THE EARL OF CLANCARTYrose, according to notice, to ask the Lord President of the Council whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to propose any change in the system of National 1001 education at present in operation in Ireland, with a view to the relief of those who availed themselves of it? The noble Earl said, My Lords, although the Question I am about to ask the noble Earl opposite is one that immediately relates only to Ireland, it is the most important that can be asked regarding the interests of that part of the United Kingdom, and, therefore, cannot be one of indifference to your Lordships. The education of the poor in Ireland has long occupied public attention, and been the subject of much investigation. Many plans have been proposed for it, and much is done by private enterprise to promote it; but that plan with which the public are chiefly concerned is the great experiment of united education, now above a quarter of a century in operation, to which the Parliamentary grant is exclusively applied, and which is called the National system. The noble Earl opposite, having in 1854 presided over a Select Committee of your Lordships appointed to inquire into its operation, is no stranger to the subject; the inquiry was a very searching one, and the information the Committee was enabled to lay before Parliament was such as ought to have led to immediate legislation. The necessity for such a step has since become more apparent, and no man observant of the progress of opinion in Ireland can ignore the fact that the education system in that country is in a most unsatisfactory state, and that very extensive modifications, if not an entire change of principle, hove become indispensably necessary in order to render it comprehensive, efficient, and truly national. It has failed in all its primary objects. It has failed, except in the model schools of the Board, of uniting children of different religious denominations in the same schoolroom; it has failed in uniting the Protestant and Roman Catholic clergy, as joint patrons of its schools. The low estimation in which it is held by the gentry of the country may be inferred from the fact that the total amount of their subscriptions does not come up to 4 per cent of the expenditure, and it has failed of diffusing a knowledge of letters. I believe the design of the system to have been originally liberal and patriotic, intended, while showing peculiar favour to none, to induce clergymen of different religious denominations to co-operate in carrying into effect an united education for the Irish population, but practically the system has been as intolerant and exclusive as if it had been altogether sectarian. It meets 1002 with no approval from the clergy and with little acceptance from the people. The conscientions objections of the Protestant clergy to the restrictions of the Board upon religious instruction were declared in the outset, and have in no degree given way. The Church of Rome has also declared its disapproval of the system, and if to a very great exent its schools have been and still are under the patronage of the Roman Catholic clergymen, they have been taken up by them for the most part as a means of counteracting the operation of schools in connection with the Established Church, rather than with the zeal and desire to promote their efficiency, which they would have evinced if their schools were conducted upon the principles of their church. The time has gone by when public money can be applied with the sanction of Parliament to the furtherance exclusively of the interests of any particular sect, and I rejoice that it is so, but that is no reason for instituting or maintaining a system of National Education adverse to the interests of all religious denominations, interfering with the proper ministrations of clergymen in their own schools, and excluding from the general school-room all Scriptural as well as all doctrinal teaching, whatever openings may occasionally offer for impressing the youthful mind with those motives to rectitude of conduct which can only be drawn from the Word of God. Such separation of secular from religious instruction may consist with the teaching of figures, and to read and write, but the mind will not be educated; the character of the child will assuredly not be formed upon the Christian model in schools which ignore the Word of God. None of your Lordships could feel that in so providing for the education of your own children, you had done by them the duty of Christian parents. Why, then, should the poor, and the most dependent poor of all,—namely, the poor of Ireland, be coerced so to educate theirs? For coerced they are when you present them with no other alternative but that of rearing their children in ignorance. When such a system of education was proposed for this country in 1839 it was ignominiously rejected; but for Ireland there was no help, it was determined that the experiment of united secular education should be forced upon her. Well, what has been the result? Why, besides having failed in its main object, it has in no degree furthered the intellectual improvement of the nation. I might safely as- 1003 sert this from my own observation, but I prefer to rest it upon the impartial testimony of the Census Commissioners. Referring to their general report, part 6, page 42, I find that in the year 1851, just twenty years from the institution of the National Board, there were of all ranks and classes in Ireland only 33 per cent able to read and write, and that while in Leinster, which includes the largo mercantile communities of Dublin, Drogheda, and Dundalk, the educated persons amounted to 39½ per cent of the population; in Connaught they were as low as 23 per cent, with no less than 62 per cent totally illiterate. This extent of ignorance, lamentable as it is, would probably have been much greater but for the work done by private enterprise, and by societies unsupported by public money. The chief of these is the Church Education Society, educating, according to its last report, 82,289 pupils in 1,687 schools; of other educating societies I have no statistics, but I believe they educate a large though necessarily a limited number of poor children. That what they do is well done may be inferred from the fact that ignorance is most prevalent in those counties where there are fewest church schools, and that in those counties