ページの画像
PDF
ePub

and incensed by all who have the vitality of the Whig gang at heart; and we are sure, that while Mr. Moore was speaking contemptuously behind his back, he was adulating him to his face. He was exhibiting, in fact, in his individual person, the respectable conduct which at this moment characterises Brookes's, as a body. O'Connell will never heartily forgive Moore; and when, as will inevitably be the case, he lets loose the bloodhounds of Irish faction against the bard, it will be but a poor excuse for Willis to say that he had no evil intention in repeating his conversations, being actuated by no other motives than those of earning an additional dollar, and explaining to his tuft-hunting countrymen that he had dined with a Countess. The Edinburgh Reviewer well knows, that the harm which may result to Moore from being exposed to the rancour of the Tail and its wearer, is a far different thing from any injury that could possibly accrue from literary strictures, were they of tenfold the severity of those put into the mouth of Professor Wilson. We take leave to observe, that the closing sentence of the review is sad twaddle. It is mere stuff to say that the Edinburgh Review, in its present somnolent state, can give "a more extended circulation," calcu lated to produce the slightest effect on the public mind, to “reprehensible and mischievous passages," which have been printed in every newspaper of the empire.

ANOTHER GLANCE AT THE

WE are about to take a great liberty with our readers: - nothing less, in short, than to quote Mr. H. L. Bulwer's France!

As to the honourable member himself, he might perpetrate volumes enough before we should feel the least inclination to get ourselves into such a scrape on his account. But he has had the luck to bring more immediately under our view a series of statistical calculations, which might otherwise have passed away amidst the mass of similar things, without drawing forth a remark, much less giving support to a principle. We thank him for this service done, and shall not so ill requite his pains as to use his labours without frankly explaining to whom we owe an introduction to the information afforded by M. Guerry.

[ocr errors]

This last-named gentleman has lately amused himself by dissecting and analysing the statistics of crime in France; and his work, says Mr. Bulwer, is more especially remarkable on this account, that it bowls down at once all the nine-pins with which late statists had been amusing themselves, and sets up again many of the old notions, which, from their very antiquity, were out of vogue."-Vol. i. p. 172.

In fact, this work of M. Guerry's, by the aid of which Mr. Bulwer has well filled out the half of a volume, shews, as clearly as it is possible for any thing to be shewn, that mere instruction in letters has had, in France, no influence whatever in the diminu

[ocr errors]

O. Y.

APPROPRIATION" CLAUSE.

[ocr errors]

tion of crime; or, we might rather say, that the increase of crime has fully kept pace with the increase of instruction. To use Mr. Bulwer's own language, we see, that while the crimes against persons are most frequent in Corsica, the provinces of the southeast, and Alsace, where the people are well instructed, there are the fewest of those crimes in Berry, Limousin, and Brittany, where the people are most ignorant! As to crimes against property, it is almost invariably those departments which are the best informed which are also the most criminal."Vol. i. p. 182.

Mr. Bulwer, after he recovers from his first amazement, thus endeavours to reconcile himself to this state of things:

"No one ever yet pretended to say that in Italy, where there was the most civilization during the middle ages, there was the least crime; and I do not place much faith in the philosopher who pretends that the knowledge which developes the passions is an instrument for their suppression, or that where there are the most desires there is likely to be the most order, and the most abstinence

in their gratification." "Should education add to human guilt more than it adds to human happiness, the fault is very much in ourselves; and very much owing, let me add, to all education being insufficient to the absurd belief that reading and writing is quite enough, and that there we may halt, and rest satisfied with the good work which we have performed."—Vol. i. p. 186.

It is, then, now incontestably proved --or rather, we may say, it is admitted on all hands-that the mere impartation of knowledge to human beings is not, in itself and intrinsically, a good. It gives power; of this there is no doubt: but power may be used, and often is used, to the hurt and detriment both of its owner and of all around him. You may take a juvenile pickpocket, or burglar, or swindler, and teach him something of letters and something of science; but if his former taste and predilections remain unchanged, the only result of your labours will be, that he will become a far more adroit and mischievous marauder on society than he had previously been. Or, without supposing his bent and habits to be decidedly immoral, before he is brought under the influence of this kind of education, still, if you improve his intellect and enlarge his knowledge, without at the same time influencing his heart, he is just as likely as before to yield to temptation and to plunge into vice, with far greater powers of receiving and imparting injury than in his state of ignorance he possessed. And the like of many other cases.

