Irave a right to receive from the State its entire aid and support. But this is not a time in which I wish to see the Church usurping new and important functions which do not of right belong to it. I do not think, that the clergyman ought to control the schools of the people; however justified in exercising such a superintendence as would guard against the propagation of error. But the clergy have no right to take the education of the people under their exclusive control.

As so much reference has been made to the petitions which have been laid on the Table on this subject, I wish to

call attention to a few facts illustrative of

the mode of getting up petitions of this character. Nothing can exceed the variety of base and disgraceful delusions which have been practised for the purpose of procuring these petitions. The dangers of popery, of dissent, of latitudinarianism, of disbelief, have all been held up to the public in false or exaggerated colours as inducements to sign these petitions; when Members come to this House, however, it will not do to venture on these assertions. But whencesoever have originated these delusions, I would say, let hon. Gentlemen go into the country and tell the people fairly, that they are desirous of handing over the control of all schools to the Clergy of the Established Church, and then let them get up petitions in favour of such a principle if they can. With reference to this part of the subject, I will not trust to my own words only, but I will refer to an opinion recently expressed by a very high authority, which affirmed that the Bishop of Exeter could command as many petitions on a given subject as he pleased from amongst his clergy. The same high authority said, that the petition from certain clergymen at Oxford, on the subject of the Church Discipline Bill, displayed great ignorance upon that subject, and that other petitions of the same character, and taking up the same grounds, were entitled to very little weight, concluding his remarks in the following words ::

"I entertain the strongest conviction, that the petitions which come before you on this subject are full of mis-statements, though certainly I am quite willing to admit, that such mis-statements are made without disposition to deceive. I give the petitioners credit for every disposition to support the Church; but it will be for the House to judge of the weight due to their allegations, and to judge also of the wisdom, justice, or expediency of complyVOL. XLVIII. S Third

ing with the prayers of individuals, however respectable, who betray so much ignorance of the real facts of the question on which they petition."

These observations are attributed, in to a no less eminent authority than that of a printed book which I hold in my hand, to a no less eminent authority than that of his grace the Archbishop of Canterbury.

I wish now to apply myself to four Friend against this plan, and I flatter principal objections taken by my noble myself that I shall be able to give a them. The noble Lord (Stanley) objected satisfactory answer upon every one of first to the mode of proceeding; he said he objected to our committing Parliament to the plan of education by the act of vote. The noble Lord said it was nearly one branch of the Legislature, in a money tional vote. Why, if we had wanted an approaching the nature of an unconstituauthority for such a proceeding, the noble Lord himself had afforded it.

course did he

What

pursue when he proposed Ireland? a system of education with respect to in the House of Commons. He, therefore, He carried it by a single vote deliberations of the other branch of the superseded, as far as that vote went, the and raises a cry against the Government, Legislature, and yet he now comes down condemn them as acting unconstitutionally to prop up this absurd argument, and to for taking the very same course he himself extraordinary, still more fanciful, and still pursued. The next objection was still more said that the plan of the Government was more extravagant. The noble Lord has calculated to transfer the duty of education to an irresponsible tribunal. If there be responsibility on earth, the responsibility in this case is most distinct. Committee named is a Committee of the Privy Council. The House may address her Majesty to remove the gentlemen to whom this task is confided if they do not satisfactorily fulfil the duties imposed upon them; but this is not all. noble Friend might have raised his argument if it had been proposed to charge the

The

My

sum asked for on the consolidated fund, The Member for Kilkenny would have seized on that argument also, but not only is there the responsibility to Parliament is a special responsibility to the House of on the part of the Committee, but there Commons, by reason of the provision for education being made by an annual vote. In grammatical construction it is said that two negatives make an affirmative, a

Y

views on this question, because I am persuaded, that if at the present moment, and under existing circumstances, the State does not perform the duty of supplying education to the people, the danger to the State itself is infinite-is incalculable. You know it, you feel it, that on matters apparently the least germane to the subject the question of education is inevitably foreed upon us.

mendation of a committee; but if justi- | a religious character, let us at once desist fiable, then it utterly refutes the objec- from applying ourselves to the performance tion to the present plan, which is of our highest and best functions, for by founded on the power to vary the propor- their conduct such an outcry is raised on tion of grants in aid of schools. The discretion hitherto confided to the Board of totally to incapacitate this House for temevery occasion throughout the country as Treasury it is now proposed to transfer to perate deliberation, or for sound decisions. the Council. This, says the hon. Gentle-I have thought it necessary to state my man opposite, is all wrong. But suppose the proposed change had been the other way, and that the power was proposed to be vested in the Treasury and taken from the Council. Now, of that Board, whose administration of the education vote the hon. Gentleman entirely approves, a distinguished and most useful member is a Roman Catholic. But then it will be said, "the regulations of the National Society, and of the British and Foreign Society make it safe to trust a Roman Catholic; but we can no longer place faith in a body freed from that responsibility." Now, my answer to that assertion is - and I call the attention of the hon. Member for Kilmarnock particularly to the point-that the Board have administered for nearly three years a grant of 10,000l. a-year to Scotland, without limit, control, rule, or regulation to fetter their discretion and without the intervention of either Society; and I ask whether there has been a single petition against that distribution-whether there has been one word of complaint uttered as to the mode in which that privilege has been exercised by the Treasury Board, a prominent member of which is a Roman Catholic?

the factory question-you cannot touch on the Poor-laws-you cannot touch on the state of the criminal law, illustrating, as it does, the deplorable ignorance of the people without meeting this question at every step-you cannot bring into activity the clergy (those active and valuable religious instructors of the nation, as they are disposed and as they ought to be), without sending before them, as pioneers, the agents of education. And yet the course you (the Opposition) now take is marked by the gall, the bitterness, the misrepresentation, and exaggeration of party politics and party excitement. I do not think you will succeed on a division; but if you do, you will be enabled to boast that you have retarded the progress of education for a longer pate, and you will have inflicted an evil on period than it is possible now to anticisociety which you can never repair.

