but that it should be the predominant | Lord at the head of the Government, or feature, and pervade the whole system of the right hon. Baronet the Member for education. Holding as he does the Pro- Tamworth, further than to say, that the testant principle of the supremacy and sufficiency of the Holy Scripture, he holds that it is the right of every human being to make it his study at all times and in all circumstances; and that it is his duty, as a Christian minister, at all times to uphold and enforce that right. He, therefore, cannot, without violating his principles, be a party directly or indirectly to excluding any child from Scriptural instruction. This is their objection to the system that it compromises the Protestant principle, and that in connecting themselves with it, they would be themselves compromising that principle in a country, and under circumstances, in which it is peculiarly their duty to withhold it. He (Mr. Hamilton) would not take up the time of the House by adverting in detail to the various efforts that had been made to procure such a modification of the system as would remove the conscientious objections of the bishops and clergy and laity of the Established Church. In the year 1832, an address was issued, signed by seventeen of the twenty Irish bishops, setting forth their conscientious objections to the system as then proposed. In 1845, a similar address was published, signed by the majority of the Irish prelates, in which they state that the rule by which the Holy Scriptures are excluded from the schools during the hours of general instruction, is so fundamentally objectionable, that while this continues to be the principle of the system, they cannot conscientiously connect their schools with it, even though all the other grounds of opposition were taken away. This address was responded to by 1,700 of the clergy, 3,000 of the nobility and gentry of the country, including 33 Peers, and 60,000 of the Protestants. He (Mr. Hamilton) had presented a petition a few days ago to the House, signed by nearly 1,600 of the clergy; and numerous petitions had been presented from all parts of Ireland, praying that the conscientious objections of the Protestants of Ireland might be removed, either by a modification of the national system, so as to enable the advocates of Scriptural education to establish schools on a Scriptural basis, or else to make a separate grant in favour of the Church Education Society. He (Mr. Hamilton) would not advert to the correspondence between the Lord Primate of Ireland and the noble arguments and considerations which he (Mr. Hamilton) had endeavoured to bring before the House, had been submitted to the consideration of Government. The noble Lord had stated, in reply to the Archbishop of Armagh, that the revenue of the Established Church in Ireland was sufficient, not only for the support of the beneficed clergy, but also for the encou ragement and maintenance of a Scriptural system of education. He (Mr. Hamilton) was unwilling to trespass much longer upon the House; but he could not help just remarking that the Archbishop had pointed out that the income of the parochial clergy in Ireland, even if duly received, would not afford to each an average of 2001. a year; while, as he (Mr. Hamilton) might add, each clergyman would have a congregation of more than 600 persons of the Established Chureh, independently of the Presbyterians and other Dissenters, who in Ireland attended the Established Church. But there was one part of the subject, or at least one consideration connected with the subject, to which it was his duty to advert, and he did so with much pain. He was constrained to say that not only was no encouragement given to the cause of Scriptural education in Ireland-not only were the Protestants and clergy of the Established Church the only class of Her Majesty's subjects to whose conscientious opinions, with regard to education, no consideration was paid-not only were they the only class to whom toleration in respect of those scruples was not extended, but the clergy of the Established Church who entertained those conscientious objections, were excluded from all Government favour and patronage. This was a serious charge, and one that he would be sorry to make lightly, especially after an answer he had recollected hearing from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, in reply to a question from Lord John Manners in the last Parliament. But he (Mr. Hamilton) had seen letters written by the Private Secretary of the Lord Lieutenant to clergymen, in which their opinions were asked on the subject of the national system-and an intimation given that preferment would be conferred only upon those who supported that system. The correspondence between Mr. Villiers Stuart and the Private Secretary, in reference to Mr. Thacker, had been before the public. On that occasion the Private Secretary expressed himself as follows: : national education, the principles of which you have yourselves condemned as regards "His Excellency most sincerely regrets that England, and which you would not dare to he is unable to comply with your desire to have propose in this country? What the ProtesMr. Thacker appointed to the Union of White-tant clergy and laity require is simply this church; but that gentleman having so unequivo--that the rules of the national system be so cally and conscientiously declared his opposition to the system of national education, it would be a violation of the principle by which the Lord Lieutenant has been guided, if he were to relax. I add, by desire of the Lord Lieutenant, his request that it may be conveyed to Mr. Thacker that he entertains no objection to him individually, as from all he has heard, and from his conscientious avowal of his opinions, he considers that gentleman to be entitled to the highest respect." 