[ocr errors]

In fact, the term "education is, in a great measure, abused by being applied to this sort of procedure. Education, properly so called, aims at the heart, at the conduct, at the moral views and prospects of the individual, much more decidedly than at the mere cultivation of his mental powers. The result is kept in view; and the sort of result which is desired and sought after, in any education which is worth the name, is that which not only fits the individual for the duties of the present life, but prepares him also, as far as human efforts can prepare him, for the higher prospects and employments of a life to come. This is Edu

cation; and to such an object as this the best energies of a nation may well be directed. But the mere impartation of a knowledge of the ordinary things of human life, a drilling into reading, and writing, and arithmetic, and a superficial view of science, together with a few commonplace moral maxims;—to such a system as this it is a mere deceit to give the name of Education; and it is worse than a deceit to hold it out to the nation as a worthy object of cultivation and of nublic support. Those who could

judged it all but certain that such a system as this would tend very little, in the long run, to the nation's wellbeing or prosperity; and we now have this result both proved by an accurate investigation of the facts, and admitted to exist by one who confesses his previous anticipations to have been of a very different character.

What a cheat, then, has been played off upon us for the past nine months! How constantly have we been told, during the whole of that time, that all that it was proposed to do with the Irish Church was to apply a part of her "surplus revenues to the purposes of "a moral and religious education!" A pretence, than which there never was any thing more entirely and mischievously false.

[ocr errors]

We shall not now enter into a minute criticism of "the government system of education" (as it is miscalled) in Ireland. There may be good features about it, as well as evil ones; but all that we now mean to contend is, that it is in no way whatever, nor in any just and genuine sense of the words, a religious and moral education."

[ocr errors]

The things taught in these schools are mostly of the class and description which in France, as we have just seen, have augmented, not diminished, the amount of crime, and the number of criminals. Knowledge, which is power, is given to a certain extent; but a right direction, a correct bias, is not given, nor attempted to be given.

[ocr errors]

We shall probably be met at once by an indignant denial, and shall be reminded that "moral lessons in abundance, and "scriptural lessons" not a few, are in constant and general use in these schools. We are well aware of this, but we are not on that account disposed to abate one iota of our averment, that of "moral and religious education" there is not a vestige in these establishments.

It cannot be necessary for us to do more than merely to enunciate the truism, that there can be no real morals where there is no true religion. And surely it is just as clear, that where no religion is taught, there no morals can be, to any effect, inculcated. Now, that no religion is taught in the government-schools in Ireland, is, in fact, the great boast of their advocates. Protestantism is not taught, that the

be offended: Chris

tianity is not insisted upon, that the Socinian may have no room for complaint.

But are not copious selections from the Scriptures used in these schools? We suppose that they are; at least, such selections have been prepared, and it is probable that they are extensively used. But what is that to the purpose? Where would be the difficulty of making large selections from any book, without including a single distinguishing point of the author's system? A volume of tolerable theology, doubtless, might be culled from the atrocious tomes of Peter Dens; a volume of good and not indecent verses from Don Juan; and a tolerable collection of moral precepts from the Koran; but who does not see, that in thus omitting all that is objected to in each, you strip all of them of their distinctive characteristics? So, if you take the New Testament, and cut out all the passages which offeud the Papist, the Quaker, or the Socinian, you leave a volume, necessarily, indeed, from its divine origin, far superior to Plato's maxims, or the Economy of Human Life, but scarcely more Christian than these, after the curtailment it has undergone.

That this plan of "education," then, has any thing either "religious or moral" about it, we utterly deny. And as for the vacant days, in which the priests or the clergy may, if they please, instruct the children in their separate creeds, it is abundantly clear, that this permission no more gives the system that religious character which it wants, than a like "permission " to attend a drill-sergeant every Saturday would make a school a military seminary.