You cannot touch on

I have thus endeavoured to show, that there is no force, no real force, in the objections to this plan. But I will tell you what effect they are meant to have. to rise to address the House but that he Sir J. Graham: He should not venture Members opposite think they have the power of raising a Church cry in the thought the present occasion so important country. Let the right hon. Gentlemen that he should not like to give a silent whom I see ranged on the front benches vote; and inasmuch as his side of the opposite beware lest they are calling into House had been challenged to state frankly activity a power which they will hereafter their opinions, he, not presuming to speak wish to restrain. There is no subject for any other individual than himself, which can now be introduced into the should state exactly those feelings which House with regard to which a Church cry impelled him to support the motion of his is not raised. We cannot insert a clause noble Friend. As this protracted debate in a Prison Bill without exciting the had proceeded, the magnitude of its subsuspicion of the champions of the Church.ject increased palpably to his view. He We cannot insert a clause, though supported by the noble Lord (Lord Stanley) without exciting the pious horror of his supporters. Why do you not (the Opposition) cheer now? If hon. Gentlemen opposite are prepared to say, that every one of our debates should partake of

was disposed to consider it one of the most important subjects that had ever been debated. He should not at that hour trouble the House with any details of the plan introduced by her Majesty's Government. That part of the subject had been already treated with great ability and perspicuity,

And to show with what caution his

noble Friend expressed himself, he continued,

"Since I have advocated the admission of or conceal from the House that circumstances Dissenters to the university, I will not deny have since occurred which, in some degree, altered the opinion which I entertained at first. I am bound to say, that, from the tone they have held, from the pretensions they have put forward, both in and out of the House, and of the ultimate intentions of many, avowed by members of their own body, I am justified in looking with jealousy at the measures brought forward for the purpose of promoting the views of the Dissenters."

and he should only weaken the observa-serted in the bill, that no degree should enable tions of those who had preceded him by any person to enjoy any privileges or right to dwelling on that part of the subject. But make him a member of the governing body, or give him privileges in the universities, withhe was greatly struck by the able, explicit, out the subscription of such test as may be frank, and manly speeches made by the required, which test the Universities should be hon. Member for Lambeth and the right entitled to frame. I know not whether the hon. Judge of the Court of Admiralty in House will agree with me, but I think the the course of the two preceding evenings. principle which I wish to establish is plain They did not rest this matter on details, and obvious. I would give to the Dissenters but opened distinctly the principles of the benefit of instruction, but take away the vast importance and general application the universities, by depriving the Dissenters possibility of evil consequences resulting to on which they rested their support of one of all management and control in them." or other of the Ministerial measures. Whilst they addressed the House, it ap; peared to him that Ministers acquiesced in their views; and this evening the speech of the right hon. Gentleman had convinced him that he was not mistaken. Before he addressed himself to the question, he wished to address an observation to the hon. Member for Lambeth, with regard to his noble Friend who had introduced the motion. The hon. Member had rested on two different reports of two different speeches spoken by his (Sir James Graham's) noble Friend in 1834, and, by combining the two, had endea voured to charge his noble Friend with That had been the opinion of his noble some inconsistency and slipping away Friend in 1834; and he should like to from his principles. He thought, if there know what might be the opinion of his were any charge to which his noble noble Friend in 1839, since the views of Friend might plead not guilty, it was the Dissenters had been more fully dethat of slipping away from his princi-veloped. What was the object of the ples;" and when the heat of the present Government? Since the year 1834, there moment should have subsided, and impartial history should give the character of his noble Friend, he thought it would be recorded of him, that power, place, and position-all those ties which generally bound men, he had broken as withen bands when he found they fettered those religious principles which his heart and conscience approved. He would beg the House to listen to one passage in a speech of his noble Friend, in June, 1834, which had been omitted by the hon. Gentleman. His noble Friend had stated his principles in these terms:

46

"My object in supporting the principle of the bill is to remove the test which now impedes the course of the Dissenting student; but I do not wish to interfere with the future statutes of the universities, provided they do not impose this test. I cannot admit, and I hope my hon. Friend does not contend, that it should be in the power of Dissenters to claim that the statutes should be void because they may in some manne: appear to obstruct the privileges given them by this bill. But I should not be content unless a provision is in

had been three several attacks on the Established Church. First, with respect to the universities; secondly, to Churchrates; and now to the whole scheme of education itself. And what had been the course pursued? There had been a struggle for a long time to reduce the Church to a level with Dissent, and now it seemed that an attempt was making by school endowments and other means to raise Dissent to the level of the Church. That was the ground of the jealousy of his noble Friend, and that jealousy had not been removed by the objects which had been frankly avowed by two hon Gentlemen. The hon. Member for Lambeth had said, that education, if national, ought to extend the education of each sect in its particular creed; and the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, though he stated the proposition differently, its effect was the same-namely, that all sects had a right to be educated out of the public purse to which they contributed.