The Press. — London, England, 1856-11-22 00:00:00

NOVEMBER 22, 1856. SIR JOHN PAKINGTON ON NATIONAL EDUCATION. THE RIGHT HON. SIR J. S. PAKINGTON, BART., M.P., on Wednesday evening delivered an address on national education to the members of the Man chester Athenaeum, in compliance with an invitation from the directors of that institution. Sir E. Armi tage presided on the occasion. Sir J. PAKINGTON was received with loud and con tinued applause. He said he doubted whether it was at all generally known how immense was the numerical proportion of our fellow countrymen who were interested in the ques tion of national education—that out of a popula tion of 18 millions in England and Wales, there wtere only about 480,000 who derived, from any source, a yearly income of 1001. or more. Taking the number at half a million, and allowing five per sons to a family, there would remain fifteen millions and a half of men, women, and children who were dependent upon incomes of less than !Oil/. a year; and he doubted not that all present would agree that every man whose means were less than WO/. a year must look to a cheap and good education for his children as among, not the secondary, but the pri mary necessaries of life. The question of education was clearly not, then, limited to labouring men. Farmers and tradesmen as well, in matters of educa tion, paid dearly for a bad article, while, if every existing school in England was what it ought to be, the children of each would receive the blessings of elementary instruction. The position and prospect of this great question just now stood in the most cri tical situation, and needed the support of public opinion. In the debates an important issue had been clearly raised between those who thought that we did imperatively require extended means of education and those who thought that we did not. It had been contended by statesmen of eminence in the House of Commons, by writers of great and known ability, and more especially in two pamphlets that had de servedly attracted great attention—those of Mr. E. Baines, of Leeds, and Mr. Unwin, the head of the Homerton College—that no change was necessary in our means of education; that we were going on per fectly well and ought to be satisfied ; and that to re sort to any means of extension, in the way of sup plying deficiences from any public fund, would be too expensive, and that the country could not afford it. Those arguments prevailed ; and Lord John Russell's resolutions were rejected by a very large majority : He (Sir J. Pakington) had stated last session his ap prehension that this decision would cause great alarm among the friends of popular education. He had seen nothing which so strongly justified this fear as an address issued to his constituents by Mr. Laing, a vary able and very moderate member of the House of Commons. Mr. Laing said : Public opinion and the House of Commons, by an immense majority, decided, not so much against any particular resolution, faulty as many of them wera, as against the principle of attempt ing, under existing circumstances, to supersede local and private efforts, by any grand, uniform, and centralised system of national education. For the next ten or twenty years the ques tion is practically decided, that if we want education, we must educate ourselves, and not trust to the State to do it for us. After mature deliberation his opinion was that the views put forth by Mr. Laing and others were erro neous, mistaken, and unsound : The question for the country was on which side the truth lay ; for this question must be decided by the truth. There was no ambiguity or possibility of mistake in the issue as raised. Sir James Graham, in a very able speech in the house, and one which produced a great effect, said on Lord John Russell's resolutions:— My first objection to this proposal is that It is unnecessary. I contend in the strongest manner that there is no country in Europe in which the progress of education within the last twentyfive years has been so rapid and so satisfactory as it has in England. Mr. Baines, a very high authority, said : Objection 6.—The measure is perfectly unnecessary. We possess, on official evidence, the great fact of the rapid and steady progress of education during the whole of the present century. Mr. Unwin was not quite so dogmatical; but, with many men of ability, who took part in the controversy, he held the same in substance. They all felt that something like proof was needed from them; but their proof might, without exaggeration, be said to be contained, mainly at least, in the single fact that in 1851 there were 1 in 8 2.3rds of the population attending school, which undoubtedly showed a great in crease upon the proportion shown when an estimate was previously taken, about twenty years before. On the other hand. he believed he was right in saying, that in all their voluminous speeches and pamphlets there would not be found any reference whatever to the quality of the schools which existed. Their boasted 8 241rds was a pro portion inferior to that of other countries—it was insuffi cient and unsatisfactory; but he denied altogether that the question was absolutely, or even mainly, one of num bers. (Hear, hear.) Numbers became comparatively unimportant if the schools to which they went were not worth having. The question he would ask was this, — From the Tweed to the Land's-end, are the schools of England what they ought to be? Where they were good —and no doubt there were many good—there was no THE PRESS. security for