that they ought to act in opposition to their conscientious convictions; yet, unless they do so, the same impediment to the success of the national system of education must continue. Why are their wishes and conscientious feelings to be less respected at this time, than those of the Roman Catholic clergy were in 1831? The fact is, that in the divided state of religious feeling in Ireland, the system that one party may be willing to adopt, will not be acceptable to the other; and the conscientious feelings of all are entitled to be tolerated and respected. In England, the Dissenter may have his child educated in schools where the tenets of his religion are held in respect. In Ireland, a Protestant—but especially a Protestant of the Established Church—may not enjoy any such privilege; if he would avail himself of the schools maintained at the public expense, he must be satisfied that his child should either receive no religious instruction whatever, or only receive instruction in the Protestant faith, upon terms approved of, if not dictated by, a Roman Catholic archbishop. Were the recommendations of the Commissioners of 1812, as set forth in their 14th Report, faithfully acted up to, a system of public instruction, analogous to that of England, would extend to all the poor of Ireland the blessings of education; a spirit of emulation among the schools would contribute to their efficiency; no violence would be done to conscientious scruples; justice would be done by all. And all this, without materially interfering with the schools under the National Board, could be effected, either by compliance with the prayers of the many petitioners who have applied to Parliament in behalf of the Church Education Society, or, as suggested by my noble Friend (Earl of Wicklow), by the Government giving countenance and aid to the schools of the clergy in Ireland, through the same medium as they do to the schools under the clergy of the Establishment in England. Having been entrusted

653
with the presentation of numerous petitions upon the subject of national education, from many parts of Ireland, and being myself strongly impressed with the justice of the claims of the petitioners, I would earnestly call upon your Lordships to give them a serious and impartial consideration. And I would entreat Her Majesty's Ministers to review well the grounds of their decision upon the subject; and if they would maintain and uphold the Established Church in Ireland, to give due support and encouragement to the Established religion.
The Archbishop of Dublinsaid, it was well known to every Member of their Lordships' House that he had long been connected with the National Board of Education, and, therefore, felt it incumbent on him to make a few remarks upon some points, with respect to which there was much misapprehension. It was not the time for entering into a full discussion of the principles of the system; but he wished to observe, that the Commissioners were responsible to Government and not to Parliament. The system was not a favourite scheme of their own, but it was one in which they were employed by the Government for the time being; and although, of course, he would not be a party to any system which he did not consider to be good, safe, and valuable, neither credit nor discredit could be attributed to him for the course which he had taken with reference to this system. He had considered it his duty to act with, and to strengthen, the hands of the Government for the time being, when he could do so with a safe conscience; and in carrying out this system, he had acted under seven Lords Lieutenant, and under six Secretaries for Ireland. Considering the permanent situation that he held, he had felt it desirable to keep clear of party. Many attacks had been made upon him by Protestants and Roman Catholics; but he would adhere to the reply he gave long since in that House—namely, that he would answer them by his conduct, for he thought that the character that could not vindicate itself, was not worth defending. On the first accession to power of Her Majesty's present Ministers, he had made a strong appeal to them, praying of them to declare distinctly what their opinions and intentions were in reference to this subject; and on that occasion he tendered his resignation, in order
654
that it might be accepted, if they thought there had been anything objectionable in his conduct. He could not refrain from expressing his regret, that his application had not been complied with—that they had not come forward with a distinct declaration of their sentiments. He did not say this as a reproach—for he had no party feelings—but he said it, because he was convinced that a great part of the opposition which now existed against the system, and that he hoped would be yet removed, was to be traced to the fact of many persons being left in doubt as to what were the real designs of Government. For more than a whole year their decision was kept in abeyance. It was at a stand-still. The Parliamentary grant had been applied for; if it had not, the schools must have sunk at once; but then an additional grant was wanted at that time for the additional schools. The whole system was, however, suspended. It was at a stand-still for a year and a half. What they had since done was done deliberately, and the result at which they had arrived he was convinced was the right one. He was convinced that if the attempt were made to alter the system, or to abrogate it altogether, it would produce a greater mass of evils in Ireland than any measure that had been ever thought of in the memory of man. It had been said that this system of national education, as a system of united education, had entirely failed. That, he had no hesitation in saying, was an entire misapprehension of the matter. It had not so failed, nor had its promoters and supporters been disappointed in their views. If the House should think proper to appoint a Committee of inquiry to investigate into the results of that system, they would find that what he now stated was the fact. United education had taken place in every instance where a fair chance had been given to it, and in many instances where such fair chance had not been given. It was designed to be a united education in the sense that children of all religious denominations might come in if they chose, without having any violence done to their religion, and to the religious opinions of these who had charge of them as parents and guardians. A great deal had been said, and a great deal of misapprehension prevailed, about the exclusion of the Scriptures from the national schools. It was totally without foundation, in the ordinary

655
