The Sun.
London, England, 1839-07-06 00:00:00

who by baptism were placed in a relation with their Maker—to
teach them how to maintain and fulfil those relations—to teach
them the knowledge of God and of themselves—to form their
habits by impressing the truths of holiness and charity. They
looked upon this kind of education as unspeakably of more im
portance (though they did not purpose that it should form the
whole amount of instruction) than the impressing deeply upon
their minds that kind of knowledge which they would be sure
to acquire for themselves in after life, if they should find that it
would be serviceable for their rdvancement in the world and for
the security of worldly advantages. His opinion was that mere
intellectual, mere wordly knowledge, unless sanctified and re-
strained by Christian instruction, would turn out rather
a curse than a blessing. He said this advisedly—:( Hear,
hear, bear)—for he would beg their Lordships to remember
that man was not only a reasonable being, but a moral and an
accountable agent. That knowledge which was only calculated
to sharpen the wit of man to exercise his faculties and to fill the
stores of memory, was proved, by experience, not to be neces-
sarily connected with the social happiness and moral improve-
' ment of the possessor. The contrary specious theory was con-
' troverted by his (the Bishop of London's) own experience.
What was the present state of popular education in Frasiee ?
They found there nothing to support the theory of those who
would hold out such vast advantages from the introduction of the
proposed scheme into this country. He would refer their
Lordships to the interesting and educational statistics of M.
Guerin. That industrious gentleman stated that crimes
against the person were most frequent in the province of
South East Alsace, where the people were well instructed
—that they were much less in Britanny where the
people were most ignorant, and that in the best informed de-
partments the crimes against property were most numerous,
so that if instruction did not increase crime there was no reason
to show that it diminished it. If this statement were true, he
(the Right Rev. Prelate) thought the whole question was
settled. It surely would be better to leave the people in
ignorance than to increase their crimes by educating them.
While M. Guerin seemed at a loss to find out the reason of this
state of things in France, he (the Right Rev. Prelate) thought
it existed in the fact that there education, which was pushed
forward vigorously by the Government, was confined to secular
objects—( Hear, hear)—and he believed that the Government
of France, seeing this grievous result, were now about to con-
nect the system of incorporating religion with a secular educa-
tion. A report, addressed to M. Guizot, while Minister
of Public Instruction, by one of his agents, stated that there
was no moral and religious educationwhatever among the people.
The labours of Mr. Beaumont and M. de Tocqueville in Ame-
rica, which was often reverted to as an example for us, and
where the Government required the people to have their chil-
dren educated, the moral improvement of the people, caused
by the secular system of education, was at least problematical.
This was further shown by the admissions of the Americans
themselves. Witness the annual Reports of the Massachussets
Board of Education. The public library there was composed
of books calculated for adult and juvenile readers. The books
excluded particular religious dogmas. They proposed to have
in the books of their Board religious instruction which should
not favour a sect of Christians. He (the Right Rev. Prelate)
really should like to see their books.—(Laughter.) Mr. Mann,
the secretary of the Massachussets' Board, said there was an
alarming deficiency of moral and religious instruction.
llf that Board could succeed in collecting a library of
books upon general, and not including special religion,
he (the Right Reverend Prelate) would acknowledge
that they had done that which he had considered
to be mainly impossible. It seemed, however, that the Go-
vernment of the States required that the books should be of
that character. As for the higher ranks, he (the Right Hon.
Prelate) would admit that intellectual education improved
them considerably—it filled up the time that might otherwise
be dissipated in degrading relaxations—it sharpened the sense
of honour, which was often the only substitute to be found for
pure religious feeling—it opened the mind to inferior mo-
tives, in cases where it was inaccessible to the highest of all.
But intellectual education would have no such effect upon the
lower classes. They must have religious principles or they would
have none at all.—(Tlear, hear, hear.) Referring to the Ame-
rican statistics he found that in the State of New York that out
of a population of 2,0 )0,000, there were at school 500,000, or
one-fourth of the whole. In Connecticut one-third of the whole
population were at school. Yet in both those States, where the
education, as he had before said, was secular—crime had increased
to an alarming extent. Certainly intellectual education seemed to
have the effect of diminishing murders, and other outrages
upon the person, but it increased thefts and frauds. In Rus-
sia, where a similar system of education was being pursued,
out of 15,800 crimes, 3,509 were cases of personal violence,
In Pensylvania, out of 7,500 crimes, 640 were cases of violence.