where they are most numerous, there is a rivalry between the Church and the National school most favourable to the progress of education. Thus Londonderry contrasts favourably with Waterford, the census returning 36 per cent educated persons in the former, and only 23 per cent in the latter, and, probably, on the same account, the county of Antrim contrasts still more favourably with the county of Mayo, the former giving a per centage of 44½ educated persons, and only 15 per cent totally illiterate; while in Mayo there are returned only 16 per cent educated persons, and as many as 73½ per cent totally illiterate. I should be wanting in justice to the Roman Catholic body, however, if I did not state that to a considerable extent they also give education gratuitously to the poor without any aid whatever from the State. I hold in my hand from the Irish Ecclesiastical Register a list of schools, furnished to me by the Roman Catholic Bishop of Clonfert, as maintained by the Christian Brothers, they are 132 in number, and educate as many as 14,810 children, and, I believe, their schools are most ably conducted, as well as popular with the Roman Catholic poor. Other Roman Catholic schools are also carried on by monks and nuns without 1004 aid from the National Board, of these I have no return; but I think it right to observe that where the disposition exists thus to co-operate in the work of education, whether upon Protestant or upon Roman Catholic principles, it ought to be encouraged rather than repressed by any regulations of the Government. With the large numbers returned by the National Board as under education in their schools, amounting, according to the latest Report, that for 1857, to as many as 776,473 distinct pupils, or above one-eighth of the entire population of Ireland, such a prevalence of ignorance, as is shown in the educational census, appears incredible; but it may be accounted for by looking further into the same Report, for the numbers on the school rolls are no guide as to the numbers really under instruction. The return given of the average attendance would be a surer guide, but even that is not to be relied on. What may, I think, be fully relied on are the reports of the Boards' head inspectors, men generally of the highest character and intelligence. The Commissioners give in their appendix the full notes and general remarks of two of their head inspectors, Messrs. Keenan and Hunter, upon 117 ordinary National schools, of which Mr. Keenan visited 64 in Donegal and Fermanagh, and Mr. Hunter 53 in the southern counties. From the numbers in attendance at each of these schools, it appears that in very few is the actual attendance equal to the reported average; it was, in fact, miserably small, being, in the 117 schools, 625 less than according to the reported averages it should have been. If to this irregularity of attendance it be added, that the average age of the school children scarcely exceeds nine years, it will be manifest that there is much to account for backwardness of education and prevalence of ignorance. I am far, my Lords, from censuring the Commissioners for the general failure of the National system; they have done their utmost to fulfil their commission and to recommend their principle of education to public acceptance. Agricultural, industrial, nautical, and general elementary schools, wherever they are called for, and an attendance of pupils promised, are all either established at the charge of the Board, or liberally assisted, on condition, however, of strict conformity with their rule regarding religious teachings. They have compiled and published some admirable books of elementary instruction, modern history, which appears to be a stumbling block in 1005 the way of united education, being the only subject omitted. They have established excellent training schools for teachers, whose efficiency they endeavour afterwards to promote by the award of premiums. Their model schools in point of architecture and management, are admirable, but unfortunately never imitated. They have overspread the country with well-built and commodious school-houses, and their staff of inspectors appears to be in general both efficient and well chosen; but all this only shows how unsound the system must be in principle since it has failed of success. If the principle of the system be modified or altered the country will be much indebted to the Commissioners for the excellent machinery they have provided for giving it immediate effect. When I have argued in favour of assimilating the plan of education in Ireland to that in operation in England the only objection that the friends of the National system urge against it is that it would throw the education of the people wholly into the hands of the priests. I think such a view of the case extremely illiberal. Provided the people are free to avail themselves of whatever schools they prefer, I see no reason why the Roman Catholic clergy should not be invited and encouraged to co-operate in the work of National education as well as the clergy of other religious denominations, and, unless found to be inconsistent with the general interests of the country, the development of Roman Catholic education should be perfectly free. In practice the priests have had, and still hold, the patronage of about three-fourths of the national schools. What they desire, and I think rightly desire, is that they should be allowed to manage them in conformity with their own religious views. I would only further claim that a like privilege should be conceded to Protestants. If this were done and all brought under the inspection of officers appointed by the Government, a principle of emulation would operate to give a wholesale impetus to the work of National education, which would thenceforward cease to be a delusion and a bye-word. Those who regard education as the great lever of national progress have long looked for some such alteration, especially since the Committee of Inquiry of 1854. Continual changes of Government have, however, operated to delay the consideration of the subject. When the late Government took office, a promise was made that a proposi- 1006 tion upon the subject should be submitted to Parliament, and the late Secretary for Ireland is reported to have stated that a measure was to have been submitted in the present Session. Unfortunately, this was prevented by the late change