sense of the terms, to say that the Bible was excluded. What people understood when it was asserted that the Scriptures were excluded was, that the children were prohibited from reading them at all. Now, what was really meant was, that the Scriptures were not to be forced upon any one. It was not true that the Scriptures could not be read, or that they were not read in any of the national schools, provided due notice were given, so that the child might not be entrapped into reading them contrary to the will and contrary to the disposition of its parents. There were altogether about 3,000 of these national schools. In 900 of them the authorized version was read, and in 1,400 the Extracts were read, which had been authorized by the National Society, so that in fully two-thirds of the schools the Scriptures were virtually read. The authorized version of the Scriptures was the version authorized by Act of Parliament to be read in churches. Those who made the charge that the Scriptures were not read in the schools were accustomed to couple it with the assertion that the Bible was the basis of Protestantism, that was, that the present authorized version was such basis; but they did not remember that when the Articles of our Church were prepared, which declared that the Holy Scriptures contained all the essentials of our religion, the Articles referred to the original and not to the authorized version, which was not then in existence. He would say a few words now upon a point on which he, perhaps, entertained a deeper feeling than did any of their Lordships—he meant the opinions of his lamented friend, Dr. Arnold. He had known that eminent man for upwards of a quarter of a century, and he begged to assure their Lordships that any insinuation which they might have heard of his being unfriendly to the national schools, or that he wished to see the Scriptures or any other book forced upon them, was entirely the reverse of fact. He could also assure their Lordships from his own personal knowledge, that he (Dr. Arnold) was employed, in connexion with the other Commissioners, in drawing up the Scriptural Extracts to which allusion had already been made; and that they had derived from his great and eminent scholarship the most important assistance, as could be testified by all the Commissioners; and
656
that he (Dr. Arnold) knew all along, that these Extracts were to be offered to the children at the national schools, but not forced upon them. It had also been said that the National Society had altered their system. That was not the fact. There had been no change introduced into the system, or into the principle which regulated it. Whatever change had been effected had been made merely in the wording of the rules necessary to carry the principle of the system into effect, or to render them more perfect and intelligible: but as to changes in the principles which were at the basis of the national schools, he pledged himself that such had never been made from the very first. It had been asserted also, that the Members of the Board had been negligent in the performance of their duty; that the Provost and himself had signed papers, in the execution of the functions which devolved upon them, without knowing anything about them; and that they had not the time at their command which should properly be bestowed upon the business connected with the Board. A greater falsehood could not have been circulated. The Provost and himself were scarcely ever absent from the meetings of the Board; they had never, in any instance, neglected to pay the most constant and direct attention to the laborious duties of their office. But this was one specimen, out of many which he could adduce, of the misrepresentations and mis-statements which had been put in circulation, and by which many, both in England and Ireland, were misled. Another misrepresentation which had been circulated was, that the National Board had used its influence to discourage the applications of the Protestant clergy for schools. That they had been discouraged from coming forward to make application was too true; but the discouragement did not come from the Board. On the contrary, whenever the Protestant clergy had come prepared to act in the spirit of fairness on the principles of the Board—even although they might be the most zealous men in the advocacy of their own views—their applications had always received the utmost attention, when combined with others from the Roman Catholic clergy. The most perfect success had been the result of the system, where it had had a fair trial, and where the children of both denominations were found; and when parties

657
came to see what was the true state of the case, and to see more clearly what were the true interests of Ireland, they would be more and more disposed to take advantage of the provisions which the Government had made for popular education in that country. They should not form their opinions of this system from what was said of it by some of the agitators of that country: they should not consider, as the voice of Ireland, the opinions of those who were most loud and clamorous in agitation; nor should they consider every measure as objectionable and inefficient which was objected to and disliked, and evidently dreaded by those whose business was agitation, and who did everything that they could to keep up disunion between the two sections of the population in Ireland, and between Ireland and this country.
Lord Stanleywas too sensible of the importance of the services of the most rev. Prelate, in the support which he had uniformly given to this system of education, in the midst of obloquy and misrepresentation—too sensible of the success which the system owed to the able assistance and co-operation of the most rev. Prelate, and of the most rev. Dr. Murray—he was too sensible of these services, to complain even of an intimation of opinion which the most rev. Prelate had let fall, and which his noble Friend opposite called an historical fact, but which he (Lord Stanley) would take the liberty of saying was not founded on fact at all, to the effect, that there was at one period reason to doubt as to the intentions of the Government with respect to supporting and maintaining the existing system of education in Ireland. Having had the honour, in the first instance, of being the instrument and the organ of introducing a system of education into Ireland, which he did not originate, and having watched that system develop itself gradually, till it attained a degree of success in the amount and in the quality of the education given to the poorer classes in Ireland, far beyond what he or any of its most sanguine promoters had anticipated; it would be inconsistent on his part, and he hoped their Lordships would allow that it would be also unworthy of his personal character, if he had consented to become a member of a Government which had the slightest intention, as one of its measures, of abandoning that system of education.
