brought up the Resolution from the Standing Orders Committee relative to the Westminster-bridge Bill.

said, that this was a Bill for improving, amending, and repairing the existing Westminster-bridge, which had been brought forward without a due compliance with the Standing Orders. Yet the Standing Orders Committee had nevertheless recommended that parties should be allowed to proceed with the Bill. Now, he (Sir R. H. Inglis) was a member of a Committee which, four years ago, was appointed to inquire into the state of Westminster-bridge; and that Committee came to a resolution directly at variance with the proposal which the House were now called upon to sanction. The noble Lord at the head of the Government was a member of that Committee, and, although he was not able to be present when the report was agreed to, he sent a message conveying his entire approval of the report; so that the Committee may be said to have been unanimous. They reported to the House that a majority of the witnesses declared that the foundations of Westminster-bridge were originally vicious, and could never be permanently made sound. Now, the Bill before the House proposed to take the foundations of the bridge as they stood at present. The expense of repairing the bridge was stated before the Select Committee to amount to 70,000 l., but that outlay would leave the bridge in a state requiring constant repair. The expense of constructing a new bridge would not exceed 360,000 l., and the Bridge Estate Fund would furnish 100,000 l. of that sum in aid of the erection of a new bridge. Inasmuch as the bridge was built at the expense of the nation, and the neighbouring parishes and the two counties in which it stood had defrayed no part of the expense, Westminster-bridge might be regarded as a national bridge, which must be maintained and re-erected, if necessary, at the expense of the nation. He should not oppose the reception of the report, but he should, upon a future occasion, move the postponement of the Bill, until the opinion of Her Majesty's Ministers had been stated upon this subject.

said, that all the Standing Orders Committee had done had been to dispense with the Standing Orders, so as to allow the subject to be examined before a Select Committee of the House. They had received a statement from the agents of the trustees of Westminster-bridge relative to the circumstances which had led the trustees to come before Parliament at this late period of the Session. It appeared that the bridge was sinking day by day, that two of the arches had sunk considerably within the last six months, and that it was necessary for the public safety that prompt means should be taken. The Bill had for its object not to repair the arches; for, as yet, it was not decided whether it would be necessary to have it rebuilt or repaired. The Standing Orders Committee would take proper precautions to prevent parties from being taken by suprise, and they had only allowed the trustees to bring in a Bill for making temporary provision for crossing the river in the event either of repairing the present bridge or building a new one.

, as one of the trustees of the bridge, assured the House that the present was merely an enabling Bill. The commissioners, at present, were limited in their powers to the repair of the present bridge only; but, from the report of their engineer, there appeared a possibility of such a rapid sinking of the arches as to render the traffic over the bridge inconvenient, if not dangerous. The commissioners had no means of providing a temporary passage over the river while the bridge was under repair or being rebuilt. With regard to the building of a new bridge, no one could be taken by surprise, because the trustees must apply for a special Act to enable them to construct a new bridge.

should like to know, if the bridge had been sinking for six months, why the trustees had not given notice at an earlier period of the Session of their intention to bring in this Bill?

believed that measures had been taken, but in vain, to prevent the continued sinking of the bridge. It was necessary to have a temporary bridge at the side while the repair or rebuilding was in progress; and the trustees could not erect this temporary bridge in the riverway without interfering with property on both sides of the river.

said, the commissioners imagined that they were empowered under their Act of Parliament to build a temporary bridge; but a month or two ago doubts were expressed whether they possessed this power, and, counsel's opinion having been taken, it was found that they had no power to make a temporary bridge, and that it would be necessary to have an Act of Parliament for the purpose, in order that the traffic might not be stopped.

wished it to be understood, that although the bridge was in such a state as to require repair, yet it was not in such a state as to give any alarm to the public as to its safety. The commissioners only asked for power to build a temporary bridge, in case the necessity arose for so doing.

said, there were other stages in which his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Oxford could oppose the Bill. The report now brought up only enabled parties to present their Bill for the consideration of the House.

would not oppose the reception of the report; but he would either divide the House upon it, or move that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee at the next stage.

Resolution agreed to.

rose to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary at War, in reference to a circular recently issued from the Horse Guards regarding the future promotion of lieutenants and captains of the Army, "whether the educational examination to which officers of such rank are to be hereafter subjected, will be conducted by civilians or by a board of military officers; whether officers who may be serving or have served abroad, and who may have been in action, are to be declared unfit for promotion, unless they possess a knowledge of 'Euclid, algebra, logarithms, trigonometry, mensuration, geography, and history;' whether officers who have risen from the ranks are to undergo the prescribed examination; and in what manner it is intended that the examiners shall be paid?"

begged to state, in reply to the first question, in reference to the promotion of ensigns or second lieutenants to the rank of lieutenant, that the qualifications required by the general orders of the Commander-in-Chief were strictly a professional examination, and would of course be conducted by professional men in the Army. With respect to the promotion of subalterns to the rank of captain, the examination to which they would be subject would not take place until after the month of July, 1852. After that period, as at present advised, all officers promoted from the rank of subalterns to that of captain would be subject to the examination laid down by his Grace the Commander-in-Chief. He was not at the present moment in a position to state in what way that examination would be conducted; but before the period should arrive when that examination would take place, ample opportunities would be given for carrying it on, and also for announcing the mode in which the examiners would proceed. With reference to the other questions, he believed that this examination would extend to all officers, whether they had served in the field or not. With respect to officers who had risen from the ranks, of course some discretion and some limitation would be re- quired in those cases. But he must add, that from the Army being now provided with trained schoolmasters, who were capable of teaching every one of these branches of knowledge, he hoped that the day was not far distant when the officer who had risen from the ranks would be perfectly competent to go through any examination of the kind now proposed.

wished to put a series of questions to the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department relative to the treatment of Mr. Smith O'Brien in Van Diemen's Land. The questions were—whether Mr. Smith O'Brien was allowed to procure for himself, at his own expense, such articles of food and clothing as, although they were not provided by the Government, were necessaries to a person with the previous habits which belong to his station in life? Whether he was consigned to solitary imprisonment, and, by the instructions to which he was subject, every person in the island forbidden, upon pain of instant removal, to hold any intercourse with him, except such as was absolutely unavoidable? Whether the Controller General, Dr. Hampton, gave the catechist strict injunctions not to come near Mr. O'Brien, unless sent for, and then to converse with him only on professional subjects? Whether a passholder who was in Maria Island on Mr. O'Brien's arrival was sent away from the island by Dr. Hampton when it was discovered that the passholder came from the neighbourhood of Mr. O'Brien's house? Whether, except for misconduct, any other convict was sentenced to solitary confinement? Whether, in the event of any relaxation of the rules to which Mr. O'Brien was subjected, on account of the state of his health, having been made, he would, on being restored to health, be again placed in a position which experience had shown to be injurious to his health, if not dangerous to his life?

said, it was quite impossible for him to answer in all cases questions involving such points of minute detail as had been put by the hon. Gentleman. He would, however, give a general outline of what had taken place in Van Diemen's Land in this case. As he had stated the other night, when Mr. Smith O'Brien and the other prisoners from Ireland reached Van Diemen's Land they were offered tickets of leave upon the ordi- nary conditions, provided they would engage not to make use of the privilege in order to attempt to escape. This was a most unusual indulgence to be granted to these parties. The tickets were accepted by all the prisoners except Mr. Smith O'Brien, who declined to enter into any engagement that he would not endeavour to escape. After he had refused the ticket of leave, the regular alternative would have been that he should be in the same position as any other convict sent out under sentence of transportation, and that he should proceed to one of the penal stations to be employed at hard labour. A more lenient mode of proceeding, however, was adopted towards him. He had been sent to the station at Darlington, on Maria Island, placed in some vacant officer's quarters, supplied with a special ration, and with an officer's allowance of light and fuel, relieved from all coercive employment, and left to take exercise within 200 yards of his quarters at any time he might choose between sunrise and sunset. He had complained that he was not allowed such ordinary indulgences in diet as tea and sugar; but it turned out that he drew a liberal ration, including tea or coffee and sugar. Finally, he complained that facilities were denied him for spiritual advice or consolation; but it appeared that not only were the services of the religious instructor at the station—a gentleman properly trained for his duties, although not in holy orders—always available to him, but that the Lieutenant Governor had granted access also to the Rev. Mr. Dobson, upon condition of his conforming to the established rules of all prisons, that he should not make himself a means of unauthorised communication with other persons; and further, the Bishop of Tasmania was, of course, granted immediate admission to the prisoner upon expressing his wish to that effect. He was quite aware that a strong feeling existed in Ireland on this subject; but he believed that very gross exaggerations had in many cases been made of the treatment to which Mr. O'Brien was subjected. He would refer, however, to a letter which he had observed in the Times of that morning, written by Mr. Shaw, a gentleman who seemed to be well informed on the subject, in which he stated, from his knowledge of various circumstances, that the Government had acted with the greatest lenity towards Mr. Smith O'Brien, and that he was enjoying mildness of treatment quite unprecedented. He had only to state, further, that all the information he had on the matter showed that the Government and the authorities in Van Diemen's Land had endeavoured to discharge their duty without any severity, and that, indeed, if they were liable to any charge whatever, it was to the charge of having shown too much lenity towards the prisoner.

