In order to examine the relationship between state education and national education in the British Empire, this paper provides an overview of Thomas Babington Macaulay's opinions on public education in the 1840s. Early in the nineteenth century, public opinion in England rejected state education. Public education at that time meant national education run by voluntary associations. During the April 1847 parliamentary debates on annual expenditure for the government's plan on education, Lord John Russell, asserting that his plan was not for state education, lent support to national education, as well as the exclu-sion of Roman Catholics from public education. But, Macaulay, insisted that "it is the right and duty of the State to provide for the education of the common people." What is the meaning, then, of such contradictory explanations regarding the same education plan? Since the 1830's, Macaulay insisted that public education must be the secular provided by the government. In his parliamentary speeches from 1839 to 1846, Macaulay repeatedly insisted on the necessity of public education, while avoiding the mention of state education. This was because he thought that it was inseparably tied to religious education under the jurisdiction of the established church, thus contradicting with Whiggish secularistic ideas. Macaulay regarded Lord John Russell's speech as a rejection of Whig ideals because he argued for the exclusion of Roman Catholics from the public education. Macaulay's April 19, 1847, speech on education is constructed of two parts. In the first part, he explained his principles of public education. He said "that is the clear duty of a government to protect the lives and property of the community, and that the gross ignorance of the multitude produces danger to the lives and property of the community," therefore, "to provide the education for the people is the duty of the state." Macaulay was opposed to apply to the application of free market principles to education. In the second part, he called for support of a government plan for national education, because it was necessary for the people. However, he did not explain the relationship of this plan to state education. Macaulay also failed to illustrate the reason why his plan left education in the hands of voluntary associations. This blatant contradiction in Lord John Russell's and Macaulay's explanations vexed other members of the House of Commons, throwing the debate in confusion. Some proposed to adopt government-run secular education. Others proposed to adapt the Irish system of mixed education to English public education. Members of Parliament could agree that it was the duty of the state to provide education for the people and that it was necessary to include Roman Catholics; convincing Lord John Russell to follow suit. In Macaulay's opinions, state education and national education were not in competition but were complementary. Both represented certain aspects of society. However, state education also implied intervention from the Established Church, something that he could not support. In his Speeches he substituted "public" or "government" for "state". He was still convinced that "it is the duty of State to educate the people."