The Press. — London, England, 1855-06-16 00:00:00

JUNE 16, 1855. Vrettebings in Varlianicat. EDUCATION. The debate on the bill of Sir J. Pakington—the second of the three before the house—was resumed on Monday. Mr. ADDERLEY, in supporting it, alluded to the difficulties attending the introduction of every measure on the subject. If it was a private measure, it was said that the subject was too large . for private legislation • if it we; a public measure, they were told that educational provision must be made for distinct localities. There was no shape in which the question was not brought before the house, and in each it was met by the most contradictory arguments. At present they had three principles before them—that of Mr. Henley, who would oe content with the development of the existing system ; that of Sir J. Pakington and Lord J. Russell, who took the present system as far as it went, and would assist it with public grants when private efforts failed ; and that of Mr. M. Gibson, who abolished the existing system altogether, and substituted a system without religious instruction, founded upon public rates. This last he dismissed as not in ac cordance with the feelings of the people of England. Of the three principles he assented to the second, and approved of the measure before them ex cepting the clauses for new schools, which he said were incongruous with the rest. He replied at length to the arguments used by Mr. Henley in the last debate on the bill, answering the objection against employing rates by asking why they should not be employed for education as well as for lighting and highways, and the objection that parents would not like to send their children to charity schools by ob serving that it would apply with more force to existing schools, when the clergyman went about, hat iu hand, to solicit contributions. He adduced the ex amples of Canada and Austria, and demanded that we should not leave the education of our own people incomplete in the presence of the more perfect in stitutions of other countries. He advised that the bill, with that of Lord J. Russelt, should be referred to a select committee, believing that from the two something satisfactory would then be struck out. Mr. EVELYN DENISON strongly urged the compulsory attendance or the children at the schools, whatever measure was adopted. Compulsion had worked well in the schools established under the Factory Act, and without it parents took away their children at too early an age. Lord J. MANNrits, in opposing the bill, examined the reasons why children at present were kept aloof from schools. One of the reasons alleged had been the badness of the schools. It was stated, on the contrary, by an eminent authority, that the schools were so good as to induce the parents to remove their children earlier than heretofore, believing that they had learned enough. Poverty was another reason. But the bill did not propose to provide those children with better clothes who now abstained from attending school on account of their rags. A third reason was the indifference of the parents. On them the hill would have no effect. There re mained the last and smallest class—those anxious to send their children to school, but who were unable to find the school-pence. He concurred that the establishment of free schools would be unsuccessful : they were distasteful to the pcor, and in some cases those concerned in them were attempting to alter the system. He felt convinced that the rating principle would fail, and would substitute for neighbourly and friendly action the strife of religious differences and party conflict. Of the three bills he preferred that of Mr. Gibson, as intelligible; but be preferred befira all not to interfere with a system which had already produced such great results, and in which a remedy could be found for all the defi ciencies. Mr. W. J. Fox said that it was well known that many localities were already desirous of rating them selves for educationary purposes, and he instanced Manchester. Schools established upon rates would a) longer be looked upon as charity schools by those who paid the rates. On the contrary, these last would Teel a direct interest in seeing that the schools were properly administered, and look on the privilege of !tiding their children as a right which they had purchased. He could see nothing satisfactory in the present system. If the number of those utterly un• taught was few, so was the number of those properly taught. To prove this, be quoted some statistics upon the large proportion of the population which neither attended church nor chapel, and contrasted America, where almost everyone was connected with one or other of the religious denominations. Sir J. PLNINGTON complained that the objections both of Mr. Henley and Lord J. Manners did not deal with the details of his bill, but were founded on the assertion that no change was required, that the country was doing well at present, and that they must beware how they disturbed a system which bad produced such beneficial results. After referring