their permanent continuance as such. And what prospect was there, if the present system continued, of their progressive improvement? Who denied that it was the duty of parents to educate their children? Did Mr. Unwin think that a question of this magnitude, and unhappily so complicated, could be settled by truisms such as this? Did not Mr. Unwin know that at present, in practice, we did not expect the poor man to bear the expense of educating his own chil dren ? (Hear, hear.) A table in one of the last reports of the Committee of Council on Education showed that, out of 500,000 children attending inspected schools, seventy-five per cent. did not pay more than 2d. per week tor their education. There were thirty-five per cent. paying only id., forty per cent. paying 2d., and the re maining twenty-five per cent, paying 3d., 4d., or perhaps more. The cost of anything like good education in this country was at least sd. or Bd. a week ; and therefore it wag demonstrated that at present we did not expect the great majority of the working classes to pay more than one-sixth, or one-third at the most, of what it cost to edu cate their children. The idea of parents educating their children, though good in the abstract, was not now acted upon. Mr. Baines said that it was obvious to common sense that to compel parishes to establish and sus tain schools is not only to take away all the merit and the honour of spontaneous action, and thus pro tnnto to destroy (by superseding) the patriotism, benevolence, and public spirit which have done such great things for education ; but it is to violate liberty itself He (Sir John Pakington) could not accept such a sen• tence as a practical solution of a great question. What was there in it that would not be equally applicable to our poor law, for the physical relief of the poor; or to out criminal law, for the punishment of offenders ? He could understand a gentleman, who was the known and very able advocate of certain views, putting forth such ideas and making the best fight he could; but, for himself, he (Sir J. Pakington) should have taken Mr. Baines's pamphlet very much like other partisan pamphlets which were con sidered perfectly unanswerable by those who agreed with them, and were laughed at and put into the fire by those who differed from them. Yet these views had been held up in the House of Commons as irresistible ! Sir John Pakington then alluded to the lament able insufficiency and inefficiency of the present system to meet the wants of the population. Private subscription was inadequate to meet the demands of the day, and we must come to a grant of public money. Whenever anybody proposed a measure involving a public grant he was met with the cry that the country could not stand the expense : Now (continued Sir John Pakington), I can well understand and make great allowances for the differences of opinion which arise legitimately and fairly in conse. quence of those peculiar difficulties which in England do attend the solution of this question ; but when I am told that wealthy England cannot afford the expense, I do feel indignant at such an answer. (Hear, hear.) And what is the state of public affairs while this argument is raised ? We are now paying an income tax of six and two thirds per cent. ; in 1815 we paid ten per cent., and, perhaps, you may not know that the inco.ne tax in 1835 produced more money than in 1815 by about 100,0001. ; the ten per cent. yielded 13,640,000/ , an.' last year the amount was 13,718,0001. I will turn to another criterion, to that element of national wealth derived from the trade and manufacture of England, a subject which is familiar to you. I find that the declared value of our exports in 1815 was 51,898,0001., while in 1853 it was 95,669,0001., —very nearly double the former sum. (Hear, hear.) Then how stand our rates in the two periods? The rate for the relief of the poor in 1845, after all this vast increase of wealth and every element of national prosperity. was 200,0001. less than it was in 1815. (Hear, hear.) How, then, are we to be told that when the temporal and eternal welfare of our fellow-countrymen is at stake it is too expensive and costly to have any national education? In both New York and Canada grants were made by the Central Legislature in aid of local funds and boards for local management. What was the result in Canada ? The population in 185-1 was 1,000,000, and the number of children at school 204,000—more than lin 5. This was in Canada, not in Prussia or Switzerland, or any other continental country : And (continued Sir John Pakington) I wish to ask you and the public—it is a question that must be answered— why is a system which is good and beneficial for the Queen's subjects in Scotland and Upper Canada to be held as bad and inapplicable for the Queen's subjects in Eng land ? This question remains to be answered, and until some satisfactory answer is given to it the British public ought not to rest satisfied with the present condition of education. Now, with regard to our existing system there were three changes indispensable to a better state of things : The first is that, in some way or other, what is called the half-time system should be adopted, so as to be in use for all classes in this country, end not to be limited, as it now is, to factories or establialiments of one kind. Second, we must have, and we ought to have, a better, more complete, and more perfect organisation. Third, we must have a larger and a more certain supply of money. The more perfect