The Sun.
London, England, 1839-06-14 00:00:00

rV=I.V.C•-rsnTT4ON.

NATIONAL :11DUCAT.ION.

Berkeley-house; London, June I I, I 539.
To the Rev. Wm. Lord, Theo. Lessey, Joseph Roberts,
Charles Prest, Win. Paterson, Win. Clegg, James
Shear, Henry Fish, John Woodrow, Joseph Bowes,
WM. Howarth, Robert James, Joseph Collier, and
Wm. Radford, Wesleyan Ministers, residing in the
City of Bristol.
Gentlemen—When I received your letter, embody—
ing your " sentiments relative to the proposed grant of
public money for the promotion of the scheme of na-
tional education approved by a Committee of the Privy
Council," and read your statements that in forwarding a
petition against the " proposed measure" to my honour-
able colleague, P. S. Miles, Esq., you " should have
been glad to have solicited my assistance on this occa-
sion, hut presuming that you knew my views on this sub-
ject you did not think such a course either respectful to
tie or just to yourselves ;" and when I further read your
disclaimer of all " political grounds" whatever in your
proceeding on this subject, and with reference to me
personally the following paragraph, " We wish not
to interfere with your rights or duties as a Member
of the Legislature in thus using our privilege, and
in thus doing our duty. We sumit, however, with
great respect the foregoing [reasons] to your careful
consideration, before you consent to a scheme con-
scientiously regarded by many of your constituents as
prejudicial to their best .and dearest interests, and ut-
terly repugnant to every Christain and Protestant feel-
ing of their hearts." —I certainly did not conceive that
a communication so guarded, and with such disclaimers,
was intended for publication ; still less that its publi-
cation would have anticipated the brief reply which I
readily made to it, to the effect that " on the principle
assigned by you I Felt bound to support the measure,
conceiving that sectarian differences should not stand
Teethe way of national education ; and still less again
did I conceive that such a publication would have been
continued subsequent to the receipt of my reply, that
reply being retained unpublished in your hands.
Fhave, therefore, been somewhat startled on having
ray attention just drawn tc... he circumstance of your
letter so advertised in all the Bristol papers, a fact
which but for the kindness of a friend might have escaped
my 'notice; 'as unfortunately my copies both of the
Briitol -Gazette and Mercury, have this week failed to
reach me.
1. low, Gentlemen, although neither in the principle
nor in the practice could I exactly see the necessity of
your conclusions, that because of the assumed opinions
of a Member of Parliament adverse to any given peti-
tion, he might not, therefore, without disrespect to him-
self, or injustice to the petitioners, be asked to support
the prayer of such petition ; yet, viewing your letter in
the light of a private communication, I could not but
admit that the ground you took was high, entitling you
to the more considerate attention, and fully respecting
your disclaimer of political bias, I looked upon the corn-
neinication as friendly—friendly even in its warnings,
and I endeavoured to reply to you in the same spirit
and en the same principle which have ever governed
me m all my communications with my constituents—
that of perfect freedom and perfect sincerity.
Allow me, however, to add, that the case is now
somewhat different. Between your averments and my
ilea of a private letter, there was a consistency which is
loot upon publication. To me your disclaimer of every
political object is sufficient for all purposes, after it has
once been made ; but to the public, who run as they
read, and especially to those over whom your station
and respectability give you a very natural and powerful
influence, there is an apparent political bearing to which,
apart from all considerations of motive, and in justice to
the priueipte and the party I represent, I am constrained
thus distinctly and publicly, but in the most friendly
and respectful feeling, personally to yourselves, to advert.
I might, indeed, avoid all the danger of misapprehen-
sion, and, as the contest is for the present gone by, suf-
fer its merits to lie at rest until public opinion becoming
right, as it assuredly will, may render that which is true
and just expedient also ; but I prefer to abide by the
cause which alone I have consented to represent ; and,
believing that in the view which you have taken of the
Government plan of education you are acting preju-
dicially and adversely to the only principle which jus-
tifies dissent, I cannot shrink from the ordeal before
which it has been your pleasure to place me ; and
with equal sincerity and candour, as respectfully and
as firmly, I beg leave to state a little more fully my
sentiments on this subject, with the reasons which
Iced me to conclude that, as you have misappre-
hended somewhat the nature of the Government pro-
posal, so are your fears groundless, and your opposi-
tibn to it something which you are called upon, as
Protestant Dissenters, at your leisure to reconsider.
In the present state of politics there are many ques-
tions sufficiently defined to admit of the most distinct
Understanding upon them between a candidate and a
constituency ; but, after election, questions must always
arise on which the Member will have to exercise his
judgment ; and the foundation of his decision should, I
conceive, be in consistency with his pledges made, and
with the general and broad principles upon which he has
limy amt" into Partiathent. Thus, at my election, the
:propriety' of- a repeal of the present Corn-laws, and of
S'lffTtage• extension and protection,- were distinctly can-
, vased,-and :an honourable understanding come to upon
them. :But'.t.liequeition 'of education did- not,. as I re-
. eiernber, arise ; and in deciding upon my present course,
• kVA reference to that question, I must, therefore, be
..,atisfied that it is not inconsistent either with the ques-
tions to which I stand pledged, or with the broad prin-
ciple of policy' upon which my election was secured.
That principle was civil and religious liberty all over the
world.