But why need we insist on these points? The simple truth is, that the main object of the whole contrivance was to put down, if possible, the schools of scriptural instruction which already existed, and to place something in their room which the priests might be able to turn to their own purposes. That this has been done, is sufficiently explained by Mr. Inglis, in his Journey through Ireland; a work as thoroughly liberal as Mr. Bulwer's France. In that work he thus explains to us the actual working of "the government plan of education in Ireland," as follows:

In the town of Galway are several extensive schools, two of them receiving

aid from the new Education Board. One of them belongs to the monk-schools, the other is under the care of the sisters of the Presentation Nunnery; and in each of them about five hundred children are educated. In many respects, I found reason to be pleased with these schools: there appeared to be no want of attention on the part of the instructors; the pupils seemed to have profited by their instructions in reading and writing; and one humane regulation particularly pleased mea plentiful breakfast of stirabout and treacle is provided for the poor children, before they enter upon their daily tasks. At the same time, I cannot think the funds of the Education Board are legitimately applied in supporting the nunnery and monk-schools. I understand the principle of the board to be, that there was to be no preference of one religion over another; and that the schools were to be so constituted, that Protestant and Catholic might be able to join conscientiously in their support. But here, in this nunnery-school at Galway, are all the paraphernalia of Popery: the building is a convent; the teachers are nuns, with beads and rosaries; the chapel has all the accompaniments and distinguishing marks of Catholic chapels of the most Catholic countries; and it does appear to me utterly impossible that Protestants should countenance schools of this description."-Vol. i. p. 28.

-

Such is the actual working of the system, which turns out, as all compromises of principle are invariably found to do altogether to the advantage of one of the contending parties: the result of the whole being, that the pure morality of Protestantism, that is, of Bible Christianity, is excluded, while the immorality of Popery thrives and abounds.

The cant, then, of an 66 appropriation" of a "surplus," which every one knows does not exist, to the purposes of" a religious and moral education," is seen, the moment any one chooses to bestow the least attention on the sub

ject, to be based on falsehood. The

[ocr errors]

appropriation," if it ever could take place, would be an appropriation of the funds which at present are sacred to the inculcation of Christianity, to the purpose of increasing that "knowledge which developes the passions, but is no instrument for their suppression." Away, then, with this miserable deceit, and confess, at once, that all your fondness for the "appropriation clause" was founded, not on what it gave, but

on what it took away,--not on the provision it professed to make for what was falsely called education, but on the deduction it did most truly and efficiently ensure in the revenues of the Protestant church.

II. But here we touch upon another branch of the subject, and one which detects another of the multiplied deceits with which this question has been surrounded.

Lord John Russell makes out his case against the Irish Church, by fastening upon some half-dozen cases in which the Protestant clergy receive considerable incomes from tithes, while there are scarcely any Protestant parishioners to receive their instructions.

Sir Robert Peel meets this by a general view of the whole establishment, shewing that, if the revenues are equitably distributed, there would be no "surplus," but rather a deficiency. And he calls on Lord John Russell, admitting that some of the incumbents might be overpaid, first to distribute the excess among those who were insufficiently endowed, before he assumed a surplus as available for nonecclesiastical purposes.

To this Lord John gives a positive denial, because, forsooth, he cannot see the justice of taxing a parish in Armagh for the spiritual instruction of a parish in Galway! The objection involves a falsehood, because no man is taxed in being called upon to pay tithes. If he is a tenant, he took the land knowing it to be subject to tithes, and paid so much less rent for it than he would have done had it been tithefree. If he be a landlord, he bought or inherited the estate subject to tithes, and knowing that for centuries past the tithe of the produce was by law another's. To call tithe a tax, therefore, is a misnomer, which can hardly be used by a statesman without a just imputation of deceit.

A tenth of the produce is devoted to the purposes of religious instruction; and that tenth has never, from time immemorial, belonged to either landlord or tenant. But Lord John thinks it unjust to deal with it as with a general fund, and to augment an insufficient living in one county by a portion of that which may be spared from a more than sufficient living in another. He thinks it unjust to make the land in Leinster pay for the religious instruc

the people of Connaught,

66

Upon this point, and upon this point only, are the two parties contending at the present moment. The ministerial press may continue to labour in their honest vocation, of falsely representing the Conservative party as determined to keep up large livings where there are few or no Protestants; but any one who chooses to acquaint himself with the facts may satisfy himself by a very short reference to the parliamentary discussions, as to this fact,―that the party which opposed Lord John Russell's appropriation clause" were not opposed to the principle of a better distribution of Church property. Had the Lichfield-house plan consisted in a reduction of the overpaid livings, and an improved provision for the underpaid ones, the question would have been decided long ago. The proposition would have been willingly acceded to by Sir Robert Peel's administration, and the right hon. baronet would have been at this moment in office. But this was just the very thing that Lord John and his conspirators least desired. Their object was, not to settle the tithequestion, or to pacify Ireland, but to push for something which Sir Robert Peel, as a Conservative minister, could not grant; and then to use his refusal as a lever wherewith to dislodge him from Downing Street. The scheme succeeded; and it next devolved on Lord John himself to bring forward a tithe-bill of his own.