said, perhaps he ought to apologise to the House for having interposed on a Motion of Supply, and he had done so reluctantly; but the House would bear in mind that, under the present arrangement of business, every day in the week but one is occupied by orders—that the question which would arise upon his Motion had reference to the distribution of a vote, and may affect the course which Members may take on that vote; and further, that it is a subject of deep importance, and has excited a deep interest both in the House and among large and respectable classes, both in England and Ireland. Before entering upon the question, he was desirous of clearing it of some difficulties. In the first place, he was anxious to explain to the House that he was not going to raise or discuss the subject of education generally. It was not necessary for his present purpose to do so. Neither was he about to make any attack upon the conduct of the National Board or its operations. Whatever might be his opinions with regard to the principles on which that system was established—and he would not deny they were strong—it was not his intention to state them then. His object, and his only one, was to state, or rather restate, the hardship and injustice under which 1,730 out of 2,040 educated gentlemen — and they the clergy of the Established Church—together with the great body of the laity of the same denomination were suffering in the matter of education in Ireland, and the constraint that was sought to be imposed on their conscience — to represent the anomalous and most objectionable position in which the clergy of the Church in Ireland were left in regard of education, and to appeal to the common sense and justice of the House of Commons to set them right. He was quite ready to admit the difficulties with which the question of education was beset in both countries, and the special difficulties which appertained to it in Ireland. He felt as strongly as any one the necessity of forbearance and toleration under such circumstances; and he thought it the duty of every one to evince, as far as possible, a disposition to acquiesce in, and soften down, and overcome, rather than to aggravate, difficulties. And if this was so with others, he would go further and say it was peculiarly incumbent upon the clergy of the Established Church. Obviously it must be their feeling, and their disposition, and their interest, to be in friendly relations rather than in antagonism with Government. The clergy of any Established Church are the natural supporters of Government; and of course there were circumstances in Ireland which were likely to make the clergy of the Established Church there peculiarly anxious, as far as possible, to conciliate the Government. Now, he thought he had said enough to show that in looking into this question, and endeavouring to argue it, he appreciated its difficulties and the obligation on the part of those whose cause he advocated to make every possible concession to the policy and views of Government. In consequence of the very difficulties to which he had alluded, great sacrifices of opinion and concessions had been made of late years to meet the conscientious scruples and convictions of different denominations in both countries in the matter of education. Formerly education was considered to belong exclusively to the clergy; and a system of church education was the only one encouraged by the State. Now, State education in both countries is denominational. In England avowedly so. In Ireland practically so. In England, the only indispensable requirement now is a religious basis; formerly it was church education; then, in deference to Dissenters, a system was permitted, as regards them, based upon the Scriptures, but not requiring the distinctive doctrines of the Church. And now, in deference to the Roman Catholics, the use of the Scriptures is dispensed with as regards them, and the only requirement is, that their education shall be based upon religion. Accordingly, in England the utmost tolerance is extended to all—Churchmen teach the doctrines of the Church, Dissenters teach their peculiar tenets, and the schools of Roman Catholics are essentially distinctive. The English system is, therefore, now a denominational system. He wished to guard himself against being supposed to give any opinnion of his own with regard to the advantages or objections of the denominational system; he was merely stating what was the fact in England. In Ireland the national system, though intended to be united, is now really a denominational system also. In the year 1847 there were 4,088 schools under the national system: of these no fewer than 2,505 were under the patronage of Roman Catholic clergymen, 384 under the patronage of ministers of the Presbyterian religion, and 96 under clergymen of the Established Church. The rules of the board provide all the means for making the national system denominational where the patrons and parents agree. In every case the patrons are given the right of appointing such religious instruction as they shall think proper, either during the fixed school hours or otherwise, provided that no child shall be compelled to receive or be present at any religious instruction which his parents object to. If a school be a vested one, the pastor has a right to teach the children their religion in the schoolroom. If it be not a vested one, the patron may appoint religious teaching in the schoolroom. Who can doubt, knowing the high grounds taken by the Roman Catholic Church in that country with regard to moral and religious teaching, and knowing also the uniformity of opinion and action which characterises that Church, who can doubt that in the 2,500 schools under the direction of Roman Catholic clergymen, the distinctive tenets of their Church are taught? In other words, who can doubt that the schools under Roman Catholic patrons are denominational schools? On the other hand, it is equally certain that the 400 schools under Presbyterian clergymen are Scriptural schools, and denominational as regards their religious teaching. But while the national system of education is so framed as to be, in point of fact, denominational as regards Roman Catholics and Presbyterians, it excludes the great body of the clergy and laity of the Established Church. While, in 1847, only 96 of the clergy of the Established Church were patrons of national schools, in the petitions which he had presented to the House, 1,730 of the clergy, out of 2,040, and more than 70,000 of the laity, declare again, in their deliberate judgment, that they entertain conscientious objections to the system, and are unable to join it. Now, he would ask the House, putting aside all party and sectarian feeling, see- ing that in England you allow the clergy of the Established Church to establish church schools — seeing that you allow Dissenters to establish dissenting schools, and to teach their distinctive tenets, and Roman Catholics to establish Roman Catholic schools, and to erect their distinctive symbols, and seeing that in Ireland you have also in fact a denominational system, admitting Roman Catholics to have Roman Catholic schools, and Presbyterian schools, in which their doctrines are taught—is it reasonable, is it tolerable, that the clergy and so large a number of the laity of the Established Church, should be excluded from the advantages of the national grant by reason of their conscientious objections?—and, what is more important still, that the Church should be separated from the system of national education? Perhaps it would be unnecessary for him to go further, perhaps it would be enough for him to rest the case upon the fact of there being conscientious scruples, and he believed the sense of justice would lead the House to declare that the conscientious scruples of such a body of persons were entitled to respect and attention. But he would not be doing justice to the case if he was to refrain from showing that the scruples so entertained were not unreasonable. He would state to the House what the system of education is which the clergy of the Established Church do patronise, and by reason of their patronising which, they are excluded not only from any portion of the public grant, but are likewise most unjustly excluded from any share of Government patronage or favour. The rules of the Church Education Society are as follows:— shall be under the care and superintendence of the parochial clergyman. 2nd. That the teacher shall be a member of the Church. 3rd. That the children of the Church shall be instructed in the catechism and formularies of the Church; and, 4th. That the Holy Scriptures shall be read daily by all children who are able to read. Under this system there were 1,061 schools, with 120,202 children in attendance, of whom, in round numbers, 44,000 were Roman Catholics, and 14,000 Dissenters; so that here there is in point of fact a united Scriptural system. He would ask the House was there anything in that system which it is unbecoming or improper for a clergyman of the Established Church to require as the condition of their patronage? Is it unreasonable for a clergyman of the Church of England to require, with regard to a school under his patronage, and for the principles of which he is responsible, that the children of the Church should be instructed in the catechism and formularies of the Church? Is it unreasonable for a clergyman of the Established Church to require that the Holy Scriptures should be taught to every child frequenting the school? Would any clergyman in England patronise a school in which the Bible was not made a part of instruction? Well, then, if this is the case, and if practically you have denominational schools for the Roman Catholics and Presbyterians in Ireland, is it right that what may be called the denominational system of the Established Church should be excluded? But there is a larger principle and a more cogent reason for the course which the clergy of the Church of England in Ireland have felt themselves constrained to take, than its mere reasonableness. They conceive that they are bound by solemn clerical obligations to uphold and maintain the great principle of the Reformation, that unrestricted access to the Holy Scriptures is the inalienable right and the highest privilege of every human being—a right and privilege anterior and paramount to any other authority, whether it be parental or pastoral—and that having declared at their ordination that the Holy Scriptures contain sufficiently all doctrine required of necessity for eternal salvation through faith in Christ, they vow on that solemn occasion that they are determined, by God's grace, out of the said Scriptures to instruct the people committed to their charge. Now, just observe what the rules of the national system require. In a mixed school, when all the children are required to be present, the rules of the national system require that the Bible shall be excluded; on the other hand, when all the children are not required to be present, the rules of the national system permit the Bible to be introduced. The national system, therefore, claims and exercises a right with regard both to the permitting and forbidding the use of the Scriptures, which I confess I hold, in common with the great majority of the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, to be equally at variance with the great principle of the Reformation, of the unrestricted use of the Holy Scriptures, and the ordination vows of every clergyman. Now this is the case of the clergy—they say we cannot conscientiously support the national system, because it violates, as we think, the great principle of the Reformation, as regards the unrestricted right of access to the word of God, and sanctions or affirms the opposite principle of the Church of Rome, which imposes a restriction upon the use of the Scriptures. We cannot support the national system, because, as we think, in doing so, we should abandon the whole principle of Scriptural education. We cannot support it, because we shall be violating, as we think, the solemn vows and duties which we took upon ourselves at our ordination. They ask you to deal with them as you deal with their brethren of the United Church in England; you say no. They ask you then to deal with them as with Dissenters in England, frame for them clauses similar to those which your council of the Privy Council have deliberately sanctioned as regards the Methodist body in England, having regard to their conscientious jealousy for the word of God. You say no. Well, then, treat them as you propose to treat the Roman Catholics in England. See that a sound secular instruction is given, and leave them in schools under their patronage to make their own rules as regards the religious education of all children who may choose to frequent those schools. No, you will not do even that. Under the plea of what you call parental authority, you frame your rules so as to disconnect the clergy of the Established Church from education in Ireland. But is that plea a valid one? Does any thing of the kind exist in England? Can the parent of a child in this country, where every right is so well understood, and so resolutely maintained—can he say to the managers of a school under the British and Foreign School Society, "I object to my child being taught out of the Scriptures; he must be absent from school when the Bible is present there." No, you answer him, we, the patrons of this school, are responsible for its principles and rules, and we hold that every child should be instructed out of the Holy Scriptures. It is for you, the parent, on your own responsibility, to send your child, or not to send him—that is the proper exercise of parental authority. But, have parents no rights on the other side? Have parents, who value Scriptural instruction for their children—have parents, who think that a sound Christian education is that which makes directly or indirectly Scriptural instruction a part and parcel of the whole system, pervading it thoroughly, and entering in a greater or less degree into every part of it—have they no right to complain that such a thing is not within their reach under the National Board in Ireland? The rules require that the times and arrangements for religious instruction shall be publicly notified in the schoolroom—a sort of warning-board is stuck up; and they further provide that the school shall be open to all, and that no child shall be in effect excluded directly or indirectly from the other advantages which the school affords. Now, who can say at what time, or under what circumstances, a favourable opportunity may present itself to a pious master or patron for impressing religious truths, or inculcating religious lessons upon the children committed to its charge? Why, the good conduct or misconduct of a child may afford, perhaps, the very best occasion for a practical reference to Scripture; and for impressing, far more than by any stated exercise, a religious feeling or conviction upon a child's mind; and upon such an occasion the conscientious master or patron who honestly administers the rules of the board, must feel himself tongue-tied; and is it right that the parents of children who do value religious instruction are to be deprived of these advantages for their children? I say, therefore, that the plea of parental authority is an unreal one, for it is not admitted in your State system of education in England; and while you assert it as regards the exclusion of religious instruction, you do not respect it as regards the admission and introduction of religious instruction. He had now stated, as concisely as he could, the case of the clergy and Protestants of Ireland who object conscientiously to the national system of education. Her Majesty's Government knew probably better than he did whether there are not others who do not share in some of these objections. For his own part, he sincerely believed that the national system, if really carried out according to the strict letter of its rules, would be a latitudinarian system, and as such equally repugnant to the principles of sincere Protestants and Roman Catholics. Many Roman Catholics, high in authority, do object to it; and if reports are true, the objections are not diminishing in force. I have already stated the rules admit of its being made denominational; and he believed it would be found practically that where Roman Catholics have schools they are denominational schools, in which every safeguard is used against their assuming a latitudinarian character. The House will at once see the different position in which Roman Catholics and Protestants are placed with regard to the difficulty they may have in sanctioning the system. The only difficulty a Roman Catholic can have is the fear of the school being latitudinarian. In other respects, the principles of the National Board commend themselves as imposing restrictions upon the Scriptures. But the danger of latitudinarianism may be in a great degree prevented by the school being rendered denominational. But in addition to the danger of latitudinarianism, the Protestant clergyman feels that there is an infringement upon the principles of the Reformation; and therefore while a Roman Catholic clergyman may establish a national school, by guarding against its secular tendencies, a Protestant clergyman may find it impossible to do so by reason of its antiscriptural tendency. There never was a time when it would be more easy for Government to settle this long-disputed question. There are now 4,000 schools scattered over the whole country, supplying in a great degree the wants of the Roman Catholic population. If the rules of the board were now to be modified, as proposed in the address which he should have the honour just now of moving, so as to admit of the clergy of the Established Church forming schools in connexion with the system, it could not be said that ample means would not be afforded for the education of Roman Catholics who may approve of the system as at present in operation. They have had the power during eighteen years of establishing schools, and they have availed them- selves of the power extensively. On an average, there are more than two schools in each parish in Ireland under Roman Catholic patronage, and you would get rid of the painful and discreditable consequences which follow from the present disputes. He was really most reluctant to advert to the remaining topic, which, in reference to this question, he felt it is duty to bring before the House. He had stated on a former occasion that Her Majesty's Government in Ireland had had recourse to what he must term the unworthy and discreditable expedient of endeavouring to obtain adherents to the national system, by promoting only such clergymen as declared themselves the advocates of that system. He was sorry to say the Government in Ireland were still pursuing the same course. He could give many instances, and proofs; but it was quite notorious that the first question asked of every clergyman who was a candidate for preferment in the Church was this—What are your opinions respecting the national system of education? He would mention one instance, in order to show how this system was operating. A Whig Lord, a suporter of the present Government, and himself a supporter of the National Board, was desirous of having a gentleman appointed to a living in his immediate neighbourhood, by reason of his piety and usefulness. Government offered to appoint him if he would declare his adhesion to the national system. The gentleman, though he had never taken any active part, felt it his duty to state that he was conscientiously opposed to the principles of the national system, but he offered to enter the parish unprejudiced and unpledged, there to labour, as God would enable him, for the salvation of the people; and appealing to the good sense of the Lord Lieutenant, if the candid, honest avowal of his conscientious principles ought not to be a better recommendation to his favour, than a feigned, hollow pretension of attachment to the national system. In reply he was informed that the Lord Lieutenant was pleased with his letter, and was most anxious to give him the living, but could not do so unless he was a decided supporter of the National Board. Now he (Mr. Hamilton) would ask, was this just or right? Was this doing justice to the Church? Was this allowing to the Church the free and independent action which belonged to it, and which was its right? Was this constitutional? Had Government any right to force a system upon the country by such means as this? Was it right as regards the church people in that parish? They were deprived of the services of an honest and conscientious man by reason of the objections he entertained to the national system of education. Some years ago, when the question of church patronage in Ireland was brought before the House by the hon. and gallant Member for Middlesex, the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, then at the head of the Government, had used very strong language on this subject. He had used the following words:— Roman Catholic schools in England and Wales, in his general report for last year, just laid on the table of the House? Mr. Marshall says—

Amendment proposed—

said, he had great pleasure in seconding the Motion: first, on the ground of justice, and secondly, on that of policy. As an act of justice it was due to a loyal, faithful, and devoted set of men, that the assistance which was extended to others so liberally, should not be withheld altogether from them. As an act of policy, he firmly believed that the very system of education which the Government wished to establish would be better carried out by acceding to this Motion, than it would be by refusing it. In considering the justice of the case, it should be borne in mind that they were now undertaking the great national duty of educating the people of this country, not merely through the medium of public institutions, but also by the aid of the national funds. That being so, it was positively incumbent on them to see that the principles on which they proceeded were perfectly fair, sound, and just; and when they had ascertained those principles, they were bound to apply them equally and equitably to every part of the kingdom. Now, the policy which they had pursued with regard to England, was totally different from that which they had pursued with regard to Ireland. The system adopted in England was based on religious toleration; that adopted in Ireland, if not based upon, at least had resulted in, religious exclusion. In England, the Government extends its aid to the various religious bodies of different denominations, proportioning only the amount of that aid to the contributions and exertions which they make for themselves. In Ireland, the case is quite the reverse. There the Government has confined its aid to one combined and exclusive plan; and the consequence is, and always must be, that, with regard to the daily condition of the schools, there is no religion as part of the system—no competition among those who belong to them—and no toleration towards those who differ. Such a system we should not endure for one moment. But, when it was proposed, some years ago, to establish in this country a united system, like the national system of Ireland, the Government resisted the attempt, alleging most truly that any such system must necessarily fail. The Government were giving to Dissenters in England a part of the public funds for educational purposes, while it was refusing such assistance to the members of the Established Church in Ireland. Could such a system be just, and if it were not just, ought the House of Commons to sanction its continuance? In considering the question as one of policy, he had no doubt that the system carried out in Ireland was proposed with the most worthy object, namely, that of giving a united instruction to children of all creeds, in order that they might grow up together in peace, harmony, and goodwill. If he thought such an object could be accomplished by means of the national system, he would support that system; but the attempt had failed, and he believed that any similar attempt would also fail. On this point he spoke confidently, having compared the results of the two systems now in operation in Ireland. The church schools had succeeded admirably where the national schools had signally failed. The national schools had failed, because one of two things must always happen under such a system of education. They must either exclude religion altogether from the school, as a part of school teaching, or else they must allow it with separate tutors, on separate days, set apart for the purpose. By shutting out religion altogether, they would alienate those who thought religion ought to form a part of education; who thought it dangerous to plant the tree of knowledge unless you permitted the tree of life to grow along with it. By separating religious education from secular, they would show, in a more striking manner, the points of disagreement; and hence an impression would be produced on the minds of the children, that whatever agreement there might be between the two parties in secular matters, on religious subjects, and on those alone, there was nothing between them in common. In the church schools a united system of education had been carried out; and, whilst in eleven-twelfths of the national schools united instruction had not been secured, what was the result with regard to the church schools? In the year 1839 the number of church schools was 825; the number of children on the rolls was 43,627, of whom no less than 10,868 were Roman Catholic children. In 1844 the number of schools had increased to 1812; the number of children on the rolls was 104,968, of whom 13,668 were children of Protestant Dissenters, and 32,834 children of Roman Catholics. In 1848, when were made the last returns, there were 1,861 church schools, and 120,202 children, including 15,713 children of Protestant Dissenters, and 46,367 children of Roman Catholics. So that in point of fact, nearly a moiety of the children belonged to the Roman Catholic population of Ireland. One other observation forces itself upon us. In the year 1831 the old system of education was abolished on the ground that it was exclusive, and the present system was substituted for it. Previous to that period scriptural education was the general rule from which there was no exception. In order to carry out a united system, which he had shown to be impossible under Government grants, another exclusive plan had been in effect reared in the place of that which was destroyed; but here is the difference, the exclusive plan which prevailed prior to 1831 was an exclusive plan based on scriptural education, whereas the exclusive plan now embodied in the national schools was a plan from which the Scriptures were practically excluded. That was a marked distinction; and can it be right? All that was asked for by this Motion was, that the members of the Established Church in Ireland should have the same advantages with regard to education as were enjoyed by the Roman Catholics and Dissenters in this country, and to the funds which were granted for that purpose. Was there anything unreasonable in such a request? Let them endeavour to assimilate the practice, the principles, and the regulations by which the schools of the whole empire were administered. Let them, in this, as in everything else, make England and Ireland as near as possible identical.

"Ego vero hoc cupio, ut in hâc re et omnibus aliis,

Quam maximè unam facere, nos hanc familiam,

Colere, adjuvare, adjungere."

