§ THE EARL OF EGLINTON, in rising to move for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the practical working of the system of National Education in Ireland, said, that he was fully aware of the importance of the subject which he had undertaken to bring under their Lordships' attention, and, indeed, he could not but think that it would have been brought before the House with greater propriety, and certainly with greater ability, by some of the noble Lords personally connected with Ireland. He trusted, however, that the position which 784 he had lately had the honour to hold in that country, and the interest which he must naturally feel in everything connected with its welfare, would be held to justify him in coming forward on this occasion. It appeared to him that an inquiry into the working of the national system of education in Ireland, if it had not been necessary before, had been rendered absolutely indispensable by the circumstances which had occurred last year, and which had resulted in the retirement from the Board of Commissioners not only of two eminent members of the Irish bench—men distinguished not more by their legal ability than by their judgment and moderation—but also by the secession of a most reverend Prelate, the Archbishop of Dublin, who was one of the original Commissioners, and who had been for the twenty years during which the system had existed one of its firm, conscientious, and energetic supporters. It appeared to him (the Earl of Eglinton) that an inquiry was also rendered necessary by the innovations which had taken place in the system of instruction, in consequence of the construction—in his opinion an erroneous one—which had been placed upon one of the principal rules of the institution. When a noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Clancarty) brought this subject before their Lordships last year, he (the Earl of Eglinton) said that, although he so far differed from him as to give the system his qualified approval, yet that it was his opinion that an inquiry into its working was necessary, and he urged his noble Friend to move for a Committee on the subject. He need hardly say that the opinion he then expressed had been greatly strengthened by the circumstances to which he had alluded; and he believed that that opinion would be shared in by most of their Lordships. He (the Earl of Eglinton) begged to assure their Lordships that he approached this subject in no spirit of hostility; nay, he believed that the qualified support which he had given to the system had disappointed many of those with whom he was politically allied, and whose high character, piety, and patriotism would render him most anxious to please them if possible. When his noble Friend who was at the head of the late Administration (the Earl of Derby) entrusted him with the government of Ireland, he imposed no conditions upon him; he treated him with that generous confidence which his noble Friend always placed in those he trusted, and which 785 contributed, among other of his great qualities, to make those on that side of the House look up to him as their political leader, not only with pride but with affection, The noble Earl in no way fettered his judgment, but urged him to give his earnest attention to this important subject of national education, and to see whether it might not be possible to devise some modifications by which the objections of the Protestants of Ireland might be done away with, without creating ill-feeling among the Roman Catholics. He (the Earl of Eglinton) thought his noble Friend would admit that he had spared neither time nor trouble in doing so. If he came to an erroneous conclusion, which he was far from admitting, it was an error of judgment and from no want of sufficient attention or consideration. After that investigation he told his noble Friend, while still at the head of the Government, that although he saw much to lament and much to disapprove of in the system, he still thought that, under all the peculiar circumstances of Ireland, it was, perhaps, the one best suited to the wants of the country; that he could make no suggestion which would, in his opinion, satisfy the Protestants, without having the effect of driving away the Roman Catholics from the schools; and that he could not be a party to any proceeding which might result in throwing on the world about 400,000 children, without even the means of secular education.
With the permission of their Lordships he would briefly trace the progress of the religious part of the system;—for, with regard to the excellence of the secular education given in these schools, there had never been the least difference of opinion. He felt it necessary briefly to call their Lordships' attention to the history of this system, which might not be familiar to all of them. In 1831, when the Government of the day came to the determination of withdrawing the grant from the Kildare Place Society, and effecting an important change in the system of education, which theretofore had existed in Ireland, it was well known that his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) then Mr. Stanley, was the chief Secretary for Ireland, and that the letter which he addressed to the Duke of Leinster, the intended President of the Board of Education, had always been considered as the charter of the system. In the first draught of that letter, after adverting to the consideration which had induced the Government to effect this change, and after 786 stating why the Government considered it necessary to take the educational funds from the Kildare Place Society, in whose hands it had previously been, his noble Friend adverted to the report of the Committee of 1828, in which was given as the basis of the scheme projected by the Government "combined literary and separate religious education;" but when that draught was submitted by Mr. Stanley to the intended Commissioners (considered respectively as fair representatives of each communion) it appeared that some of them, before they accepted the office, objected to administer a system which was designed to exclude all religious teaching from the combined education; that, accordingly, after mature deliberation between Mr. Stanley and the several members of the Board as to the possibility of introducing into the united education such scriptural teaching as might involve no matter of controversy among Christians, the first draught of the letter was altered, with the full consent of the Government and the Commissioners, by describing the system to be established as one for "combined moral and literary, and separate religious instruction," and by adding to that description the following proviso:—
It is not designed to exclude from the list of books for the combined instruction such portions of sacred history, or of religious or moral teaching, as may be approved by the Board.The Commissioners then consisted of the Duke of Leinster, the Archbishop of Dublin, the late Roman Catholic Archbishop Murray, Mr. Blake, Mr. Sadleir, Mr. Carlisle, and Mr. Holmes. As regarded religion, the Board consisted of three Episcopalians, two Roman Catholics, a Presbyterian, and a Unitarian. These gentlemen—entirely agreeing with the views of his noble Friend and the Government, that it was desirable that, if possible, some combined religious instruction should be given—agreed upon recommending some works, which they hoped would give sound religions education, without raising the prejudices of the Roman Catholics, or incurring the dread of the Protestants. These books at first consisted of selections from the Holy Scriptures, and a book of Sacred Poetry, to which was afterwards added a volume on the Evidences of Christianity. These books were, as was necessary, unanimously approved of by the Board, and formed part of the system as it was first established. No patron, however, was obliged to make use of them in his school, 787 unless he thought fit; nor was the reading of them forced upon any child whose parents objected. He night also be excused for stating to their Lordships that these books were not only carefully considered by the Commissioners, and entirely and cordially approved of by the excellent and pious Archbishop Murray, whose death was a national loss, and by Mr. Blake, the other Roman Catholic Commissioner, but they were recommended to the patrons of schools in almost every report of the Board. In the first Report, in 1834, the Commissioners said:—Such extracts from the Scriptures as are prepared under the sanction of the Board may be used, and are most earnestly recommended by the Board to be used, during the hours allotted to ordinary school business.In the second Report, in 1835, they stated, in answer to a question from the Lord Lieutenant:—We have published a volume of Extracts from the Scriptures, and a volume of Sacred Poetry; and these books have met with general approbation.Then in the third Report there was a letter from Mr. Kelly, the secretary of the Board, to Sir H. Hardinge, in which it was stated—It was agreed that the extracts from the Scriptures, if approved by the entire Board, might be read in the general course of education by Protestants and Roman Catholics together.Again, in their fourth Report, issued in 1837, the Commissioners said:—It has never been considered by us that we should violate principle if we allowed religious instruction to be given during the ordinary school hours, provided that such an arrangement were matte as that children whose parents did not approve it should not be required to attend or be present at it.In 1839 the Board issued the following rule:—"The Commissioners do not insist on the Scripture Lessons, Lessons on the Truth of Christianity, or Book of Sacred Poetry being read in any of the national schools; nor do they allow them to be read during the time of secular or literary instruction in any school attended by children whose parents or guardians object to their being so read. In such cases the Commissioners prohibit the use of them, except at the time of religious instruction, when the persons giving it may use these books or not, as they think proper.Although, no doubt, a large portion of the members of the Church of Ireland, and many persons belonging to other denominations of Protestants did—most unfortunately, he thought—refuse their adhesion to the system, and by so doing gave a most undue preponderance to the Roman 788 Catholics, not only in the management, but in the relative proportion of the number of children attending the schools, still he thought it could not be denied that the fact that some combined religious education had been introduced into the system caused the adhesion of a great number of those who would otherwise have disapproved of it. No doubt