In doing this, it might be naturally expected that, for appearances' sake, that appropriation clause which had already done such good service (to Lord John and his colleagues, if not to the country,) should be preserved. It was so preserved, and again the peace of Ireland was sacrificed to party intrigue. The bill was remitted to the Lords in such a form as to ensure its condemnation this was knowingly and deliberately done by the Whig-Radical party in the Commons; and, by so doing, all the miseries and bloodshed of another year's tithe-agitation was rendered inevitable; and all for what?

Fifty thousand pounds per annum, it was said, might be taken from the Irish Church property, for the purposes of education. This sum, if it had been asked of the house as a mere grant, unconnected with the tithe-question, might have been obtained without the least difficulty. But no,-the bargain made with O'Connell and his tail, in the

Lichfield-house conclave, was that, on the pretext of wanting funds for education, a seizure should be effected of a certain portion of the Church property in Ireland, which, by the principle involved in it, would render the confiscation of the rest only a question of time. The whole atrocity, therefore, of the "appropriation clause" was maintained, and the bill was sent up to the Lords in such form as to render it impossible for them to pass it.

Be it remembered, then, that the two main reasons on which this precious appropriation clause would fain rest, are fairly cut from under it. If funds be needed for the purposes of education in Ireland, those funds, as far as the Conservatives are concerned, will be readily provided. And if the grievance of a few livings with good incomes and scarcely any Protestants is alleged, we are equally ready to concur in any plan by which the surplus, in those particular cases, shall be applied to the increase of the many insufficient benefices which unquestionably exist.

Lord John Russell takes his stand here. He will not agree to the idea of a re-distribution, but he insists upon it, that where a revenue exists without a good number of Protestants, it shall be taken away; while the overworked and underpaid labourer in another part of the vineyard may continue to be underpaid; for that no part of this surplus shall be "appropriated" to

him.

-

Lord John Russell's "most exquisite reason" for this is, that it is not reasonable to take the funds raised in Leinster and to apply them to church purposes in Connaught or Ulster. Now, as it is perfectly undeniable, that neither landlord nor tenant are wronged by having to pay tithes as it is quite clear that the funds thus raised are a perfectly distinct property, and are in no respect a tax levied on certain persons, it is not easy to see who would be injured, or what would be the ground of complaint, even supposing the tithes of the most southerly parish in Ireland to be applied in supporting a clergyman in the extremity of the north. But what we wish to ask is, Whether Lord John Russell, in his further progress, has the honesty to adhere to his own principle? Since he holds the Church property of each particular district to be, in some man

VOL. XIII. NO. LXXIV.

ner or other, tied to that district, so that it may not justly be bestowed out of it, does he maintain the same opinion when he proceeds to develope and to work out his own plan? His own

Nothing of the kind!

scheme is merely this: that where the number of Protestants is but small, there the benefice shall be suppressed, and the revenues of it, not appropriated to schools in that district, but brought into a general fund, out of which grants for schools are to issue. Thus, the notion of any peculiar property in the tithes of a district belonging to that district, is at once given up, and a general fund receives the whole. Hence there is no security whatever, that the money which is raised in Connaught may not be expended in Ulster, or vice versa. But if a general fund may thus be esta blished for the purposes of education, what reason is there that just such a fund should not be set up, for the better distribution of Church revenues? Not the injustice of taking from Munster to give to Leinster, assuredly; for that fault belongs quite as much to Lord John's plan as to any other that has been suggested. He refuses to throw the expected "surplus " into a general fund for church purposes; but when he comes to his own "education" scheme, there he has recourse to a general fund without the least hesitation! Admirable, consistent legislation! honest, candid, subterfuge-hating Lord John!

III. But there is another point of mighty importance, which we have yet to bring under notice.

No one can imagine, that eventually and permanently any different principles can or will be applied to the English and Irish Churches. Circumstances differ, and will probably continue to differ; but, making every allowance for these, it will be impossible to establish any settled basis of action with respect to Church property in Ireland, which will not very speedily be quoted and argued from in England also.

Now, Lord John Russell told his Devonshire constituents, not very long since, that the Church property of England was not too large; it only With required a better distribution. equal truth has it been pressed upon him, and he has not denied the fact, that the Church property of Ireland,

« 前へ次へ »