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

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.