The Express.
London, England, 1855-06-12 00:00:00

load, mad the. frig Maim of Anseries. whereas his right
lie. friend serer elltded to those sanatriee, but Missed
on Austria dens, the het beisg that all those Demetrios
were ahead tee us. After all, the main question was the
state of edsestion d hems, sad he wished to show that
his right bon. Irked had omitted or evaded proofs
which he had given of the want of education is
England. He (Bir J. Pakiagton) had bees amused of
ezwesated statements ; bat he avoided laying Miami( Was
to that charge, and made no statement except cut official
authority sad say ezeggeratedrtotemeat was met his, bat
that of officials. He had first alluded to the condition of
eight parishes is the metropolis, four south and four north
of the Thames, and he said that in these parishes them
111,000 children, of whom 36,000 were at some sort of
leaceol, including ragged schools, ke allowed 27,000 fur pri-
vate schools ; sod there remained 47,000 who were not at
school at all. His right bon. Mead never alluded to that,
for it would be extremely difficult after such a ease to say
we were going on well and should be contest with the pre-
sent system. In his next statement he had referred to
five esnaties is the West of England, on the authority of
3fre. Habisess the iespector of workhouses, and his right
hen. friend said he had quoted Kr. Raddoek unfairly. But
teeth in Mr. Haddock's case read that of Sir John Hays
Skuttleworth, which had boss mentioned by his right hon.
Mead, both these gentlemen had written complaining of
Meniesetion put on their statements by his right hon.
heed. Re (Sir J. Pakiegtom) had quoted, ss what Mr.
Huddeek said, that in these flee twenties' part of the chil-
dren lathe workhouses between six and twelve could not
only not reed and write, but that they did not know the
Lord's Prayer or the Creed, sad sway of them did not
know of the glisten*, of a God. That statement his right
hon. friend thought he bad dispoted of when he said it
referred only to 6,760 child's', and therefore the induction
was a very narrow one if it was worth anything at all. That
as the way his right hon. friend talked of 6,760 ehildrea
in workhouses. But he forgot that they were a fluctuating
body, and come from every part of the union to which they
belonged, and Mr. Haddock said that he found this state of
the children the rule and not the exception. (The right
hon. baronet here read a letter from Kr. Haddock. stating
that 19 out of 20 children were grossly ignorant, and that Mr.
Henley's statement that the number of children mentioned
by him was only 6,000 was beside the mark, for the messes'
of the ignorance of the children was the area from which
they cams, including tea twenties, sad not five, as had been
said by sir John Pikington, among which were Somerset,
Wilts, Hants, Barks, (Ammeter, dtc., fro.). The next
statement his right hon. friend had referred to was that
relating to the ignorance of the militia In the Easter" Coun-
ties. Before he referred to that point, he wished to allude
to a subject which had been mentioned by several persons in
the course of the debate—he meant the inferior quality of
tbe @shoots and of the education In this country. One proof
he gave of it was by a quotation from the re-
nert of Mr. Horace Mann, in which he said that
700 of our schoolmasters and mistresses could not
sign their names. His right hon. friend said that
was unimportant, because they were only the masters and
mistresses of infant schools. Bet his right hon. friend
would not say how many of them belonged to infant schools,
and he (Sir J. Pakington) would maintain that persons so
ignorant were not fit to have charge of children of any age
—(hear, hear)—and, therefore, that fact was conclusive to
prove the unsatiafactery state of education in England. His
right hon. friend went on to deal with the statement that a
great number of militiamen could not sign their names;
but his right hon. friend had not quoted that part of his
speech correctly. With regard to the militia regi-
meats, he (Sir J. Pakingtaa) had quoted from a report
of the Rey. Kr. Mitchell, on. of the inspectors of schools,
and he referred to regiments in five counties within Mr.
Mitchell's district, and he found that out of 6,000 militia-
men two-thirds were linable to sign their name. He had
brought that forward as a proof, and he now repeated it,
that the state of education in those five counties was very
unsatisfactory, and that Mr. Mitchell took it as a test of
education in agricultural districts. His right hon. friend
said that those man were all above twenty years old, and
that they afforded no proof of what the state of education
among children was now. He (Sir J. Pakington) had
written to Mr. Mitchell, and *eked if there had been any
improvement in those five counties in the last six or eight
issere, and he had received from him an answer
which he stated that there had been a slight and gradual
improvement among the working classes, and is the towns
where there were inspectors the proems had been even
pasese, Mt that both he and his colleague were of opinion
that the character of the instruction given in the greater
part of the agricultural schools held out no hope that the
eilsestion afforded could be improved is the next eight or
tea ears ; the funds for the support of the schools were not
sent, books were deficient, the teanhen were illiterate,
and in many cases not morally fitted for their position.
That was the answer of Mr. Mitchell, and it met the argu-
ments used by his right hon. friend against the deductions
drawn by him from the state of the militia re-
giments. He now cams to a statement of his
right hon. friend to which he had listened with pain. He
alluded to them • which his right hon. friend had
spoken of certain statements derived from Mr. Clay, the
chaplain of Preston Gaol. His right hon. friend did not
grapple with those statements, but he alluded to them es
well known extracts from stereotyped reports from Preston.
The right hon. baronet then went on to complain that the
statements of Mr. Clay should be treated with disrespect.
