The Sun.
London, England, 1856-06-13 00:00:00

wanted, and the question to be decided was, where the ad-
ditional 4d. was to come from. The grant annually made
by the Government met it to some extent, but it was not
sufficient; nor was it sufficient when increased by what
they wore able to squeeze out of benevolent people in aid
of the object. What, then, were the prospects of the coun-
try on that great question ? He thought that when the
noble lord the member for the City of London introduced
his resolutions, there was greater reluctance on the part of
her Majesty's Government than there should have been to
express an opinion upon the proper course to be adopted.
He believed that the noble lord was premature in propos-
ing a compulsory rate, and he thought the Government
were right in not sanctioning it. But there was great
ground to find fault. with the Government in that they
immediately after wards timidly withdrew, under the in-
fluence of that extraordinary division to which he had al-
luded, that bill which was introduced into another place
by the President of the Council. Now, that bill was not
open to the objections urged against the resolutions of the
noble lord the member fur the city of London. It was a
most important bill, and he believed that if it had passed
through that house it would have been productive of the
most beneficial consequences. It was a bill that the House
of Commons ought to have d *cussed, and he should always
feel that the Government had shown unnecessary timidity
in withdrawing it. There was another most important bill
which the Government had proposed, and which was on
the paper for that night—the bill for the appointment of a
vice-president for education who should have a seat in that
house. That bill he sincerely trusted would receive the
sanction of Parliament. At the same time he confessed he
should look with the greatest anxiety to the way in which
that office was filled up. Assuming that Parliament would
sanction that important measure, he hoped the Govern-
ment would select some gentleman to fill the office who
could enter the subject with spirit, and really assist Par-
liament in devising some effective scheme of education.
He trusted that when next session came the Minister, or
the vice-president of the education board, would be pre-
pared to tell the house what course the Government in-
tended to take. If they had no such announcement he
did not say he woald bring in a bill, although he was al-
most tempted to do so —but he should certainly not let the
matter drop. If the evidence he had adverted to had not
made any deep impression on the house, he would say, let
them have it in another shape; let them have a committee
of inquiry upon the subject, and examine gentlemen from
different parts of the country, who were well acquainted
with the question. Ho believed that whatever might be
the merits or necessities of the question, that House of
Commons, or some House of Commons, would soon be com-
pelled to attend to it. (Cheers.)
Mr. BARNES said he felt bound to oppose the scheme
which the right hon. gentleman had propounded. The
right hon. baronet had stated that hundreds of thousands
of children were uninstructed. That was true, and to avoid
such a lamentable state of things he could make almost any
, concessions. But ho objected to this grant, because it did
not accomplish its object. He did not think that the great
want was money, for the monster difficalty in the way of
the progress of education was the indifference of parents.
' (The htn. gentleman quoted from the reports of the Rev.
H. Moseley and other Government inspectors in support
of the proposition-.) He did not believe that if the Go-
vernment grant were raised tenfold it would have such au
effect as the right hon. baronet had pointed out. Instead
of removing the difficulties, ho believed the Government
grants tended to increase them, by undermining the re-
sponsibility of parents wherever it existed. He believed

that Parliament was going upon the wrong tack, and that
sooner or later the steps taken must be retraced, but not
till an immense amount of mischief had been done. Again
another difficulty, according to the report of the Rev. Mr.
Cook and the Rev. Mr. Watkins was, that children were
removed from school at so early an age. In one district re-
ferred to 33 had left school under 12 years of age. How,
then, would the extension of the grant remove that diffi-
culty? If they intended to pay children for coming to
school, to show them that it would be more profitable to
go to school than to stay at home or pick pockets, then he
could understand hew the grant applied to them. Then,
again, another difficulty was the hig,h order of instruction
given to the teachers, who were raised at great expense to
the country to be sent into schools where the member of
children under ten years of ago was 97 par cent. The class
of persons who really got the benefit of the valuable ser-
vices of these highly-trained teachers were, according to
the Rev. Mr. Cook, the children above 13 years of age,
and who were those of artisans and skilled labourers,
who could easily afford to pay, and who did not
require any assistance. (Hear, hear.) That was a
misapplication of the public money, and ho thought
ho was justified in calling upon the house to arrest the fur-
ther extension of this grant. (Herr.) The right hen.
baronet who last spoke had referred to a meeting held at
Crosby Hall, at which it was asserted that it was the duty
of the parents to educate their children. The right hon.
baronet said that was true, and that nobody denied it ;
but what he (Ur. Berne i) affirmed was, that while Par-
liament admitted that fact, every step it took was in direct
opposition to that very important principle. The hon.
gentleman proceeded to show by a variety of statistics in
reference to public-houses—dwelling particularly on the
town of Preston—that the working classes were able to
educate their children without any assistance from the
State. Parents had told him that to send a child to school
at 24. a week cost them nothing, because they saved the
amount in clothing. Well, a pint of beer saved every
week would make up the amount of 6d. per week, which
the right hon. gentleman said would be sufficient, and he
did not think there was a family of a working man
throughout the country that could not easily make such is
sacrifice. He thought, moreover, that the political econo-
my of these grants was of a highly dangerous character.
If the money voted went only to those who could not edu-
cate their children, he would not raise his vote against the
grant, but that was not the case, and ho must take the
matter as he found it. The time would come when the
working classes of this country would have more power in
that house, and what would they infer from the grants
that had been made ? Would they not demand that Go-
vernment should make grants of money to diminish the
price of bread, to improve their filthy habitations, and,
indeed, towards the repression of every cause of crime ?