organisation would be attained by a modification of the present central system and the establishment of more local cuntrol With regard to the increase of money, I confess (said Sir John Pakington) I see no course but that, as I said before, s great publio object, in which every one of us 1123 is deeply interested, ought fairly to be promoted by public funds ; and therefore my opinion is that the most fair just, and equitable mode of supplying existing deficien cies is by means of a rate. In the debates it has been put most prominently forward that a rate for education would be open to all the difficulties and objections which are applied to a Church rate. In my ha nble judg ment, of all the bugbears by which this great g motion of education has been impeded and checked this is one of the most unfounded; and 1 believe, on the cuotrary, that no other rate would be paid by the people at large so cheerfully, so willingly, and with so much satisfaction ; and for this very plain ani simple reason—that there is no rate from which the ratepayer would derive so visible and such immediate personal benefit to himself. The " religious difficulty," which alone remained to be surmounted, was not, in his opinion insu perable . I believe that the true, moderate, and wise view of that part of the question is to consider, as I do consider, that there may be two main points connected with it which we cannot, and must not, lose sight of. The first is, in look ing to the education of the youth of England, every child ought to be duly and properly instructed in this first and greatest branch of knowledge. The second is, in giving tills instruction. we must so arrange it as to adhere most strictly and most rigidly to the principle of perfect toleration, so that no violence shall be done to the reli gious belief of any denomination of Christians. Pro vided these two conditions are strictly and securely guarded, confees that I am myself disposed to adopt whatever system I thought would be the most generally acceptable ■nd the most likely to procure general public support. (Loud cheers.) The right hon. baronet shortly resumed his seat amid prolonged applause. His address occupied nearly two hours. On Wednesday Sir John Pakington visited the Model Secular 'School at Manchester, and on the same day also the School for Outdoor Pauper Children. A conference afterwards took place be tween the hon. baronet and the principal gent!emen connected with the rival schemes of education origin ating in Manchester. The following were the points on which agreement was arrived at:- 1. That it is desirable to impose a rate for the support of popular instruction in Manchester. '. That all schools deriving aid from the rate shall be subject to inspection, but such inspection shall not extend to the religious instruction given in such schools. 3. That all schools shall be entitled to aid, provided the instruction, other than religious, shall come up to the required standard, and that no child shall be excluded on religious grounds. 4. That the distinctive religious formularies where taught in schools connected with the different religious denominations, and receiving aid from the rate, shall be given at separate hours, to be specified by the managers to facilitate the withdrawal of objecting children. 5. That there shall be no interference with the manage- ment of the schools. Gentlemen on each side took especial care to ex. plain to the right hon. baronet that none of the parties with whom they respectively acted now, or had acted, were to be held committed to the memoranda agreed to. The point of local school committees was assumed unanimously, without discussion, and the provision of new school, where needed, was left open. The points agreed to, will, it is reported, form the basis of an Education Bill to be introduced by Sir John during the next session of Parliament. lone Vadat 110 Citg nttliigcnct. FRIDAT EVENING. THE return of the Bank of England for the week ending the 15th inst. shows the following ci.auges compared with that for the week preceding : Increase in Circulation Increase in Public Deposits .818 Increase in Other Deposits Decrease in Government Securities 134.810 Increase in other Securities Increase in Bullion . . Increase in Rest Increase in Reserve _ . Bullion in Both Departments Circulation, including Bank Post ....... . Bills This comparison is so unexpectedly favorable in its most important features, that it is perplexing to find in it any justification of the policy of the directors yesterday week, in raising the rate of discount on short bills to from six to seven per cent. Other reasons than those db. closed in this return must have influenced them. Prc. bably they had some intelligence of a conditional contract having been entered into by the Bank of France with a large house in London and Paris, to furnish in the coutso of next year something like 12,000,0001. of gold ; bat most likely the immediate motive from which they acted was the adverse nature of the exchanges, which, indeed. still remain against this country. One of these two res... sons, perhaps both, may have been present to them ; but there certainly is none to be found in the comparison now before us. The increase in the Bullion is difficult to ac count for, as no purchases by the Bank have been re ported. Probably it has been made up partly by small purchases from private hands, and partly by specie pay / ments at the provincial branches on account of revenue. The Reserva also shows a considerable increase. Part of