66 Mr. Villiers Stuart adds, from himself "I cannot express the deep disappointment the whole parish feels at the loss of such a pastor. He (Mr. Hamilton) had a high respect for the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland; but he would appeal to the noble Lord, he would appeal to the House, and to the justice of the English public, is this tolerable? In England you extend toleration to all classes of Dissenters in matters of education. You depart even from a scriptural basis and principle in favour of Roman Catholics. In Ireland, if a clergyman upholds the principle which every clergyman from one end of England to the other maintains, however highly recommended, however efficient, however pious, however beloved by his parishioners, he is proscribed by the Government because of his conscientious opinions, and the Protestants deprived of the services of such a pastor. Is this doing justice to the Church in Ireland? You talk of Church patronage in Ireland, in times gone by, having been made subservient to political purposes; and so it was, and you are reaping the fruits of that system now. But what else is this but a continuation of the same system? Are you not now prostituting the patronage of the Church in Ireland for the promotion of a political object? What is the duty of Government with regard to Church patronage? Are they not trustees of such patronage for the benefit of the community in the most important of all interests? Is it not, then, their duty, their manifest duty, to use that patronage, to perform that trust, with the single view of promoting the interests of religion? And will any one say that you promote the interests of religion by passing over, and excluding from all share of patronage, the ablest, the most pious, and the most useful clergymen of Ireland, because they are conscientiously opposed to a system of modified as that schools may be established on such principles as they can conscientiously approve; and they are the principles which you adopt yourselves in reference to schools in this country. Permit a Protestant clergyman or layman to make it the rule of his school that all children attending it should be instructed in the Holy Scriptures. Let those who choose attend it; or else, if you are determined to maintain the national system on its present basis, without any modification or alteration, either make a separate grant, or place the Church Education Society in connexion with the Privy Council in this country. In deference to the conscientious opinions of the Protestants, engraft it into the English branch of the system. Give the principle of scriptural instruction a fair trial in Ireland. You have tried many experiments in that country. Generally, they have been experiments made in concession, not to truth, but to popular influence. The national system of education has now been in operation for fifteen years. I am unable to discern the fruits of that system in the improved condition of the people. Every politician has had his plan for the tranquillisation of Ireland. You have had fixity of tenure, tenantright-your extension of franchise-you have had the abolition of the Established Church-the endowment of the Roman Catholic Church--the repeal of the Union -and latterly, the establishment of a separate republic. I may be permitted to tell you mine. Do not be afraid to declare to the people of Ireland what you have declared eloquently to the people of Englanddo not be afraid to tell them that the Word of God is the only standard of right or wrong, and that allegiance, and subordination, and social order, and industry, and contentment, and the performance of their duties, as men and citizens, depend upon higher considerations, and should be influenced by better motives, than the mere human considerations of advantage or expediency, or sentiment or nationality. At all events, do not continue to say that these high considerations are the only ones that shall not be placed before them n any system of education which you sanction. You may say they will not hear you: but experience is against you. Scriptural education was advancing in Ireland under the Kildare-place Society. It is advancing under the Church Education Society. But at least if a Church is to be maintained in Ireland, do not prevent the ministers of that Church from performing that part of their sacred functions; and, above all things, do not tamper with those who respect the truth-far better it would be to confiscate the temporalities of the Church, than to destroy its efficiency by corrupting its ministers. Do not suppose that we Protestants value the Church, except as the means of upholding the great principles of truth, and as the instrument of disseminating them. In order to discharge those functions, the independence of the clergy must be maintained-you must not have recourse to the expedient of bringing Government patronage in the Church in aid of your political objects. Nearly 1,600 out of 2,000 clergymen of the Established Church have declared their conscientious objections to your national system; they have done so with a full knowledge of the system you have been pursuing as regards your Church patronage; and surrounded by difficulties, of which people in England have no adequate notion, they have preferred what they consider the cause of truth and the performance of their duty to their temporal interests. Are these men deserving of respect or of odium? They have been unsparing of their lives, and some of the best clergymen in Ireland have fallen victims during the late famine and pestilence. If it should be the will of God to visit us with still greater calamities, they will be found at the post of danger again. But they are the trustees of great principles, which they will never abandon. He implored the noble Lord to consider these things. He implored him to put an end to this painful question; and when he speaks of an equality of rights, and franchises, and privileges, between England and Ireland, let him remember that the clergy of Ireland are not treated with that toleration which every Dissenter in England enjoys in respect of education, and that by the system the Government has been adopting, and the manner in which they have been carrying it out, they are incurring the heavy responsibility of throwing the weight of Government influence against