system. But if the House were to go into a child objected to the reading of this the whole question with a view to attaining book, the child should not be compelled to the object of the noble Earl (the Earl of read it. Neither were all patrons comClancarty), namely, an attack on the sys-pelled to introduce the book, under any tem itself, with a view to its overthrow, he, circumstances whatever. They might exerfor one, could not afford to such a proposi- cise their full discretion. For his own tion even the humble sanction of his name. part he would deeply deplore their excluOn what ground could this latter proposition sion, because he was strongly impressed be maintained? Never in the world was with their importance, and also knew that there to be found an instance of so much their use was no invasion of the doctrine misapprehension, delusion, and mis-state- or discipline of the Roman Catholic Church. ment as there had been combined in the The national system of education had been arguments on the religious part of this brought before the head of the Church of question; it was inconsistent throughout; Rome, and the Pope had left it to his the great argument against the system, bishops in Ireland to adopt or reject it in upon its establishment in the north of Ire- their respective dioceses. That system land, was founded upon the supposed ex- involved the Scripture Extracts, and thereclusion of the Bible and the substitution of fore after this decision the reading of those Scripture Extracts; while now the ground extracts could not be considered to be a of objection from the same persons was matter of faith or doctrine. Every part the exclusion of those very Extracts, this of these extracts had been approved of, also, mutilated Bible, as it was called. What by the late Archbishop Murray. The noble had been the course originally taken? The Earl (the Earl of Clancarty) had argued objection taken to these Scripture Extracts that the devotion of the clergy to their had never been more strongly stated than ordination vows was to be shown princiby a right rev. Prelate, not now present, pally by engaging in proselytism. They who had vehemently opposed the Irish were bound, he said, to banish and drive National Board. The Bishop of Exeter away all false doctrines, among which he had many years back stated, in his place in specially placed the doctrines of Rome. Parliament,He (Lord Monteagle), however, thought that their first duty was to nourish and cherish their own flocks; and if the ministers of the Churches of England and Ireland were to act as ministers of proselytism rather than apostles of peace, if they were to consider their first duty to be, as the ministers of the Church in England to attack the Dissenters, and those of the Church in Ireland to attack the Roman Catholics, he knew not how successful their proselytism might be, but he was convinced that the cause of Christianity and of toleration would be fatally endangered by the adoption of such a principle. Yet the opposition in both cases came If the schools were to be carried on as a from the same party, who alternately system of proselytism, of which either the complained of the introduction or the Extracts or the Bible itself were to be exclusion of these books. Was there made the instruments, he thought it very ever inconsistency equal to this? There likely that Roman Catholies, who, under was no satisfying noble Lords and right other circumstances, would be as willing reverend Prelates. The rule last adopted to read these Extracts as the noble Earl by the Commissioners was neither the ex- himself, would necessarily shrink from the clusion of the Scripture Extracts, nor their system of proselytism to which they might remission to the time of separate reli- be turned. To the circulation of the gious instruction. The reading of them Scriptures by the ministers of proselytism had never been compulsory; and they the Roman Catholics might probably obwere now to be read in the hours of com-ject; but this was wholly different from mon literary instruction, subject only to objecting to the Scriptures themselves. the application of the doctrine which had The contrary might be proved, and was always prevailed, that, if the parents of confirmed by late events. He had learned, "He did not understand that the Scripture Extracts were now to be withdrawn. It was not said they were, but he thought that was to be implied. That relieved their Lordships from the pain of seeing that recommended, which no Christian could see done without great pain and anguish. No one, he was sorry to say, could look at the work of the Commission without seeing therein a manifest proof of management which was a disgrace to them all. What was their joint and common object? To place these Extracts, which each Church claims, before the public as the same in doctrine and discipline for them all: such a proceeding was equally discreditable to all par ties.' and unexceptionably contrived in other respects, " from the very best authority, that the very parties who in Ireland were represented as standing so obstinately between the Holy Scriptures and the people were, even in no less significant a case than that of Archbishop M'Hale himself, now putting forth among their flocks a cheap publication of the Gospels translated into Irish. This edition, published under the superintendence of Archbishop M'Hale, was proposed to be spread and disseminated among the people. We were thus coming to new times; he thought the fact he had just mentioned might be owing to the efforts of some of the friends of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Clancarty), and was meant to foil them with their own weapons. As a Protestant, one strongly attached to Protestant principles, and as one maintaining as strongly