"Our Church schools are generally of a parochial character, and they are a part of our parochial economy. But in very many of our smaller parishes there are really no elements out of which to form an efficient school-no adequate array of children to furnish either employment or remune ration for a well-trained teacher: and thus it is that, in a record of parishes without a school, the list is swelled with the names of those which, like Lanmihangel, or Eglwys Brewis, have but thirtywhich can never therefore, either require or supseven or seventeen inhabitants in the whole, and port separate schools for themselves. In cases like these, combinations, such as already in many instances exist, are all that can be looked for, and are certainly the provision at which we ought to

however, could not be established generally, regard, however, to the criticisms of his except by a rate, which would efface the right hon. Friend upon the arrangements idea of charity. His (Sir J. Pakington's) proposed in the Bill in respect to parishes, right hon. Friend (Mr. Henley) had done he (Sir J. Pakington) was bound to say him great injustice-unintentionally he was that his right hon. Friend seemed to him satisfied-when he said the effect of the to have been more anxious to criticise the Bill would be to exclude altogether the measure than to make himself master of clergy from interference in their schools; all the particulars of these arrangements. that its provisions wholly negatived, en- He (Sir J. Pakington) believed that any tirely ignored, the existence of the clergy attempt to carry out a system of schools and their action upon the education of the by means of parishes would be perfectly children. He (Sir J. Pakington) denied impracticable; and that in any measure that statement. The right hon. Gentleman whatever a system would have to be reobjected to the arrangements that existed sorted to analogous to the provisions of in the Bill as regarded parishes, and said his Bill. Archdeacon Williams, of Llanthat as the Bill ignored parochial boun- daff, pointed out, in his visitation charge, daries the ministers of religion would not delivered in May last, how the parochial know where to attend. He said, "By system would act in Wales. He said :taking a district they sever the connection of the child with the minister of the parish; and no one particular minister of religion would have a superintendence or control in respect of the schools." He (Sir J. Pakinton) denied the justice of this statement. When he first brought in the Bill he was told that he had ignored the Holy Scriptures in the schools; that as he had made no provision for their being read, he had excluded them. When, however, the Bill arrived at a second reading, he gave an explanation which, he believed, was satisfactory to the House; and he thought he could now show that the allegation of excluding the clergy was equally unfounded as that statement. He had, in fact, no such intention. He would be, indeed, the last man in that House who would exclude the clergy from their rightful influence over youthful education, still less ignore the Scriptures. But, on the other hand, the clergy of the Established Church should not, in his opinion, assume the right to teach their religious doctrines to the children of Dissenters. Their action on the children of their own Church, he admitted, was indisputable; but he could not admit the same proposition as regarded other children. His right hon. Friend, therefore, had been led away by the same argument in this instance which had been urged against the Bill, on the wrongful ground that it excluded the Holy Scriptures. He (Sir J. Pakington) did not propose to deal with the existing schools in connection with the Church, unless they came in and claimed to take the benefit of the rate; nor did he propose to interfere in any sense with the just and legitimate influence which the clergy exercised over the Church schools of the country. With

aim."

His hon. Friend opposite, who took a great interest in the matter, had told him (Sir J. Pakington) that he had been obliged on his own estate, where the parishes were small, to put five parishes together for one school; and in his (Sir J. Pakington's) own county there were similar cases. In fact, in some parishes there would not be children enough to occupy a school, and it would require six or seven parishes to fill one; while, as the House had seen, at Burslem and other populous places, six schools were required for one parish. Consequently the parish plan would not be practicable. It was, however, not intended to interfere with voluntary schools. He believed, therefore, that he had answered his right hon. Friend's objections on that point. His right hon. Friend had said that the plan would tend to the secularisation of religion-" that if it were adopted there would be great risk of its slipping down into a purely secular system.' Now, he denied the justice of that opinion. Upon what authority, however, did his right hon. Friend found it? By a reference to the United States of America. That he (Sir