of ministry, and it was certainly with no little feeling of disappointment that upon the accession to office of the noble Lords opposite I heard, in the Ministerial statement of the noble Earl regarding the policy of the new Government, no allusion whatever to the subject of education. I have heard it, however, since rumoured that it is in contemplation to appoint a Commission to report upon it. This course, my Lords, I would earnestly deprecate; there has been ample inquiry, and the only effect of appointing such a Commission would be to delay a necessary reform. Such a step would further be regarded as a shifting of responsibility from the Government to an ephemeral body, and as taken without any serious thought of dealing with the question. I trust the noble Earl will, in answer to my question, be prepared to say something reassuring to the friends of education in Ireland. I, therefore, beg to know whether it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to make any modification or change in the system of national education in Ireland for the relief of those who object to avail themselves of it; and if the answer should be affirmative, it would add much to its value if the noble Earl would say at what time it might be expected, and whether it would be made on the authority of the Lord Lieutenant, or have to be previously submitted to Parliament?
§ EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that before answering the question put by the noble Ear], he wished to allude to the reference which he had made to his attendance on a Committee which sat some years ago to inquire with regard to this very important subject. The noble Earl could not have forgotten that the Committee, after repeated and minute investigations, and having heard a large amount of evidence, had separated without consenting to make any recommendation to Parliament. He was somewhat surprised that the noble Earl, after remaining silent during the entire time that the late Government was in power, and not having, so far as he was aware, applied the slightest Parliamentary stimulant to that Government, with a view of inducing them to effect any change in the national system, should now come for- 1007 ward to complain that no steps had been taken or promises given by the present Administration. Of this he did not complain; but he regretted that the noble Earl should have put his question at a time when the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), who was the author of this scheme of education, was not in his place, so that he might have stated what the intentions of the late Government were, and how far his own views were now favourable to a modification of the system. With regard to what had taken place in Ireland, no person could regret more than he did the want of cooperation between different sects which was so desirable in a matter like this, and the absence of which he regarded as a very great evil; and he certainly had entertained some hopes that the feeling of the noble Earl and of other members of that Committee, who were among the most eminent leaders of the Conservative party, would have carried weight with those who objected to the National system of education on conscientious grounds, and would have led them to abstain from making those divisions more personal and hateful, on the ground that they would not consent to any system which did not enable them to administer religious instruction in the Bible; a part of the system to which Roman Catholics objected. He did not wish to argue this question; but when the noble Earl appealed to the judgment of their Lordships, he might be permitted to say that so far as his own recollection went, he had not the slightest remembrance either at private or at public schools of any Biblical instruction having been mixed up with the education which was being administered, either in reading, writing, arithmetic, classics, history, or geography. He did, therefore, feel some regret that his noble Friend should not have modified the views of something like strong hostility which he entertained to the National system; although, with the candour which distinguished him, he had admitted that there were some good points in it. Far be it from him (Earl Granville) to say that the working of the system in Ireland was perfect; he was not aware that so much could be said of any human institution; and he would be the last person to assert anything of the kind with regard to the system of National education in this country. He was perfectly free to admit that the existing system did possess its disadvantages and anomalies, and he was bound to state 1008 his opinion founded on information he had received, that if extended to Ireland it would not insure that popularity which was requisite to the achievement of success. But, at the same time, he did not believe that the National system which existed in Ireland had proved a failure; on the contrary, he believed that it had been of the greatest possible use to the people of Ireland, and it certainly would have proved of far greater advantage if the two extreme parties, instead of opposing, had combined and co-operated to carry it out. With regard to the question put by the noble Earl as to the appointment of a Commission, which seemed to alarm him, he could only reply that very ample inquiry had already taken place, and a great deal of information had been collected; he did not think it would therefore be desirable to institute such a Commission, nor, so far as he was aware, had any suggestion to that effect been proposed. The noble Earl also wanted to know if it was to effect any changes, without stating what those changes were to be, and likewise wished to be informed as to the time at which those changes were to take place. He could only reply that while the Government would adhere to the general principles of this system, he had no doubt his noble Friend the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland would examine into it; and if they saw occasion for introducing modifications which would not conflict with that general principle, and which would not, in their opinion, be productive of disadvantages greater than at present existed, he felt confident that they would not hesitate to adopt that course. But he was utterly unable to give the noble Earl any distinct pledge on the subject.