that rule, if read literally, might receive what he must term the ridiculous construction, that if the parents of any one child in a school object to a book, that book is to be excluded from the school altogether. But this construction was never intended by the framers of the rule, nor was such a construction put upon it from 1839 down to last year; indeed Reports from 1839 gave the same interpretation of the rules as the previous Reports. In 1843, in 1844, and in 1847 the same recommendation of these books is given, and it was even repeated in a list of the books sanctioned by the Board, which was, I believe, published by their authority in September, 1853. However, in the autumn of 1852, the Archbishop of Dublin, happening to inspect the model school at Clonmel, found to his surprise that these religious books were not used in that school, and that they had never been used there since it was established. His Grace also found on inquiry that the some custom prevailed in several other model schools, and that the exclusion of these books had never received the distinct and formal sanction of the Board of Commissioners. He immediately complained to the Board of this innovation, arguing, he (the Earl of Eglinton) thought, very justly, that although the adoption of these books might be optional with the patrons of other schools, the Commissioners were bound to have them read in the model schools of which they were the ex officio patrons, because, in fact, the very essence of a model school was, that the system should be there carried out in all its integrity. Some delay occurred with reference to the question; but at last it became necessary to come to some conclusion on the subject, in consequence of the foundation of a new model school at Gormanstown. There was a motion proposed by Mr. Murphy for the purpose of expunging from the list of books the Lessons on the Truths of Christianity. There was another motion, proposed by Baron Greene, authorising the reading of these books either previous to, or immediately after, the combined secular education; and the result was that Mr. 789 Murphy's resolution for expunging from the list of books the Lessons upon the Truths of Christianity was carried, and Baron Greene's motion was also carried; and in addition to it the construction was put upon the eighth rule, giving a veto upon the use of any of these books in the school to any parent or guardian who should object to it. While those proceedings were going on at the Board, the Roman Catholic Archbishop, Dr. Cullen, in a speech which he made at the feast of some saint, whose name he (the Earl of Eglinton) could not really recollect, speaking of the Scripture Lessons, said that this little work "appeared to be compiled for the purpose of giving an united religious instruction to Catholic and non-Catholic children in the same class. We reprobate such a project." The result was that the Scripture Lessons, as well as the Sacred Poetry, were vetoed according to the new construction put upon the rule. The Board having agreed to expunge the Lessons on the Truths of Christianity, and having enabled the priests to veto the other two religious books by the construction they put on the eighth rule, it might be considered that all combined religious education was abolished from the national system. Those proceedings of the Board were naturally followed by the retirement of the three Commissioners to whom he had previously alluded—namely, the Archbishop of Dublin, the right hon. Mr. Blackburne, and Baron Greene. They could not approve of the innovation that had been adopted, and could not concur in the construction of the rule. The Archbishop argued, with very great force, that, though no doubt it was in the power of the Commissioners to change or amend any historical, or geographical, or scientific book in which there might be errors, he contended that they were not competent, and that it was a breach of trust to the public, to remove from the list of books all those religions books which constituted an important principle in the system. He (the Earl of Eglinton) trusted that he had fulfilled his word, by explaining as shortly as he possibly could the circumstances that had occurred; and he thought that if ever there was a case that demanded Parliamentary inquiry, this was the case. He was not now arguing whether the combined religious education should be preserved; he was not arguing whether the Commissioners were right or wrong; he was not arguing whether the system should be changed or not; but he would say it was 790 due to the Commissioners, whose retirement had been enforced, and to the large and influential and most respectable body who heretofore had held aloof from the system, and who were now more than ever justified in doing so, and it was due to the people of Ireland, who were interested in this important question, that an inquiry should take place. He would only further say, that it was ridiculous to declare that the parent of one child should have the power of driving from a school a book of which perhaps all the other children's parents might approve, and he trusted that such a rule would not be permitted much longer to stultify the statutes of the Board. He begged, in conclusion, to move—That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the practical working of the system of National Education in Ireland.
§ THE EARL OF ABERDEENI confess, my Lords, that when the noble Earl gave notice of his Motion, my first impulse was to resist it, because I felt that this national system of education, having been of such inestimable benefit to Ireland, any step that by possibility would indicate a doubt of its great utility and advantage would be attended with very unfortunate consequences. But, my Lords, on reflection, and believing that this system would lose nothing by a minute inquiry, and finding that the noble Earl has disclaimed any intention of any hostile feeling towards the system, but the reverse, I now feel that it would be unwise to oppose a Motion made in such a spirit, and from which I hope and trust beneficial consequences may ensue. I accordingly informed the noble Earl last week that I would make no opposition to his Motion; and that being the case, I think I am relieved from entering into any disputation at present respecting the working of that system which is to be submitted to the consideration of a Committee. I shall not, therefore, attempt to follow the noble Earl into all the discussions of the Board relating to the modification of the rules. We had a good deal of that last year, and these are subjects which may be properly submitted to the Committee for which the noble Earl has moved. But there was one part of the subject which, I own, I regarded with very great anxiety, and that was, the possible effect that might arise from the retirement of the most rev. Prelate whose support had been so long advantageous to the system—nay, had, in fact, been almost its main- 791 stay from the beginning. It was with great anxiety I looked to the possible effect of that decision on the part of the most rev. Prelate; for though, fortunately, the Government had been able to supply his place, and the places of the other Commissioners who retired at the same time, in a manner which, I hope, will retain and secure the confidence of the Irish people, still the retirement of so eminent a man was not to be contemplated without apprehension. But I must say—which I do with the most heartfelt satisfaction—that his retirement has not been attended with the slightest detriment to the progress of this system, which I am so anxious to uphold. In proof of this, it is only necessary to compare the number of schools and scholars last year with the number of the year preceding. The return of the state of the schools for the last year is this:—On the 31st December, 1852, the number of schools amounted to 4,963; on the 31st December, 1853, the number amounted to 5,075; being an increase of 112 in the course of the last year. The number of scholars in 1852 amounted to 544,604, and in 1853 they amounted to 565,760. Further than this, the Resident Commissioner of the Board says that during a period of fourteen years he has never known the schools to be in such a sound and flourishing condition, or the system so thoroughly rooted in the affections of the great bulk of the community. It is also worth observing, that in the poor-law unions, which have placed their schools under the superintendence of the Board, the number within the last year has also increased. Out of the 163 poor-law unions in Ireland, 141 have placed their schools under the Board; and although one of the poor-law schools was withdrawn in the course of the last year, it was from causes quite unconnected with the retirement of the Archbishop of Dublin. Under these circumstances, I am justified in saying that the system has not sustained the slightest detriment in consequence of an event which, at the time, I regarded as a great calamity. As it is my intention to make no opposition to the Motion of the noble Earl, I repeat, I have no intention of entering into the doubtful parts of the question to which he has referred. I can only say, there has been no change whatever in the principles on which the system has been conducted, and that the event which influenced the decision of the Archbishop—namely, the omission of the two works in the model school in Clonmel— 792 took place, not under the crusade to which the noble Earl has referred, but during the life of Archbishop Murray, and therefore it was not accompanied by any of those motives to which the noble Earl has alluded. [The Earl of EGLINTON: I did not say that.] Therefore it was not a novelty, and it was done during Archbishop Murray's life. I do say that this system, connected as it is with the great improvement and prosperous condition of Ireland generally at this moment, gives me great reason to hope that, instead of being at all affected by what has taken place, it will go on increasing in usefulness. The condition of the country is such as not only to increase the number attending the schools, but also to enable them to remain longer at the schools. The children can, therefore, remain at the schools to a more advanced ate than, in former years, they were in the habit of doing, thereby showing an increased power on the part of the great body of the people to leave their children longer in the acquirement of education than they had been previously able to do. As I make no opposition to the Motion of the noble Earl, it would be really a waste of your Lordships' time were I to enter into any contest on the points urged by the noble Earl, and I feel it unnecessary to follow him on the present occasion through the statement he has made.