to Lis former statements as to the amount of crime in THE PRESS. - England, and its comparison with that of other countries, and quoting somewhat largely from official returns to prove their accuracy, he brought forward against the boasted merits of the actual system the deficiencies in quality as well as in quantity of its education, repeating that seven hundred school masters and mistresses could not sign their own names, contending that, although these might be the superintendents of infants' schools, still the fact itself was a proof of the unsatisfactory state of edu cation in the country. He quoted authorities to show that the maintenance of many schools fell on clergymen with small incomes, that the buildings were in consequence unwholesome, the books defi cient, the teachers illiterate, and of a low moral tone. After further evidence of the present want of educa tion, he proceeded to defend his rating clauses. He brought forward official authority to prove the urgent necessity of a further supply of funds; that, while our best schools might be adduced as a model to foreigners, those which could not avail themselves of the annual grants were almost wholly ineffective, and a positive disgrace. He feared that the demands made by the clergy for the support of their schools upon the national society much greater than could be supplied, and the clergy had to submit to a strain which they could not near much longer. Education could not be maintained except by extraneous assist ance, and how was that to be afforded unless through some such measure as the one he proposed 7 He denied that his scheme could be stigmatised as pau perising the country; the United States, Holland, Scotland had free schools, and he would ask the Scottish members if free schools had pauperised Scotland? Complaints bad been made that the at tendance was not compulsory ; this was a proviso which no private member could venture to introduce, and it would be premature till there were more schools to attend, and the instruction was better worth attendance. He believed that the indifference of the peasantry in sending their children to school arose from the general badness of the schools, and that when the quality was improved the attendance increased. After disposing of minor objections, he replied to that which de:lared his object to be the secularisation of the schools. His plan recognised the religion of the children, and left the control of it to their parents. When parents objected to the reli gion taught in the schools the objection itself was an evidence that the child would receive religious in struction at home. Enforcing the same religious in struct ion to all would only lead to organised hypocrisy. He concluded by defending his proposal of local boards, arguing that a large local expenditure could not be satisfactorily arranged by a central body. He hoped that the constitution of the Committee of Council would be changed, and that it would be con vetted into a distinct department of the State, repre sented by a responsible Minister of the Crown. ' The debate was adjourned till Monday, on the motion of Mr. EWART. RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. The order of the day for reporting this bill created a discussion on Tuesday in the Lords. Its object is the repeal of the act which prohibits the assembling of more that twenty persons for public worship in a private house. The Earl of SHAFTESBURY, its pro moter, urged the necessity of such a measure at a time when infidelity was making rapid progress, and the proportion of those who attended no place of worship whatever was so fearful. He urged the ad vantages which had already accrued from the opening of rooms for worship in the worst parts of the metro. polis, especially by the London City Mission, which had supplied the inevitable deficiencies of the Church of England, and, he contended, preserved the king dom from anarchy. Yet thousands of the meetings thus held by its agents were in direct violation of the existing law, which was a barrier to religious liberty, and in opposition to the spirit of the age. The Bishop of LONDON would not consent to the repeal of the law, though he would consent to its modification. The Bishop of OXFORD said that the object of the present law was to prevent secret and surreptitious meetings, for which purpose places of worship were required to be registered. There was no difficulty in their obtaining the requisite licence—the system was simple, inexpensive, and easy. At a meeting of the bishops held the day before it was unanimously decided that they must oppose it. The Earl of CARNARVON thought that, by the bill, all the lines of demarcation which now existed be tween the Church and dissent would be swept away. The Duke of ARGYLL denounced the retention on the statute-book of a law which could not be enforced. After some further conversation, The LORD CHANCELLOR said that the arguments used against the bill had failed to convince him that it was unsafe or injurious to the interests of the Church of England. The