Seeing then the proposition submitted to the House was better calculated to unite the children of various creeds in one school than the miscalled national system was doing in Ireland; and seeing that it is due to our own'Church in Ireland to confer upon them the same assistance as that which is conceded freely and liberally to those who dissent from it here in England, he could not but wish that the Motion should be carried, if they had any regard for fairness and consistency, for prudence and policy, for equity and justice.

said, the hon. and learned Gentleman, in his eloquent address, had stated that it was not the intention of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin to supersede the existing system of education in Ireland; it was because either of the alternatives proposed by his hon. Friend would have the decided effect of superseding the existing system, that he (Sir W. Somerville) would ask the House not to give their assent to the Motion. Before he offered any observations on the speeches of his hon. Friend, and of the hon. and learned Gentleman who had just spoken, he would ask the House to consider what was the system which his hon. Friend proposed to supersede. Notwithstanding what the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Mid-hurst said, the national system of education professed to be, and in his opinion actually was, an united system of education. Hon. Gentlemen who were conversant with the history of Ireland must remember the various abortive attempts that were made to establish an united system; and it was not until the present was introduced by Lord Stanley, to whom the country was under the deepest obligations for it, that the sympathies of the people of Ireland had ever been enlisted in favour of a system of education established in that country. The system had now been in operation 18 years, it had extended its roots far and wide, thousands of schools existed under it, and hundreds of thousands of scholars received the benefit of it, and it was not alone an ordinary species of education which it afforded; but many kinds of industrial education, most useful, were taught, to the great advantage of the poor people. What, then, was the modification his hon. Friend proposed? He thought it might be gathered from that paragraph of the petition which his hon. Friend had presented, signed by 1,730 of the clergy of the Church of Ireland, which spoke of—

"The avowed concession to the authority of the Church of Rome in the Holy Scriptures being excluded from the supposed national schools during the hours of attendance."

But the modification which the hon. Gentleman would so propose would be the compulsory reading of the Scriptures in the schools connected with the National Board. Now he (Sir W. Somerville) denied altogether that the Bible was excluded from them. The Bible might be and was constantly read in them, but the rule was that no child should be compelled to read the Scriptures or attend any religious instruction without the consent of its parent. Respect for the rights of conscience was the foundation of the present system, and the moment they invaded that principle, the system would fall to the ground. He had the highest respect for the clergy of Ireland, and he wished they had taken a different view of this system—it was a great misfortune and a great mistake that they were so opposed to it. It was a great misfortune to the people of the country and to the Established Church itself; but there was no reason to suppose, when the system was established, that it would encounter the hostility of the Church; for the system of the non-compulsory reading of the Scriptures was adopted in the University of Dublin, in the workhouses, and in the gaols. His second objection to the resolution was the proposed substitution of what was termed "the denominational system" in place of the present. If they had a separate system as regarded the Established Church, they must have a separate one for the Roman Catholic Church, another for the Presbyterians; nay, it was not clear that they must not also continue their grants to those who were in favour of an united system; and then, what would be the state of the poor Protestants who were thinly scattered over the southern and western districts of Ireland? His hon. Friend had asserted that the Roman Catholics of Ireland were not in favour of the united system. His (Sir W. Somerville's) opinion was that the great body of them were in favour of it. If they were not, their opinions had greatly changed; for on a former occasion, when his hon. Friend made the same assertion, he had stated that one of the objections of the united Catholic body to the establishment of May-nooth was that the system would not be an united system. He thought, too, it was not fair to say that those clergy of the Established Church who were in favour of the present system acted in opposition to their ordination vow, or upheld a system they thought unsafe. His hon. Friend said he approached this question with moderation, and was aware that great allowance should be made for difference of opinion on this delicate subject. He (Sir W. Somerville) could not help thinking, when his hon. Friend applied those expressions to Gentlemen who differed from him in this respect, many of whom, he must know, were most religious and conscientious men, that he must have forgotten the rule he himself laid down.

said, he never meant to impute to those who conscientiously approved of the national system, that they were regardless of their ordination vows; but he said that those who were opposed to the national system were opposed to it, among other grounds, on this, that they considered that to adopt it would involve a violation of their ordination vows.

was sorry if he had mis-stated anything his hon. Friend had said. His hon. Friend had also alluded to the mode in which the Lord Lieutenant had bestowed his patronage in reference to this subject; but he must say that he did not think it surprising that, when men of equal piety looked to the patronage at the disposal of the Crown, those should be chosen who were favourable to the system which the Lord Lieutenant thought essential to the well-being of the people of Ireland. He differed, too, from the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Midhurst in supposing that the Motion of his hon. Friend would not have the effect of superseding the entire system of national education in Ireland. He believed that such would be the effect; and, considering that that would not be conducive to the interests of the people of Ireland, and considering, also, the good the present system had distributed throughout the country, he hoped the House would not assent to the Motion.

said, the right hon. Gentleman had assumed that the adoption of his hon. Friend's Motion would supersede the national system of education in Ireland. He did not think they were precluded by any single allegation in the petition from so modifying the distribution, and so altering the mode of management of the grant for educational purposes in Ireland as to enable those who conscientiously objected to the existing system to introduce such alterations as seemed to them desirable and necessary. He asked the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether he considered it impossible to frame some system which would meet the objection of the Church Education Society? He maintained that there was no difficulty whatever in doing so. The Church Education Society in Ireland claimed to be treated in the same manner as the Church of England was treated through the grants to the National Society, and had been refused. It claimed to be treated as the Dissenters of England had been, and were, treated in the British and Foreign School Society, and had been refused. It claimed to be treated in the same way as the Roman Catholic minority in England was treated in the Poor-school Committee, and it had been refused. There were three propositions, either of which the Government might adopt without impairing the usefulness of these schools in Ireland; and their refusal to accede to any of them showed that the conduct pursued by the Government in Ireland was inconsistent with the conduct they pursued in England. It appeared that, after an experience of 18 years, no less than 1,700 out of 2,000 clergymen, and 72,000 of the laity, had petitioned against the present system. They believed that, to withhold the word of God, was essentially to serve the people; for "man lives not by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God." He maintained that the conduct of the Government in practically excluding religious teaching in these schools, was inconsistent with the repeated decisions of the House against irreligious education. The rules of the Irish Board provided that the Bible, during the regular school hours, should be excluded if the parent of one child out of 100, or out of 1,000, demanded it; and although the parent of every other child prayed for the use of the Bible, the patron was empowered, nevertheless, to exclude the Bible from the schoolhouse. If the modifications prayed for were agreed to, he contended that it would not in anyway supersede these schools; it would be merely a concession to the religious scruples of the Church of England which it was fairly entitled to claim. The rules and regulations which had been framed for the management of the national schools, were not strictly in accordance with the letter of Lord Stanley; and, in their evidence before a Parliamentary Committee in 1835, Mr. Blake and Mr. Wyse, two of the Government Commissioners, admitted that such was the fact. Why, so strong was the feeling of the noble Lord at the head of the Government as to the importance and necessity of respecting the religious scruples of others, that he would sacrifice to it the Christian character of that House to admit a gentleman of the Jewish persuasion, who, he had good reason to believe, did not represent the feelings of the Jewish community in this country, although the entire number, out of a population of 29 millions, was only 40,000. But take the whole 40,000 Jews, and they were not half the number of members of the Established Church in Ireland who prayed to be relieved from the present system. If the noble Lord was ready to make such a concession for the sake of a single member of the Jewish persuasion, he maintained that he was doubly bound to make some concession to the religious scruples of the large body of the Established Church in Ireland. It had been urged by some, that because the Church in Ireland was possessed of some property, that, therefore, she ought not to be allowed to participate in grants of the public money, although those grants were drawn from the taxes to which they contributed so largely. Yet the Church of England, which was much more wealthy, was not barred from public grants on that account; and, therefore, wealth was not considered a disqualification in their eyes. But he had much stronger evidence on that point. Where was the evidence of any poverty of the Roman Catholic body? It was in vain for them to talk of the poverty of the Roman Catholics, when he saw around him springing up every day colleges, monasteries, convents, cathedrals, and schools. Let them not, then, plead poverty as the ground of exclusion, because that religious body had a large and increasing property, as was evident to their eyes; and when they granted to the Roman Catholics a system of education on terms of their own dictation, it was in vain for the Government to come forward and say that the Irish Church should not participate in the bounty of the State for educational purposes. It could not be truly urged that those restrictions which constituted the system were necessary to prevent Protestant ascendancy in Ireland. For, in the same breath, they declared by their acts, that the Protestants were so few, and the Church had so few communicants, that, far from fearing her power, her teaching the opinions of those in communion with her might be safely disregarded. In fact, many of the hon. Members in that House urged that the Church should be altogether abolished, because it had so few adherents. It was pleaded in favour of the Jews, that, although wealthy, they did not seek ascendancy, and might, therefore, be safely admitted to legislative power. Look, on the other hand, at the Roman Catholics. Was there no fear of Catholic domination in Ireland? The Roman Catholic body sought ascendancy; but their doing so was no disqualification, according to the English practice. He contended that the compulsion exercised by the Roman Catholic priesthood upon the Government of the day was the cause of the present system being carried out. Why, it was shown by Lord Stanley's letter that it was the free use of the Scriptures which made the Roman Catholic priests seek the destruction of the Kildare-street School system; and that they had effected. Did not that show clearly the dominant spirit of the Catholic clergy, and had not the Roman Catholic Church lately declared herself dominant in Malta? He called upon that House—the majority of which were connected with the Church of England—and he appealed to them as a Christian State, to restore the reading of the Scriptures to those schools. There was no difficulty in so modifying the system as to meet the case of the Church Education Society as a separate denomination: 1. As regarded vested schools. A separate form of trust-deed should be prepared for schools in connexion with the Church Education Society, permitting the patron to enforce the reading of Holy Scripture, but prohibiting the use of catechisms or other books of peculiar religious instruction, except on one day in each week. 2. With regard to non-vested schools. The rules respecting religious instruction to be cancelled. Thus leaving each patron or manager at liberty to give such religious instruction as he may deem proper. They fancied that the corn laws stood in the way of the people obtaining an ample supply of food. He differed from those who entertained that opinion. They swept away the corn laws, as they said they offered restrictions against the food that sustained the body of the people. He said that they had no right to refuse now to give to the members of the Church of Ireland that sustenance of the mind which they asked for, unless they sacrificed the free use of that holy Book which they believed to be essential as the means of their salvation. For these reasons he would support the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin.

Sir, I may be permitted to assure this House—I am certain that it is not necessary for me to assure either my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst, or my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire—with what real reluctance, with what deep and sincere regret, with what unfeigned diffidence and distrust in my own judgment and in my own abilities, when weighed in the balance against theirs, I find myself compelled—notwithstanding addresses whose ability requires no tribute from me—notwithstanding objections whose validity, to a certain extent, I admit, while at the same time believing those objections to be overruled by other and more weighty considerations of national policy—to record my vote in opposition to the resolution of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin; and in defence of that system, justly, I believe, called a system of national education in Ireland, which is now supported, but which was not originally framed or introduced, by the Members of Her Majesty's present Government. Sir, when hon. Gentlemen recollect by whom it was that that system was originally introduced into Ireland, they will not, I hope, accuse me of undue presumption if I venture to address to the House a few words in its defence; and remembering as I do that the resolution of the hon. Gentleman is hased upon the principle of toleration for opinions conscientiously entertained, I hope that I, too, may be permitted to claim the benefit of that principle, and that he will extend to me his toleration for that conscientious difference of opinion which on this subject exists between us. Sir, I confess that I was a little surprised by some of the arguments employed by my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire as against the national system. My hon. Friend concurred in the opinion expressed by the hon. and learned Member for the University, that the system established in 1832 was irreligious—unscriptural, and therefore ought never to have been established. Now, these are very weighty objections, and such as well deserve the attention of the House; but having heard them urged, and having heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire express his full concurrence in their justice, I certainly was not a little astonished when my hon. Friend proceeded to take another ground of objection against the proceedings of the present and of other Governments, and to object to the policy which they had pursued, not because they had adhered to this irreligious, unscriptural, objectionable system, but because they had departed from it. My hon. Friend first complained that the system had been established; and then he changed his ground and complained again, not that it had been established, but that having been established, it had been departed from. I must say, Sir, that these two objections seem to me a little contradictory the one of the other. Again, I have heard it stated in the course of this debate, that the Bible has been altogether excluded from the national schools in Ireland. Now, I must say that I entertain very great doubts as to the accuracy of that statement. I have been looking very carefully into the reports of the Commissioners appointed to examine into the rules and the mode in which education is disseminated in the national schools, and I find from those reports that the only sense in which it can be said that the Bible is excluded is this—that when Scriptural instruction is given, the Roman Catholic children, the parents of those children, have the option of saying that they shall not attend. Now, I confess I do not see how this can be called an exclusion of the Bible; and, considering that the resolution is grounded on the principle of toleration to all conscientious opinions, I very much doubt if that principle would be strengthened by any regulation making it compulsory upon Roman Catholic children to attend during the reading of the Scriptures. Sir, I think that in discussing a plan of national education it is a matter of some importance to consider two points, neither of which I have yet heard alluded to in this debate: first, what was the system superseded by that now in existence; and next, if you abolish the existing system, what is it that you propose to substitute? I will, with the permission of the House, endeavour to show the intention and the spirit in which the national schools were instituted. I find a statement made by the Secretary for Ireland in 1831, in the debate which took place on the establishmeet of these schools, from which I will read an extract:—

"The opinion expressed by the Commissioners of 1812, is that no plan of education for Ireland, however wisely contrived in other respects, can be carried into operation, unless it be an avowed part of it that no attempt shall be made to disturb the peculiar religious feelings of any sect in the country. Their report, therefore, is in favour of the expediency of devising some system of mental instruction, from which all suspicion of a wish to convert the children should be banished. In every word uttered by the Commissioners of 1812, the Commissioners in 1824 and 1825, the Committee of the House in 1828, and the Committee of my right hon. Friend (Lord Monteagle) in 1830 on the state of the poor in Ireland, all concurred."

Well, then, it appears, that from 1812 down to the establishment of the present national school system, there has been a general and unanimous concurrence of opinion that no system could ever be expected to succeed which was founded upon a principle of proselytism. Sir, in order to ascertain how far the then existing schools complied with those terms of acknowledged necessity, I must go back to a somewhat earlier period. Previous to 1786, I believe it can hardly be said that any general system of education existed in Ireland. In 1786 a society was founded in Dublin, on very liberal and tolerant principles, but of small extent; and, however useful as a local institution, yet not possessed of sufficient funds or of sufficient influence to entitle it to be called a national society. On the principles of this society was established, in 1811, an- other, afterwards widely known as the Kildare-street Society, the leading features of which I will state to the House. Their first principle was that of united education—of which the hon. and learned Member, speaking in 1850, declares himself to despair, but of which Irishmen in the year 1811 entertained a better opinion. Another principle was that the Scriptures should be read—read without note or comment. But, at the same time, I must observe that the rules which appear on this subject are very vague and undefined on this most difficult and delicate question. It was left perfectly optional with the teacher what part of the Scriptures should be read, when it should be read, and who should read it. What the society may have been at first, I do not exactly know, but after some years it fell exclusively into the hands of Protestants. The Roman Catholic laity, and still more—as was natural—the Roman Catholic clergy, protested on this ground against its adoption by the State, as a means of giving national instruction. Another objection arose. The society had, at the time of its establishment, disclaimed all intention of proselytising. But it appears that after a certain time it became united with another society for the diffusion of religious instruction, called the London Hibernian Society, of which, and of its labours, I must acknowledge that I have not been able to discover anything except the one important and significant fact, that it expressly declared itself to be what the Kildare-street Society as expressly declared itself not to be—namely, a proselytising society. Now, Sir, I do not dispute the right of a private body, acting for the promotion of a public object which they considered as desirable, to ally itself with any other society whose objects might coincide with their own. But I do say, that after this union was effected—when the Kildare-street Society had recognised a principle which at an earlier period of its existence it disclaimed, and when, as I shall shortly be able to prove, it had in consequence wholly lost the confidence of the Roman Catholic population of Ireland, the Government of England, which had previously supported it by public grants, was not only entitled but bound to take that change into consideration. In 1830, before any step was taken by the Government, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the state of Ireland, and numerous witnesses were examined on the subject of education. The first of those whose testimony I shall cite is Mr. Musgrave, who states himself to be a resident Irish proprietor. He is asked (question 1117)—

"Would not the success of any scheme depend entirely on the exclusion of sectarian or religious controversies?—Yes? I have established two schools, and I never have any difficulty. On what principle do you manage them?—I tell the people if they wish to read the Scriptures they can do so, but I do not insist upon it. Do you think, under that system, it is more likely that the number of Scripture readers will be increased, than by making it obligatory upon them?—I should think ultimately it will, though perhaps not in the first instance."