THE BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNORsaid, that, coming as he did from a province where more than one-third of all the schools were to be found, and presiding over a diocese where 50,000 children were being educated under the national system of united education alone, he trusted he might take the liberty of addressing their Lordships on the subject under consideration. In doing so, he would studiously avoid entering into details, since the Government had determined on granting the Committee moved for. He would not trouble their Lordships with following the noble Lord in the early details connected with the introduction of the system, but would take up his argument where he stated that the most rev. Prelate (the Archbishop of Dublin), having visited an agricultural school in the heart of Tipperary, found that all the books sanctioned by the Board were not to be found in that school; and argued that as patrons of schools used or declined such books as they approved of or disapproved of, so the Board, being patrons of their own schools, and approving, of course, of all their own 793 publications, were bound to use all the books published by them. But this is a fallacy. Local patrons do not regulate their choice of books by their approval or disapproval, but by the consideration of what books they think suited to the circumstances of the school or locality. It is quite consistent for a local patron to approve of all the books of the National Board, and yet only use some, and this is precisely the discretionary power the Clonmel Model School exercised, and that with the tacit approbation of the Board, as they thought necessary. Was it to be required that the scholars in an agricultural school, situated in the heart of Tipperary, should have conveyed to them precisely the same knowledge as should be conveyed to the scholars in a school in the centre of a great mercantile community? The managers of the Clonmel school selected certain books which they thought fit for use, and suited to the circumstances of the locality, and so far from the principle being binding of using exactly similar books in all the schools, one of the most distinguished of the seceding members, Mr. Blackburne himself, proposed a rule, when a member of the Board, that the Board themselves should specially consider at the opening of each model school what books they should use or abstain from using; so that one of the very seceders from the Board had sanctioned the principle of which the noble Earl complained. Another change was proposed by another seceder from the Board—and it was very important for their Lordships to observe that all the changes and alterations which were now complained of were in the first instance proposed by the seceders themselves. The change which Baron Greene proposed, though it might appear trifling, was most significant. It changed the of certain books of a religious character, so that books which could only be used for the system of religious instruction could be used for combined instruction, with this prohibition—that any child that objected need not be present, or the book instruction might be relegated to an hour previous to or after the usual hours of the school. To that rule, very naturally, their Lordships would see every one of the Roman Catholic members of the Board objected, because it was an innovation on the system. They felt that the safeguard for the Roman Catholic children was removed, and their faith might be tampered with; for while they would not 794 be tempted to read certain books of a religious character at times set apart for religious instruction, they might be tempted to read those books after school hours at times for combined instruction. Therefore, they naturally felt that they must remove from the list of books, published and sanctioned by the Board, certain books of a religious character. He did not wish to enter in detail into the interpretation given to the eighth rule, but it was very remarkable that the Roman Catholic Commissioner himself stated that if the eighth rule were allowed to remain in its integrity and force, he did not require that the books which he (the Bishop of Down and Connor) had mentioned should be removed. That Commissioner felt that in that rule there was a safeguard; but the moment the rule was changed, he felt the books should be removed; and why did he feel the books should be removed? Because the books must necessarily, he thought, have a proselytising effect. Any book of evidences of the truth of Christianity which permitted children to search and examine, to "prove all things," that they may "hold fast that which is true," cuts at the very teaching and dogmas of the Church of Rome, which denies the right of private judgment unaided by the Church's interpretation; and nothing was more clearly enunciated than that very principle in that admirable charter of the society which formed its basis—the letter of the noble Earl when Mr. Stanley. It was said that Archbishop Murray had approved of the book; but if he approved of it, did it necessarily follow that every future bishop of the see should approve of it? Was it to be said that because one of his right rev. Brethren thought fit to approve of a certain book for examination in his diocese, that that was to be the book for examination in the diocese during every succeeding generation? It had been currently reported in Ireland that these books having been translated into Italian, had been approved of by the Pope; and the petition presented to your Lordships this evening by a noble Earl on the cross-benches sets this forth also. Now he (the Bishop of; Down and Connor) had thought it to be his duty to take the best course he could to find out whether the Pope, as head of the Church of Rome, directly or indirectly gave his sanction or approbation to that book. He wrote to the right rev. Dr. Denvir, of Belfast, who presided over the Roman Catholic community in the diocese 795 of Down and Connor, and asked him whether he had any knowledge that it had been conveyed to the bench of Roman Catholic bishops, individually or collectively, that the Pope had given his assent. Their Lordships would recollect that a meeting of a synodical character was held in Ireland by the Roman Catholic Prelates during the time, he believed, that the noble Earl was in office. It was to be presumed that at that time the question of education formed a prominent portion of the discussion. Was it likely that the book of Christian Evidence and of the Truths of Christianity would have been approved by the Pope without the bishops there present knowing something of it? The following was the letter which he had received from the right rev. Dr. Denvir:—
My Lord—In reply to your Lordship's note, received yesterday, I beg to say that I have never heard that the book entitled Evidences of Christianity, or Lessons on the Truths of Christianity, lately withdrawn from the list of books to be generally used in the national schools, had been sanctioned or approved of by the Pope at any time, nor has any intimation of such consent been communicated to me.That was quite conclusive evidence that Archbishop Murray had sanctioned the book in his individual capacity and as a Commissioner on the Board, and not as with the sanction of his Church. The next charge brought against the Board was that it had altered certain resolutions; but was it possible to suppose that a Board could administer the affairs of a great educational establishment with usefulness and effect, if it were obliged to consider every rule laid down by their predecessors as binding and obligatory upon them? Would it be possible to get men of independent mind, character, and station to conduct the affairs of this great institution if they were to sit at the Board with their hands tied and their mouths closed while the oracles of their predecessors were being enunciated; if so, they would be transformed into mere automatons to work a normal system? There must be a power vested in the Board to change and alter rules and regulations, and to withdraw or substitute books as circumstances might require, With regard to granting the Committee, it was not his province to object, and on that subject he should speak with very great caution, lost it should be thought that he objected to having the fullest and most minute and most searching inquiry instituted into the affairs of the Board; but he 796 feared that this inquiry would have the effect of causing much religious excitement at a time when it should be their object to have peace in Ireland. If