658
The most rev. Prelate must confess that at no time was the system known or supposed to be an abeyance—that at no time was the question raised of withdrawing the grant. They had examined fully the working of the system—they had examined the progress of the schools, and also into the question whether it was possible to combine the two objects of a national system with the exclusive system which was demanded by some, and having come to the conclusion that the system as established had been administered with fairness, and that it was working beneficially for Ireland—that day by day its influence was extending, year by year the number of its opponents diminishing—that day by day the number attending the schools was increasing, and the quality of the education imparted improving—the Government felt justified in supporting the system; and had since felt it their duty to propose, not the continuance of the previous system, as it was, but a large and liberal increase to the amount of the grant, for the purpose of enabling the Board to multiply the benefits of the system, by extending their operations. To assent to that which was now demanded by the clergy, would be injurious to the people of Ireland—would be destructive to the existing system of education; and that system, it must be remembered, was the only system which, by proper latitude of terms and expression, could fairly claim to be in Ireland a national system. The conclusion to which the Government had come with regard to that system, and to which he was confident, so long as he remained a member of it, it would adhere, was, to maintain it. The noble Earl (the Earl of Wicklow) inquired if any alterations had been made in the instructions issued by Earl Grey with respect to the disposal of the patronage of the Crown, which instructions were to the effect that, in the disposal of that patronage, reference should only be had to professional merits and character. No alteration had been made, no instructions had been issued to exclude from professional advancement any individual, whether his opinions were favourable or hostile to the opinions of Her Majesty's Government, on this or on any other question. They (the Government) were sincerely anxious strenuously to maintain and extend the present system of education in Ireland; and they were not prepared to say that opposition to that

659
system should be a bar to the advancement of a conscientious and well-disposed clergyman; but they were prepared to say this, that they would give no reason to believe that professional advancement should be hindered by a conscientious and firm support of that which they believed to be the best system of national education—best adapted to the intellectual wants of Ireland. If he believed that it involved a question of Protestant principles, he would abandon, with the noble Earl, all hopes of securing the co-operation of the Protestant clergy, and all intention of seeking that co-operation; and if he thought that it involved an abandonment or a sacrifice of Protestant principle, he would be the last man to support or to propose it. It was because it involved no such abandonment of principle—it was because the supposition that it did so was a supposition founded upon the grossest misapprehension of the system—it was because he believed that that misapprehension was founded not upon wilful ignorance, but arose from want of due inquiry into the real merits of the system—it was because he believed, as he had, already said, that the supposition, on the part of many of the clergy, that there was in the principle and in the practice of the system a violation of the principles of Protestantism, was erroneous—that he did not despair, after the lapse of eleven years, of seeing this system, by its own merits, working its own way even in the midst of opposition and of distrust, and notwithstanding the efforts of its most prejudiced opponents. It was because he was convinced that it would ultimately be found that Protestant clergymen would have the power of enforcing upon the members of their own congregations the fullest, the most complete, and the most entire acquaintance with the Scriptures, with all the doctrines, with all the formularies, and with the Liturgy of the Established Church—it was because he was satisfied that the misapprehensions which existed would be corrected by experience—that he yet hoped to live to see the day when this system would not meet with that active opposition which now encountered it, but when it would receive the cordial co-operation of the Protestant clergy of Ireland. If, notwithstanding the opposition with which it had to cope, the system had been successful in introducing into Ireland the best and the most Scriptural education which
660
any Protestant Government had ever given to any Roman Catholic population—if, under this system, more than double, and, he believed, three times the number of children were receiving instruction at the hands of the Government, than had received instruction under any former system—if he found that at this moment there were receiving this instruction, not less than 400,000 children, of whom at least 340,000 were Roman Catholics—there being, by the by, no great discrepancy between the relative proportions of the children of the two faiths attending these schools, and the relative numbers of Catholics and Protestants constituting the population of Ireland—if he found this, that these children were at this moment receiving from the hands of a Protestant Government—and he hoped that in future life they would be grateful for it—that which was admitted to be a large, and liberal, and excellent education, and which was essentially a scriptural and religious education also—if such had been the fruits of the system, notwithstanding the opposition of the Protestant clergy—he hoped that when time and experience had removed the misapprehensions which now prevailed, he might yet see the Protestant clergy of Ireland co-operating with the clergy of other denominations; and if they did obtain that co-operation in behalf of the national system of education established in Ireland, great as were the benefits of the system, as it at present stood, he saw no limit to its advantages, no limit to its expansion, no limit to the beneficial influence which it might yet produce—not on the knowledge only, not on the peace only, and not alone on the contentment, but—on the morality, on the religion, and on the principles of the people of Ireland, of all denominations.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, that the noble Earl, having referred to some expression which fell from him some years ago upon this subject, he had a few words to address to their Lordships. Of what the noble Lord referred to, he (the Duke of Wellington) had not the remotest recollection. A Committee of Inquiry had been alluded to, of which it was said that he was a Member. Now he had not been a Member of any such Committee of their Lordships' House for many years. He, certainly, at one time, had entertained an opinion adverse to the national system of education; nor had he then much faith in