Again, Sir, I must give the corroborating testimony of Captain Owen, a magistrate of thirteen years' standing. I must premise that he is speaking in reference to certain jealousies which he alleges to exist against the Kildare-street Society. His examination is as follows:—

"Was that cause (of existing jealousy) arising from the regulation of the society which rendered Scripture reading in the school a necessary ingredient?—Scripture reading in the school has been always the point on which the difference arose solely. Do you consider that that attempt at compulsory Scripture reading has tended to increase the reading of the Scriptures, or rather to check the circulation of the Scriptures?—Certainly not to increase it, as far as my observation goes. And it has tended to increase this jealousy to which you have adverted?—It has certainly been the cause of that."

I am afraid that I may weary the House with these statements; but hon. Members will recollect that this is cumulative evidence. It proves nothing that one or other magistrate or proprietor should give an opinion against an educational system; but it proves a great deal that men of different ranks, different opinions, different interests, and different prejudices, should all unite in one single expression of opinion on this subject. I now turn to the evidence of Mr. Barrow, an inspector general of fisheries on the southern coast:—

"Has not this condition of obligatory Scripture reading, independently of the spiritual want and principles of the parties, led to those difficulties you have described at the present moment?—Certainly, that was the sole impediment. Do you conceive it has a tendency to increase Scripture reading?—Quite the contrary. There never was a more effectual mode of discouraging the reading of the Scriptures than by attempting to enforce it."

I particularly recommend this last extract to the attention of my hon. Friend. I wish now to draw the particular attention of my hon. Friend to the examination of another witness, M. De la Cour, a gentleman long resident in Cork. He was asked whether the description of schools hitherto used had occasioned any distrust amongst the Roman Catholic population in Ireland? The answer he gave was—

"A great deal. The people entertain a great distrust of them, under the apprehension that the spirit of proselytism prevailed in them."

He was then asked—

"Do you consider that the system of compulsory Scriptural reading has led to this apprehension?"

The answer he gave was—

"I have long been of opinion that compulsory Scriptural reading was not likely to obtain the object for which it was intended."

Here there were three successive testimonies exactly of the same effect. But there was one gentleman examined, whose evidence is so important that I cannot pass it over. It is the testimony of a man who was admitted to be so well informed upon the subject, that though a member of the Roman Catholic Church, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin will look upon his statement as most valuable. I allude to the Right Rev. James Doyle, Roman Catholic bishop. The following examination of this witness took place:—

"Has the present system, under which the parliamentary grants are administered, in your opinion tended to promote the cause of education generally in Ireland?—I believe it is well known to every Member of Parliament that the public funds that are now, and have been for years past, given to a certain society in Dublin to promote the education of the poor in Ireland, are applied to the building, and improving, and supporting of schools which are frequented by few or none of the Roman Catholic population. There is no doubt these funds have contributed to the advancement of the cause of education among the people who are not of our Church; but to us they are useless."

[This is the point for which I cited the extract]—

"Indeed, if they had been merely useless, I do not think we should have complained; but they have been sources of numberless jealousies and conflicts between inferiors and superiors, sometimes of persecutions by landlords of their tenants, and of ill will on the part of the tenants towards the landlord; altogether, they have been productive of so much evil and discord, that I think it would be most desirable to put an end to it."

I think that these statements are the more important, inasmuch as I have not seen a particle of evidence brought forward on the other side. Out of a large number of witnesses, whose evidence is compiled in a ponderous blue book, all exactly showing the same facts, and each witness confirming the other, there is not one particle of evidence produced upon the other side, or in favour of the Kildare-street schools. Seeing, then, the impartial judgment of so many witnesses examined before the Committee of 1830 upon education is exactly in favour of the one system—seeing that they gave a unanimous opinion against the system which formerly existed, I think there is a very strong primá facie ground for an alteration of that system, and therefore for the substitution of the national system that is now adopted in Ireland. But there is something more besides this evidence. Looking to the last report of the authorities of the Kildare-street schools, I find the following extract:—

"In 1830 the Kildare-street schools were 1620. Of these 240 were in Munster, 112 in Connaught, 247 in Leinster, 1021 in Protestant Ulster. The pupils were 133,000. Minister had 16,000; Connaught, 11,000; Leinster, 22,000; Ulster, 84,000;"

or two-thirds of the whole. I am anxious to see how this fact can be overcome by the hon. Gentleman. I had the curiosity to read the report of a debate that took place upon this subject two years ago. I certainly did not find any allusion to the fact to which I have just referred in the speech of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin; but I do find it stated in that speech, and stated with an air of something like triumph, that out of the whole number who attended those schools in Ireland more than one-half were Roman Catholics. Well, what is the whole proportion of the population in Ireland? Is it not quite apparent that the schools attended in only equal numbers by Roman Catholics and Protestants must be schools which do not give equal benefit to the whole population? I think that I have now sufficiently shown that the system existing previously to the establishment of the national schools in Ireland cannot be defended upon the grounds of either justice or policy. And here I may rest my case. I have not heard from any one person opinions in favour of the old system. Unless, then, we are prepared with a proper substitute, we have no right to demand a change in the present system. I will not enter into any defence of the local and educational working of the existing system of education beyond what I have already advanced. I will leave that part of the subject to those who have had greater experience than myself. But that the national schools have worked incomparably better than any system that has existed before their establishment in Ireland, I do not entertain a shadow of a doubt. As I have said before, I have not heard of a single proposal that can be considered as an effectual substitute for these schools. What are the means of education it was possible to give? It is certainly possible to give a merely secular education; but that I apprehend hon. Gentlemen on this side the House would hardly desire. It is equally possible to establish schools for the exclusive benefit of Protestant children. That, I assume, is not desired by hon. Gentlemen, and, at all events, would not be endured by the people of England. What, then, is the alternative? Only one. We have it in our power to follow the system which, under different circumstances, is carried out in England—I mean that of establishing separate schools for Protestants and Roman Catholics. I think that the one objection to that system, that it does away with the principle of combined education, is in itself very important; but I have another objection to the proposal before the House, and to which I think the hon. Member himself will attach much importance. In those parts of Ireland with which I am acquainted—I will go further, and say that as regards two-thirds of Ireland—throughout that wide-spread country in which the Roman Catholic population possess a predominating, I will not say an overpowering, majority over the Protestants, if we attempt to establish separate schools of Protestants and Roman Catholics, the effect will be to deprive the Protestants of any education at all. In those parts where the Roman Catholic population is as 10 to 1—in Tipperary, where they are as 20 to 1, it would be impossible to get a sufficient number of Protestant children together in order to establish such a school, unless we can induce them to come from twenty miles round. It is utterly impossible, therefore, to establish with advantage any other system than that which now exists. Such a plan as has been suggested would be utterly impracticable. I, therefore, think I have succeeded in showing that the present system of education in Ireland is decidedly the best that, under the circumstances, can be adopted.

would venture to suggest, with reference to the line of argument taken in the eloquent speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, that the real point for the consideration of the House was not the respective merits or demerits of any system heretofore or now established in Ireland. It had, but a few days ago, been decided by an overwhelming majority, that an Irish institution which had long existed should be abolished; and that vote was given on the ground that Ireland and England should be assimilated. If the question now under discussion were viewed as a Church question, he might remind the House, that throughout Irish history it appeared to have been thought a matter of great moment to assimilate the Churches of the respective countries. That was the object of the greatest statesman that ever administered the affairs of Ireland; and it was permitted him so to assimilate the Churches, which had since remained the same in doctrine, discipline, and formularies. But by setting up a distinct system of education in England and in Ireland, they took a course tending to disunite those Churches. The difference between education in England and education in Ireland was very perplexing. His hon. Friend, who had just spoken with so much ability, argued, that if the supporters of the Motion were not prepared to propose a substitute, they ought not to propose the abolition of what was already established. If he (Lord J. Manners) thought that, by voting for the Motion, he was doing anything to destroy the national system of education in Ireland, he should not vote for the Motion; but the right hon. Secretary for Ireland did not apprehend that such would be the result if the Motion were carried. For himself, he entertained great doubts as to the alleged fact that the present system was really or virtually a combined system. Reasoning à priori, he should come to the conclusion that a combined system, which the religious feeling of the people would not tolerate in England, would not be tolerated in Ireland. That opinion was confirmed by actual experience of facts. If there were any town where a combined system might be fairly carried out, it was the town of Armagh, the residence of a Roman Catholic Archbishop, and one of the Commissioners under the system of national education, and also the residence of Dr. Henry, the Commissioner representing the Presbyterian body. But the schools in Armagh were known by the name of Dr. Croly's School and Dr. Henry's School; and when he (Lord J. Manners) went over the schools there was not a Presbyterian or Episcopal child receiving education in Dr. Croly's School, nor was there a Roman Catholic in Dr. Henry's School. By acceding to the Motion, the House would put an end to this difference of treatment, and would conciliate the affections of a great, loyal, and peaceable body of subjects in Ireland. An indirect advantage of importance would also be secured. The hon. Gentleman who opened the debate made an assertion which was uncontradicted and unrefuted, though an attempt had been made to mitigate its force, that Her Majesty's representative in Ireland was in the habit of making an unqualified cordial support of the national system of education a condition in the distribution of Church patronage. That was a baneful, almost an immoral exercise of power; nothing could be conceived more destructive of all that men held dear than an intimation from Her Majesty's representative to a poor curate, that, whatever his qualifications, he must, in the first instance, do despite to his strong religious convictions, and support that system which he honestly believed to be erroneous and inconsistent with his ordination vows. Such an administration of patronage was not only unjust but impolitic. The man who received that intimation left the presence-chamber surrounded by an atmosphere of dignity and heroism. He must take rank with those who agreed in his views, if not as a martyr, at least as a confessor; and by such insane policy the Government swelled the ranks of those who opposed the system. If the Motion were acceded to, the Government of the day would not be exposed to the temptation he had described; and it would be a matter of indifference whether a clergyman agreed with them or not on the education question. The main objection that had been urged to the proposition of his hon. Friend was, that the conscientious scruples of the clergy were unfounded and untenable, and ought to be abandoned. The gentlemen who said that, however, were just those who were perpetually vindicating the rights of conscience, and laying it down as an incontrovertible rule, that no man should be compelled to do that from which his conscience dissented. In fact, the inconsistencies of these gentlemen might be multiplied ad infinitum. In one breath they said that the State could not devise a system of education which ought to be given to all the children of the State; in another, they said that the State could invent such a system. In one breath they asserted that the State, in granting money for educational purposes, was bound to consult the conscientious opinions of all; in another, that the State was bound annually to disregard the honest, religious convictions of a great portion of its subjects. For himself, he could not think that the English Church ought to be indifferent to the claims of her Irish sister; and he could not pass over the fact that 1,700 of her clergy, headed by the venerable Primate, and 70,000 of her attached laity, felt the present system to be a serious invasion of the rights of conscience, and a sensible oppression upon them. It was no answer to their complaint to say that the system was working well elsewhere, and was not objected to by other parties. Granting that it was so, all they asked was, that facilities should be afforded them for educating their own children according to their own religious convictions. That was the question which the House had to decide; and it was one that depended, not upon the respective merits of this or that system, but upon the plain and simple view of justice which had been so well put by his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Midhurst. As a sincere advocate of the union between the two countries, as a lover of justice, and a hater of all oppression and all systems of corruption and oppression, to which he thought the rigid maintenance of the present system undoubtedly led, he should give his cordial support to the Motion.

so far agreed with the noble Lord as to say that the Church Edution Society should receive part of the grant of the public money made by this country, on the same ground that Church education in England received a similar grant. But he believed that such a change as was proposed in the system of education in Ireland would be exceedingly dangerous. He could understand how the public money in this country should be distributed among the national schools, and the British and Foreign Society's schools; but he was sorry to say, both from his own knowledge and from the admission of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin, that the case was widely different in Ireland; for there the system of proselytism was extensively prevalent. In his own district he had heard Roman Catholic clergymen complain—and the hon. Member for the University of Dublin had confirmed the cause of their complaint, by saying that more than half the children educated in these schools were Roman Catholics. It appeared to him that there were special grounds for objecting to the proposition. If the proposition of the hon. Member for the University of Dublin were admitted, the House could not refuse grants of money to Roman Catholics exclusively. There were religious communities in the Roman Catholic Church, who were bound together by the most sacred vows religiously to instruct the poor at all hours. Those religious communities could not, in consequence of their religious views, accept the national grant under the conditions with which it was given. But if the Motion of the hon. Member were passed, those communities, with others of the same character, would receive the grant, which they could not now receive because they were bound by their vows to imbue at all hours their pupils with the doctrine of the Roman Catholic religion. The plain fact was, that the ratepayers, from whom the means of education must be raised, belonged to all denominations of religion, and that being so, it was impossible to provide, from the public resources for the use of all, any but a mixed system. Under the rules and practice of the present system in Ireland, there was abundant provision for the religious education of all classes. [The hon. Member here entered into details of the relative numbers of Catholics and Protestants in Ireland, and the number of schools in which the Scriptures were read and not read in school hours.] The mover and seconder of the Motion had contradicted each other as to the fact of the Roman Catholic clergy being opposed to the national scheme. The working of that system was giving an excellent scientific and literary education; and he denied the allegation that the Lord Lieutenant had used his church patronage to aid the national system by dispensing it to those only who would support that system. The bishops had the largest share of patronage, and the Lord Lieutenant but little in comparison, and it was not likely he would so use it. He felt it his duty to oppose the Motion.

had never considered this important subject as a matter of dispute between contending parties, but had invariably given his vote in favour of whatever system of education had appeared to him to be the best adapted for the good of the people. The hon. and learned Member for Midhurst had made an important proposition, which required consideration—that there should be two systems of education, one for England, and another for Ireland. In the first place, the system of education in England had been of so long standing that it might be considered to have formed the character of the British people? But the Irish system had been one lately introduced, and, as far as he had been able to learn, without any beneficial result. He would ask why should that be the case? Why should there be two different systems in the two countries? A noble Lord in another place, connected with the Government, had been reported to have said—

"Grants for education are intended for the benefit of the poor. The mass of the poor are Roman Catholics, and being so, by no other method could a superior degree of education be substituted for the imperfect mischievous education they were in the habit of receiving, than by a system which Protestants could not object to, for extending the benefits of education to so many of Her Majesty's Roman Catholic subjects."