Our own criminal statistics showed similar illustrations, The
report of the Chaplain of the New Clerkenwell Prison, who
was a very able person, and paid much attention to this sub-
ject, stated that a great portion of the crimes were committed
by persona who had received a secular education; in. fact,
these men were the most depraved. Of three in the prison
last year one had been committed eight times, the second seven
er eight times, and the third had been committed twice. The
Chaplain had lately assured him (the Right Rev. Prelate) that
his report for this year would fully corroborate his views of last
year. He (the Right Rev. Prelate) feared lie was rather te-
dious—(Hear, hear)—but he was desirous' to appeal to facts.
He was now desirous to direct their Lordships' attention to the
great efforts the Church in this country had made in the pro-
motion of education during the last 25 years, still he would ad-
mit that the system now in operation was far from being as per-
fect as it might be made and as it ought to be. He had called
the attention of the clergy of his diocese to those facts. While
he reverted to what the clergy had done with limited means,
he would venture to say, if their Lordships had done their duty—
if the Legislature had done its duty—the clergy would have done
much more.—( Hear, hear.) In adverting to the paramount
importance of religicets education, he was not oppo•ing himself
to secular education in connection with it. He thought
that such study as geography, history, astronomy, and
natural philosophy tended to make the student more fit to re-
ceive the truths of the Bible. This he knew from his own ex-
perience, for he, too, as well as his Right Hon. Friend, was an
Arcadian.—( Laughter. ) He thought that a judicious admix-
ture of secular knowledge sharpened the mind for the research
into scriptural knowledge, and he thought that it might be made
to bear upon it. He had never denied the right of the State to
interfere with the education of the people—it, in f act, was so
intimately connected with it, that the present was a most
important State question.—(llear, hear, hear.) It was a duty
most incumbent on Governments to interfere with the edu-
cation of the people, and he was sorry to say that the present
Government had too much neglected its duty in this respect.
judicious educa-
tion, interfering actively in the promotion of educa-
tion, the State was preventing the necessity of punishing crime.
By giving the people a system of education which united secu-
lar and religious instruction, the Government would institute
the mist efficient system of public morals. If they had ex-
pended one tenth of the money which they had laid out in
gaols, houses of correctionrand asylums, in founding schools, 50
years since, they might have saved nearly the other nine-tenths.
The manner in which .the State should use this right must be
modified according to circumstances. For instance, we should not
imitate the system of the Prussian, which was a despotic Govern-
ment, and which imprisoned two of the Archbishops of its Esta-
blished Church, for such a mode of interference woilld not suit
the habits of the free people of this country. Yet that was the
system which the Central Education Society and its allies would
introduce into this country. They would make the State the
universal pedagogue, the trustee of all the funds, and the whip-
per in of all the loiterers.—( Laughter, hear ) He considered,
that the State by appointing the Established Church had already
settled its right to interfere in the education of the people.
Ile was of the opinion of Mr. L. Horner, a gentleman with
whom he was sure the Noble and Learned' Lord (Brougham)
would agree on this point. But this scheme went too far.
He proposed to give the board the power of schoelmasters in
every point, except that of chastising the children.—(Loud
laughter, and hear, hear.) But lie would maintain, that
neither practically nor constitutionally could the Govern-
ment act in this manifold capacity. They could not do
it practically, because it was not likely that four or
five members of her Majesty's Governmeut, whose thoughts
and whose time were chiefly taken up with practical questions.
who held their offices at the pleasure of the Crown, or rather
it,
even t o tshheoucholuntthreyy.
i
at the pleasure of the House of Commons--( 1 aughter, and
hear, hear)—could attend to the delicate and difficult task of
tey administeringwould thenot advantages
to do
of
education
be inclined. The President of the Council would soon
become a puppet in the hands of the designing men
he had alluded to. The Noble Marquis' would make
the gesticulations, while the others would pull the strings.—
(Laughter.) They would probably delegate their functions,
to their Secretary, who would be an authorised but yet an
irresponsible minister of education. What security would they
have that the Secretary would not be a member of the Esta-
blished Church, or a Socinian, or at least a Roman Catholic?