661
the benefits likely to result from it. His opinion was then very adverse to a system of joint education; but he had altered his opinions upon that subject—he had altered them while he sat on the other side of the House—he had then delivered his opinions as so altered—he had opposed a Motion made by a noble Friend of his, and supported all the Motions made for the augmentation of the grant; and, besides, did everything in his power, in the way of influence and advice, to induce all those over whom he could have any influence, to give their support to the system adopted by the Government, and which was in course of being carried into execution. The noble Earl stated that the clergy had been induced to oppose the system by the example given them by persons high in office; and possibly the noble Earl, amongst others, meant himself (the Duke of Wellington); but what he wished was, that these gentlemen would have the kindness to examine a little what had been the conduct of those persons from whom they professed to take example. They might, in that House or elsewhere, oppose a law or a system which they thought was injudicious, and when they thought that another system was preferable; but he should like any man to show him, when a system was to be carried into execution which was once passed into a law, the man who could come forward and accuse him of ever failing to do everything in his power to carry that system into execution, whatever might have been his opinion of its inefficiency in the first instance, or whatever might have been his views as to the consequences which were likely to follow such a measure of legislation. When once a measure became law, he—whether as the executive officer of the Government, or in any rank of situation in life in which it might be his duty to carry it into execution—should invariably lend his best aid to carry it into execution, whatever might be the consequences. And this was the rule which honest and honourable men should move upon. He applied that maxim to the conduct of these clergymen. He approved entirely of their coming there to the number of 1,700, and making an application to that House for aid to carry into execution the maintenance of the Scriptural Society; but having received the answer which they had done, in that clear and distinct letter from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the
662
Government—he having told them that he did not mean to propose a grant for that Society, and that he considered such a grant inconsistent with his duty—let them perform theirs—let them come forward, each in his parish, and give their aid to carry into execution the system that was preferred by the Legislature—preferred by their Sovereign and by the Government, and ordered to be carried into execution by the Board appointed by the Government to carry it into execution. Then he should approve of their conduct, and think it highly praiseworthy and creditable to them. Let them say what they pleased at Exeter Hall; but in their parishes he desired—he advised—nay, more, he entreated them to carry into effect the law, the preferred law of the Government and the Legislature. Now one word as to the conduct of the Government with reference to their refusal to give money for the promotion of the views of the Church Education Society. Their Lordships must be aware that there were no less than four different systems of religious opinions in Ireland. There were, first, the doctrines of the Church of England; then, of the Roman Catholic Church; third, the Presbyterians, in connexion with the Synod of Ulster; and then another, that of the Seceders from the Synod of Ulster. Now we should have, according to the proposed mode of proceeding, four different systems of education going on in Ireland, all supported by the Government. What would noble Lords say of the principle of such a plan? And let their Lordships observe this, that if they did not make these grants, they would have each of these parties complaining, and saying, "Your conduct is inconsistent with our conscientious religious scruples; you are giving our money to teach that which we believe to be heresy." Each of the four systems would state this of the other three. Really that was not what could go on! He did not deny that he had very strong opinions which he entertained for a long time against a united system of education; but experience had shown him that that opinion was wrong, and that the system had done a great deal of good. He had cordially acted in carrying it into execution in Ireland. He was in office for a month or six weeks in 1835, and he cordially carried the system into execution during that short time. He supported the grant made in 1835—
Lord Stanley: The increase of the grant.
The Duke of Wellington: — the increase of the grant. He earnestly urged the clergymen of the Church of England—let them do what they would with their votes, with their voices, their speeches, and their writings; he entreated them as men of honour, as men of religion, and as good Christians—he entreated them, when they went to their parishes, to carry on their duty as became them as good subjects, and men who were desirous to obey the law under which they lived.
Petition read and ordered to lie on the Table.
House adjourned.