ever there was a time when it should be their desire to throw oil on the troubled waters, rather than to sow broadcast over that land what might be the seeds of future irritation, that time was the present. Comparatively speaking, agitation, both as to Church and State, slumbered in Ireland, but he need not remind their Lordships that the slumbers of agitation were easily aroused, and with difficulty allayed. Differing from the noble Earl as he did on many and great topics, he must say with gratitude, that while he administered affairs in Ireland his administration was characterised by the strictest impartiality. Whilst the noble Earl won by his administration the personal regard of some, he secured the respect of all. With, then, many of his prejudices and antecedents against the system of national education, and urged on, as undoubtedly he must have been, by the members of the Irish Government, who were pledged to its overthrow, he had the discrimination to discern and the candour to avow that he did not see his way to make any change; and how was it that the noble Earl now saw his way more clearly, sitting on the opposite side of the House, than he did when he sat on the Ministerial side of it? The following words were used by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), when he was at the head of the Government, in reference to the noble Earl, at the time Lord Lieutenant of Ireland. He said, "Neither I nor my noble Friend at the head of the Government in Ireland can see our way to the introduction of any change." Let it not be supposed that he wished to offer any opposition to the granting of this Committee, selected, as he had no doubt it would be, with strict impartiality, thereby affording a guarantee to the country that it was not to be an arena for religious discussion, and he hoped that the witnesses who were produced would not fall into the common error of most Irish witnesses by considering themselves advocates. He could not sit down without removing an impression which his words might have caused in the minds of many of their Lordships. He wished to say a few words in explanation, lest it might be thought that he viewed with indifference or perfect unconcern the secessions that had taken place from the Board. He deeply regretted that the 797 Board had recently been deprived of two of its most eminent members, each representing his peculiar Church—one the Archbishop of Dublin, of whom he wished to speak, as he had ever felt, in terms of deep respect for his public character and terms of regard for his private virtues; the other, the late Archbishop Murray, and though he knew that prelate but by representation and in name, yet no fear of incurring obloquy should prevent him from speaking of him as he deserved, of one who had earned for himself in Ireland the character of a mild, consistent, and tolerant prelate of his Church. He trusted that those selected to supply their places would be guided with prudence, firmness, and discretion, that the great system of national education which had now, after a growth of twenty years and more, taken deep root in the country, and entwined itself round so many of its institutions, would be allowed to scatter still more extensively its good seed over a land yearning for repose.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTYMy Lords, I have no intention of entering into a controversy with the right rev. Prelate who has just sat down as to the correctness of the information he has laid before your Lordships, with respect to a permission said to have been given by the late Pope for the use of certain books in the schools of the National Board. As a lay Protestant Peer, I think it is quite beside my duty to inquire, or be guided by what the Pope of Rome may order or desire; and I cannot but express my surprise that the right rev. Prelate should have thought such an inquiry becoming, in a Protestant Bishop. The right rev. Prelate, however, having satisfied himself by a correspondence with Bishop Denvir that the Pope never did give permission for the use of Scripture extracts and Christian evidence, and being of opinion that they might violate the dogma of the Church of Rome, that denies the right of private judgment on her doctrine, is against their being taught to the children of Roman Catholic parents. My object in rising to address your Lordships is to congratulate the House and the public that inquiry into the working of the national system of education in Ireland has at length been granted by the Government; and although the noble Earl opposite has manifestly conceded an inquiry with very great reluctance, I must say that the decision upon which he has acted contrasts advantageously with the conduct of his Government in the last Session, when a 798 Committee moved for in the other House was refused, and information applied for in this House, though promised with apparent readiness, was throughout the Session studiously withheld, and has not yet been produced. With respect, however, to the returns called for by the House on the 7th of March last, nearly a year ago, I have this day received from the Commissioners of Education a letter, apologising for the delay, and informing me that the returns are now completed, and will be forthwith furnished. It is certainly time they should be. But these are not the only returns which were promised last Session, and never furnished. On the 3rd of June your Lordships agreed to an Address for returns, showing the number of persons committed for crime in England, in Ireland, and in Scotland, in each of the years from 1842 to 1852, the number of such persons unable to read or write, and their centesimal proportion to the whole. The return called for was nearly similar to one that had been shortly before made to an Address of the House of Commons, a copy of which I hold in my hand, from which it appears that from 1841 to 1851, the number of committals for crime in Ireland had increased from 20,796 to 24,684; that the number of criminals in 1841, unable to read or write, was 7,155; and in 1851, was 12,018, being an increase of from 34.41 to 48.68, showing increase of crime with increase of ignorance; while during the same period in England crime had diminished as knowledge increased. The returns, I beg to remind the noble Earl, though promised by him to the house, have not yet been furnished, and as they would be of great importance in illustrating the comparative progress and effects of education in different parts of the United Kingdom, I trust they will not be longer withheld. With respect to the inquiry moved for by my noble Friend, I hope it is to be clearly understood as intended to include the consideration and recommendation of any changes or modifications in the plan of education, that from the past working of the system may appear desirable. Were it to be limited, as the noble Earl opposite appears to contemplate, to the divisions that have recently taken place among the Commissioners, and the grounds of the withdrawal of the Archbishop of Dublin, Baron Greene, and Mr. Blackburne, it would be of little interest or advantage to the public. The interests of the Irish people, and justice to the conscientious scruples that have hitherto for 799 nearly a quarter of a century, withheld the Protestant clergy of Ireland from co-operating with the State in the work of ecucation, requires that the system should be examined in its principle as well as in its administration; and that measures should be taken to free it from existing objections, and to adapt it to the circumstances of the country. Had the system been as successful as the noble Earl appears to imagine—had it operated advantageously for the lower classes, raising them to the condition of an educated people in intelligence, morality, and religion—no question could arise as to the propriety of its receiving at all hands the most cordial support, and the scruples of those who were invited to join, but did not join in promoting it, would not be matter of much public concern; but when you see, as, alas! those who visit Ireland must see, the wretched and debased condition of a very large proportion of the population—when your Lordships have, as you have already, been informed by the abstract I brought under your notice from the Census Commissioners, that in the county of Clare, where the national system is in full operation—that in the course of the decennial period, from 1841 to 1851 ignorance had decreased only in the ratio of one per cent of the population, and that in the civic districts ignorance had