The Sun.
London, England, 1839-10-31 00:00:00

In the correspondence, published yesterday in
,1,
iie Sun, between Mr. Dow LER and the Educa-
tl" Committee of the Privy Council, the Rev.
!entleman expressly lays it down that the " educa-
l" of the poor is committed to his charge," as a
clergyman of the Church of England. On this
ground ~ I should consider myself," he says,
: highly reprehensible were I to sanction in any
4Y the interference of others not recognized or
4anetioned by the rulers of that Church with the
eci4cation of those over whom I am placed as their
2')iritual pastor and master." Precisely the same
the Secretary
predominates in a correspondence between
le Secretary of the National Society, which is
114`ler the control of the Church of England, and
the same Committee of Privy Council, which has
iu, st been published. To all the propositions of
t
gle Committee the " fundamental objection" is
urged " that the inspection is not to proceed under
the
sanction of Church authority."
isiY'ur, although, (says Mr. Sinclair, the Secretar, t, the
shatpnal Society) it is proposed that one, of 'c Bishops
r, t recommend a person to the Co,--...,„„itt„ of the
'uncil
the ,tobe by them nominated. inc.erctor, it is not
.by
(~, Bishop'sbut
authority that the ins.,,ection is to he carried
..,.nut by. the authority of ',.io Committee of Council
Z;ltialccordingly, in the r..ortificate required to he signed.
alires,iye indaen:igaenrst,").f ~,chools, the visitor in question is
''',vre the actual, a -4 " their Lordships' inspector." But
.• nomination vested in the Bishop, the ec-
oe'47..ia.s.tical
.4.' Actio.n given to such nomination would extend
ir, Y to Oft particular diocese of that Bishop ; and the
h„'Pe.etion of national schools in other dioceses could not
kNonsidered as emanating fromthe authorities of the
Ih`AAarch. The Committee of the National Society are
tteluded by those principles which they are boiled, no
558 by duty than inclination, to maintain, from sanctioning
derived.
plan of inspection for national schools which is not
rom and connected with the national Church.
Here, then, we have the truth plainly avowed by
the
Priesthood. They regard themselves as the spi-
t`t)lal masters of the people ; they include all edu-
. ' cation under the term spiritual, and they will not
tolerate the interference of the State with education,
,Ilec"se that is the interference of the civil with the
`v. elesiastical authority. The utility of the inspec-
t:" is of no consequence. That it is founded on a
1 contribution by the State is disregarded. It is quite
1 -,,,-"gii for the National Society and the Rev. Mr.
"I°IvLER that it does not spring from the authority
i. '3Thf the Church. He uses the word Church, not as
• priests ; he rejects the authority of the Ministers,
though they act in the name of the QUEEN,
° is the head of the Church ; and thus
avowed fact is that the priesthood claim
its their right, as spiritual pastors and masters of
the People, to have the education of the whole people,
Itainterfered with, in their hands. How vast is their
it
~n'hition. The empire of ALEXAFDER, it has
been remarked, fell to pieces at his death ; but the
empire •
„ e Which his master, ARISTOTLE, established
uve
. t,the mind, continued for many centuries, and
la el,
en yet far from being extinguished. Such an