the Scriptural principle. The hon. Member concluded by moving an address. SIR WILLIAM SOMERVILLE con sidered that the address which his hon. Friend opposite had just made, was couched in terms which would not offend the feelings of any person. But no matter how his hon. Friend might have endeavoured to recommend his objects to the House, the real subject under discussion was this: whether or not the national system of education now established in Ireland for a period of fifteen years-he meant the mixed system of education-should be departed from, and such a system substituted for it as was recommended by his hon. Friend. Now, considering the state of Ireland-considering the progress that had been made in the establishment of schools-considering the support given to the present system by a large portion of the population-considering, as he firmly believed, that the prejudices which existed against that system even on the part of Protestants and Protestant clergymen were fast disappearing-he hoped the House would pause before it assented to the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Dublin, and would uphold the system as now established. It was said by his hon. Friend, that the principles of the Protestant clergy of Ireland forbid them from taking advantage of the present system. On hearing that statement it might be considered by some hon. Gentlemen that there were none of the Protestant clergy who favoured that system; but let them look to the number of clergymen who had taken advantage of the opportunities which it presented. Let them look also to the number of clergymen who were ready to take advantage of it. His hon. Friend, therefore, should not say that on strictly high Protestant principles it was impossible that the Protestants of Ireland could take advantage of it. He admitted that a large body of the Protestant clergy of Ireland were opposed to it, and he thought a greater mistake had never been made by the Protestant clergy of Ireland than by the opposition they originally gave to the establishment of the schools. He also believed that a vast number of them were coming to the same conclusion. He was sure it was unnecessary for him to mention the names of the several distinguished persons who had changed their opinions on the subject; but he might refer to the case of one very eminent person in the north of Ireland, and also to the case of Mr. Woodward, who admitted the mistake he had formerly made when opposed to the system. It was true it was not a system founded upon Scripture in the way | ceive his education there. At that time a the hon. Gentleman understood it. What petition was presented by Mr. Grattan from his hon. Friend understood by it was, that the great body of the Roman Catholics in the Bible should be made the school book, Ireland against the provision which deand that every child who attended the clared that no Protestant should receive school should be obliged to make use of that his education in the college. The Roman Bible as his school book. But it was not Catholics then said that the exclusion of the system of the National Schools to coerce Protestants would prevent the harmony any person's conscience; they did not com- and friendly intercourse through life which pel any child to be present at religious in- might, by an early connexion between men struction, but they permitted every child of different persuasions, be encouraged, to be present, at the discretion of his pa- No person would be more happy than he rents, to receive religious education at any should be to see the Protestant clergy time that might be allotted for it. Was coming forward to take advantage of this that, he asked, a system open to objection, system, and to exercise that control over or one to which any conscientious man it which was proper they should have. could object? He believed that he was not He believed the objections to the system wrong in saying that the case of Mr. Wood- were unreasonable (he did not mean to ward was not a solitary case. He knew say they were not conscientiously enterProtestant clergymen in Ireland who for- tained)—and he believed, also, that a great merly were much opposed to the national body of the clergy were willing to consider system, but who, on further investigation, this system so as to take advantage of it. had changed their minds and are now the He did not think they should do away advocates of it. In the last report there with the present National Board, which had was a paragraph to the same effect. It conferred great advantages on the country. was stated that the prejudices which had He believed it was diffusing widely the existed in regard to the national system blessings of education, and would continue on the part of the Protestant clergy were to do so more and more every day. He fast vanishing, and the co-operation of the saw by the last report, that not only liteProtestant clergy might more and more be rary but industrial education was spreading looked for, and would be the means of dis- vastly throughout the country, and it was tributing more universally the blessings of proposed that agricultural schools should education. That was the present state of be established to extend the principles of the system, and what they had now to ask agriculture. themselves was this-were they to abandon CAPTAIN JONES said, if anything in the national and mixed system as it now the shape of united education at all existed, exists, in order to establish an exclusive it would be found in the schools under the system? For conceal the fact as they may, patronage of the Established Church. For if they once get rid of this national system, his own part he had never offered any oband at the suggestion of any body of men,jection to their national system so far as be their objections reasonable or unreason-it went. Let them establish a system siable, abandon the mixed system of educa-milar to that adopted in England, and so tion, they would have to establish separate modify their rules as to enable clergymen schools, not only for the Protestant clergy, but also for the Presbyterian and