actually increased to the extent of ten per cent; and when your Lordships recollect, as well you may from all that passed in this House on the subject of the Clare election, and the fatal conflict at Six-mile Bridge, that such was the degradation of the population of that county, that the electors did not dare, or where they did dare, it was at the risk of their lives, to exercise the elective franchise, otherwise than in subserviency to the dictation of the Roman Catholic priests; that the want of education is, in fact, a bar to the enjoyment of constitutional liberty in Ireland—it is undeniable by any, whose minds are not blinded by prejudice, or warped by party or sectarian interests, that the existing system of education has not operated for the interests of the Irish population. And when, on the other hand, your Lordships consider how reasonable, how respectable, how becoming the character and position of ministers of the reformed faith, are the scruples that have withheld the great body of the clergy of the Established Church from connecting their schools with the National Board—that, in fact, they could not conform to 800 its rules, restricting the use of the sacred volume, without, as it appears to most people, violating the obligations that they accepted at ordination, when they solemnly declared their persuasion of the sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures for Christian doctrine, and their determination "out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to their charge:" and also that with God's help they would "be ready, with all faithful diligence, to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word," and that they, therefore, require in their own schools full liberty to give instruction out of the sacred volume—I think the course they have taken was not only justified but praiseworthy, and the more so as it has been consistently maintained at the sacrifice of their private interests, and often also of their prospects of promotion in the Church. It will, I hope, at length be duly appreciated, and the system of public instruction supported by the State be so altered as to admit of their promoting its success. I will not further anticipate what may result from the Committee, but, without going into Committee at all, I may refer your Lordships to papers upon the table of the House, which may give you some insight into the character and tendency of the system. Your Lordships will find by the rules first issued with respect to religious instruction, that no child was to receive any but what was approved of by the clergy of the Church to which he might belong. This, my Lords, it was thought, might appear too palpable a concession to ecclesiastical authority, and the rule was, accordingly, very soon altered to the recognition of parental authority in the religious education of the child. All who are acquainted with Ireland, with the miserable state of spiritual bondage of the Roman Catholic population, were well aware that the distinction between parental and ecclesiastical authority was a distinction without any real difference—that the parent would act exactly as the priest directed, and would not dare to act otherwise, and this must have been well known generally to the Board. That it was so, however, does not rest upon mere conjecture, for in the returns recently laid upon the table of the correspondence of the Education Commissioners relative to school books, there was a confidential communication from an inspector to the Commissioners, in which he stated that on the demand of the priest he had directed the master of the Dunmanway school to give 801 up the use of the Scripture Extracts, and as the master could not act upon a demand made in that way, he had recommended the priest to induce the parents of Roman Catholic children to object to them. Here, then, we find the Government Inspector, true to the spirit of his mission, bringing priestly dictation to bear upon the poor Roman Catholic parent, that the Roman Catholic children at the Dunmanway Model School, under the immediate patronage of the Commissioners, might be thenceforward deprived of even that small spark of the light and guidance of Scripture which the Board, under the more liberal influences of Archbishop Murray, had been willing to accord to them. The fact is that the system, though originally proposed by the noble Earl, late at the head of the Government, in the mistaken belief that a great concession might win over the priests to promote the education of the poor, was a practical establishment of the principles of the Church of Rome, and rejection of the principles of the reformed faith in the matter of national education. The conjuncture at which it was established was peculiarly favourable for it; established under the auspices of two Archbishops, one the late Dr. Murray, the other the present Archbishop of Dublin, it had high ecclesiastical sanction; both of them, most favourable to a system of mixed education, were willing to make the concessions that might be required. The Archbishop of Dublin, in thus differing from the rest of the Irish Prelates, was willing to give up the Bible as a book for united instruction, and Archbishop Murray was, on that condition, willing that a select portion of the Bible might be read in common. The character that the system has since assumed, and the gradual exclusion even of the Scripture extracts, are well known to your Lordships. It has become essentially a Romish system, as such the noble Earl opposite regards it—and has this evening reiterated the assertion that it is—the greatest blessing ever conferred upon Ireland—I wish I could say it had proved to be so; that after a quarter of a century's uninterrupted operation, it had in any degree developed the intelligence of the country, and raised the social, moral, and religious condition of my poor countrymen; but the reverse is the fact, and I must draw your Lordships' attention to a very curious coincidence with respect to it. Your Lordships will find in the appendix to the Commissioners' last re- 802 port, that the number of the vested schools that have been leased to trustees—i.e. to persons who are bound to carry on a system of education upon the principles of the Board—is 666, exactly the number of "the beast." Without attaching importance to the coincidence, it does, nevertheless, suggest to my mind that the system so much eulogised, but, I believe, really so little understood, by the noble Earl at the head of the Government, does in its general character bear distinctly the "mark of the beast." Is it any wonder, then, my Lords, seeing how Ireland has been treated, that a considerable portion of the English people should be anxious to extend to her population the blessings of the Reformation? I rejoice at a movement the most auspicious for the future welfare and happiness of that country, and which is, I trust, steadily progressing with the most cordial co-operation in general on the part of the clergy of the Established Church. It is not, I conceive, the duty of the Government to aid or engage in that movement, or to shape the national system of education, with a view to its advancement, but neither should the system be turned to account for its obstruction. As the ministers of a Protestant Sovereign, the Government should not be unmindful that the principle of Protestantism is the enlightenment of mankind, the rejection of usurped ecclesiastical authority, the maintenance of religious liberty, the extension of religious toleration, and the encouragement of truth. Well satisfied am I that the noble Earl, who is to conduct the inquiry, will enter upon that duty, animated with a singleness of purpose to promote the best interests of the people over whom he was lately placed; and in calling upon him to perform that duty, the noble Earl late at the head of the Government has, I think, taken the step most likely to inspire general confidence, and give satisfaction to the people of Ireland. In conclusion, I would only add my request to the noble Earl opposite, that as the late census of Ireland includes the most ample materials for statistics of education, that branch of the census may as promptly as possible be laid before the House. I am surprised that it has so long been withheld, and that in lieu thereof, we are only furnished with agricultural returns of swine, poultry, mules, and donkeys, at a time when it would be so much more important to be informed upon that which must be the basis of all improvement 803 in the country, namely, the education of the people.