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREquite agreed with the noble Earl who had just sat down, that the national system as originally promulgated might have been suitable for Ireland if it had been carried out in its integrity; but at present that system had become an imposture, for it was no longer in practice what it professed to be in theory. The national system was founded on the principle of united education; all parties and all sects were to give up their prejudices, and even their principles, for the purpose of meeting together on the common ground that in all schools the general education should be neutral as regarded the religious opinions of the persons attending. There was something 1009 intelligible in that code, and if it had been fully carried out there would have been nothing to complain of; and he himself would have been glad if it had had a fair trial. He regretted to say, however, that the original principles of the system had been departed from. One of the first rules laid down under that system was, that the ministers of different religious denominations were to be joint patrons of the school, and that no aid was to be given except to schools established on that principle. The next rule was, that the schools were to be vested in the Commissioners themselves, and that they should have an amount of authority over them which in reality they had never possessed. The first departure from these fundamental rules was in the admission of ministers of separate religious denominations to be patrons of these schools; and next, they transgressed their own regulations by permitting the existence of non-vested schools. The result of the adoption of the non-vested system was that patrons had the power of excluding any religious instruction of which they disapproved, without regard in any way to the wishes of the parents of the children. Out of 5,000 schools in connection with the National Board, 3,000 are non-vested and under the management of Roman Catholic priests; so that as a united system of education the system had utterly failed—putting aside the fact that for more than twenty-five years the vast majority of the clergy of the Church of Ireland had consistently protested against it, and that it had not in any way received that support which was expected from the laity. The system therefore, was to be condemned as an imposture. Having read, in common, he doubted not, with many of their Lordships, the report of the discussion which had taken place elsewhere, he had been very much gratified at the tone which pervaded it, and at its freedom from that acrimony and religious and party animosity which for so many years had characterised the debates with regard to that question in both Houses of Parliament. Their Lordships must perceive that since 1854 a great change had taken place in the aspect of this question. At that time there was little or no hostility to the system on the part of the Roman Catholics; whereas the feeling was now very different, and there was at present being held a conference of Roman Catholic bishops, with the object, he believed, of sending forth 1010 a declaration that the system, as it now existed, was not in accordance with their views. Bearing in mind, then, that for such a number of years the Protestant clergy as a body had continued most strenuously to oppose it in its present shape, that the Presbyterians were but lukewarm friends of the National system, having only consented to take advantage of it because a special arrangement had been made to meet their views, and that the whole Roman Catholic hierarchy was now about to declare against it, he thought it was evident that in its present shape the system could not much longer be continued. He owned he would be sorry to see the whole system broken up, and therefore he regretted that some modification had not taken place in 1854, which would have conciliated the great majority of the clergy of the Established Church. But now he warned noble Lords that the system could not be saved—it was too late. The Catholic, Protestant, and Presbyterian clergy, were against it. As to the denominational system, some seemed to entertain fears of the power it would give the Roman Catholic clergy over their flocks. He (the Earl of Donoughmore) entertained no such fears. Let the Roman Catholic clergy have due influence over their flocks, but let them not put the clergy of the Established Church in a worse position as regarded theirs. Place both upon an equal footing. That was all he asked. The result of the denominational system would be, he hoped and believed, to excite a healthy competition, and the people would be educated. This after all is the great object to which the legislature should look. At all events, the denominational system was the only system now possible.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he agreed with his noble Friend. The existing system was opposed both by the clergy of the Established Church and by those of the Roman Catholic Church, and the Presbyterian body gave it a very doubtful and cold support. The denominational system would, he thought, in Ireland be productive of much good, and he hoped to see it fully established there. The present plan satisfied no party, or sect, or class—it was totally abortive, was displeasing to all, worse than useless, and could not long go on as it was now constituted.
THE EARL OF LEITRIMsaid, he could not agree in the censure pronounced upon the National system of education in Ireland. Noble Lords seemed to confine their 1011 attention altogether to the opinions of the clergy of the several denominations; but he begged to remind their Lordships that there was another body whose claims ought not to be quite overlooked—he meant the laity. If those clergymen were so overpowered by the force of their conscience, why, in the name of God, did they not teach the children when they came out of the schools? The system imparted a good sound English education where the English language was hardly known before. It would be a very hard case if the laity were to be left uneducated and untaught merely because certain of the clergy could not agree about particular points of doctrine. The teachers in those schools ought to be properly paid, and placed in a position to command attention. If the National system were supported, it would stand notwithstanding all the opposition of the clergy, and the people would be thankful for their education.