as the noble Earl did the right of every man to appeal to Scripture as his guide, he confessed he rejoiced most exceedingly that the proselytising friends of the noble Earl should have brought out such a very curious development of the system of Catholicism on the part of their great clerical opponent. THE EARL OF CLANCARTY: It is a subject for mutual congratulation. exist between different classes of the people And again, in 1828, the Select Commit- "Resolved, that no system of education can be expedient to influence or disturb the peculiar religious tenets of any sect or denomination o Christians." These principles had now been adopted by Parliament, and sanctioned by a usage of more than twenty-one years. They were the foundation of the existing national system. To suppose that Parliament would now set them aside was as absurd as to dream of the restoration of the Ptolemaic system. The noble Earl was too late by a quarter of a century. Upon these grounds it was that, if he were told the whole question of the system of national education in Ireland was proposed to be reopened with a view to its alteration, he should object to the appointment of the Committee, but for the purpose of inquiring how that system was now administered, he willingly assented to the Motion. LORD MONTEAGLE thought it was so, but then if it were true—and he believed it to be true-it could only be with a view to create absurd and unworthy prejudices that we should repeat, not only against the few, not only against those whom we called Ultramontane, but against the clergy and laity generally of a community which included the greater part of Christendom, that they were adverse to Scripture reading, and that they sought to keep the Word of God altogether out of the hands of the laity. The noble Earl had fairly said that he wished to see proselytism carried on in the national schools. Such was his object. That was to say, he had said that he had THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE said, wished to see the clergy of Ireland more that, according to the noble Lord who had actively engaged in their management, just addressed the House, the object of and asserted at the same time that the the Motion was simply to discover the sworn duty of that body was to drive away ground upon which certain gentlemen, one unsound doctrine, of which he considered of whom was a member of their Lordships' the Roman Catholic to be the most un-House, had ceased to be members of the sound. That was a frank avowal of prosclytism. Now, the late Primate of Ireland, who was an orthodox man, was one of the Commissioners who drew up a report upon the subject of national education; and what was the conclusion come to in that report? "That no plan of education, however wisely National Board of Education in Ireland. But if the inquiry were to be strictly limited to that subject, he (the Earl of Donoughmore) for one could only say that it would be perfectly useless. LORD MONTEAGLE: I did not say that.] He (the Earl of Donoughmore) did not profess to be a supporter of the national system of education in Ireland. Far from it; for he regretted that that system was so carried on that, as a conscientious Protestant, he could not take part in it. He regretted it, he repeated, deeply; because he sincerely desired the intellectual improvement of the poor of Ireland, and believed there was nothing which that country so much required, or that was so likely to lead to its speedy improvement. Amongst the points which ought to be included in the inquiry which the noble Earl at the head of the Government had expressed his willingness to grant, the first was this-what was the original intention of the system, and had that intention been adhered to? Now, it was plain, from the letter written by the noble Earl (Earl of Derby), when Chief Secretary for Ireland, that the object was to have a united system of education of the different sects, and that that united education was not to be entirely secular-that the broad truths and first principles of religious knowledge which were common to all Christian sects were to be communicated during the hours of secular instruction and at the same time to the children professing various creeds; and that the special religious teachings of the different sects were to be communicated at other times to the children of the several creeds separately. That this was the plan was also apparent from the first set of rules which were issued by the Commissioners, and the very first of which rules recommended the use of Scripture extracts in the schools. He did not mean to contend that the use of these extracts was ever made compulsory; but the use of them being recommended from the first, he regarded that as a tacit pledge that they should be used in the schools under the management of the Commissioners during the hours to be devoted to secular education. The second rule provided that one day in each week should be set apart for religious instruction, and that on that day the ministers of all religious denominations, whether they had taken part in the foundation of the schools or not, should have access to the schools, and should be permitted to give instruction to the children of their respective creeds. And it was this rule, he believed, which was one of the main grounds upon which the clergy of the Established Church in Ireland could have nothing to say to the system. In what position, he asked, would the Protestant clergyman have been placed, had he acted upon the system at that time? Suppose he had established a school under the National Board, according to this rule he would be bound, at least one day in the week, to permit to be taught in the very school of which he was the patron the doctrines of the Roman Catholic faith by a Roman Catholic