The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1872-02-10 00:00:00

LORD RUSSELL AND THE EDUCATION

QUESTION.

The following letter hag been gent for publication:—

"Canoe., Feb. 1, 1872.
My dear Sir,-1 fun obliged to write to you agatn on the
subject of education.
- • • • -

"My father, In ISO% with many friends—the Duke of
Sussex and toed Brougham being among the number, Joseph
Lancaster being their chief teacher, and the r...lgning King
George Ili, their illuatrious patron—establUhed • society
for founding schools where the Holy Scriptures should be
daily read. our excellent and benevolent friend, William
Allen, afterwards called these schools • Schools for All.'
Such they were in spirit, an I for some ye rs the children
of Jews and the children of Roman Catholics were sent
to them without scruple or objection on the part of their
parents.
• • - -

'The clergy were in those days, even the Liberal clergy,
generally opposed to the education of the poor. But, find-
ing the cause of education made progress, they agreed in
lell to set up a society for founding and maintaining schools.
" Being, however, utterly averse to the principle of found-
ing schools for all, they laid down two rules—one that the
Catechism of the Church should be taught, the other that the
children should be bound to attend the worship of the Es-
tablishment on Sundays.
- •

" For 60 years this society, under the name of the National
Society, bee been aided bp the rich peers and squires, and
by the well-endowed clergy of the Church. It has been,
during more than halt a century, a powerMl organ of pro-
selytism. It was explained to me by Bishop Blomileld and
Archbishop Howley that although the children of Dis-
senters might be admitted to the schools of the society, that
could only be considered as an indulgence, end could not be
conceded as a right.

" Now what r seek of the Government Is not to admit
the principles of Locke and Sidney, but those id Lord Not-
tingham and Lord Mansfield, two great Tory Lords, one of
whom flourished 200 and the other 100 years ago. Lord
Alansfield, in his admirable judgment pronounced in the
House of Lards in PM, proved with singular force and
clearness that, although the Act of Lord Nottingham was
called the Act of Toleration, it was, In fact, a Bill of Rights,
and gave Protestant Dissenters the position of an Establish-
ment. In fact, there is no power in the law or the Quarter
Sessions to deny to Dissenters who pay a fee of 2s. the
liberty to erect a chapel and perform their own worship,
provided they are Presbyterians, Baptists, or Independents.
These last are to be especially honoured as the founders of
religious liberty in England.

" In 1888 the Tory Home of Commons of England had so
far imbibed these principles that the majority approved the
report of the Corportion and Teat Acts.
" Unfortunately, in the excellent Act of 1870 a section
slipped in by which an exclusive rate was sanctioned, far
worse than the former church-rate.
"I say far worse because it was abundantly proved by
Lord Campbell that a chuch-rate coold only be imposed
legally by a majority of ratepayers, and satisfactory statistics
were brought forward by Sir George Grey showing that in
the most flagrant cases no church-rate existed.
• •• •

But as matters stand at present, half a dozen pauper
parents who have been cajoled by the Church can Inflict •
rate upon their neighbours, three-fourths of whom may
differ from the Church on the thorny and obscure question
of infant baptism.
I am sorry to perceive that the Executive Committee of
the liMmingham League have adopted the fallacious and in-
adeqSate plan of secular instruction. I can only repeat my
consistent adherence to the rules of the British and Fortign
School Society.
But I nevertheless wish that the Birmingham League
may be successful in modifying the 25th section of the Act
of 100. To force Baptist parents to pay • rate for the en-
forcement of the Church Catechism is an unjust anti perse-
eating innovation.
I have been much blamed by a Bedfordshire cLrgyman
for sayiug that those who arrived at years of discretion
might decide for themselves whether they mitlft join the
Church or any other Protestant or the Roman Catholic com-
munion. Surely the rector who Indulges in these sneers
has never read the preface to the rite of Confirmation? The
Church of England, with its usual wisdom, while it approves
the entrance of a child of a fortnight old into the Christian
Chunk sees the absurdity of supposing that a baby who
cannot speak or understand can be bound irrevocably to
the faith which its godfathers end godmothers profess in its
behalf. The Order of Confirmation declares that the Bishop,
or some other minister appointed by him, Shall read the pre-
face following
'"To the end that Confirmation may be ministered to the
more edifying Usual as shall receive It, the Citurch bath
thought good to order that who hereafter shall be confirnied,
let such as can say the Creed, the Lords Prayer, and the
Ten Commandment,. and can also answer to such other
questions an In the Short Catechism are contained, which
I order is very convenient to he observed, to the end that
! children being now come to the years of discretion and
having learnt what their godfathers and godmothers pro-
mised for them In baptism, they may themselves, with their
own knowledge and consent, openly before the Church
ratify and confirm the same, tile.'
-

"Of course the child who has for years said the Lord's
Prayer at its mother's knee, who him gone regularly with its
parents to the parish church, and has learnt to say the
Creed am! Ten Commandments is easily induced to attend
and renew its promises openly before the Church. Mill It is
to he notieed that the Chureh asks the children now come
to years of discretion, fur their UWII assent ; and I have km ,wn
a clergyman severely reprehended for indiscretion by his
Bishop for bringing a boy of 14, of very quick intellect, for
the rite of Confirmation.

' I have but one thing further to remark, The Duke of
Newcastle's elaborate report was not rejected I.lit accepted
by the Govtrnment before whom it was laid Mr. Miall
was a party to that report, and it seems straiu,.to me that
the present Ministry have taken no pains to rvi ,i.n and con-
ciliate no valuable and distinguished a cull ague. The
Bishops and clergy, and the congregations c .mitteil to
their charge, most be worth their weight in go .1 in the eyes
of our fires. lit rulers to make them count as nothing the
hostility of Mr. Mbll.—l remain, vely truly yoi C.
" Itt;WELL.

" Alfred Bourne, Esq.
"P. 8.—1 wish this letter to bo published."