THE EARL OF DESARTwould not follow the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Down) into those matters of detail, respecting the retirement of the Commissioners, and the motives for the withdrawal of the books, which were more properly within the attributes of the Committee. He would only make one observation on the spirit of the right rev. Prelate, in respect of the effect of the Committee. He (the Earl of Desart) thought, instead of causing any excitement, it would have the effect of satisfying the minds of a great number of people in Ireland, and he would add, if it tended to produce any amendment in the system of national education in that country, it would confer a permanent benefit. He (the Earl of Desart) was anxious to correct an erroneous impression which prevailed in England on the subject of education in Ireland. The non-participation in the national system by the Protestant clergy of that country was attributed in this country to intolerance; but that notion was entirely erroneous. The motives of the founders of the system he (the Earl of Desart) believed to be the same as that which would actuate every Member of that House, namely, to give a good popular, moral, intellectual, and religious education to the people of Ireland; to combine and unite all classes into a wholesome unanimity; to abate, and finally do away with, those differences and religious animosities which prevailed among the various classes of the people of Ireland; and to lead the people of that country to consider themselves as fellow-countrymen of the people of this, and fellow-subjects of the Queen, rather than, as at present, as the professors of antagonistic religions. In spite of their good intention, however, the system of national education in Ireland had, on every one of those points, been, he would not say a perfect failure, but had not by any means worked as advantageously as it might have worked. He knew he might be told that this was the fault of the clergy of the Established Church and of the Protestant landlords of Ireland; and in some respects such, perhaps, was the case, though the reproach, certainly, did not apply to him. But then, on the other hand, it was undeniable that the system contained a variety of things which the clergy of the Established Church deemed irreconcilable with their con- 804 sciences; and though many persons might not think these scruples were wise, no one could say they were not worthy of all respect. The consequence was, that in withholding their hands from the system, it necessarily fell into the power of another party—a party who, he (the Earl of Desert) firmly believed, were not anxious to promote the welfare of the people of Ireland, but only to establish the predominance in that country of the Roman Catholic Church. The management of the schools fell for the most part into the hands of the Ultramontane party in that Church: and the consequence was, that in place of education there was ignorance, and in place of union there was a wider difference of opinion than ever between those of different creeds in Ireland. As an instance of this difference he would merely state to the Douse that in one small town alone—Mullingar—there were three schools, one Ultramontane Roman Catholic, another moderate Roman Catholic, and a third of the Established religion, receiving grants from the Board. It would have been well if a Committee had been appointed long before the present time. He was glad, however, that the recent innovations were of a character to call attention to the system; and he hoped that it would, therefore, be amended by the Legislature. He believed that these innovations were the result of a premeditated assault, commencing as early as 1826, when the Commission made its first Report, which was published in 1828. A meeting took place in 1826 at the house of the late right rev. Dr. Murray, when a unanimous resolution was come to, that no books should be introduced into any school where Roman Catholics were instructed without the consent of the Catholic bishop of the district. In 1835 there was also read an encyclical letter of Pope Gregory XVI., in which the Roman Catholic priests of Ireland were enjoined to drive their flocks from the noxious into the wholesome pastures. He believed that the Roman Catholic clergy of Ireland had been trying to get the control of the books used in the national schools into their own hands, though the Reports of the Commissioners laid great stress on the control of the books being in the hands of the legitimate guardians of education in Ireland—the clergy of the Established Church. He (the Earl of Desalt) did not think it was possible to overstate the benefits of a good education 805 for the people of Ireland, for he could say of his own knowledge that they were a loyal and affectionate race. But they were tyrannised over by their priests, in whom they had such absolute faith that they believed they could turn a person inside out, or change black into white, even in the most civilised parts of the country. The light, however, was now beginning to penetrate through the darkness with which the Roman Catholic clergy had surrounded the Irish people; and he saw signs of alarm among those tyrants, in their anxiety to draw a thicker veil over men's minds, with the view of preserving their authority. It was thus, therefore, that they would not, if possible, permit any light to pass except through their own prism. He hoped, however, that the House would not suffer them to retain their dupes any longer in chains, and that the investigations of the Committee would result in measures effectually calculated to defeat the long-organised and insidious system of intolerance which they proposed to establish in Ireland.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, it was perfectly consistent for any noble Lord who approved of the system of Irish national education to support the Motion for inquiry, on the obvious grounds that the national system was a vast machinery for a great object of public interest, and administered under the control of Parliament. The mode of its management naturally came into question upon the retirement of the leading Commissioner, who had presided over it from the first. But independently of this event, an inquiry was no novelty and no concession. There had been previous Committees on the subject granted by the House of Lords and the Commons. From 1828 his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Derby) and he had concurred on the subject of the value of the system, though for many years their politics were divergent; they had, however, laboured jointly in such inquiries, and he had no distrust that the noble Earl would in any wise fail in his duty on the present occasion. If, therefore, the earliest friends of the national system had hitherto supported inquiry, the acquiescence of the Government in the present Motion could not be justly considered as any new concession expressing mistrust of the system itself. He (Lord Monteagle) did not understand that the proposition of the noble Earl who introduced this subject was made in the spirit of the noble Earl behind him (the Earl of Clancarty). Two views appear- 806 ed to have been taken by the advocates of inquiry, which not only differed, but which were entirely antagonistic in principle. The noble Earl (the Earl of Eglinton) had laid down, with that authority which belonged to him individually, and with the additional authority derived from his official experience in Ireland, that even though he might be disposed to except to different parts of the present system, yet he had no desire to oppose it, nor had he received from others or been able himself to devise any plan for effecting its amendment, nor for the substitution of another. He (Lord Monteagle) felt that he could support this Motion for inquiry consistently with his attachment to the national system, and he would do so on the Parliamentary ground that the House had before them a vast system established for the must important national object; and that a very serious change had occurred in its practical administration that demanded the attention of the Legislature. He had learned with regret and alarm, he might almost add with dismay, the retirement, upon grounds which were not likely to have been light or frivolous, of the most reverend Prelate who had so long and ably presided over the National Board; and that fact he (Lord Monteagle) considered to be an additional reason to justify a Parliamentary inquiry. They had been told originally that the question at issue had turned upon a construction given to the eighth rule of the Board, by which a veto was supposed to be given to a single child, or the parent of a single child, entertained on the suggestion of conscientious objections, not only to withdraw himself, but to exclude a given course of religious instruction from the whole school, even though all other children were acquiescing in such study. Now, without stopping to inquire whether such a rule was right or wrong, he could assert that such a rule, if it did prevail, formed no part of the original system; and therefore he thought there were sufficient grounds for inquiry, both to know whether so extraordinary a rule existed at all, and whether it ought to continue. Besides, such an inquiry as the one now proposed was nothing novel or entirely without precedent; and, as he had already shown, the noble Earl at the head of the Government, in assenting to it, had only done that which his predecessors, who were the most attached to the national system of education in Ireland, had on more than one occasion done before him. It was, therefore, consistent with the defence of the 807 system. But if the House were to go into the whole question with a view to attaining the object of the noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty), namely, an attack on the system itself, with a view to its overthrow, he, for one, could not afford to such a proposition even the humble sanction of his name. On what ground could this latter proposition be maintained? Never in the world was there to be found an instance of so much misapprehension, delusion, and mis-statement as there had been combined in the arguments on the religions part of this question; it was inconsistent throughout; the great argument against the system, upon its establishment in the north of Ireland, was founded upon the supposed exclusion of the Bible and the substitution of Scripture Extracts; while now the ground of objection from the same persons was the exclusion of those very Extracts, this mutilated Bible, as it was called. What had been the course originally taken? The objection taken to these Scripture Extracts had never been more strongly stated than by a right rev. Prelate, not now present, who had vehemently opposed the Irish National Board. The Bishop of Exeter had many years back stated, in his place in Parliament,—