priest, and the doctrines, it might be, of the Unitarian creed, by a Unitarian minister, and thus become responsible for the teaching of religious opinions with which he not only did not agree, but which he believed to be dangerous to the souls of men. That rule alone, then, was a sufficient bar to a large number of the clergy of the Protestant Church joining the National Board of Education at that time. But the proof that at the establishment of the system the Scripture Extracts were intended to be used at the times appointed for conducting the united education was contained in the fifth of the original rules, which expressly declared that the reading of the Scriptures either the authorised or the Douay version-should be confined to the hours of religious instruction. It was clearly, therefore, the intention of the framers of the original rules, that the Scripture Extracts, which did not contain the peculiar tenets of the different sects, should be read at the hours of secular education, the Bible being read at the hours of religious instruction. No change was made in this arrangement until the year 1838; but in that year an alteration was effected in the rules, which showed, he, thought, the one-sided reciprocity which existed with respect to the Protestant Church in Ireland. A rule was then added, to the effect that the titles of all books used in religious instruction should be reported to the Commissioners, except the standard books of that particular Church to which the children belonged. Now, he confessed he did not know what the standard books of the Roman Catholic Church were, nor did he suppose that many of their Lordships were very well acquainted with that subject; but he presumed that they were all aware that the standard book of the Protestant Church was the Holy Scriptures. So that the Holy Bible-the great book of the Protestant Church-the book from which she derived her whole teaching, and from which she professed to prove every doctrine she taught was excluded from the national schools; whilst all the standard books of the Roman Catholic Church were admitted. It was useless, however, to go through the whole list of changes which had been gradually made in the rules of the of which, he stated, Archbishop Murray had national system of education in Ireland. approved; but that his approval would not But the last change effected he con- necessarily be sanctioned by the Roman fessed he rejoiced at; because, although it Catholic Church for ever. had rendered the system more than ever unfavourable to the Protestants, it had induced the Government to consent to a complete consideration of the question; and he believed that when the evidence which would be produced before the Committee should be completed, it would show that, so far from the system having been a great blessing to Ireland as the noble Earl at the head of the Government thought it to be-it had positively checked instead of having promoted education in some of the rural districts in the south of Ireland. If proof were required that the present national system of education in that country had existed, was existing, and, if continued, would still exist, upon the sufferance of the Roman Catholic priests in Ireland, it was furnished by the observations of the right rev. Prelate who had addressed their Lordships that night. The right rev. Prelate had entered into a long argument for the purpose of showing that, although Archbishop Murray did undoubtedly consent to the Scripture Extracts, and permit the use of them in the national schools in his diocese, yet that that Roman Catholic dignitary did not bind his successors nor any other prelates of the Roman Catholic Church in Ireland by his example. Now this was the very point which noble Lords on that (the Opposition) side of the House had contended for. They said that when two Archbishops in Dublin-one of the Established Church, and the other of the Roman Catholic Church, were willing to make concessions, a compromise was effected between opinions which were as different as light from darkness; but the moment that this engine was placed in the hands of the Roman Catholic Clergy in Ireland, and they found themselves in full possession of it, they demanded still further concessions. These concessions had been granted to them, and he (the Earl of Donoughmore) had no doubt that, unless Parliament put a decisive stop to them, further concessions would be demanded, and very possibly further concessions granted. THE BISHOP OF DOWN AND CONNOR interposing, said, he had not uttered a single word about the Scripture Extracts, but had confined himself solely to the little work of the Archbishop of Dublin (Dr. Whately) entitled "Scripture Evidences," THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: The noble Lord opposite (Lord Monteagle) had represented his noble Friend (the Earl of Clancarty) as expressing an opinion in favour of carrying on the system of national education with the view of proselytising the Roman Catholics of Ireland. He (the Earl of Donoughmore) did not think that what had fallen from his noble Friend could bear any such interpretation; and, for his own part, he did not wish to see a system of education which was paid for by Parliament out of the funds of the public conducted in a proselytising spirit either on the one side or the other. But he asserted that it could be proved before the Committee that the national system of education had been made an engine of proselytising on the side of the Roman Catholics. It was a notorious fact that national schools had been established in remote districts in the west of Ireland for the very purpose of withdrawing children from the Scripture Schools established by the missionary societies, and for that purpose alone, and that the public money which