The Sun.
London, England, 1847-03-31 00:00:00

MARCH 31, 1847.

-PRIM? SD.

._~~

THE GOVERNMENT SCHEME OF

EDUCATION.
A public meeting was held at the London Tavern,
Bishopsgate-street, to consider the propriety, of pct.'.
tioning Parliament against the scheme of education,.
contained in the minutes of the Committee of Council of
August and December, 1846 ;`George William Alexander,
Esq., in the chair. The meeting was held yesterday in
the large hall of the London Tavern, but the attendance at
.he hour appointed for taking the chair was very scanty,
indeed, could not have exceeded fifty ; which had in-
creased to something more than double that number
about half-an-hour afterwards, when the Chairman
entered.

The CHAIRMAN said he had been requested to state
that sufficient care had not been taken to make the
meeting known ; indeed that the bills had not been
placarded till that morning, which, coupled with another
fact, that a general meeting of the Society of Friends was
being held that day, accounted for the thinness of the
meeting. He said he would not occupy the meeting
long with any remarks on the general object; but he
must say that he had been slowly led to a conclusion
which was adverse to the Government scheme of educa-
tion. He was a member of the British and Foreign
School Society, and had been one -who admitted the
propriety of Government grants in aid of exertions
in favour of education, such as for the erection
of schools. Thus far he went in reference
to Government aid. But that was a very different thing
from a great scheme of national schools, which ought to
be called Church of England schools.—(Applause.) He
denied that sectarian principles or ways were taught
in the British Schools. But it was very different in
the National Schools, so called, where the Church
catechism was taught, and National Church tenets

volume of documents

where a letter from a 'clergyman slates, that if he had
had the National School sooner, by that time there
would not hare been a Dissenter in the parish.
Indeed, the scheme had been originated by members
and dignitaries of the Church of England ; he believed it
might be chiefly attributed to Dr. Kay Shuttleworth. He
regretted much the originating of such a scheme at that
time, as it was but throwing the apple of discord among the
liberal friends of education. But he for one should never
cease exerting himself to defeat it.—(Applause.)
The SECRETARY intimated that the central com-
mittee had written to all the Metropolitan Members of
Parliament, who had all acknowledged the invitation by
written answers.

The Rev. Mr, STOVELL said, he was of opinion that
the education of the children of this country was far
too important to be committed rashly to the hands
of Government, and not at all to be committed to bands
already too full with busine.s which perhaps had not
been very well discharged as yet, too full of difficulties
which were yet to be surmounted. These difficulties
were the adjustment of the affairs of Ireland, of the
affairs of Scotland, of the civil jurisprudence,
of colonial government, of the poor-law—difficul-
ties which did not encourage them to add
another case sufficient of itself to occupy their
undivided attention. But there was another question
which burdened the consideration. Was this scheme to
comprehend all England or no part of it? For it must
he adopted uni%e rsally, or at once and entirely rejected.
But education was necessarily religious. It included the
development of all the powers and capabilities of the hu-
man wind, of which the prime ruler was the conscience. But
he contended that morality could not be followed out
into habit unless the conscience was enlightened by the
revealed- will of God. How, then, were the Government to
sect on a matter so closely appertaining to the religious
life ? In one of two ways—either they would adopt all re-
ligions equally, they negetive and the positive, and founding
teeir scheme in infidelity they would establish it in
law ; or ihey would engage the teachers of religion,
whom they thought the best, and into their hands the
whole scheme must be thrown. But the Church of
England was necessarily thought by the Government to
he the best ; therefore, the pincer would fall into the
hands of the Church of England. The manner in
which the proposal had been introduced, the way
in which it had silently glided in, exciting no attention
till it was securely placed. was dangerous to the most
sacred principles of the British people, for there was no
liberty of which they might not thus be robbed, no
sacred principle which might not thus he crushed for
e%er. He contended that the principle of the
scheme was bad, the scheme itself was wrong,
the. manner of its introduction was an injury,
and that it could not be carried into effect with-
out inflicting a wrong upon this country. He concluded
by moving—" That, whatever might be the value of the
educational measure now proposed by the Government,
the meeting could not consent to accept it when brought
forward in a manner so alien to the spirit and principles
of the British Constitution."

Mr. NATHANIEL GRIFFIN seconded the motion, which
was carried with two dissentients.

Mr. JOSEPH SPURGE moved—" That even were the
manner in which this measure is brought forward unex-
ceptionable, in the judgment of this meeting the gravest
objections lie against the measure itself, as tending to
enervate the system of voluntary contribution and local
educational efforts, as opening a channel through which
a corrupt political influence may at any time be exer-
cised on the masses of society ; as still further, and is
the most inconsistent of all ways, mixing up the State
with religion, and in leading in numerous instances
to a direct violation of the rights of conscience, and
as the commencement of a system of Government
action which is capable of vast and indefinite ex-
tension, but of which no man can foresee the issue."
Ha said there were one or two questions on which per-
haps he went a little further than those who had drawn
up these resolutions. One of these was, whether under
any circumstances a Government was entitled to take
education into its own keeping. It might perhaps build
schools, but to take the direction of what be must call
religious instruction was beyond their province, for they
could not do so without offending the consciences of some
of their subjects. How could he impose a tax on a Jew
in order to buy a New Testament for the instruction of
the imposer's child? Again, so long as they had a
church established by law in the country, and
a distinction made among sects, they could
not accept Government aid, however guarded,
Without strengthening that establishment, and on
that account he differed from the British and Foreign
School Society, when they accepted of Government
grants. It was an infringement of the voluntary prin-
ciple. He had, therefore, withdrawn his subscription,
and given it to schools which had stood independent,
and he would now give 1001. subscription to the British
and Foreign Society if that grant were rejected. On
these grounds he objected to a Government scheme of
education.

The Rev. JoRN BURNET seconded the motion in an
eloquent speech.
It was then proposed and carried that, in the judg-
ment of this meeting the fact that all schemes for the
promotion of education by the Government, which have
been hitherto propounded, have been found to contain
elements in their operation incompatible with the wel-
fare of the community, is adapted to shake the confi
dente of our Legislators in the belief now so strongly
entertained within the-walls of Parliament—that educe-
is the•business of the Government, and that it should
induce them to give to that question a new and careful
investigation.
A vote of thanks was passed to the chairman, and the
meeting separated.