J. Pakington thought was not altogether they liked or it not, be driven to adopt the fair. Any one who heard the argument of secular system. He had been asked how his right hon. Friend would suppose this they were to teach religion to the children plan to be the same as that pursued in the of Roman Catholics and Jews in these United States, whereas, on the contrary, schools? His answer was, that where the it was the very opposite. In the United parents objected to the religious teaching States system there was no distinctive of their children in the schools the parents teaching of religion, for there was no would become responsible. His plan was teaching of religion at all; while in his founded upon the principle recognising the (Sir J. Pakington's) school-system there paramount right of the parent to teach rewould be distinctive teaching in every ligion to his child; and where the parent school. He was afraid there was too much evinced sufficient anxiety on that subject ground for the statement of his right hon. as to make objections to his child being Friend as regarded America, that religious taught the religion of the Church of Engteaching and religious duty were neglected land, he considered that that would in in that system to a dangerous extent; but itself be a sufficient guarantee on the part in his (Sir J. Pakington's) system every of the parent that the child would receive school was required to have a distinct reli- religious teaching according to his own gious character, though no child should be principles. It had been asked, why interforced to learn any particular religious fere with the present state of things? The doctrine against the will of its parents. children of Dissenters at present attended The parallel with the American system, the schools. He would, on this point, refer therefore, was not applicable. That was to a pamphlet which had been recently the only instance adduced by his right published by the Dean of Salisbury. He hon. Friend on that point; but he (Sir J. stated a remarkable fact founded on the Pakington) could meet that with several report of the inspector of schools in Wales. instances on the other side. He could He stated that there were many Dissenters point to the Catholic and Protestant can- in Wales, but that the church schools intons of Switzerland, where an analogous sisted upon teaching the Church doctrine system existed; he could point also to to the children who attended the schools. other foreign countries; and, above all, he The result was, the Dissenters would send could point to Scotland in proof of its effi- their children to the schools and allow cacy. Would his right hon. Friend con- them to learn the Church doctrine and the tend that the system of education pursued Church catechism, but at the same time in Scotland led to secularisation, and that they themselves taught their children not religious instruction was neglected in that to believe those doctrines. He would apcountry? On the contrary, though he be- peal to his right hon. Friend whether that lieved there was no country in Europe was so good and honest a course to more averse to Catholic doctrines than pursue as the one adopted by him. The Scotland, yet Roman Catholic children system described by the Dean of Saliswere admitted to the schools, and no at- bury reminded him of an expression of his tempt was made to instruct them in other right hon. Friend (Mr. Disraeli) who had doctrines. If no such danger as his right once spoken of an "organised hypocrisy." hon. Friend apprehended had accrued in Against that he warned the House, and Scotland, why should it accrue in England? trusted they would not hold out encourHe (Sir J. Pakington) was fortified in his agement to any such hypocrisy as that. opinion by the case of the Birmingham On the other hand it was hard to oblige school-that noble institution—and by that the poor to send their children to schools of the school at Wallingford. Therefore where doctrines were taught which they it appeared to him that in this respect his disapproved, or else to leave them unright hon. Friend had no ground whatever educated. This was the cruel alternative for his alarm on the subject. The only proposed by the opponents of the Bill. He real danger of secularisation likely to arise thought that if the House would consent was that which the extreme views of the to adopt a liberal system, which had been Church of England on this subject might adopted in Scotland and in many parts of induce. If an intermediate system should England, and which, wherever it had been be rejected by the Church party the adopted had proved advantageous, a pracdanger was that the public, who were tical solution would be found of the diffisensible of the inefficient state of public culty which had been proved to exist. education in this country would, whether There was only one point remaining on

1827 Education (No. 2) Bill

{COMMONS}

by the difficulties attendant upon the question or by some other cause. So far from acting in rivalry towards the noble Lord, he would be most willing to act with him as a humble fellow-labourer, or with any man who was willing to make an effort to free Christian England from the curse of a debasing ignorance. Let the Bill go to a Committee and be fairly considered; mindful of the words of the Scripture lesson for that very day, "A wise ruler will instruct his people.

MR. EWART moved the adjournment of the debate.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he would move that the debate be adjourned till Monday next.

MR. HADFIELD said, he should move as an Amendment that the debate be adjourned for four weeks. He thought that it was hopeless to expect the Bill to pass that Session, and to debate it was useless.

Adjourned Debate. 1828 which he wished to touch, and that was cessity of spreading education as widely the question of the appointment. of local as possible. He had brought forward this boards. To that part of the subject, he Bill in no spirit of rivalry towards the attached great importance, and he thought noble Lord the Member for London, who that having in every parish a respectable had added lustre to a noble name by his man to attend to the subject of education exertions in the cause, but he had brought would tend to remove the indifference it forward because he believed that the which at present existed among parents, noble Lord had been deterred from bringand to secure a better attendance of chil-ing in a measure upon the subject, either dren in the schools. If the House was going to establish an extended national system of education, and, consequently, to give rise to a large local expenditure, that expenditure could not be satisfactorily arranged by a central body, and, therefore, it would be necessary to have local boards, and, in his opinion, the principle of local boards as laid down by his Bill was preferable to that of vestries as laid down in the Bill of the noble Lord (Lord J. Russell). He hoped, also, that the present constitution of the Committee of Council on Education would be changed, and that it would be converted into a recognised department of the State, represented in that House by a Minister who would be able to give authoritative answers to questions that might be put to him upon the subject of education. He was afraid that he had wearied the House by entering so much into detail, but he had found it necessary to do so in order to reply to the statement of his right hon. Friend; but the practical question was, whether the state of ignorance which now existed was to be permitted to continue, and he implored the House not to be led away by the arguments of his right hon. Friend or of those persons who entertained extreme views upon the subject of religious instruction in these schools, or of those who thought that, because in the immediate neighbourhood in which they lived the present system worked well, such was the case in all other parts of the country. The question was one which involved not mere considerations of a social or religious character, but it involved a great political question, for, at a time when it was to be expected that at no distant period there would be an extension of the franchise, it was of the utmost importance to fit those persons who would be called on to exercise the suffrage to perform the duties they would be called upon to discharge. There was nothing more dangerous than democratic institutions among an ignorant people, and the United States had, from the establishment of their independence, recognised the ne

Amendment proposed, "To leave out the words Monday next,' and insert the words this day month,' instead thereof.