Were they to understand from that, that because the mass of the poor of Ireland were Roman Catholics, therefore, not only their education but that of the Protestants also was to be placed in the hands of the priests? The noble Lord, however, was egregiously deceived, for at the time when the Government joined in the cry set up by the priests to put down all education into which the Scriptures were introduced, he would have found that there were between 200,000 and 300,000 children receiving eduation at those schools, public and private, in which the reading of the Scriptures formed a portion of the education. And yet they had been told that a superior education had been substituted for an imperfect and mischievous education. In what respect, he would ask, was the system considered to be mischievous? Solely because the Scriptures were introduced as a part of it. He confessed he had never expected to live to see the day when a Minister of the Crown would denounce a system of education as mischievous simply because it was based upon holy Scripture. He recollected perfectly well the Kildare-street Society's Schools, and he would maintain that there never was a system so popular as that. He had several schools on his estates under that system; and in one county, where there were five schools, so strong was the feeling in their favour that numbers of Roman Catholic children applied for permission to receive instruction in them after the ordinary school hours. The national school system had now been on its trial for eighteen years, and during that time its praises had been loudly sounded, but always to the same tune, namely, the number of schools and the number of scholars. But they had not been told that in proportion as the schools had increased, and the scholars had multiplied, the character and habits of the people had improved. They had not been told that the children had left the schools one particle better than they entered them—they did not hear of their professing any desire to preserve the peace of the country—they did not hear of their coming forward to aid the authorities to prevent insurrection and rebellion—of their giving better evidence as witnesses, or truer verdicts as jurors—of their professing greater allegiance to their Sovereign, or greater determination to support the Crown and Government. When he should hear of these effects having been produced upon the people, then he would admit that the system might be considered to have worked well. But until then he should retain his present objections. He complained of the ready attention which the Government paid to the wishes of the Roman Catholics on this subject, and of the indifference which they uniformly manifested to the conscientious scruples of the Protestant clergy. How long the Protestant religion was likely to continue the religion of the State, he could not say; but so long as it was the established religion, he insisted that it was entitled to receive from Government a much more liberal measure of support than it had of late or was at present receiving.

gave his cordial support to the Motion. If he understood that Motion aright, the House was not, by the terms of it, shut up to the reconsideration of the principle upon which the National Board of Education was originally established. He, for one, was not prepared to open up that question; but he observed that the Motion offered an alternative which would justify him in supporting it. It commended to the candid and careful consideration of Government the question, whether the national system of education, which had been in operation for the last eighteen years, had been really working with advantage; and then followed the alternative to which he referred, whether means might not be taken to extend the assistance of the State to those whose conscientious objections to the National Board would not allow them to partake of the Imperial advances. Upon this latter point he had no hesitation whatever in voting with his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin. He had listened with the attention which it de- served to the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn, and, while he could not but honour the feeling which had prompted it, he (Mr. Heald) was as much unconvinced by the force of the hon. Gentleman's arguments, and by the facts which he had stated, as by any speech which had been addressed to the House that night. To the opinions of individuals, which had been cited by the hon. Gentleman, he (Mr. Heald) would oppose facts; against the predictions of parties, however distinguished, he would place the historical proceedings of the Irish Education Society. He had listened with particular attention to the hon. Member's closing observations, and, with reference to what he had said about that part of Ireland included within the precincts of Tipperary, his answer would be this—"Leave it to the progress of the Irish Education Society," for it would be found that even in that district the schools of that society were attended by the children of Catholics as well as Protestants; and, even if that society had no other schools in Ireland but those, the House would be amply justified in giving their sanction to the society for their sake. The hon. Member for Cork had objected, that the progress of the schools connected with that society was attended with proselytism. That formed no objection to his (Mr. Heald's) mind. He adopted the sentiment of the noble Lord the Member for Arundel, that wherever Christianity was worthy of the name, it would be earnest, active, and influential. It was the nature of Christianity to make progress; and though they might call that progress proselytism, its effects remained the same. He was, therefore, not at all displeased to learn that such results had followed from the labours of that society. In speaking on this question, he especially claimed the indulgence of the House, because he believed he might be considered as much as any hon. Member an impartial witness in this court of appeal. It was well known that he had not the honour of being a member of, and therefore associated by direct professional bonds with, the Established Church, But he had been nurtured in such principles, and trained under the influence of such sentiments, that he could not concede to any individual member of that Establishment; and, in the presence of its bishops and clergy, he had stated that he entertained as great an interest in its progress as any person immediately connected with it. He had always acted on those principles; and now in this House he felt it to be his duty, as a Nonconformist, to declare his honest opinions, and to avow the affection which he bore towards the Established Church. If he understood the strength of the argument which had been adduced against the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the University of Dublin, it was, that the Established Church of Ireland—and in speaking of the Church of Ireland, they should never forget that it was an integral part of the Established Church of England—supposing the members and promoters of the Irish Church Education Society felt themselves oppressed and burdened by the constant demand for voluntary effort, might apply a portion of its revenues to make up the difference. He had heard a great deal said from time to time in this House upon the subject of Irish Church property, and it had been contended that that property was excessive, and that it would be a great benefit to the common interests of the country if it were otherwise appropriated. For his part, he had no sympathy with such a sentiment as this. His honest conviction was just the reverse. He believed that church property had never yet been found to be equal to the demands of the population for an adequate amount of religious instruction and pastoral oversight and care. And so long as he saw that it fell short of that, he could not adopt an opinion which was so unsound and dangerous, as that the property of the Established Church in these realms was in excess of the educational wants of the country. If the property of the Established Church were distributed equally amongst the working clergy of the present day, it would amount to a sum per head which would fall short of the incomes of the great body of the Nonconformist ministers; that it would not exceed 250 l. per annum—a sum which he had never yet heard any hon. Member say was extravagant. But he objected to that argument on this high principle. If it were a fact that the property of the Church of Enggland was in excess of the demand and wants of its people, that was a matter which did not appear to have anything to do with a right solution of the question. He admitted that all Irish legislation was difficult. He was prepared to bear his testimony, after listening to the conflicting statements which had from time to time been presented to this House in connexion with many Irish questions, that it was a difficult matter for an English Member, solely desirous of serving his country, and Ireland as a portion of it, to come to a right conclusion, and to know how to give his vote. But perhaps the question of national education was the most difficult of all questions. At all events, it had been found to be so in this country; and how had the difficulty been solved at last? Why, by dealing with the subject upon the denominational principle. He had heard no argument advanced that night to convince him that the persons who were carrying on the operations of the Irish Church Education Society should not be as other persons in this portion of the British dominions were. Was this, he asked, the time for placing restrictions upon the vigorous and earnest efforts of the Protestant Church? In his opinion, it was the very period when Parliament should come forward and assist their loyal fellow Protestant subjects in Ireland to carry out the great work of education in connexion with the Irish Church Education Society. Upon these grounds he should give his support to the Motion.

Sir, the object now brought before us is, I think, sufficiently important and sufficiently difficult, to induce us not to mix up with it any question in regard to the Church Establishment of Ireland. The question now before us concerns a system of education which is aided and supported by grants voted in this House, and collected from the taxes paid generally by the people of the united kingdom, and therefore is one totally apart from any question that may be stated or made the subject of debate in regard to the Church Establishment of Ireland. With respect to this question, then, I should say that, in the first place, in disposing of these grants, as a matter of justice we ought to make the benefits of the education we so aid as extensive as possible. We ought to diffuse as widely as possible, among the children of Ireland, the benefits of the education we propose to aid by these grants; and, Sir, I think it would not be a fair or a just application of the funds thus derived from the general taxes of the country if we were to distribute them on any narrow or exclusive principle. But, in the next place, as a matter of policy and expediency, I should say that if you wish your grants to be useful; if you wish to diffuse the benefits of general instruction—the benefits of secular learning, of morality and religion, as widely as possible amongst the people of Ireland—it should be your object to have such a system as will not provoke opposition or jealousy at its commencement. And you should endeavour to avoid all rules and regulations which could induce a suspicion that you are attempting to convert that which is the largest, the most numerous, and at the same time the poorest part of the population of Ireland to that religion which has in its hands the greatest proportion of the power of the State in this country, which is the richest in Ireland, and which, by endowment and otherwise, is most likely to use that power and that weight for the purpose of proselytising. Therefore, Sir, both on the ground of justice and policy, if you mean to be just and fair to the people of Ireland, and to diffuse amongst them the benefits of education as widely as possible, it is your bounden duty to avoid giving your grants coupled with such conditions as may induce a belief, that in proposing to promote education you mean to convert the children of Roman Catholic parents to the Protestant religion. The hon. Gentleman who has just spoken, indeed, showing the earnestness with which those who are earnestly persuaded in religious matters seek to inculcate their opinions on others, has no objection to use these education grants as a means of proselytising. He avows that that is a part to be adopted. If that be the case, I submit to him that his object would be defeated by the very means by which he would seek to promote it—for immediately you declared to the Roman Catholic clergy and laity that your purpose was not merely to give to the children a good education, but that your object is to proselytise Ireland—they will, of course, arm themselves against that purpose, and your grants will be confined only to a very small proportion of the people, and those who dreaded the priest would consider it a fraud to accept, and would indignantly reject them. If this be a right principle, we come to the consideration of that which I certainly shall not attempt to explain to the House after the very able statement we have had from the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who has not only shown considerable knowledge on the subject, and great ability in defence of the cause, but who has an hereditary right to defend the cause of education in Ireland. But in adverting to the speech of the hon. Gentleman who last spoke, I must refer to the very different conclusion which was arrived at by the Commission of Education—a commission, I believe, originally commenced by one to whom I am nearly related, the Duke of Bedford, while holding the office of Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, and followed up by him afterwards. That commission was appointed to inquire into the state of all schools and charitable foundations; and amongst that commission was the Archbishop of Armagh, the Archbishop of Cashel, the Bishop of Raphoe, the Bishop of Killaloe, the late Provost Elrington of Trinity College, and other eminent men. These commissioners laid down certain principles on which in the report of 1832, they declare their hope that the scheme of national education proposed by them will be cordially accepted by the people of Ireland. And they add these memorable words:—

"That such will be its acceptance we shall indulge the more confident expectation, if all interference with the particular religious tenets of those who are to receive that instruction shall, in the first instance, be unequivocally disclaimed, and effectually guarded against. We conceive this to be of essential importance in any new establishments for the education of the lower classes in Ireland; and we venture to express our unanimous opinion that no such plan, however wisely and unexceptionably contrived in other respects, can be carried into effectual execution in this country 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 description of Christians."

Such was the conclusion arrived at at that time by men who were distinguished ornaments of the Established Church of England and Ireland, but who, having a warm attachment to the cause of education and a knowledge of the people of Ireland, knew also what would be an effectual bar to the success of any plan which might be proposed. Now, Sir, considering the whole history of past events in regard to this subject, and the history likewise of the various voluntary societies, I say it is no wonder that the Roman Catholic clergy and laity were peculiarly jealous and sensitive as to any plan of education which was to extend to them; and when they heard that the Bible was to be introduced into the schools—that the Bible according to the authorised version received by Protestants should be read, it was but natural that they should dread it was an attempt to seduce them from the religion of their fathers, and to convert them to Protestantism. I say that was a suspicion not only natural, but almost inevitable. With these views Lord Stanley founded the present educational scheme in Ireland, declaring that all suspicion of the attempt to proselytise must be carefully guarded against. These schools were established there on this principle, and have been aided by grants made by this House; and what has been their progress? The number of scholars attending them in 1832 was 107,000, but in 1849 there were 480,623 children taught in them. And besides this they (the National Board) have established admirable normal and model schools in Dublin and elsewhere. Agricultural schools have also been formed in various parts of the country, and they have thus aided not only in the promotion of learning and religion, but in those arts most likely to advance the people in industry and civilisation. They have then, after seventeen years' experience, a strong ground for the support of this House—they come before you with a strong case for further support and for the continuance of these grants; they come before you with this claim, that unless there be a strong and overwhelming cause for interfering with the system, that you should answer any proposal for interference by saying we had been long in search of a plan by which various sects of Christians in Ireland might be made the recipients of a common system of education; we at length arrived at such a system, which has now been in operation for seventeen years, and has now come to that point that half a million of children are maintained in these schools, and receive instruction in them—we will not intemperately or indiscreetly do anything to discourage such a system, but will allow it to go on, and continue those grants which have so far been so highly advantageous to the people of Ireland. The hon. Gentleman who has proposed to the House to abandon this system, does so on grounds which, though plausible, always appears to me entirely untenable, namely, the scruples of the Prostestant clergy and laity being violated by the scheme. Now, I can understand very well a parent, whether Protestant or Catholic, saying, "Here is a system of education which interferes with my religious belief, and which does not allow my child to receive that religious instruction which I conceive necessary, and you should not by public grants support such a system." But the objection made by the hon. Gentleman is of an entirely different nature. It is not that the religious opinions of the parents are inter- fered with in the instruction given to the children, or that their children being Protestants are obliged to receive an education not Protestant; but it is that others, who are not Protestants, and who have a different faith, are not compelled to receive an education which would be sufficient for the children of Protestants. That is what I understand by the proposition which has been made on this subject on previous occasions, and by the proposition brought forward to-day; because, as far as I can understand it, and that by the testimony of persons of authority on this question, that in effect is the whole pith of the objections raised. The Bishop of Cashel recently at a meeting in Dublin declared that a Protestant child might receive a good Protestant education in these schools; but what he objected to was that the Bible was not admitted as a school-book in the schools when the Roman Catholic children were taught. On this point I have the testimony of Mr. Sadlier, a clergyman of the Established Church, in a pamphlet written by him, in which he gives an account of his own school. When asked if he would be a patron of the national schools, he consented, and in stating what was done in the way of religious education, he says—

"The Scripture extracts, which contain all the essential parts of the Gospels, are read daily in the school, and the pupils cannot fail to acquire a considerable degree of that Christian knowledge which the members of every branch of the Christian Church agree in thinking desirable to inculcate." "The children educated in rival schools would learn instinctively to hate each other, whereas in this school they are brought up as members of the same family, in peace and love towards each other."