He did not understand that the Scripture Extracts were now to be withdrawn. It was not said they were, but he thought that was to be implied. That relieved their Lordships from the pain of seeing that recommended, which no Christian could see done without great pain and anguish. No one, he was sorry to say, could look at the work of the Commission without seeing therein a manifest proof of management which was a disgrace to them all. What was their joint and common object? To place these Extracts, which each Church claims, before the public as the same in doctrine and discipline for them all such a proceeding was equally discreditable to all parties.Yet the opposition in both cases came from the same party, who alternately complained of the introduction or the exclusion of these books. Was there ever inconsistency equal to this? There was no satisfying noble Lords and right reverend Prelates. The rule last adopted by the Commissioners was neither the exclusion of the Scripture Extracts, nor their remission to the time of separate religious instruction. The reading of them had never been compulsory; and they were now to be read in the hours of common literary instruction, subject only to the application of the doctrine which had always prevailed, that, if the parents of 808 a child objected to the reading of this book, the child should not be compelled to read it. Neither were all patrons compelled to introduce the book, under any circumstances whatever. They might exercise their full discretion. For his own part he would deeply deplore their exclusion, because he was strongly impressed with their importance, and also knew that their use was no invasion of the doctrine or discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. The national system of education had been brought before the head of the Church of Rome, and the Pope had left it to his bishops in Ireland to adopt or reject it in their respective dioceses. That system involved the Scripture Extracts, and therefore after this decision the reading of those extracts could not be considered to be a matter of faith or doctrine. Every part of these extracts had been approved of, also, by the late Archbishop Murray. The noble Earl (the Earl of Clancarty) had argued that the devotion of the clergy to their ordination vows was to be shown principally by engaging in proselytism. They were bound, he said, to banish and drive away all false doctrines, among which he specially placed the doctrines of Rome. He (Lord Monteagle), however, thought that their first duty was to nourish and cherish their own flocks; and if the ministers of the Churches of England and Ireland were to act as ministers of proselytism rather than apostles of peace, if they were to consider their first duty to be, as the ministers of the Church in England to attack the Dissenters, and those of the Church in Ireland to attack the Roman Catholics, he knew not how successful their proselytism might be, but he was convinced that the cause of Christianity and of toleration would be fatally endangered by the adoption of such a principle. If the schools were to be carried on as a system of proselytism, of which either the Extracts or the Bible itself were to be made the instruments, he thought it very likely that Roman Catholics, who, under other circumstances, would be as willing to read these Extracts as the noble Earl himself, would necessarily shrink from the system of proselytism to which they might be turned. To the circulation of the Scriptures by the ministers of proselytism the Roman Catholics might probably object; but this was wholly different from objecting to the Scriptures themselves. The contrary might be proved, and was confirmed by late events. He had learned, 809 from the very best authority, that the very parties who in Ireland were represented as standing so obstinately between the Holy Scriptures and the people were, even in no less significant a case than that of Archbishop M'Hale himself, now putting forth among their flocks a cheap publication of the Gospels translated into Irish. This edition, published under the superintendence of Archbishop M'Hale, was proposed to be spread and disseminated among the people. We were thus coming to new times; he thought the fact he had just mentioned might be owing to the efforts of some of the friends of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Clancarty), and was meant to foil them with their own weapons. As a Protestant, one strongly attached to Protestant principles, and as one maintaining as strongly as the noble Earl did the right of every man to appeal to Scripture as his guide, he confessed he rejoiced most exceedingly that the proselytising friends of the noble Earl should have brought out such a very curious development of the system of Catholicism on the part of their great clerical opponent.
§ LORD MONTEAGLEthought it was so, but then if it were true—and he believed it to be true—it could only be with a view to create absurd and unworthy prejudices that we should repeat, not only against the few, not only against those whom we called Ultramontane, but against the clergy and laity generally of a community which included the greater part of Christendom, that they were adverse to Scripture reading, and that they sought to keep the Word of God altogether out of the hands of the laity. The noble Earl had fairly said that he wished to see proselytism carried on in the national schools. Such was his object. That was to say, he had said that he had wished to see the clergy of Ireland more actively engaged in their management, and asserted at the same time that the sworn duty of that body was to drive away unsound doctrine, of which he considered the Roman Catholic to be the most unsound. That was a frank avowal of proselytism. Now, the late Primate of Ireland, who was an orthodox man, was one of the Commissioners who drew up a report upon the subject of national education; and what was the conclusion come to in that report?
That no plan of education, however wisely 810 and unexceptionably contrived in other respects, can be carried into effect, unless it be explicitly avowed and clearly understood as its leading principle that no attempt shall be made to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect or denomination of Christians.That report was signed by the Primate of Ireland (Dr. Stuart) and other Prelates, by the Provost of Trinity College, and by a Commission exclusively Protestant. The same conclusion was come to in the report of 1824, when Mr. Frankland Lewis's Commission reported:—That in a country where mutual divisions exist between different classes of the people schools should be established for the purpose of giving to children of all religious persuasions such useful instruction as they many severally be capable and desirous of receiving, without having any ground to apprehend an interference with their respective religious principles.And again, in 1828, the Select Committee of the House of Commons came to this decision:—Resolved, that no system of education can be expedient to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect or denomination o Christians.These principles had now been adopted by Parliament, and sanctioned by a usage of more than twenty-one years. They were the foundation of the existing national system. To suppose that Parliament would now set them aside was as absurd as to dream of the restoration of the Ptolemaic system. The noble Earl was too late by a quarter of a century. Upon these grounds it was that, if he were told the whole question of the system of national education in Ireland was proposed to be reopened with a view to its alteration, he should object to the appointment of the Committee, but for the purpose of inquiring how that system was now administered, he willingly assented to the Motion.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that, according to the noble Lord who had just addressed the House, the object of the Motion was simply to discover the ground upon which certain gentlemen, one of whom was a member of their Lordships' House, had ceased to be members of the National Board of Education in Ireland. But if the inquiry were to be strictly limited to that subject, he (the Earl of Donoughmore) for one could only say that it would be perfectly useless. [LORD MONTEAGLE: I did not say that.] He (the Earl of Donoughmore) did not profess to be a supporter of the national system 811 of education in Ireland. Far from it; for he regretted that that system was so carried on that, as a conscientious Protestant, he could not take part in it. He regretted it, he repeated, deeply; because he sincerely desired the intellectual improvement of the poor of Ireland, and believed there was nothing which that country so much required, or that was so likely to lead to its speedy improvement. Amongst the points which ought to be included in the inquiry which the noble Earl at the head of the Government had expressed his willingness to grant, the first was this—what was the original intention of the system, and had that intention been adhered to? Now, it was plain, from the letter written by the noble Earl (Earl of Derby), when Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the object was to have a united system of education of the different sects, and that that united education was not to be entirely secular—that the broad truths and first principles of religious knowledge which were common to all Christian sects were to be communicated during the hours of secular instruction and at the same time to the children professing various creeds; and that the special religious teachings of the different sects were to be communicated at other times to the children of the several creeds separately. That this was the plan was also apparent from the first set of rules which were issued by the Commissioners, and the very first of which rules recommended the use of Scripture extracts in the schools. He did not mean to contend that the use of these extracts was ever made compulsory; but the use of them being recommended from the first, he regarded that as a tacit pledge that they should be used in the schools under the management of the Commissioners during the hours to be devoted to secular education. The second rule provided that one day in each week should be set apart for religions instruction, and that on that day the ministers of all religious denominations, whether they had taken part in the foundation of the schools or not, should have access to the schools, and should be permitted to give instruction to the children of their respective creeds. And it was this rule, he believed, which was one of the main grounds upon which the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland could have nothing to