MR. MILNER GIBSON said, he thought that a month's adjournment was too long, and as the Limited Liabilities Bill was to come on upon Monday, he would propose Friday week, instead of that day week.

LORD JOHN RUSSELL said, he thought Monday next more convenient. It was of great importance to determine on the principle of the Bills.

MR. HENLEY said, that his right hon. Friend (Sir J. Pakington) had accused him of making use of figures which he was not authorised to make use of, but he could inform the House that he had used those figures on the authority of a book to which his right hon. Friend himself had referred in the course of the debate.

Question, "That the words 'Monday next' stand part of the Question," put, and agreed to.

Main Question put, and agreed to.
Debate further adjourned till Monday

next.

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, that during the present week measures of great urgency had to be considered, but he thought that in future it would be better to adhere to the rule mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, that Tuesdays and Thursdays should be fixed for morning sittings. Last year, and also in the present year, the House of Lords had adopted regulations with respect to the period be-vernment to withdraw the measure. yond which they would not consider Bills MR. DISRAELI said, he wished to obbrought from the House of Commons, which serve that there were grave objections to made it important that the measures should taking the Scotch Education Bill at a be carried through the House of Commons morning sitting. He also hoped that the so as to reach the House of Lords in due Irish Tenants' Compensation Bill would time. He was disposed to adhere to the not be brought forward at a morning sitrule that Tuesdays and Thursdays should ting, and certainly not on Friday next. alone be selected for morning sittings, un-It appeared that there was to be a Com

mittee of Supply on Friday and that the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Layard) was to have an opportunity of bringing forward his Motion on that occasion; but this was not consistent with a statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that other measures would be brought forward on Friday evening at a late hour. wished the House to have a clear understanding upon this point, and he thought it would be more convenient if the hon. Member for Aylesbury brought forward his Motion as a substantive Motion, and not on going into Committee of Supply.

He

VISCOUNT PALMERSTON said, the hon. Member for Aylesbury had stated that he would bring on his Motion on going into Supply, and it would be taken just as he moved it. He was not prepared to say that the Tenants' Compensation Bill would not come on at a morning sitting, but it would not be brought forward on Friday.

MR. WILSON said, it would be between 70,000l. and 80,000l., but that was only the measure of disadvantage which our manufacturers laboured under as compared with their competitors in France and other continental States. Bill read 2a.

ST. CROSS HOSPITAL.

MR. MURROUGH said, he would now beg to move for the Returns respecting this Establishment, of which he had given notice.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL said, he must oppose the granting of the Returns. No Commissioners had been appointed, and therefore no Report had been made. The Attorney General had been instructed to institute an inquiry, and such inquiry had been commenced. He believed that the hon. Member was acting as the agent of Mr. Holloway, whose object was to compel Lord Guilford to refund all the MR. V. SCULLY said, he had come moneys he had received as Master of St. over from Ireland at great inconvenience, Cross Hospital. If he succeeded in that, but he now found that he could have spent he would prove himself stronger than the his week better in Ireland than here. He Courts of Law. Should the inquiries now had fully expected that the Tenants' Com-in progress result in showing that the funds pensation Bill would come on upon Friday. of the hospital had been mismanaged, the Subject dropped. hon. Member might then move for the Returns.

MR. MURROUGH said, he would admit at once that he had moved for the

Returns at the request of Mr. Holloway, and he thought the House was bound to render that gentleman every assistance in its power in compelling Lord Guilford to disgorge some of the funds which he had secured as Master of St. Cross Hospital.

The House divided:-Ayes 7; Noes 24: Majority 17.

The House was adjourned at half-after One o'clock.

SPIRITS OF WINE BILL. Order for Second reading read, In reply to LORD WILLIAM GRAHAM, MR. WILSON said, there had been no greater disadvantage than that to which large numbers of coach manufacturers in London, Birmingham, and other parts of the country had for many years been exposed by the very high duty charged on spirits of wine, which they used extensively in their trade. The subject had engaged the attention of every Government during the last twenty years; and the Board of Inland Revenue, acting on the advice of certain eminent chemists, had recommended that, by the admixture of a small quantity of naphtha in spirits of wine, the wine would be effectually spoiled for ordinary use, but not at all injured for the purpose for which manufacturers used it; and they might thus be relieved from the high duty Reported-Education of Poor Children; Brighthey now paid upon it. The Board of Inland Revenue had recommended that course to be adopted, and the Government had acted upon that recommendation in bringing in the Bill.

COLONEL DUNNE said, he wished to ask what the loss to the revenue would be under this Bill?

II OUSE

MINUTES.]

OF LORDS,
Tuesday, June 12, 1855.

PUBLIC BILLS. 1a Gold Finger
Rings; Duchy of Lancaster Lands (1855.)
2a Administration of Oaths Abroad; County
Palatine of Lancaster Trials.

ton Incorporation.

3a Roman Catholic Charities.

THE CAMP AT ALDERSHOT. In answer to the Marquess of SALISBURY, LORD PANMURE said, that there could be no doubt, and it was a matter of public notoriety, that the supply of water to the