That gentlemen had been 24 years chaplain of Preston
Gaol, and made annual reports showing the terrible
state of the labouring classes in the neighbourhood
of that town. He (Sir J. Pakington) had stated
that he had it from Mr. Clay that in one year there were no
less than 3,000 priaoaers in the gaol, of whom 41 per cent.
did not know the name of the Saviour ; 67 per cant. did not
knew the meaning of truth ; 61 per cent. did not know the
name of the Queen, and 62 per cent. did not know the
meaning of the words virtue and vice. If that was true of
the neighbourhood of Preston, was it true of say other part
of the country? He feared was with regard to a con-
siderable part of the country. Mr. Clay had lately sent
him an extract from his report, as yet unpublished,
foe the year 1854. It appeared that the number
of prisoners was smaller than in 1849 ; but the
general results were the same ; there was a very large per
cottage ignorant of the elementary truths of religion.
Siloam statements had been made by the governors of
the gaols of Lancaster and Durham, and there was a
report from the chaplain of the gaol et Sussex, an egri.
cultural county. What said the chaplain of the gaol of
Suess: The right hon. baronet then read an extract
from the report of the chaplain, to the effect " that the
most gross ignorance prevailed among the great body of
the prisoners, that out of 177 lads brought in the course
of a year, 80 were unable to reed. The number of pri-
sm's's was 699, of whom 267 could neither real nor write,
304 could only do so imperfectly, 79 were ignorant
of the name of the Saviour, and 320 scarcely knew more."
He could not agree with hi: right hon. friend (Mr. Henley)
when he said they ought not to disturb a system which was
producing such results. On the contrary, such results went
far to prove that something was absolutely necessary to be
done to disturb such a state of things. His right hon.
friend had also taken great exception to the manner in
which he hod arranate tiel monetary portion of the bill.
Now he (Sir J. P ) entirely dissented from the
statement of kis right friend, who hod informed the
house that the rating proposal affected real property un-
justly. His proposal was a 6d. rate—to which was to he
added a sum, equal to the produce of the rate, from those
grants which were made in aid of education. He certainly did
think that the houses's' thesisstry oughtaot to objecttoany
fair burden imposed for the sake of education. He regarded
those statesmen who would not propose taxes for education
in the same light as he regarded those owners of land who
would not bear the expense of drainage. In both cases a
harvest would be respod—it would amply repay the expense.
He firmly believed that the majority of the people of this
country would rather pay taxes for schools than for gaols end
workhouses. The question whether or not rates were to
he levied as a means of raising the requisite funds was a
very important one. His right hen. friend (Kr. Henley),
in his speech upon the subject, had quoted a passage from
the work of Sir J. H. Situttleworth, conveying the
impression that that distinguished authority was
unfavourable to his (Sir Joha Pakington's) plea.
But since that speech was made, he had received a
letter from Sir J. K. Shuttleworth—• letter complaining that
the quotation used did not fairly represent kis Mews, and
stating that he was favourable to the plan of an educational
rate. Allusion had been made in the course of the debate
to the volume of minutes recently published by the Privy
Council. In that volume he found still further proof of the
justify of tho views which he had already expressed on this
subject. Several persons, whose evidence was there col-.
looted, spoke in favour of an educational rate. Mr. Kew
Body decidedly approve of such a plao. So also did
several clergymen of the church of England. His'
right honourable friend bad objected to his bill,
because he said it would have an injurious effect
upon the church. Now, in this volume there was an
address from an archdeacon to his clergy, in which he
suggested that a local rate would be the only means by
which, in some of their districts, schools could be supported.
So again Dr. Hook, of Leeds, another authority in the
church, had written a letter enforcing the same view.'
He (Sir J. Pakington) had received a letter from a clergy-
man named Ellis, residing in a large and populous district,
created ostler Sir Robert Peel's act, in Staffordshire. This
cleremn stated that in hie district there were schoolrooms
which were closed for the want of fonds ; in fact, throughout ,
the locality, the population of which was 7,000, there were
bas. three schools worth naming—one of these was the parish
wheel, one the Wesleyan school, and one a school
tablished by Earl Grenville for the we of his workmen.
This showed how unsatisfactory was the working of the
moat voluntary system. It had been said by hie right
Ma. friend (Mr. Henley) that his bill would pauperise the
seautry. Was this because he proposed that his schools
should be free ? On two or three recent occasions they had
had two distiagoished statesmen of the United States—ges-
t/men who had held the Meets of President—present in that
home. Whet would these gentlemen say if his right lea.
friend told them that the states of Philadelphia, of New
Tack, and of Massachusetts were pauperised by free
Weeds ? What would be mid in Holland at such a state-
meat ? Coming nearer bone still, be would ask those hos.
gentlemen opposite wk. represented Scotland whether that
country was pauperised by its free schools ? But his
right hon. friend had also said that even admitting the evils
of which complaint was made, the bill would not cure
them, because it would not oblige abildrea to some to school.
When he (Sr J. Pakiogton) prepared the bill he had been
asked to introduce compulsory clauses, and subsequently
the same request had been made to him. Standing, how-
ever, in that house as a private member, he did not think
that be should be likely to succeed with a bill having such
peviaions. But this was net his only objection to intro-
bilis m havoc. Attu assideriDg theynattir,he thoseat