say to the system. In what position, he asked, would the Protestant clergyman have been placed, had he acted upon the system at that time? 812 Suppose he had established a school under the National Board, according to this rule he would be bound, at least one day in the week, to permit to be taught in the very school of which he was the patron the doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith by a Roman Catholic priest and the doctrines, it might be, of the Unitarian creed, by a Unitarian minister, and thus become responsible for the teaching of religious opinions with which he not only did not agree, but which he believed to be dangerous to the souls of men. That rule alone, then, was a sufficient bar to a large number of the clergy of the Protestant Church joining the National Board of Education at that time. But the proof that at the establishment of the system the Scripture Extracts were intended to be used at the times appointed for conducting the united education was contained in the fifth of the original rules, which expressly declared that the reading of the Scriptures—either the authorised or the Douay version—should be confined to the hours of religious instruction. It was clearly, therefore, the intention of the framers of the original rules, that the Scripture Extracts, which did not contain the peculiar tenets of the different sects, should be read at the hours of secular education, the Bible being read at the hours of religious instruction. No change was made in this arrangement until the year 1838; but in that year an alteration was effected in the rules, which showed, he, thought, the one-sided reciprocity which existed with respect to the Protestant Church in Ireland. A rule was then added, to the effect that the titles of all books used in religious instruction should be reported to the Commissioners, except the standard books of that particular Church to which the children belonged. Now, he confessed he did not know what the standard books of the Roman Catholic Church were, nor did he suppose that many of their Lordships were very well acquainted with that subject; but he presumed that they were all aware that the standard book of the Protestant Church was the Holy Scriptures. So that the Holy Bible—the great book of the Protestant Church—the book from which she derived her whole teaching, and from which she professed to prove every doctrine she taught—was excluded from the national schools; whilst all the standard books of the Roman Catholic Church were admitted. It was useless, however, to go through the whole list of changes which had been 813 gradually made in the rules of the national system of education in Ireland. But the last change effected he confessed he rejoiced at; because, although it had rendered the system more than ever unfavourable to the Protestants, it had induced the Government to consent to a complete consideration of the question; and he believed that when the evidence which would be produced before the Committee should be completed, it would show that, so far from the system having been a great blessing to Ireland—as the noble Earl at the head of the Government thought it to be—it had positively checked instead of having promoted education in some of the rural districts in the south of Ireland. If proof were required that the present national system of education in that country had existed, was existing, and, if continued, would still exist, upon the sufferance of the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, it was furnished by the observations of the right rev. Prelate who had addressed their Lordships that night. The right rev. Prelate had entered into a long argument for the purpose of showing that, although Archbishop Murray did undoubtedly consent to the Scripture Extracts, and permit the use of them in the national schools in his diocese, yet that that Roman Catholic dignitary did not bind his successors nor any other prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland by his example. Now this was the very point which noble Lords on that (the Opposition) side of the House had contended for. They said that when two Archbishops in Dublin—one of the Established Church, and the other of the Roman Catholic Church, were willing to make concessions, a compromise was effected between opinions which were as different as light from darkness; but the moment that this engine was placed in the hands of the Roman Catholic Clergy in Ireland, and they found themselves in full possession of it, they demanded still further concessions. These concessions had been granted to them, and he (the Earl of Donoughmore) had no doubt that, unless Parliament put a decisive stop to them, further concessions would be demanded, and very possibly further concessions granted.
THE BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNOR, interposing, said, he had not uttered a single word about the Scripture Extracts, but had confined himself solely to the little work of the Archbishop of Dublin (Dr. Whately) entitled "Scripture Evidences," 814 of which, he stated, Archbishop Murray had approved; but that his approval would not necessarily be sanctioned by the Roman Catholic Church for ever.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREThe noble Lord opposite (Lord Monteagle) had represented his noble Friend (the Earl of Clancarty) as expressing an opinion in favour of carrying on the system of national education with the view of proselytising the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He (the Earl of Donoughmore) did not think that what had fallen from his noble Friend could bear any such interpretation; and, for his own part, he did not wish to see a system of education which was paid for by Parliament out of the funds of the public conducted in a proselytising spirit either on the one side or the other. But he asserted that it could be proved before the Committee that the national system of education had been made an engine of proselytising on the side of the Roman Catholics. It was a notorious fact that national schools had been established in remote districts in the west of Ireland for the very purpose of withdrawing children from the Scripture Schools established by the missionary societies, and for that purpose alone, and that the public money which the Parliament of Great Britain had granted for the purpose of giving a sound secular education to the Irish poor had been used by Roman Catholic priests with the view, at all events, of putting a stop to and opposing the efforts of the Protestant missionaries in the west of Ireland. That fact, he thought, could not be too much insisted upon, in order that the people of England might know (and this he trusted would be made plain and clear to them by the investigations of this Committee) that, whilst Parliament granted nearly 200,000l. a year for the purpose of giving a good secular education, with a certain amount of general religious knowledge mixed with it, to the Irish poor, that fund had been used for the most part in communicating a very inferior and a very inadequate amount of secular knowledge, joined with the Roman Catholic religion in its most acrimonious and prejudiced form with hostility to our Protestant fellow-subjects, and, he was sorry to add, in many instances hostility also to the British Crown; and further, that this fund had been applied—he could not say to a very large extent, but certainly to some extent—in endeavours to oppose the efforts of the Protestant missionaries in the went. It 815 was also a notorious fact, and if the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs were now in his place he would appeal to him to corroborate the truth of the statement, that during the attempted rebellion in Ireland in 1848, the most mischievous and the most ardent of the rural leaders of disaffection in the south were the masters of the national schools; yet these were the men, forsooth, that the British Parliament had been paying for the last twenty years, whilst hoping and believing all the time they were imparting a sound education to the Irish poor. When the investigations of the Committee were completed, he had no doubt that Parliament and the country would see that the system now existing in Ireland required an immediate and a thorough amendment.
THE EARL OF CLANCARTYexplained that, in what he had said, he had not intended in any manner to advocate the introduction of a proselytising spirit into the national schools of Ireland.
§ THE EARL OF EGLINTON, in reply, said: In reference to a question put in the course of the debate, it was, of course, impossible for him to say what evidence the Committee might think proper to receive when they were assembled. He could only state the animus by which he was himself actuated, which was the same as he had already stated to their Lordships. He had stated last year—and he had repeated the statement to-day—that he still gave a general approval to the system of national education, but that he did disapprove of the circumstances which occurred last year, and of the innovations—for he must call them innovations—which had been introduced. He thought that those circumstances, resulting as they had in the retirement of three of the most prominent members of the Board, would probably engage, in the first instance, the attention of the Committee; at the same time, he conceived that the Motion was so worded as not to preclude an inquiry into the practical working of the system since it had been established; and he did not wish to preclude himself from receiving any new impressions which the evidence might make upon his mind. The noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government had stated to the House that since the innovations the number of children attending the national schools had increased. He rejoiced to hear it. At the same time, he could not help, suggesting that it was possible the increase had been occasioned by 816 the attendance of the Roman Catholic children to a greater extent than before in consequence of the changes made. He had heard, also, and believed it to be the fact, that a great number of Protestants, who had disapproved of what had happened last year, were going on, in the expectation of a Parliamentary inquiry, and had therefore not taken the stronger steps which they might otherwise have adopted. With respect to the statement of the right rev. Prelate, that the school at Clonmel was an agricultural school, he might observe that there were other schools in which the same system was pursued, and in which the religious books had not been read from the commencement; and that, even supposing these to be all agricultural schools, there was no reason why agricultural children should not receive the same religious education as any other.
§ On Question, agreed to; Committee named.
§ House adjourned to Monday next.