the Parliament of Great Britain had granted for the purpose of giving a sound secular education to the Irish poor had been used by Roman Catholic priests with the view, at all events, of putting a stop to and opposing the efforts of the Protestant missionaries in the west of Ireland. That fact, he thought, could not be too much insisted upon, in order that the people of England might know (and this he trusted would be made plain and clear to them by the investigations of this Committee) that, whilst Parliament granted nearly 200,000l. a year for the purpose of giving a good secular education, with a certain amount of general religious knowledge mixed with it, to the Irish poor, that fund had been used for the most part in communicating a very inferior and a very inadequate amount of secular knowledge, joined with the Roman Catholic religion in its most acrimonious and prejudiced form with hostility to our Protestant fellow-subjects, and, he was sorry to add, in many instances hostility also to the British Crown; and further, that this fund had been applied he could not say to a very large extent, but certainly to some extent-in endeavours to oppose the efforts of the Protestant missionaries in the west. It was also a notorious fact, and if the noble | the attendance of the Roman Catholic Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs children to a greater extent than before in were now in his place he would appeal to consequence of the changes made. He him to corroborate the truth of the state- had heard, also, and believed it to be the ment, that during the attempted rebellion fact, that a great number of Protestants, in Ireland in 1848, the most mischievous who had disapproved of what had hapand the most ardent of the rural leaders of pened last year, were going on, in the disaffection in the south were the masters expectation of a Parliamentary inquiry, of the national schools; yet these were and had therefore not taken the stronger the men, forsooth, that the British Parlia- steps which they might otherwise have ment had been paying for the last twenty adopted. With respect to the statement years, whilst hoping and believing all the of the right rev. Prelate, that the school time they were imparting a sound educa- at Clonmel was an agricultural school, he tion to the Irish poor. When the investi- might observe that there were other schools gations of the Committee were completed, in which the same system was pursued, he had no doubt that Parliament and the and in which the religious books had not country would see that the system now been read from the commencement; and existing in Ireland required an immediate that, even supposing these to be all agriand a thorough amendment. cultural schools, there was no reason why agricultural children should not receive the same religious education as any other. THE EARL OF CLANCARTY explained that, in what he had said, he had not intended in any manner to advocate the introduction of a proselytising spirit into the national schools of Ireland. On Question, agreed to; Committee named. House adjourned to Monday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS, Friday, February 17, 1854. MINUTES.] PUBLIC BILL.-1° Bribery Preven tion. QUESTIONS. THE EARL OF EGLINTON, in reply, said: In reference to a question put in the course of the debate, it was, of course, impossible for him to say what evidence the Committee might think proper to receive when they were assembled. He could only state the animus by which he was himself actuated, which was the same as he had THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE ARMYalready stated to their Lordships. He had stated last year-and he had repeated the statement to-day-that he still gave a general approval to the system of national education, but that he did disapprove of the circumstances which occurred last year, and of the innovations-for he must call them innovations-which had been introduced. He thought that those circumstances, resulting as they had in the retirement of three of the most prominent members of the Board, would probably engage, in the first instance, the attention of the Committee; at the same time, he conceived that the Motion was so worded as not to preclude an inquiry into the practical working of the system since it had been established; and he did not wish to preclude himself from receiving any new impressions which the evidence might make upon his mind. The noble Earl at the head of Her Majesty's Government had stated to the House that since the innovations the number of children attending the national schools had increased. He rejoiced to hear it. At the same time, he could not help suggesting that it was possible the increase had been occasioned by LORD SEYMOUR: I wish to put two questions to my noble Friend the Member for the City of London, of which I have given notice. These questions relate to matters that were brought before the Committee on the Army Estimates, of which several members of the Government were members, and of which I was the Chairmian. The first is, whether it is the intention of the Government to lay on the table of the House the militia and commissariat estimates, before proceeding with the Army Estimates, so that the House may be enabled to consider at the same time the whole military expenditure of the country? The second question is, whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure with the view of bringing the several departments connected with the administration of the Army under the superintendence and control of one responsible department? LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the first question which my noble Friend has put to me, I have to say, that it is very desirable to proceed with the Army Estimates as soon as possible; and |