Catholic clergy, and the whole country would be covered with different seminaries supported by the Government, and amongst the children attending the respective schools those religious distinctions would be perpetuated which so often were still unfortunately kept up. He begged to call the attention of the House to an extract bearing on the subject, which he had met with some time ago. In the year 1795, when the debate was going on in the Irish Parliament on the question of the Roman Catholic College of Maynooth, there were several provisions introduced which made it impossible for any person not a Roman Catholic to re of the Established Church to take advantage of the grant. If they declined to do that, then they ought to give them a separate grant for themselves. MR. GROGAN said, if the prejudices of the Protestants, or of the Protestant clergymen of Ireland, prevented them from taking any part of the grant under present circumstances, they were entitled to have some portion of the grant allotted to them. As a proof of the efforts made by the Protestants themselves, there were 1,899 Church education schools at present established and maintained by the voluntary system, and they were entitled in justice to ask the Government for some assistance. He would maintain, without the slightest a condition of advancement in the Church. There ought to be nothing like compulsion on either side of the question. fear of contradiction, that as regards the joint system of education, it is to be found in the Protestant schools. Let them not blame Protestant clergymen who could not conscientiously approve of the system, and who were deprived of all chance of patronage and all hopes of promotion in their profession except they abandoned their principles. SIR W. VERNER did not entertain a doubt that some of the clergy of the Established Church had become converts to the national system; and it was not to be wondered at when they were told by a Lord Lieutenant that if they were not friendly to it he could not give his consent to their promotion. He would mention one case in illustration of the course that had been adopted on this subject by the Irish Government. Some time since, when the Lord Lieutenant of the day arrived in Ireland, an application was made to him to appoint, as one of his chaplains, a clergyman of the highest character. The answer was, that the Lord Lieutenant did not intend to appoint any new chaplains, but would confine himself to the list handed over to him by his predecessor. A short time afterwards, a certain reverend gentleman announced himself in the public papers as the advocate of the National Board of Education, and the then Lord Lieutenant, forgetting his former declaration, immediately appointed him one of his chaplains. The best system of education ever introduced into Ireland was that of the Kildare-place Society, which was abolished solely because it was objected to by the Roman Catholic priests. MR. B. OSBORNE said, as the Motion stood, it was opposed to the religious scruples of Roman Catholic parents, and if carried, it would upset the whole system of mixed education. The hon. Member for the University of Dublin had called for a modification of the system; but it appeared that what he proposed was the abolition of the present Board of Education, and the substitution of a system of separate grants for that now in force. He had not denied that Protestant children were already supplied with as much Scriptural education as the greatest stickler for such education could demand; and, in truth, as in every national school several hours were set apart for Scriptural reading, if Protestant youths did not receive instruction in the Bible, it must be the fault of the Protestant clergy. The effect of passing the Motion would be, to revive the embers of religious strife, which were now dying out. Something had been said about the excellence of the Kildare-place Society system of education. He happened to know that the most extraordinary means had been used to induce parents to send their children to what were called the Kildare-place Schools. Parents had received as a consideration 51. down, 5s. a week, and a leg of mutton every Friday. If there were one thing which had done more than another to improve the state of Ireland, it was the mixed system of education introduced by Lord Stanley, founded as it was on the great principle of Protestantism MR. S. CRAWFORD said, that though the right of private judgment. In cona large body of the Established clergy were nexion with that point, he would ask the opposed to this national system, he did not hon. Member for the University of Dublin believe that their opposition was shared in whether it was true that he was a subor countenanced by the great body of the scriber to, and a director of, an hospital in Protestant laity. If that were the case, Dublin, the managers of which refused to how did it happen that the national schools admit a Roman Catholic, even if brought were much more numerous in the province there in extremis, unless he would consent of Ulster than in the other three provinces? to hear the Scriptures read? On the subThe proportions were as follows :-Schools ject of the national system of education, in Munster, 940; in Leinster, 976; in most extraordinary statements had been Connaught, 553; in Ulster, 1,659. He made at different periods. There were thought that the system of reading the Scriptures at particular hours had tended to promote Scriptural instruction even among Roman Catholics, by inducing parents of that religion to allow their children to remain, which they often did, in fact, to hear the Scriptures read. He was sorry to have heard that the Government had made adherence to the national system certain dignitaries of the Church who, to use the language of Mr. Burke, never manifested any particular zeal for religion, except when they desired to wound the feelings of their opponents. The Bishop of Cashel, for example, had stated at the Rotunda in Liverpool-and he had repeated the statement at the Hanover-square Rooms in April last-that at the last Spe |