The question of education is raised in Parliament.
What reference then does it bear to those pledges, and
to that principle? Education, independent of its connec-
tion with, and subserviency to religion itself, is a
question of franchise ; for ignorance not only leads to
superstition and to the support of superstitious creeds,
but it is pleaded as a bar to the extension of political
rights. Wishing then, as a Protestant, for the exten-
sion of education as one means of extending religion,
put:fied from superstitious observances, I desire it
also as a Reformer, that it might lead to and afford a
broader end safer basis to our representative system.
I desire most ardently, then, on both these grounds,
"that the people should be widely—universally educated ;
and believing that this cannot be done without the aid
of Government, I am bound to support Government in
its attempts to secure this desirable end and great na-
tional good, taking care that in the act the greater
principles of civil and religious liberty, and of religious
liberty especially, be not entrenched upon.
You say, " We most decidedly object to the intended
scheme, not on any political grounds—not as political
partisans—not from any desire or intention to embar-
rass the Government—but on the higher principles of
conscience, and our full right to religious liberty." All
other motives you repudiate, and at the time you add,
" We decidedly object to the claims of any sect or
party to the exclusive right of educating the children
• of this nation, and to the awarding of the public money
to any such sect or party for that purpose."
I object with you to any such exclusive claim, and I
supported the Government plan because it at once
practically broke through the claim set up in opposi-
tion to this plan by High Church intolerants—an oppo-
sition to which, permit me to say, Dissenters have given
a support which has alone rendered it effectual—an op-
position founded in the Hied, Church party on princi-
ples, as avowed, the very reverse of those which you
assign, and I am sure truly assign, as the motives by
which you are actuated. For these reasons I supported
the Government in its proposal, upon the principle of
" conscience," and of the " full right" of not alone the
Wesleyans, among whom I have the pleasure to number
(nanny friends, but of all to " religious liberty."
Our conclusions, then, being so remarkably dissimilar,
while the principle is so alike, let me for a moment exa-
mine your objections to the Government plan, in con-
necsion.witlrythe'prin itself. You object
1. -" As Protestants, to being taxed for the teaching,
and maintenance of false and injurious systems of re-
ligion."

2. " Against the national support of schools, in
'vrhich it is proposed to use notoriously corrupt and un-
faithful "Versions of the Scriptures, accompanied by
notes which we consider' directly subversive of the fun-
(tamental truths of Christianity, and -which inculcate
:he most absurd and pernicious dogmas of Popery."
3. " Against the establishment of schools on prin-
ejples which recognize for all the purposes of national
education in a Protestant country the Popish version
of the Scriptures, as cf equal value and importance
with the authorized translations.'

4. Because after payment to the cost (through taxa-
tion) " It would be impossible that the children of
Wesleyan methodists should avail themselves of its ad-
vantages without being subjected to danger, arising from
the exhibition of rival sects contending for rival versions
of the Bible, and from the spirit of doubt, if not of abso.
lute infidelity, to which such exhibition would assuredly
tend."

These objections I have read very carefully, and
could I be satisfied of their correctness, the Government
plan of education should have met with my most earnest
opposition ; but I have read that plan with equal care,
and I feel bound to say that I do not think your objec-
tions apply to it.
Government proposed to found a school for the train-
ing of teachers, such schools to include a model school
of Children front the age of three to that of fourteen
}cars, in numbers sufficient to form an infant school, as
Well as ono for children above seven years old.
In the benefit of such an establishment, to the sup-
port of Which all sects would have contributed in pro-
portion to their several extents, was not each sect enti-
tled to share in the same proportion : Most certainly
veg. Then came the choice of three difficulties. Ist.
,i--- i chnol without religion od• k school on the princi-
, , P
.lihe supremacy of oi.nnea-re.ed'.d3d._A school upon
liat designated a school without 1 c irle of equality
4..iN
• it was not
, .
k„i Le hOght of, much less
attvvemit out God .
-API'
. pled'The second you
a
f 3,5 *inst. The third is a
pr
e` inst the second. creeds. The , Tdbiyl:evirtuethe would
oov e
r n
len ' tylout your own idea on the principle your
"- •
r"
)ses
your-
0, theur .
,1 i todoxn? It proposed—