(Hear, hear.) With respect to the capitation grant, the
minute for which was made in 1).353, he was utterly op-
posed to it. In this grant 5,0'301. was given one year,
10,0001. last year, and now the house was asked for
40,0001. The matter had never been discussed in that house,
and he thought it ought to be fully considered by the full
house, when the Speaker was in the chair, before it was
extended. Ho contended that these grants were under-
mining, and would finally destroy, the voluntary
principle. As an instance of the way is which the grant
would operate, he might refer to a locality with which he
was acquainted, where there was a good voluntary school,
the prices to which were 6d., Ed., and Is. a week, end
now a new Government school was to be established, where
the children were to be taught at 3d. a week. The effect
would be in that case to destroy the voluntary principle.
By this course nothing would be gained to education,
while the grant would have to be constantly increased in
consequence of the capitation fee. He begged to move as
an amendment that the proposed grant be reduced to the
same amount as last year.
Mr. M. GIBSON said the result of this education goes
tion was to put gentlemen at variance who generally agreed
with each other, and now be found himself opposed to the
hon, gentleman who had just sat down, with whom he
usually concurred. He thought the speech of the hon.
gentleman went to prove that the whole grant should b 3
withdrawn. Did the hon. gentleman believe that the
working classes who paid so mach in taxes and excise
would receive with satisfaction the withdrawal of these
grants? One of the great disadvantages connected with
the grant was, that assistance was voted to places where
the neighbourhood was wealthy, and where the voluntary
offerings were large, while benighted populous districts,
steeped in poverty, wore entirely overlooked. Upon this
ground ho, considered that the whole of the minutes in
council on education should be revised, a course which he
believed would, to a considerable extent, reduce the diffi-
culty. He had misgivings on the subject of education, but
he was not prepared to wait until the community was so en-
lightened that private schools on the voluntary principle
were established through the length and breadth of the
land. So that upon that he was content to violate
what might be called a sound principle. He had
seen many phases passed through on this education.
question. When the Whigs first took up the ques-
tion the Church became alarmed, and the clergy thought
that there was danger looming in the distance. After
familiarising the public mind with grants for educa-
tion it was not to be expected that any Ministry would un-
dertake the responsibility of discoutinaiog those grants.
Ent that of which he complained was the manner in which
the money was distributed. Why should many schools
that were evidently of public advantage be excluded from
participation in those grants ? Aid was entirely refused to
schools where moral and intellectual instruction was given
just because no religion was taught. There must be some
religion taught, though what religion was not stated.
Complaints had been received upon this subject front all
parts of the country. The answer of the Government was,
" Teach some religion, and you shall have a share in the
grant." To this it was replied that the promoters of the
school did all they could to promote religion, and that 90
per cent. of the Sunday scholars came from those schools,
but that if ihey attempted to teach any particular religion
through their schoolmasters where the parents were of va-
rious denominations the whole establishments would be
broken up. [Toe hon. gentleman then read some extracts
from the report of Mr. Morell, an inspectors of schools,
in support of his argument.] He could not sea upon what
ground the Home Secretary should oppose tho participa-
tion of these schools in the grants, the bill having been
brought in bye member of the Government. The
especially encsieaflul yl
and
ort assistance,a Man-
chesterimportant
school, referred to in Mr. Morell's report, was one
that
equally
in London. Glasgow,
and many other large towns. Ho had been in Parliament
uts nhnnla and there were other
for some years, but never yet remembered hearing of a
debate respecting the minutes of council which regulated
the distribution of Parliamentary grants. He believed
there were many old members who had never seen them.
requiredp
With regard to the required test, that a portion of the
Scriptures should be read in the schools every day; he con-
sidered that the mere reading of a few passages of Scrip-
ture, without word or comment, wes no security for the
maintenance of any particular religion, though it might
have the effect of excluding Roman Catholics and many
others from the benefit of these schools. He wished to see
those establishments upon a broad footing, so that all her
Majesty's subjects could participate in the advantages to
be derived.
Sir S. NORTMCOTE said he was rejoiced to bear that
aid was going to be given to industrial schools, but if ho
understood rightly that they were to be supported by rates,
he must protest against that doctrine entirely. With ree•ard
to the capitation system, as regulated by the minutes of
council, and under which these children were required to
attend regularly, be thought that though that system
might be very applicable to the agrienitural districts, it
was not so in the towns whore the parents and consequently
the children were of less fixed habits. With regard to the
plyment of a penny a week, though it was not a large sum,
yet there were many cases in which it would be better not
to enforce it. With respect to the masters, he hoped that
it would not be forgotten that the highest class of masters
were not the best fitted for the lowest class of children; and
ho hoped that the test would not be placed too high so as to
exclude those moderately educated, but persevering men,
who were of the greatest use amongst the ragged schools.
Mr. ALCOCK said that if the compulsory rating for
education were introduced, be believed that the voluntary
system, which had so long and usefully prevailed, would
be entirely done away with. The hon. gentleman then
alluded to the inequality in the distribution of the public
money, and complained that while ss. a week was willingly
awarded to the refocused criminals, the Government ap-
peared to grudge 3s. a year for good, sound, and wholesome
education. The hon. gentleman concluded by calling the
attention of the committee to the expediency of doubling
the present rates of the capitation grants to schools, whether
in parishes above or below 5,000 population, and by re-
ducing the minimum number of days of attendance frons
176 to 100 days a year, in order to be entitled to capitation
money ; also increasing the grant to masters and mistresses
on account of pupil teachers, from 51. to 1Q .for the first