Earl of RODEN was in favour of a measure which would enable churchmen and dissenters to associate together in common worship. The division gave a for and 00 against the bill. SUNDAY TRADING. The committal of the bill for the prevention of Sunday trading was opposed on Wednes,lay by Mr. MASSEY, who asserted that the Sunday traders were poor persons with small shops, dea'ing in perishable articles. Families confined to a single small room would by this bill be compelled to purchase their food on the Saturday night, when it would be spoiled before Sunday by the close atm,4phere. Even wbere Sunday trading most prevailed it was commonly over by eleven o'clock. The population of London had greatly improved within the last century, and its further improvement should be left to work its own way without legislative interference, which was uni formly unsuccessful. The bill was likewise opposed by Mr. W. J. Fox, Mr. T. Duncombe, Mr. Bentinck, Mr. Maguire, Mr. Wilkinson, Sir J. Walnisley, and Mr. Heyworth, upon the ground that it restricted the procee.lings of the poor, and left those of the rich untouched—that if it prohibited trading it should also prohibit labour— that wages were often paid too late on the Saturday for the poor to make purchases—that it was confined to the metropolis—and was unnecessary when the Sunday was in general so well observed by the lower orders. Mr. Daufaxosn, who likewise opposed it, said that he would support an honest bill for shutting up the clubs on a Sunday. Lord Stanley, Mr. Ker Seymer, and Sir J. Shelley supported it, observing that it permitted perishable articles of food to be sold before nine o'clock in the morning ; and that although sqmetimes wages were now left unpaid till late on the Saturday night, the passing of this bill would alter the practice—ihat the amount of trading which would be effected was quite enough to authorise interference—and that it was for the general interest of the working as well as the trading classes that Sunday should be perfectly observed. A vivid description was given of the famous Sunday fair at Houndsditeh by Mr. SEYMER. After Sir 0. GREY had observed that some of the objections were reasons for going into committee as referring to matters of detail, such as the hours on Sunday morning when trading should altogether cease, the going into committee was carried by 168 to 51. SCOTTISH EDUCATION. The committee on this bill was proceeded with on Thursday at the morning sitting, only noticeable from a promise given by Lord PraurEairrori, that while the bills did not affect the Roman Catholic and Episcopalian schools, these last should participate more largely than heretofore in the grant of the Privy Council. This announcement secured the sup port of the Irish members. CONSTITUTIONS OF VICTORIA AND NEW SOUTH WALES. The second reading of the two bills for the pur pose of affirming the constitutions framed by the Legislatures of these two colonies, was moved on Thursday by Lord Joint RUSSELL. Exceptions were taken to both of them much on the same grounds. The opposition to the first was opposed by Mr. BELT, and Mr. MIALI„ who confined their objections to the fact that it included an annual grant of 60,0001. for religions endowments. Mr. LnwE took a wider view of the subject, con tending that the bill violated two wholesome rules— one that Parliament should not legislate when the colonies were capable of legislating for themselves ; the other that the colonies should not legislate on matters of imperial jurisdiction. Mr. J. BALL said that the Colonial Legislature was answerable for all details which it had the power of altering, and in which it would not be becoming for the house to interfere. The bill was founded on the precedent established for Canada, and as the consti tution of a legislature passed under special power given to it, it would be unwise and fruitless. Mr. Adderley, Sir J. Pakington, and Ur. Duffy continued the debate. Lord JOHN RUSSELL replied to the objections against the bill as informal, showing, by technical arguments, how it, woukl be made both formal in tide country and legal in the colony. He approved highly of the measure, as large and liberal. The civil-list might be too high, but the colony could reduce it. Alter some slight further discussion, Mr. BELL withdrew his opposition, and the bill was read second tame. The second bill, that for New South Wales, was also opposed by Mr. Low, who carried his objection to a division, on which the second reading of the bill was adopted by l4tt to 83 votes—majority, 109. DECIMAL COINAGE. Mr. BROWN, on Tuesday, moved resolutions approving of the experiment of the tiorin as satis factory, that the decimal system should be further extended, and that an address should be presented to her Majesty praying for its completion. The plan he propoiled was the adoption of the pound sterling as the unit of value, retaining the florin, shilling, and sixpence, as decimal parts of the pound, and altering only the copper coinage, for which he substituted " sent& " and the we, of courstp,