Now this is a practical example of the opinion of a Protestant clergyman, the head of a school in his own parish having Roman Catholic schoolmasters and Protestant assistants acting together, and Roman Catholic and Protestant children learning together those Scripture extracts, and receiving each of them that peculiar religious instruction which is agreeable to the faith of their parents. Now, after this, I think no person is entitled to say that the Protestant child is obliged to receive in these schools an education which is at variance with the conscience of his parents. There are some of the schools where this peculiar religious instruction is excluded from the schoolroom; and I believe this has been done at the request of the more jealous Protestants who would not consent that religious in- struction should be given to the Roman Catholics in the house for which the public money had been granted, at the same time with the Protestants. But, generally speaking, the rules laid down in the last report of the Commission have been followed, that the peculiar religious instruction may be given in the school-room after the school hours, the only condition being that the Protestant version of the Bible should not be read as a school book during school hours. If that be so, it is plain that as to the first principle, the modification the hon. Gentleman asks is not a modification in order that instruction in the Protestant religion may be better provided for, but a modification that should be contrary to the wishes and which will arouse the suspicions of the Roman Catholics by declaring that the Bible shall be read in these schools not only for the sake of the Protestant children, but for the sake of the Roman Catholic children also. Now, Sir, I believe if you introduce such a change, you at once strike a fatal blow to the system; and those jealousies which have been allayed, and those suspicions which are now sleeping, would be again aroused: 300,000 or 400,000 children would be at once taken away from these schools, and your hopes of a united system of education would be frustrated and destroyed. But the proposition goes further; and it is said if you do not approve of any modification of the plan, let the schools remain as they are according to the national system; but let there be a separate grant for the children of members of the Church of England; and it seems very plausible to say this is the system in England, why not adopt it in Ireland? But, Sir, I see no force in the objection, that there is a difference in the system in the two countries—what I desire to see effected is the greatest degree of good that is practicable in both countries; and if I find that one system will produce the greatest amount of good in England, and that a different system is calculated to produce the greatest amount of good in Ireland, I will take that different system, and apply it to Ireland, in preference to a system which, though successful here, would be unsuccessful there. But if you take the plan as existing in England, you should not take it piecemeal. If you say that the Church of England, which taken in proportion to the whole population of Ireland does not constitute more than one-sixth or one-seventh of the whole, while it possesses the greater portion of the pro- perty—if you say, the schools in connexion with that Church—shall have a separate grant, how can you deny to the Roman Catholic bishops and clergy a separate grant for the Roman Catholic schools, in order to enable them to have separate schools and separate religious teaching also? Considering the advantages that Church has in Ireland, and the means the clergy now possess—considering, too, that the Catholic archbishop, the Rev. Dr. M'Hale, and others of the Roman Catholic clergy, are as strongly in favour of separate education as any of those bishops—as are the bishops and clergy of the Established Church—how can you deny to them, for five-sixths or six-sevenths of the whole people, their separate schools, conducted according to the Roman Catholic maxims, and exclusively teaching the Roman Catholic religion? In that case you would have, perhaps, out of the whole grant of 120,000 l., 20,000 l. given to the Established Church and Presbyterian schools, and 100,000 l. exclusively to the Roman Catholic schools. And who shall tell me what in that case will be the course of education in these Roman Catholic schools when they are entirely set loose from this system of mixed education which has taught the Roman Catholics to know and to love their Protestant brethren, and inculcated in their minds the precepts of our common Christian religion, and brought them up to "love one another." If you separate the grant, giving the 100,000 l. to the Roman Catholics, and 20,000 l. to the Protestants, I do not think that the effect would be the same as it has been in England, where the grants are given part to the Church of England, part to the British and Foreign School Society, part to the Wesleyans, and part to the Roman Catholics. I believe the effects in Ireland would be totally different. There, where there has been so much of separation and animosity so long existing, but now happily subsiding, we should see that animosity revived and fostered by this separate system. And, on the other hand, it would be impossible for you to stop and say that to the laity of the Established Church and to the clergy of that Church should a separate grant be made, and that to no other persons professing a different religion, would you give the same advantage, for then you would be introducing an injustice, and raising again that evil of religious exclusion with regard to this new system, the effects of which we have so much reason to deplore in regard to the system which so long has existed. The advantage I look to from this system of education is, that being a matter of recent introduction, founded on grants of Parliament, to which no one has a claim except on the grounds of general justice and policy, you have it in your own hands to say the money shall be distributed in that way which will produce the greatest good on the future fortunes of Ireland. You have it in your power to say it shall be the means of reconciling persons of different religions, and of inducing the population of that country to regard your rule in Ireland as just, and that it is not because one man is Protestant, and another Roman Catholic, that the one shall be unduly favoured, or the other discouraged; but that whatever differences there may be on other subjects—or in the way of long-established and prescriptive law—there is no difference in this. The rule I support has been but lately established; it is working well; and it will be your own fault if you depart from it: if you do, and attempt now to establish a separate system, you will soon find that those jealousies and animosities which you have in some degree allayed, would be again rising up and obstructing your path. I hope, therefore, on all these considerations, that the House will not consent to make a change in the principle on which this grant has hitherto been distributed. I hope they will support this Commission of Education, comprising, as it does, men of great eminence, but of different religious views; including men like Archbishop Whately and Archbishop Murray. I hope they will not disturb them in their holy and beneficent work of educating and christianising the people of Ireland. I have been told of another complaint which has been made, that the clergy of the Established Church receive no countenance, or support, or favour from the State, unless they are friends of this system of national education. But in this respect I would beg to observe that the clergy, who are declared to be hostile to the system, are not excluded from the most valuable benefices or the highest preferment in the Church of Ireland in consequence of their opposition. If the Crown had the monopoly of all preferment, there might be some ground for that complaint; but the fact is, that the great bulk of the patronage of the Church is in the hands of the Church itself. For instance, in the diocese of Armagh, the Crown has the right of presentation to four livings, and the bishop to forty-nine; in the diocese of Ferns, the Crown possesses the right in respect to one living, and the bishop to forty-four; and in the diocese of Cashel, the Crown presents to three, and the bishop to thirty-four. Therefore, I say, with every respect for the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland, who make this complaint, and every respect for their conscientious opposition to the national system, I do not think that their worldly prospects are prejudiced and blighted, as they allege; for if the Crown does not prefer them to the livings which it has in its patronage, the bishop, generally speaking, prefers them. I do not find fault with the bishop for doing so. I do not find fault with the bishop, who is an enemy conscientiously to the national system of education, for giving his patronage to those who agree with him on an important subject affecting the moral and religious welfare of the people. But if I do not find fault with the bishop, I do not, on the other hand, think the Crown is to be blamed because, when patronage falls into its hands, it finds a man of ability, of piety, and of learning, who agrees with it on this principle, and prefers him. On every ground, then, I think there is no foundation for the claims which have been advanced on this subject. I think the clergymen of the Established Church of Ireland, from their high character and their merits in every respect, but more especially for their charitable exertions during the late painful years of famine, are deserving of our highest esteem and regard. I am concerned, therefore, that on this subject I should differ from their wishes; and were it not that I think those wishes are opposed to the general welfare of the people of Ireland, and that we should be making a serious inroad in our system of education, I should be glad to comply with their desire on this subject. But seeing that many schemes and plans in Ireland have failed—that this is a plan, as established by Lord Stanley, which has had good success and prosperity, and which promises to promote good conduct and obedience to the laws among the people of Ireland—I call upon the House not to consent to abridge its powers by adopting the present Motion.

would not address the House on this question but that he had a duty to perform to the con- stituents who sent him to that House; who felt a deep interest in the subject. He would first refer to what had fallen from the hon. Member for Cork, as to the bishops in Ireland as a body being opposed to the national system of education. The hon. Gentleman had said, that those who opposed the National Board, and were thereby deprived of all hopes of Government Church patronage, were indemnified for that position of antagonism by the bishops who agreed with them, and who were in possession of great portions of the Church patronage in that country. He must correct the hon. Gentleman's facts. The bishops in Ireland were not all opposed to the national system of education, for seven out of twelve were in favour of it; and while those who were opposed to that system only possessed the patronage of 446 livings, the bishops who were in favour of it held in their gift 620 livings. Out of the 2,040 clergymen of the Established Church in Ireland, 1,500 had expressed their disapprobation of the National Board, and therefore there remained 500 to enjoy the patronage of the Government, and of the seven bishops. That, then, disposed of the hon. Gentleman's argument so far. Then, with respect to the observations of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who had an hereditary right to be heard on this particular question, able and eloquent as was his address, proving that he inherited not only the distinguished name, but also the great talents of his noble father—still, the hon. Gentleman had on the present occasion directed his abilities not to the consideration of the question immediately under discussion—viz., the success of the experiment of the national system of education in Ireland, but rather to the consideration of the question whether the motives on which Lord Stanley had founded that system were well grounded or not. That was a question which had never yet been mooted. There could be no doubt that the noble Lord's motives were excellent—that they were based on the soundest principles—and that he had had the fullest expectations that his plan would have turned out most favourably in operation. The hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn had proved by statistics and extracts that there existed at that time good grounds for anticipating great success; but when the hon. Gentleman came down to the year 1832 his statistics ceased, and he had made no reference to details to show how experience had justified those hopes. It was somewhat singular that no statement had ever been given to the House with the view of proving that a united system of education was imparted by the instrumentality of the National Board. This was the great object of that experiment, and eloquent were the descriptions of the benefits that would ensue from children of all denominations being instructed within the same walls; all sectarian bitterness was to cease, goodwill and confidence were to take the place of the animosity and distrust that had formerly prevailed amongst different sects of Christians. Now, he would ask, have these ends been attained? and, if so, why had not the hon. Gentleman proved by statistics that the scheme had succeeded as a united system of education? When it was contended that the system had succeeded in that respect, the argument was confined to mere assertion, for all access to the facts, which would prove or disprove the statement, was denied—a course which was directly the reverse of that adopted by those who supported what was supposed to be a sectarian spirit of education. The proceedings of the Church Education Society were annually set before the public, and they courted publicity. But in spite of the difficulties in the way of inquiry in the matter, he (Lord C. Hamilton), from long residence in the north of Ireland, had been able to see that this board did not afford a united system of education. It must ever be borne in mind that the board had hardly any control over the vast majority of the schools nominally under its influence. Two-thirds of the whole number were called non-vested schools. In these the patrons have the entire power of deciding whether there shall be any religious or scriptural education. They alone can decide upon the nature and amount of such instruction, and regulate the hours at which it is to take place. Thus these non-vested schools become rival camps of sectarian differences, instead of schools where the common truths of Christianity can be harmoniously learned by children of all denominations. There were hundreds of schools with Presbyterian teachers in them, in districts where they were surrounded by Roman Catholics, and yet those schools were not frequented by the Roman Catholic children; and in the same way, in schools where there were Roman Catholic teachers, Presbyterian children were not to be found. The Commissioners, indeed, in their report in the year 1839, ad- mitted the fact. He should be satisfied if the National Board would only carry out their own declared views. In all their reports they professed the most earnest desire to promote scriptural knowledge. Yet, in spite of much reluctance, they had been obliged to confess that there were upwards of 1,250 schools, from which not only the Bible but the Scripture extracts were excluded. Taking the average of attendance, that would show that there were 130,000 children every year who not only never read a word of the Holy Scriptures, but who never heard even the extracts from the Bible sanctioned by the National Board. And although Archbishop Murray, in common with the other commissioners, advised and recommended the reading of these extracts, those who sought to carry out that advice were impugned as proselytisers. This he (Lord C. Hamilton) thought very hard. It was a libel upon the Irish people to say that they were actually repugnant to scriptural education; on the contrary, he knew of his own knowledge that a large number of the Irish Roman Catholic peasantry prided themselves on the possession of copies of the Holy Scriptures; and he was also aware that in his own district they preferred to send their children to schools where scriptural instruction was communicated. There was nothing so expensive to a country as the lack of religious education; and no better substitute for police than such instruction. The progress of scriptural education could be distinctly traced by the criminal returns of the several provinces in Ireland. In Ulster the return was 1 in 1,625, Munster 1 in 745, and in Connaught 1 in 360. Connaught was the least instructed, as Ulster was the most instructed of the three, as far as religious education was concerned. Did not this prove that, in an economical as well as in a moral point of view, it was most desirable to promote religious education among the people? Secular education, unaccompanied by religious instruction, had been found wholly insufficient; unite it with a scriptural education, and it would prove a more powerful agent towards ameliorating the character and condition of the people that all the Government proclamations and special commissioners; and therefore he trusted that no obstacle would be thrown in the way of any society which had been established for that purpose.