—( Hear, hear.) Those considerations excited in his mind a
strange impression of thosefantoccini symptoms which he had
just alluded to. Why should not the Government continue that
system which had been experienced during the last five years?
He would not object to his continuance, though perhaps those
Societies were not quite consistent with the principle for which
he contended Parliament had voted 20,000 e, for the purposes of
education towards the erection of schools. The Chancellor of
the Exchequer had very properly insisted that the Lords of the
Treasury do fix principles, and then they knew what their mo-
ney was granted for—( Hear, hear)—but the great evil in the
present ease was, that they could not say what it was to be
granted for. He must repeat, that the system presented a
frightful prospect of latitudinarism—elthough in saying so,
he did not mean to offend the Noble Marquis.—( Hear. )
It might be said that it would be impossible to instruct the
children of the Churchman and the Dissenter together. If
these discussions were continued it would no doubt be so, and
in his opinion it would be better if it were so, if Church prin-
ciples were to be abolished in our schools.--( Hear, hear.) He
knew that they could be educated together. He was President
of a national school for nine years, during which time he more
than trebbled the number of scholars, and in that school the
children of all classes of Dissenters were educated, and even the
children of Jews were not excluded. He knew .that it was a
difficult matter, but it could be done by a system of
kindness and without any attempt to oblige the chil-
dren of Dissenters to attend on Church worship. It
was impossible to educate them together, and nothing
would Ond so much as the language used by the opponents to
the national schools. If those connected with those schools
were charged with bigotry, was it not natural that they should
hold firmer by those doctrines which were derided—that they
should draw tighter those reins, the hold upon which had been
relaxed in order to admit the children of Dissenters to the be-
nefit of the schools? If they should come to separate .
education, he for one, could see no great harm in
that. The children would not in after life look with
envy or distrust upon each other, in consequence of being
taught in separate schools, but most decidedly they would learn
to look at the fundamental duties of Christianity, as of no impor-
tance, or at least of a little importance compared with those
that were merely moral and worldly. The Rev. Prelate then
quoted long extracts from the Report of the Committee of the
House of Commons of 1818, amid from the works of Mons.
Poussaint, the French philosopher, in order to show that it
was absolutely necessary that the clergy ought to be allowed to
fulfil their first duty,that of teaching the religion of the coun-
try—that was the on
popular instruction which could
last. The State was bound to give the Church means—
adequate means—for the education of the people, and they
might rely upon it that those means would be efficiently, anti
as far as possible, effectually administered. Belonging, as he
did, to that Establishment, of which her Majesty was the
temporal head, it was with pain that he found himself op-
posed to that Governisient in which she placed her confi-
dence ; but there was another head to whom he owed higher
obedience, and he was bound, even in duty to her Majesty,
steadfastly to resist any measure, from whatever quarter it
came, that was calculated to impair that Church to which lie
diminish its influence, or to had the honour of belonging, to
( Cheers.)
make it less efficient than it ought to be .
Lord BROUGHAAI—If the Rev. Prelate (Durham) who
your Lordships, had occasion
some time ago rose to address
e
to regret the late hour of the evening, and state as a reason
reason have I to lse afraid
for doubting whether he would be
favoured with the attention
of your Lordships, how much mot.e r
who rise at this late period of the night. A more able, a more
convincing, and a more concise speech it has never been my
fortune to hear on so diffuse a subject,--a more temperate and
a snore candid speech I have never heard upon a question above
all others calculated to excite the feelings, connected as it is
both with politics and religion.—(Cheers.) But I can use no dis-
cretion in the matter. lam obliged to take part in the dis-
cussion after what I have heard from the Rev. Prelates (the
Bishops of London and Exeter), and to a certain extent, but
to a small one, after what fell from the Most Rev. Rev. Prelate.
If any person had entered this House after the greater part of
the speech of theßev: Prelate who spoke from the table (Exeter)
—if that person had not heard the speech of my Noble Friend