Sir, having had the honour to be a colleague of the noble Lord at the head of the Government when the system of national education was introduced in Ireland, and having in every vicissitude of circumstances steadily supported it, I am anxious, before this debate closes, to bear testimony to the merits of that system, and state the convictions I have formed of its advantages, although I cannot hope to use any argument that will add anything to the able and admirable speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, which has exhausted the subject before the House. I most cordially and entirely agree with the noble Lord the Member for Tyrone, that religious instruction for Ireland is one of the surest and best cures for a larger part of its social evils; but the noble Lord, when he speaks of religious instruction, appears altogether to exclude from his mind Roman Catholic religious instruction, and seems to think that Roman Catholic religious instruction, combined with good secular instruction, is not good religious teaching. Now, I dissent from that view altogether. In talking of the small proportion of Protestants in the north who support the national schools, the noble Lord seems altogether to put out of view the Presbyterians as a denomination of Protestants. But are not the national schools cordially adopted by the Presbyterians in Ulster, and sanctioned by the great body of the Roman Catholics of Ireland? I am truly sorry that the Established Church has not partaken of the full benefit of the system; and why is it that she has not? The reason is, because the clergymen of the Established Church have been led away, as I think, in a most uncompromising spirit against a comprehensive system of education in Ireland. There are some honourable exceptions: the case of Mr. Sadleir is not singular, I believe, among the parochial clergy. I will not repeat what the noble Lord at the head of the Government has said of this clergyman; but Mr. Sadleir says he thinks it his duty, although the majority of his parishioners are Roman Catholics, to attend the Roman Catholic school, where the majority of the pupils are Roman Catholics. He states also the result of that attendance—that the children read the Scripture extracts and the books of the National Society—that although there is no doctrinal instruction given, yet there is much of Scripture history taught. And he has told you the result of that general teaching—that the Roman Catholic and the Protestant children are equally in- structed in a general knowledge of the Scriptures and their religion, and that the education can by no means be designated, in his opinion, secular instruction. But the hon. Gentleman who brings forward the Motion charges the system with being latitudinarian. If that were so, a graver objection to it could not be urged. But unless I am greatly misinformed, there is annually in the city of Dublin an examination by a society, called "The Association for Discountenancing Vice and Promoting the Knowledge and Practice of the Christian Religion," with premiums awarded to children instructed in the tenets of the Established Church at the different seminaries of that province—premiums to the children displaying the greatest knowledge of those tenets. That society offers annual premiums, which are awarded for proficiency in the Holy Scriptures and in the Catechism and Liturgy of the Church of England. Protestant children from all the parish schools in Dublin attend these examinations, which are held in the month of June. The examiners are invariably clergymen of the Church of England. The mode adopted by the superintendents and teachers of the schools is to select such of the children as are likely to answer creditably, and send them in for examination. Accordingly, in June, 1849, twenty-four Protestant children of the National School in Marlborough-street were sent in, and the result was as follows:—The total number of candidates sent in from all the parish schools of Dublin was 197. The House will observe that there were only twenty-four sent in from the Marlborough-street school. The total number who obtained premiums were ninety-nine, and among these ninety-nine were nine out of the twenty-four pupils from the National Model School. How is it possible, in the face of facts like these, to maintain that the Protestant children brought up with the Roman Catholic children under this system may not obtain the best education, even the peculiar tenets of the Established Church? But I regret to say the clergymen of the Established Church have greatly frustrated the success of the measure so far as the Established Church is concerned. The noble Lord at the head of the Government has been taunted with applying the patronage of the Church Establishment in Ireland for the furtherance and support of this system. It is not for me to defend the noble Lord's policy in this particular. He has, as I think, sufficiently vindicated himself. But the Government of which I was a Member pursued a directly opposite course. They distributed the highest patronage of the Protestant Church in Ireland without reference to the opinions regarding this particular subject of the persons selected for the prelacy. I will not speak harshly on this subject, but it is necessary to speak the truth. How, then, have the prelates, thus selected totally irrespective of their opinions on this matter, exercised their patronage with reference to this particular question? Unless I am misinformed, the persons thus selected for the prelacy, without reference to their opinions respecting this particular system, have used their utmost exertions, and applied the patronage of their respective dioceses, exclusively for the support and maintenance of those who are opposed to this national system. That fact—which I greatly deplore—I believe is indisputable. Something has been said respecting the conscientious scruples of the clergy of the Established Church; and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin dwelt upon that point. Now, I have a right to ask, is the system of education in Trinity College itself of an exclusively Protestant character? I admit that the distribution of rewards and honours, and emoluments, consequent upon the education there, is almost entirely exclusive. On the other hand, I absolutely deny that the education itself is in the least degree exclusive. I believe that, with the exception, which I believe is not invariable—with the exception of the examination on entrance in the Greek Testament (and observe it is no examination connected with doctrine, but merely in construing some verses of the New Testament, to see whether the individual entering has got a knowledge how to construe Greek)—with that exception, from the day of entrance up to the time when a degree is taken, I believe there is no interference with religious education. And, besides this, again, you have in all workhouses in Ireland schools based on and connected with the national system; and yet you have Protestant clergymen acting as chaplains for these workhouses. If, then, there are these religious scruples so constantly existing in the minds of the Protestant clergy, how do we find it possible to obtain these Protestant chaplains, one of whose duties compels them to attend these alleged latitudinarian schools, from which the Bible is excluded? Protes- tant chaplains, as I am informed, invariably attend the workhouse schools; but I believe there are salaries attached to the office. It will be said, perhaps, that the building itself may be desecrated by the performance of worship according to the Roman Catholic forms within the walls. Is that the case? Let us look. There are gaols in Ireland, and there are chapels attached to those gaols. The celebration of divine worship according to the forms and ceremonies of the Protestant Established Church is not exclusive within the walls of these chapels. By no means. Mass, according to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church, is celebrated within the same walls. No one scruple whatever deters Protestant clergymen from accepting the office of chaplain to those gaols. But there also salaries are attached to the office. Now, with all this chariness about conscientious scruples among the clergy of Ireland connected with the Protestant Established Church, respecting this system, it is impossible altogether to overlook these facts; and now the question, in the shape in which it is now brought before the House, presents itself to us in an alternative form. We are called upon to modify the system, or else we are called upon to make an exclusive grant. Now, observe, a modification of the system such as is now demanded, is the enforcement during a portion of the school hours of the reading of the Scriptures according to the authorised version. That is the modification intended; and I am sure the hon. Member for the University of Dublin will not deny that no modification short of that will satisfy the scruples of those whom he represents. Now, if that be so, you may as well declare that you will extinguish the national system altogether. It is not a modification—it is an extinction of the principle itself; and once insist upon that modification, or rather subvert the principle at present established, and from that moment the Roman Catholic Church would be excluded. But the second alternative, they may say, is, "Give us a grant separate from the Roman Catholics." Now this, it is clear, if acceded to, would be equivalent to supplanting the national system by a denominational system. Now, the argument on this point is quite irresistible, as urged by the noble Lord at the head of the Government. Consider well what you are doing. My hon. and learned Friend who seconded the Motion appealed to us first on the ground of justice, and next on the ground of policy. Now, if you make this change on the principles of justice, you should be prepared to see the principles of justice enforced with the utmost rigour. But the principles of justice would demand from you that if you make an exclusive grant of a limited amount—say 10,000 l. or 12,000 l. for education exclusively under the Established Church, you must also make an extensive grant to the Roman Catholic Church to the amount of at least 70,000 l. or 80,000 l. Then, what will be the effect of this? You once tried by a penal code to exclude what we Protestants consider false doctrine. No attempt ever was less successful, or ever was more harsh and cruel. This system of national education was at length substituted for that cruel and exploded system. It sought to unite in harmonious concord in one system of education from which religious education was not excluded—Roman Catholics, Presbyterians, and members of the Established Church. That which a penal code could not effect you sought to effect in a more Christian mode—by mutual kindness, mutual love, concord, and harmony were sought to be established. The noble Lord the Member for Tyrone refers to the criminal returns in arguing this question. But I will tell the noble Lord this—I know that in certain statistical returns of the national system, sectarian distinctions are so carefully avoided, that no enumeration of the children of the respective religions is made. But from what I believe to be the best authority, I find that out of the 480,000 children educated last year in these schools, 400,000 of them were Catholics, and 80,000 were Protestants—not materially varying from the proportions between the respective populations. Well, I cannot help thinking that although this system may not have borne at once all the fruits that we could desire, yet on the whole its success has been signal. I have stated it before that I am almost afraid to speak the whole truth on this matter; but I believe that there is no Roman Catholic country in Europe—(I don't dissemble in using names, for Ireland is a Roman Catholic country)—there is no Roman Catholic country in Europe, where, with the consent of the priesthood and laity of the Roman Catholic communion, education, so scriptural, so immediately in connexion with the religious teaching that prevails in this country, founded on the Bible in its Protestant form, is ever tolerated to the same extent as it is under the national system in Ireland. These, therefore, are my opinions of that national system. Then are you now about to disturb it? I heard with inexpressible pleasure the speech of the hon. Gentleman the Member for King's Lynn. He spoke almost with the voice of his father— Per genitorem oro, per spem surgentis Iuli. I entreat the House, Sir, to hold its hands before it touches this most lasting and most hon. monument of the administration of affairs by Lord Stanley in Ireland. I confess, with my feelings on the subject, that I have looked with intense anxiety to the success of this measure—I have watched its progress—I am satisfied almost beyond my expectations with the success which has already attended it. In the midst of the darkness which hangs over the face of that country, it appears as the only bright spot. I entreat you to quench not that light. If you once extinguish it, I know not by what Promethean fire you will be able to rekindle it. I believe that without this once cheering ray you have no hope left of the social amelioration of Ireland. You talk about a similarity of circumstances between England and Ireland; and say that there must be an identity of institutions. That is a difficult and a dangerous topic on which to touch. You may have an identity of institutions, but not of church establishments. The Established Church in England is the Church of the great majority of the people. The Established Church in Ireland, secured, although I know it to be by the Act of Union, is the Church of a small minority of the people. The only assistance the Roman Catholics are willing to accept at your hands—the only assistance, I was going to say, that your wisdom offers to their acceptance—the only grant in the nature of an endowment, even if you admit that which I do not, that this is exclusively Roman Catholic education—is this grant. If you make it an exclusive and a denominational—a word I confess I do not very clearly understand—grant, I believe there are many Roman Catholic prelates, and many members of the Roman Catholic priesthood, who will rejoice at the success of the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin. But the noble Lord at the head of the Government has wisely reminded you that if this grant becomes a grant from which the Roman Catholics of Ireland are excluded, you must prepare for the use that will be made of such exclusive grants. They will have to struggle against a grant made exclusively for the advantage of an Established Church richly endowed. They will have to struggle against the influence of a Protestant gentry; and the infallible effect of these exclusive grants will be to foster and promote an anti-English feeling in Ireland, which it ought ever to be our most careful and anxious study to avert. Never having felt more anxiety that the existing system of State education in Ireland should not be undermined or overthrown, I shall unhesitatingly give my vote in opposition to this Motion.

would trespass but shortly on the patience of the House while he stated why he thought himself on this occasion bound to support the Motion, and why he would present the subject again and again to their notice on the grounds of its inherent justice. He had listened without any feeling of dissatisfaction to the able speech of the hon. Member for King's Lynn, and to many parts of the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Government, because they had undoubtedly the merit of good temper and good taste; but he had heard with pain and regret the taunt thrown out against the clergy of Ireland by the right hon. Baronet who had just resumed his seat, which, with great deference and respect, he must say, was altogether unworthy of his high position. The right hon. Baronet might have argued the case in any form he pleased upon its general merits; but let no man, in the House or out of it, impute to a body of men who had lived down all calumny, that they were actuated by mere sordid motives in opposing the system of national education. For seventeen or eighteen years, with a passing interruption, the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland had been exposed to all the pressure of Government on this subject. Young curates had been received at the Castle, and there informed, "Here is a living vacant; but the condition on which it will be given away is, assent and support of the system of the Board of National Education." He admitted the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth, during a part of the time he held office, issued instructions in an admirable letter to the effect, that in promoting the members of the Irish Church, the Government should regard purity of life and piety, and not make the support of the education question a test of a clergyman's fitness for promotion. That impartial course was soon abandoned, and the abuse of patronage revived. But after all they had done and were doing, there were not 100 of the whole body of the Church who had joined the National Board; and he asked any man of honourable mind in the House to say, if there was any reason to believe the clergymen of the Established Church were actuated by any but the purest motives, or were induced by anything but their conscientious feelings of duty, as Christian men and clergymen, to come to so unanimous a decision in opposing the national system? In the case of gaols and workhouses referred to by the right hon. Baronet, the chaplain has a special and limited duty to perform towards the particular individuals placed under his charge, who derive the benefit of his pastoral office: beyond these he is neither required nor empowered to exercise his functions. The teaching there imparted is in accordance with his own convictions and obligations of office. He is neither asked nor expected to teach what he holds to be error: or to exclude the word of God from any part of the instruction he either gives or sanctions. They had heard a good deal about the advantages of a united system of education; but the fact was, that Presbyterians and Roman Catholics under the board had each a separate system of education. Indeed, on the latter point he might remark, that a gentleman sent by Archbishop Murray on a mission to Rome had published a letter recently, translated from the Italian, in which he said there was no Government so favourable to Roman Catholics as that of England, because nearly 100,000 l. was annually given to the Roman Catholic hierarchy for education. The noble Lord at the head of the Government had fairly stated the measure was not a church question. The Roman Catholic living in England had a share of the funds of the empire to promote education according to his conscientious views. The noble Lord did not get up and object that his system had a tendency to proselytise, though it could not be denied that it sought to proselytise at least as much as the system of the Church Education Society. On what principle was it, then, that the Irish Protestant was not to have the same privilege as the English Roman Catholic? Was he to be refused any share of the funds to which he contributed his quota, because he was a Protestant, and because he lived in Ireland; and was the Roman Catholic to receive aid from the State, because he was a Roman Catholic, or lived in England? Did they mean to say con- science was to be a question for all in England, but not for the Protestant in Ireland? The noble Lord had talked of giving to the people of Ireland an equality of privileges with the people of England, and they had heard "the drying up of the channel" spoken of in the late debate on the abolition of the Lord Lieutenancy; but it appeared that they were prepared to deny to the Irish Protestant, because he lived in Ireland, a privilege which they would at once accord to him if he resided in England. He appealed to the House and to the country if that was justice. The only section of the community in England not entitled to a share of the imperial funds for the purposes of education, was, as stated by the noble Lord, those who denied the basis of Christianity altogether. When Lord Stanley was coerced by the cabal described by Lord Cloncurry, to propose the system of national education, a plan of united education was made its basis; but he would put it to the hon. Member for King's Lynn, who so ably represented his noble father in clearness and ability, if he ever intended or expected to exclude the Protestants of Ireland from its advantages altogether? The system as modified by the board by successive changes, was one of retaliation, not of comprehension, and merely changed the monopoly from one body to another? In 1846 the plan of union was abandoned as hopeless, and the Commissioners reported that the schools should be accessible to all, by keeping secular apart from religious education. Were they accessible to all? Certainly not; and the reason was, the conditions imposed on attendance interfered with the conscientious views of members of the Established Church? It was said the Scripture extracts were read in the schools, that the general books were excellent, and that the children had answered well at an examination in Dublin. But the Scripture extracts were now excluded, by a rule of the board, as fully as the Bible itself, and the use of the general books was not compulsory. As to the answering of the children, he could only say it was very convenient to have a model school in Dublin to show to strangers, just as in some shops they put a kind of decoy goods in the windows; but he denied they were a fair specimen of the children educated through the country. But the fact was, religious instruction formed no part of the school teaching. When religion was never mentioned, when the sound of prayer was never heard, then, no doubt, you had unity; but when any reference was made to any topic connected with God, or eternity, then separation and division characterised the system. In the schools of the Wesleyan connection in England, it was set forth in the trust-deed itself that the Holy Bible in the authorised version should be read and used, accompanied by the teaching of the master or visitors of the school. This was the permanent condition on which they obtained aid in England: a similar rule excluded the Protestants of Ireland. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon had told the House that he did not understand what denominational religion meant. [Sir J. GEAHAM: I said I did not understand the word.] But the right hon. Baronet on a former occasion declared that—

"There could be no sound education without religion, and that there ought to be no education in any religion at the expense of the public, except in that of the Established Church."

He thought the right hon. Baronet ought to have remembered the opinions of his younger days, and he might then be able to sympathise with those who were younger than himself, but who no doubt might, without the inducements of salary, one day come round to his present views. The right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had also once expressed similar opinions, when he said—

"That rather than consent to a system in which religion would be left an open question, the Church ought to take the education of the people into her own hands, and that he doubted very much whether there was not as good a chance of harmony from the teaching by the Church, as from the plan of allowing the children to be taught by ministers of their own creed on separate days devoted to that purpose……

"Speaking upon this question, he hoped, rather than consent to any plan of this nature, the Church would separate itself from the State, that it would not shrink from the publication of its own peculiar views, which being inculcated on the mind of the child, and the necessity of religious education impressed, he very much doubted that as good a chance would not be secured for the triumph of the principles of the Christian faith."

Those were the opinions of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth in 1839. He found similar opinions to what he (Mr. Napier) now propounded, condemnatory of the species of education now upheld in Ireland, expressed in the Times of December 8, 1842, in which the injustice done to the members of the Church in Ireland was forcibly urged. The principles of the United Church were based upon the word of God, and they were not to be shuffled about as occasion required, for the mere convenience of party; and it was therefore natural that the Protestants of Ireland should take their stand firmly upon this question. Dr. Chalmers had well said that parochial schools were the nurseries of Christianity. Believing that to be the case, he might ask from all present that the Protestants of Ireland should receive privileges at least not inferior to those which were afforded to the Roman Catholics in England. The Church in Ireland was founded upon the same principles as the Church in England. But there was this difference between the two branches of the Church Establishment—the Church was politically strong in England, and the Government dared not interfere with it; but the Church in Ireland, because it had the post of difficulty, and was said to be the Church of the minority, they could take liberties with, without interfering with their political arrangements. But if they were acting upon pure and upright principles, would they have one rule for the Church in Ireland, and another for the Church in England? The noble Lord at the head of the Government had on one occasion declared that patronage would not be withheld from an Irish clergyman merely because he had opposed the national education system; and yet at the very time the noble Lord was saying this, a clergyman had sought to exchange his living for a Government living, on account of the grievous persecution he endured, for his faithfulness in preventing the fraudulent distribution of the labour-rate fund in Limerick. He, however, received a communication, requesting to know his views upon the subject of national education in Ireland, before he could be recommended for presentation to the Government living; and on replying that he did not approve of the principles of the system, he was informed that his proposal could not be entertained at the Castle. There were about 100 clergymen who were avowedly favourable to the present system, while 1,600 or 1,700 had signed the petition against it. And there were several who, from various motives, did not sign the petition, because they lived in the dioceses of bishops who were favourable to the Government system. There were 690 benefices in the gift of persons favourable to that system, and 449 in the gift of those who did not approve of it. But, in addition to this patronage, who appointed the bishops? The noble Lord at the head of the Government had spoken of the Commission of 1812, and of the report of the prelates of the Irish Church who formed that Commission. This topic had been most uncandidly put forward by persons who at least ought to have known its fallacy. That Commission did not recommend the present system, or anything analogous to it. They proposed to have all the parochial schools put into complete working order, and supplementary schools established for those who did not like to attend the parochial schools. But what was the real question before the House? It was not whether the House should consider the national system right or wrong. That might be made matter of dispute on other fitting occasions; but it was not the question now under consideration. They had recognised a national system in England, and all they required was that those who made use of the public money under that system, should carry out education according to their own religious views. Then, if it was so, he wished to know why they would not give the same assistance to the Protestants of Ireland that they gave to the Roman Catholics out of the funds to which all contributed by taxation? If this was not a Church question, as the noble Lord had stated, and if, as was laid down by the right hon. Baronet the Member for Ripon, religious instruction was the great security for the social improvement of Ireland, why, he again asked, was that instruction not to be encouraged, which was based on the pure word of God, and sanctioned by the great body of the Established Church in Ireland? Were those portions of the people of Ireland who had not been guilty of turbulent agitation, but who lived in peace and subordination to the laws, to be alone deprived of the assistance and encouragement which the State gave for educating the people? He asked if it was right to connect with the love of their religion feelings of irritation in the minds of any class of Her Majesty's subjects against imperial injustice, and to stigmatise them as unworthy of the aid which the State chose to give to others. Was this a wise experiment to make upon any religious portion of their fellow-countrymen? He would only say, in conclusion, that by such treatment they would be prepared the more perseveringly to assert the principles which they held so sacred, and which it had been his privilege feebly, but sincerely, to advocate.

I assure the hon. and learned Gentleman (will he permit me to call him my hon. and learned Friend?) that, in my opinion, no system of education would deserve the name of "national" to which the Protestants of Ireland could justly object. So far from being disposed to do them any the least injustice, I entertain for my Protestant fellow-citizens a more than compatriot sentiment. Do not listen to me with incredulity. When I reflect upon the great things which have been achieved by the Protestants of Ireland—when I consider how much genius, how much wisdom, how much eloquence, how much virtue, and how much valour, how many great statesmen, great writers, great thinkers, great speakers, and most surpassing soldiers, have issued from a minority so comparatively small, I cannot withhold my admiration; and, let me add, that gratitude is associated with admiration when I recollect that there was not a single illustrious Irish Protestant born within the last century who did not take part with his Catholic fellow-countrymen, and plead the cause of Catholic enfranchisement. Influenced by those feelings, I deprecate as strenuously as any man here can do the infliction of the slightest wrong to the religious feelings of the Protestants of Ireland. I have accordingly anxiously considered whether there existed any well-founded Protestant objection to the National Board. I say "well-founded objection," because where religious qualms take an acquisitive turn, and it is from the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the hon. and learned Members for the University of Dublin require spiritual consolation, it is only reasonable to ask whether their fears for the integrity of the Protestant faith have any substantial ground? After a good deal of consideration, and after having given due weight to all that has been urged against the National Board, I have, I own, come to the conclusion that the apprehensions are wholly visionary, by which the Parliamentary conscience of the Members for the University of Dublin are periodically perturbed. I do not believe that the great body of the Protestants of Ireland participate in their alarm. I am convinced that the majority of the proprietors of Ireland appreciate, as they ought to do, the advantages which accrue from the knowledge which is everywhere disseminated through the National Board—that they feel that every school is the source of social and moral improvement; a little well, from which "fresh instruction" is poured over minds that would otherwise lie waste and sterile. The Presbyterians of Ireland, who are fully as sensitive in everything that concerns the usage of the sacred writings as the Episcopalians are said to be, support the board. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin holds the Presbyterians in no account. He also complained that the right hon. Member for Ripon had insinuated that the clergy of the Established Church were under the influence of those temporal inducements which are held out by the Mosaic system as the reward of virtue, and told us that, by a remarkable coincidence, the Regium Donum was increased when the Presbyterian body entered into a connexion with the National Board. I suppose that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin is inclined to apply to any Cabinet Minister Swift's character of one of his antagonists, "As to religion the fellow had none, but was in all other respects an excellent Presbyterian." If the majority of the Episcopalian clergy are hostile to the board, several of the most distinguished ecclesiastics in Ireland are its allies. The Archbishop of Dublin, a theologian without rancour, who, notwithstanding some academic peculiarity, is equal to a whole host of sacerdotal mediocrities who have votes in Trinity College, is the champion of the National Board. He supports and he adorns the noble structure of which the foundations were laid by Lord Stanley. That nobleman is the father of the system of national education, and of his progeny, in the figurative as well as the literal sense, he has reason to be proud. He was Secretary for Ireland in 1831, and a Member of the Cabinet. He was, consequently, master of the country. It was then that, to his lasting honour, he devised and constructed the system of national education. He took a just and most essential care to associate religious with secular instruction; to graft, if I may so say, the tree of knowledge with the tree of life. Writing to the Duke of Leinster, he says—

"The commissioners will require that the schools shall be kept open for a certain number of hours, or four or five days of the week, at the direction of the commissioners, for moral and literary education only, and that the remaining one or two days in the week may be set apart for giving separately such religious education to the children as may be approved of by the clergy of their respective persuasions. They will also permit and encourge the clergy to give religious instruction to the children of their respective persuasions, either before or after the ordinary school hours, on the other days of the week."

With this simple citation I destroy the web of sophistry, to whose unseemly elaboration the antagonists of the National Board again and again instinctively return. There is not a parish in Ireland in which a school has been built by the National Board where the Protestant rector or curate, if he be so minded, may not take advantage of the opportunity so afforded—may not call the Protestant pupils together, expound the Scriptures, and inculcate those precepts of charity, forbearance, and goodwill, which the Gospel so divinely inculcates, and in reference to which I hope that the antagonists of the board illustrate their injunctions by their example. I am surprised, that considering the Protestant clergy take an oath on their ordination to keep a school to teach English, they do not conceive it to be morally obligatory upon them to attend a school to teach the Gospel. I am afraid that they are prevented from attending by the equality on which they would be put with the Catholic clergy, and that they regard that level as inconsistent with the pre-eminence awarded them by the law. But whatever be the cause, I do not think that any case has been made for supplying this omission by a grant of money from the taxes levied on the English people. We are told, indeed, that the Catholic schools in England receive pecuniary aid. If the Catholics of England had retained any portion of those vast endowments made by their forefathers, the case would be parallel; but is it because relief is doled out to Lazarus by Dives, that from the midst of his gorgeousness the hand of mendicant supplication is to be held out? It is not from the revenues of the State, but from the temporal abundance of the Church, that any grant of money for schools in connexion with the Established Church should be made. I can refer the hon. and learned Members for the University of Dublin to a recent and remarkable precedent. Seventeen or eighteen years ago the University of Durham was founded under an Act of Parliament, by the appropriation of a part of the property belonging to the cathedral. I have the charter of the University of Durham here; it recites an Act of Parliament, entitled, "An Act to enable the Dean and Chapter of Durham to appropriate"—mark, "appropriate," "part of the property of their church to establish an university in connexion therewith for the advancement of learning." I need read no more. I have furnished a complete precedent to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If he should act upon it, and come to this House with a prayer from the Irish clergy to allocate a part of the revenues of the Established Church to the aid of schools connected with the Church, we shall listen to the suggestion with great interest, and perhaps with some surprise. But such a proposition as is now made must be heard with disrelish; and I hope I shall be pardoned for saying, that a scriptural image of avidity is presented to my fancy, when, gorged but insatiate, an Irish Churchman cries out, "Give, give!" But the House of Commons will not give. It will protect the noble institution which Lord Stanley founded, which the right hon. Member for Tamworth, with Lord Stanley as his colleague, so largely amplified, and which, let me add, has recently received the highest and the most signal sanction. Amongst the many remarkable incidents by which the sojourn of the Queen in Ireland was distinguished, perhaps one of the most touching, was the visit paid, immediately after her arrival in Dublin, to the model school of the National Board, to which precedence over the University of Dublin was given. It was a fine spectacle to see the Queen, with her illustrious Consort, who is so worthy of Her, attended by the representative of the Presbyterian Church, and the Catholic and Protestant archbishops of Dublin—to see those venerable ecclesiastics, united by the bond of a common Christianity, in the performance of that office of sacred charity which Christianity so divinely teaches; to see the Sovereign of this great empire in the midst of hundreds of little children, whose gaze of affectionate amazement she returned with looks of almost maternal love; and, above all, it was thrilling to behold Her countenance radiating with emotion, while Her heart beat with the high and holy hope—that of a wise, a moral, and religious system of education, She may live to witness the mature and perfect products.

would detain the House but a few moments. He could not, however, allow one observation which the right hon. Gentleman had made to pass without notice. The right hon. Gentleman had said that the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland had been so much in the habit of maintaining an ascendancy over the Roman Catholics that they did not like to abandon it; and that that was principally the reason why they opposed the national system of education. Now, he (Mr. Plumptre), on the part of the Protestant clergy of Ireland, utterly and entirely repudiated that imputation, and denied that any such feeling was entertained by them. They were influenced by far higher and far holier motives.

said, this question was partly a Church question, partly a money question, and partly a party question. An analysis of the political opinions of those who were opposed to the system would show that they were the opponents of every movement made in that House to promote rational liberty. He deeply regretted that the hon. Member for the University of Dublin had permitted himself to be made the instrument of introducing a topic which was likely to increase religious discord, and thus keep alive that spirit which had inflicted so much injury on Ireland. It must be admitted that those by whom this Motion was introduced, might take out a patent for ingenuity in the invention of grievances. As a Roman Catholic Member, he complained of that discussion. The agitation of the question was an annual farce. Once a year, about Easter, there was a gathering in the Rotunda at Dublin. What was that Rotunda? A pocket edition of Exeterhall. Who attended in its galleries? Eight or nine intolerant and bigoted bishops, a certain number of expectant curates, a larger number of excited laymen, and a considerable gathering of hysterical old maids, the Members for the University of Dublin attending ex officio. This might be exceedingly unpalatable to "ears polite;" but he had the misfortune to represent a great city—( laughter )—hon. Gentlemen should have allowed him to finish the sentence—a city in the centre of which was the great citadel of Orange ascendancy, Trinity College, and in one corner the Rotunda, in which such unseemly scenes were enacted. He was there to impeach what, without meaning to offend any one, he must call an annual humbug. [Mr. STANFORD rose to order: The right hon. Member for Dublin had used an unparliamentary phrase.] He begged most respectfully to state that, in using the word "humbug," he had not thought of the hon. Member for Reading. Even if he thought the hon. Member deserved that name, being aware that he was leading a life of single blessedness, he would not like to injure his character with the ladies of Reading. He hoped that explanation would be satisfactory to the hon. Gentle- man. If a Russian or a Frenchman, quite unacquainted with the subject, had heard the speeches in favour of the Motion, he would have fancied that the Protestants of Ireland were the most miserably-used people on the face of the earth. Now, what were the facts? Including Methodists and Quakers, the Protestants of Ireland amounted to 850,000 of the population; the revenues of the Church amounted, some said, to 1,000,000 l.; others said, to 700,000 l.; and the hon. Member for the University of Dublin would admit that they were not less than 600,000 l. [Mr. G. A. HAMILTON dissented.] The hon. Gentleman nodded dissent, but he (Mr. Reynolds) believed the estimate to be a low one; and that amount was quite irrespective of what was given to the diocesan and endowed schools, and of the 100,000 l. a year placed at the disposal of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for the building and repairing of churches. They complained that the people were not handed over neck and heels to that proselytising association. It was said there were 43,000 Roman Catholic children within the walls of the Kildarestreet schools. Why, these children had, every one of them, been kidnapped by the influence of soup and oatmeal. Human food was withheld unless spiritual food was accepted. The hon. Member for Stockport was as ignorant of Tipperary Protestantism as he was of the feelings of his own constituents, when he said that nine-tenths of them were opposed to the ballot; If he were ignorant of the state of political feeling in Stockport, how grossly ignorant must he be of the state of Tipperary Protestantism! He would assure the House that Tipperary was not such a wilderness as the hon. Member supposed; it was a large and civilised community. He begged to say, in conclusion, that he conscientiously believed this annual Motion was brought on for the purpose of guarding the outposts of that overgrown leviathan, the Protestant Church in Ireland. He believed in his conscience that, until the temporalities of that Church were entirely abolished, they never would have peace or order in Ireland; and, speaking as an Irishman, he believed, not only that they never would have peace, but that they never ought to have peace in Ireland. Other men might mince the matter; they were not so candid as he was; but the great mass of the population of Ireland considered the temporalities of that Church as an intolerable badge of slavery and op- pression; and, until the whole edifice was, by the operation of law, levelled with the dust, he never should consider himself an emancipated Irishman.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

Question put.

The House divided:—Ayes 225; Noes 142: Majority 83.